8HRR52J
i am torn between the panasonic plasmas or the sony 3D ready 46"... now i need a big Tv for the size of the room, and a 50" is preferable, as i have tried viewing the Sony in John Lewis at the same distance as i would in my living room, and it seems a lot larger than the 37" panasonic i have at the moment but it is still not that clear from the 5 metres i viewed it at, and need it for. i know that plasmas are also quite hot, and i would rather an LED than a plasma, as they usually have sharper displays, although i cant really tell the difernece between the panasonic and sony.. and i dont really need and wont really use the 3D on the sony...but then theres the ghosting on the plasmas and their shorter life span etc..... so I would really appreciate your comments on this, and previous owners of these tv's please comment too :)!! ...... i have the links below :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-TX-P50X20B-50-inch-Widescreen-Freeview/dp/B00378KHPK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312496544&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-TX-P50G30B-50-inch-Widescreen-Freeview/dp/B004TFDTD2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1312496544&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-TX-P50S20B-50-inch-Widescreen-Freeview/dp/B0039SLYIM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1312496544&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-TX-P50G20B-50-inch-Widescreen-Freeview/dp/B0039SLYGE/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1312496544&sr=8-4
and the sony:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-KDL46HX803U-46-Ready-LED/dp/B004C4XH3W/ref=sr_1_13?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1312497313&sr=1-13
thank you!!!! :)
Answer
Plasma produce a much better picture 180 viewing angles, never lose the picture quality, 600hz vs 240hz that the lcds and leds refresh, the higher the Hz the less motion blur you have like when watching sports, action movies, and playing video games. Plasmas dont get hot like they use to there are some plasmas that use less energy than some leds. Plasma do have better vivid colors and deeper blacks - a more natural picture. Panasonic is rated #1 in the world right now the basically make only plasmas. The lifespan of a plasma is basically the same now as lcds and leds because the plasmas are perfected now. Plasmas are also a lot cheaper than leds, the good thing with leds they are a little brighter and do have a better looking frame. Hands down a plasma from Panasonic
Plasma produce a much better picture 180 viewing angles, never lose the picture quality, 600hz vs 240hz that the lcds and leds refresh, the higher the Hz the less motion blur you have like when watching sports, action movies, and playing video games. Plasmas dont get hot like they use to there are some plasmas that use less energy than some leds. Plasma do have better vivid colors and deeper blacks - a more natural picture. Panasonic is rated #1 in the world right now the basically make only plasmas. The lifespan of a plasma is basically the same now as lcds and leds because the plasmas are perfected now. Plasmas are also a lot cheaper than leds, the good thing with leds they are a little brighter and do have a better looking frame. Hands down a plasma from Panasonic
Is Bush a puppet?
janet s
cause obviously he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. i think he was used by the neocons.
Answer
you are correct, and in the process of him being used we were all used by the PNAC.
In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.
This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were, while Clinton was in the White House. But even given their reputations and clout, the views of this group were regarded as too extreme to be taken seriously by the mainstream conservatives that controlled the Republican Party.
To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.
This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.
But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP -- which was more isolationist, more opposed to expanding the role of the federal government, more opposed to military adventurism abroad -- they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.")
The Bush Administration used those acts of terrorism -- and the fear generated in the general populace -- as their cover for enacting all sorts of draconian measures domestically (the Patriot Act, drafted earlier, was rushed through Congress in the days following 9/11; few members even read it) and as their rationalization for launching military campaigns abroad.
you are correct, and in the process of him being used we were all used by the PNAC.
In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.
This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were, while Clinton was in the White House. But even given their reputations and clout, the views of this group were regarded as too extreme to be taken seriously by the mainstream conservatives that controlled the Republican Party.
To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.
This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.
But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP -- which was more isolationist, more opposed to expanding the role of the federal government, more opposed to military adventurism abroad -- they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.")
The Bush Administration used those acts of terrorism -- and the fear generated in the general populace -- as their cover for enacting all sorts of draconian measures domestically (the Patriot Act, drafted earlier, was rushed through Congress in the days following 9/11; few members even read it) and as their rationalization for launching military campaigns abroad.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
