New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (16866 previous messages)

klsanford0 - 01:27pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16867 of 16986)

"his hate-log in western-europe moderated."

Don't like Bluestar23? Don't like Cantabb either?....you moronic "regulars" with your hilarious faux-rhyming free "verse" posts did nothing but aid and abet Showalter for THREE years, you moron.... you have NOTHING to say, pinhead.

klsanford0 - 01:31pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16868 of 16986)

Cantabb:

"NOW, he's going to put YOU back on his "ignore" list. That'll teach you -- for being so disrespectful of those who say they know everything !"

WRCooper fancies himself quite the little "intellectual"; such people are almost too easy to make fun of, as they take their laughable "thoughts" so seriously...

bbbuck - 01:35pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16869 of 16986)

did someone open up the bush-forum and let some of the idiots out?

I vote for moderation K, let's have a closing week without the bush-forum hatemongers mongerizing.

Go back home klanman we've got enough idiots posting here already.

klsanford0 - 01:35pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16870 of 16986)

"you employment affiliation, lchic ? What is YOUR real iunterest in this thread"

Yes, a good question...why IS nincompoop here? She/It has obviously no interest in the subject....it must be to back up her "Universe Asset" rshow55....

lchic - 01:37pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16871 of 16986)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Un-American is a favorite name-calling device for someone to use to target someone

with whom you vehemently disagree. It

conjures up old Redbaiting devices that stifle free speech and dissent from the status quo or conventional wisdom on public issues.

It creates a chilling effect on people to stop testing the waters of our democratic right to question the motives of our government.

This is what I mean about the propaganda environment we encompass.

We’re deluged with name-calling devices, glittering generalities like “freedom” and “democracy” that we all hold close to our hearts—they are the warm and fuzzy buzz words that are said to separate us from our enemies.

Remember President Bush being asked about why they attacked us?

He said, “They hate freedom.”

What exactly is that supposed to mean? How can the top elected official of the wealthiest and arguably most powerful nation on earth get away with these 50-cent responses? Does the United States own a copyright on the word freedom? You’d almost think so by how often it’s batted around like a tennis ball.

Why isn’t the American press challenging these empty statements?

We’re so conditioned as a public to accept the surface answer to so much of what our institutions in power state that

we’re at the point of a media mental illness

says Dr. Nancy Snow, author

http://www.guerrillanews.com/media/cointel/doc744.html http://www.guerrillanews.com/media/

lchic - 01:37pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16872 of 16986)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Why isn’t the American press challenging these empty statements?

We’re so conditioned as a public to accept the surface answer to so much of what our institutions in power state that

we’re at the point of a media mental illness

says Dr. Nancy Snow, author

klsanford0 - 01:39pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16873 of 16986)

"open up the bush-forum"

I've never been to Bush forum, but they obviously opened the Gates to somewhere to find your brain-dead self....must be, like, our local institution for people like you..."Riverview"..nice and quiet, nice nurses....how did you escape..?

More Messages Recent Messages (113 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense