Ouch - the title hurts!

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/03/28/treating-poisonous-snake-bite/

My favourite bit

Snakes can survive in both hot and cold weather – Kilham said there are poisonous snakes living for years at the highest altitudes of the Himalayan Mountains, indicating that if the Egyptian cobra did escape the zoo, he could survive New York’s frigid temperatures.

As it's Fox news I am surprised they didn't claim the escape to be some kind of terrorist attack.

They edited the article I think.
In the original version the "poisonous Egyptian cobra could kill an elephant with a bite", someone wrote in an facebook comment.

Obviously Owen knows nothing about Fox News. If you listen to BBC, you only hear half of any story, as with CNN and the other so-called news stations in the USA. I watch CNN for years, as well as BBC and the others, then I checked out Fox, and couldn't believe how one-sided the all the other news channels are. Now, more people watch Fox News, than any other news channel in America, simply because you get BOTH sides of the story, not just the left-wing liberal side. There are two sides to everything, and Fox tells both sides. That is why the left hates Fox News. Don't be fooled people. Most news people know nothing about animals, let alone venomous snakes. We all have heard crazy stories in the news, and wondered if they actually did any fact checking, but Fox is much better than the rest.

Randy

Randy Ciuros wrote:

Obviously Owen knows nothing about Fox News. ...
Randy

This could be said a bit more politely ...
Besides that I guess Your statement is at least that polarized as the one You were referring too.

Wow.... some very hard-nosed opinions there Randy! Well, personally I will deter from hijacking this thread. I mean it just wouldn't be fair to the OP. Having said that, I gotta say that Fox news is great if your a right-winged nut and not so great if you like to think for yourself. Then again, I haven't watched it for at least 2 years because my stomach is still tied up in knots over their b.s. ...

Oops... did I deter from the OP's post? Dammit Randy, see whatcha made me do?? LOL

Greg, no problem. Discussion welcome, I won't mind.

I do watch Fox News everyday. Tuesday night, on The O`Reilly Factor, Bill O'reilly had two democrat congressmen on his show asking them what they think about Obama and the deal in Libya I believe it was. He had 2 left-wing people and NO right-wing people. How is that for a show for right-wing nuts? How about you? Can you name one thing that Fox News has lied about, without being like all left-wing nuts and just saying "everything". I don't think you can. That is why Fox News is #1.

The first time I went to Thailand, my girlfriend at the time, heard about Obama running for President, and she thought he was a great guy, because she only saw BBC and CNN. She only heard the liberals talk about him. After I turned on Fox News in the hotel room, and she heard people from the left and right talking about him, she saw the problem with the mainstream news media. Like I said, if you only listen to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, you only get one side of the story. Liberals are all for free speech as long as you speak like they do. If you tell both sides of a story, they call you right-wing nuts.

Why do more people watch Bill O'Reilly's show than all other news shows in the same time slot combined? Because they get the truth. And for the liberals, that sometimes hurts. You live in Calif. A highly liberal state that is going bankrupt because of the liberals. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

Obama is ruining this country. He has racked up more than $5,000,000,000 in debt in 2 years. That is more than George W. Bush ran up in 8 years. He has lied about the cost of his health care program, and they just found I think it was $1.4 billion that Pelosi and Reed hid in the health care bill in the last minute to help pay for it, and didn't give the House and Senate time to read the bill before making them vote on it. How can you vote for something, when you are not given time to read it? Would YOU sign your name on anything without reading it first? I hope not. What did Pelosi say? You have to vote for the health care bill, so you can find out what is in it.

The Unemployment Rate was at it's lowest, in the history of the USA during the George W. Bush Admin and then the dems won the House and Senate, for the last 2 years of the Bush Admin. and the first 2 years of of the Obama Admin, and they screwed up bad, so last Nov. the people decided against them. Hell, even China is telling Obama that he is screwing up America.

Keep an open mind and listen to BOTH sides of things, and you will see more clearly. Wow, you really got me going. hahahahah Freedom people, not a nanny state.

I do understand that Americans criticize Obama for problems IN the country - most of it coming from an financial crises which was triggered by the Bush administration.

What I do not understand is that Americans do not seem to give a shit about the opinion of the rest of the world. To point that clear: Bush was a silly cowboy and former alcoholic in the opinion of most people of the world. He harmed the reputation of Your country in a way that I guess You are not aware of.

That's at least the opinion of nearly all Europeans. If You do not believe, just ask them.

Guenter Leitenbauer wrote:

I do understand that Americans criticize Obama for problems IN the country - most of it coming from an financial crises which was triggered by the Bush administration.

What I do not understand is that Americans do not seem to give a shit about the opinion of the rest of the world. To point that clear: Bush was a silly cowboy and former alcoholic in the opinion of most people of the world. He harmed the reputation of Your country in a way that I guess You are not aware of.

That's at least the opinion of nearly all Europeans. If You do not believe, just ask them.

Absolutely. Baby Bush marked the end of the era when Europeans thought of America as part of the solution, and started thinking of it as part of the problem, if not THE problem.

It's easy to criticize the Americans. Here in Canada, it's traditionally been something of a national sport by the left wing majority. However, consider what the World would be like without the U.S.? I for one, admire the American ideals and their willingnes to take on difficult problems in the World and defend values that are worth defending. Sincerely, Jon Davidson .

Jon, correct - but what both Bush's did is to show the rest of the world that the US just take on problems that come along with oil and money and don't care of the rest. I do not know the situation in Canada, but in Europe not only left wing and liberal people definitely do see this in that way.

If a country wants to have the world leadership (I wished, this could be done instead by the UN, but they are a tiger without jaws) it has first to be a MORAL leader and exactly THAT was cancelled by the Bush administration(s).

In other words:
From 1945 on the US were the backup shelter for Western Europeans against the Russia et. al. The situation changed and now Europeans mostly disagree with the US claim for world leadership which is implemented with a kind of self confidence that is often hardly acceptable for democratic countries. I won't blame only the US, it is a problem which goes hand in hand with too much power everywhere. The financial crises gave us the rest. From that moment on also the financial leadership of the US was a matter of disgust. Easy to understand if You take into account that just the EU has about 550 million people i.e. double the number of the US and therefor won't accept an econimical leadership from any single country.

Don't get me wrong - I admire what the US did for the world but times change and I guess it is high time for them to realize that the world is more than just an US market. Think back to 1776 ... the US were in a similar situation with the UK then ;-)

G.W. Bush was the worst president in the history of the United States. Fact.

Obama has a very tough job trying to clean up his mess and get this country back on track. Because this country is still in a mess, the right wing republicans try to blame him for Bush's problems and mistakes.

Prior to Bush taking over the administration, Clinton had us in the black. Not the red.

And yes, California is bankrupt. And the governor is a republican. Go figure.....

Greg Spencer wrote:

G.W. Bush was the worst president in the history of the United States. Fact.

Opinion. Not fact, in my opinion(wink). Sincerely, Jon Davidson.

Guenter Leitenbauer wrote:

Jon, correct - but what both Bush's did is to show the rest of the world that the US just take on problems that come along with oil and money and don't care of the rest. I do not know the situation in Canada, but in Europe not only left wing and liberal people definitely do see this in that way.

If a country wants to have the world leadership (I wished, this could be done instead by the UN, but they are a tiger without jaws) it has first to be a MORAL leader and exactly THAT was cancelled by the Bush administration(s).

In other words:
From 1945 on the US were the backup shelter for Western Europeans against the Russia et. al. The situation changed and now Europeans mostly disagree with the US claim for world leadership which is implemented with a kind of self confidence that is often hardly acceptable for democratic countries. I won't blame only the US, it is a problem which goes hand in hand with too much power everywhere. The financial crises gave us the rest. From that moment on also the financial leadership of the US was a matter of disgust. Easy to understand if You take into account that just the EU has about 550 million people i.e. double the number of the US and therefor won't accept an econimical leadership from any single country.

Don't get me wrong - I admire what the US did for the world but times change and I guess it is high time for them to realize that the world is more than just an US market. Think back to 1776 ... the US were in a similar situation with the UK then ;-)

I have nothing constructive to offer this discusion other than mere opinion; However, within that clearly defined perimeter, I will say that it seems to me that oil and money are what makes the World function, and it appears to me that oil and money will continue to be the foundation stone of Human development and economic prosperity for all of Humanity for the foreseeable future. I agree that in an ideal situation, a World governing body, such as the UN, for example, should have authority over any issues that effect Humanity as a whole; However, within any Human organization, a commander will manifest itself and take the lead of that governing body. This is, of course, where politics comes in to play, and that, as we all know, can be a difficult and complicated forum to navigate. I certainly don't have any easy answers to offer, but I find it reassuring that the U.S. remains the preeminent World economic and military power. Sincerely, Jon Davidson .

Arnold is a Republican but he sides mostly with Dems and his wife is a Kennedy, one of the most left-wing liberal families in this Country. Read what I wrote about Clinton. Clinton was not a dictator. Things got fixed during the last 2 years of the Clinton admin because the Republicans were on complete control of the House and Senate. The Dems were in control for the last 2 years of Bush and complete control during the first 2 years of Obama, and they made things much worse, than the Republicans during the first 6 years of Bush. The Dems and Obama have racked up $5 Trillion in debt on their own. It has nothing to do with Bush.

In Austria, Arnold would be a right winger ... in fact he is an native Austrian and he is of course of some interest for us. His wife may be from a democratic family but I don't think You can judge his policy as "left" just because he tried to do something for the environment (maybe the only positive thing in his whole term as a governor). From all he comes from and was made from, he is conservative.

Oh yeah I forgot Arnold was from Austria. and yes he is a right-winger of sorts, but he put many dems in his state government, but like with the President, Arnold was not the dictator of California. The State legislature in Calif. votes for things and they are mostly dems and they have bankrupted the state. Arnold has not been the best Govorner of Calif, but he far from the worst.

Believe it or not people, most Americans do not want to be the police of the world, but somehow we ended up that way, and we have the ability to help when and where help is needed, and I'm sure the women in Iraq are happy to be able to go to school and not get raped at the whim of one of Saddams soldiers. People in S. E. Asia, after the Tsunami and now in Japan, I'm sure are happy America was there.

Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan whatever President you talk about, is not a dictator, so you can not completely blame them for the good or bad that arises, unless they signed it into law AFTER the House and Senate vote it into law. The Dems are known for raising taxes and giving handouts to lazy people, keeping business down, not drilling for oil so we have to depend on OPEC. Republicans are for less taxes, people earning their own way, and becoming rich if they apply themselves, building business, and drilling for oil so we can be more independant from OPEC.

Someone said something about Bush and oil. Yes, Bush is an oil guy, but we did not go into Iraq or any other Country for or about oil. If we did, where is the all the oil.

Randy Ciuros wrote:

Yes, Bush is an oil guy, but we did not go into Iraq or any other Country for or about oil. If we did, where is the all the oil.

So why did he go in?
Weapons of mass destruction? No evidence other than lies, and he interrupted the UN inspectors' work!
Freedom for Iraqis? Right. And of course we were all really concerned about that before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait when he was already gassing the Kurds. But then he was our valuable ally against Iran, so that was OK then, right?
Oil? You say no.

So what does that leave? Halliburton's share value? Yeah, that makes sense, I like him already!

Wolfgang Wüster wrote:

Randy Ciuros wrote:

Yes, Bush is an oil guy, but we did not go into Iraq or any other Country for or about oil. If we did, where is the all the oil.

So why did he go in?
Weapons of mass destruction? No evidence other than lies, and he interrupted the UN inspectors' work!
Freedom for Iraqis? Right. And of course we were all really concerned about that before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait when he was already gassing the Kurds. But then he was our valuable ally against Iran, so that was OK then, right?
Oil? You say no.

So what does that leave? Halliburton's share value? Yeah, that makes sense, I like him already!

As I stated before, virtually every Intel agency in the world thought that Saddam had WMD's. They all reported as such. If you remember, Saddam spit in the eye of the international community when the 15 - 20 sanctions were put on Saddam by the UN. Inspectors went into Iraq asking to inspect certain buildings, to look for WMD's. Saddam allowed them to search some and not others. After they searched the ones he allowed, he then allowed them to search the ones they really wanted to search. This happened many times. It looked to the world like he was moving stuff around. Our military did find old munitions buried in the desert, that he was not allowed to have, but they were not what everyone thought he had, though they could still be used, such as Mustard Gas. They also found newer rockets with a range further than allowed by the UN. Even some of Saddams Generals stated that Saddam WANTED everyone to believe that he had them.

Saddam also allowed Terrorists safe haven in Iraq. Our soldiers found evidence many times that he did in fact allow terrorists to hide in Iraq, just like we expected. There are 2 good reason right there. If you add the rape and torture rooms, the fact that girls can not go to school, no freedoms that many other people enjoy, and oh I almost forgot about the hundreds of thousands of Kurds that he gassed, (we found many mass graves), not to mention him killing anyone else that said anything bad about or against him. He was a brutal dictator, that killed his own people, helped terrorists. The same terrorists that bombed the subway in your Country if I'm not mistaken, and well as bombing many other Countries. I think that is enough reasons to go into Iraq.

If it was about oil, where is all the oil we went in there for? We never got any. That is just another left-wing rant, trying to make Bush look bad. Bush talked to the UN, as well as personally to many leaders of European Countries, and he also went to the U. S. Congress and showed them the evidence from ALL the Intel Agencies from your Country and many others. The Dems and Repubs in the U. S. Congress saw the same exact evidence that Bush did, and they voted to take out Saddam, along with the help of the international community.

If any of you are really open-minded, watch Fox News for a while, especially The O'Reilly Factor. By "a while", I don't mean watch one show. Watch it for many days, and you will see that Fox News allows people with opinions from BOTH sides of an issue to speak their mind, and then YOU, can make your own decision which opinion carries more weight. When you only hear the left side, you can not make a fact-based decision on what is correct, only an ideological decision. Sorry but the BBC is left-wing, as is CNN, and most of the others in America. Watch them with an open mind and you will see. There are many very smart people here on this forum, you KNOW you can not get to the truth with only one side of any story, be it right or left.

Randy

Oh. Didn't mean for that to happen.

I respect everyone's opinions but I see little point debating with you Randy.

I am a Guardian/Independant reader, I occasionally read a right wing UK paper called the Daily Mail for a laugh and to 'get the other side of the story'. My comedy hero's are Bill Hicks & Doug Stanhope.... basiclally what I trying to say is the only thing I think we will agree on is that snakes are awesome.

In my opinion the BBC is not left wing. They were a big supporter of the Conservative party during our last elections. This is a right wing party. However maybe BBC worldwide are different. Plus the US's right is 'further right' than ours.

As for specific critism of Fox. A fellow called George Monbiot is the man to read. He back's up every claim with references, and has come out with some very solid reasonable critism of Fox in the past. He is a major critic of the tea party movement also.

O'Reilly. He doesn't need to have any other right wings on his programme. He shouts over everyone anyway.

Charlie Brooker has done some hilarious coverage of Fox News in the past. We have our own version called 'Sky News'. It's the same thing just a bit more subtle.

At the same time I am only 23 so what the **** do I know. I certainly don't worry myself about it as much as a lot of people do.

It's a useless tallent to be able to explain exactly whats wrong with the world when you have no solution and/or power to do anything about it.

PS. I don't want to personally upset anyone, so if anyone has got upset by this perhaps take a step back and concentrate on yourself or others around you more. Fox News certainly doesn't care about you... why care so much about it?

PPS. Before you say it I have watched a whole episode of O'Reilly. I felt that was enough time to make my mind up and not to watch it again.

Guenter. Sorry for the original comment. It was made in jest, I didn't intent to take your thread off-topic.

And all this because of an escapen cobra My personal favourite American president was Ronald Reagan, the pain in soviet A**.
Interesting, did they find the cobra?

The beauty of forums.

As far as I was aware it is still loose & has its own Twitter page!