PoliticsFormerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: i-node who wrote (646379)2/25/2012 12:16:22 PM
From: bentway
   of 1075150
So How Should You Dispose of a Koran?


By Kate Schwartz, Newser Staff
( I think Obama should just let some Ayatollahs wipe their ass with the bible, BWTFDIK? )
Posted Feb 24, 2012 2:38 PM CST

(NEWSER) – Protests raged on in Afghanistan for a fourth day today, with continued cries of "Death to America" over the burning of Korans at Bagram. Earlier reports said the books in question were removed from a prison library at the base because radical messages had been written in them. Which leads to a very good question: How should one dispose of the holy book if need be? According to Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, burn it, actually. NPR spoke to Malik, a director at an Islamic center in Falls Church, Va., and he explains that the problem in Afghanistan was that the Korans were burned with the trash.

The mess could have been avoided if the troops had requested assistance, and proceeded with reverence. "If one said, 'Well, we're burning some Korans today,' that wouldn't incite riots in Afghanistan. The problem is when one puts a malicious intent as part of the burning." There's a second respectful disposal option, which other religious leaders recommended to NPR: burial. To do so, the book should be wrapped in a pure cloth and buried beneath ground that people do not walk on.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: bentway who wrote (646383)2/25/2012 12:17:16 PM
From: joseffy
11 Recommendations   of 1075150
Take it and shove it up your *ss.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: bentway2/25/2012 12:27:43 PM
   of 1075150
Gasbag: Why No President Can Bring Us $2 Gasoline
By Bryan Walsh | @bryanrwalsh | February 21, 2012 | 8

Nick M Do

It’s Presidents’ Day as I write this, so if you were lucky enough to have the day off, give some thanks to Washington, Lincoln and all the other chief executives — even stinkers like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Of course in modern American politics, every day is really Presidents’ Day — so central is the occupant of the White House to the perceived state of the nation. Good news or bad news, foreign or domestic, the President gets the credit — and he gets the blame, whether he actually deserves either.

That goes for one of the most importantly economic indicators — psychologically at least — that’s out there: gas prices. A gallon of gas now costs an average of $3.53, already up 25¢ from the beginning of the year, and the highest price it’s even been at this time of the year. (Gas prices are usually lower in the winter, when the cold weather and lack of holidays curtails some driving.) With the U.S. economy strengthening — driving up demand for gasoline, and price as well — and the situation in Iran and the rest of the oil-producing Middle East looking uncertain, analysts believes gas could be well over $4 a gallon by the prime driving months of the summer.

You can bet that gas prices will be a major campaign issue during the 2012 presidential election, just as they were in 2008 — better known as the summer of “ drill, baby, drill.” Republican candidate Newt Gingrich — who wants to “ drill here, drill now” — has been promising that he could bring gasoline to $2.50 a gallon or less if he takes office, while the other candidates are concentrating their fire at President Obama, blaming his policies for the pain at the pump. But does a President really have that much control over how much it costs for you to fill your car?

(MORE: Why Michele Bachmann’s $2-a-Gallon Promise Is a Fantasy)

The short answer is: not really. One way to understand that is to look at how gas prices have fared under President Obama. When he entered office in January 2009, gas cost $1.81 a gallon. Now it’s nearly $2 a gallon higher, an increase of 95%. That sounds bad, but the main reason gas had become so cheap at the start of the Obama Administration was that he was took office during the heart of the worst global recession since the Great Depression. Recession depress economic demand, and when demand is depressed, fewer people drive — which in turns leads the price of gas to fall like any other commodity would when demand falls. As the economy recovered and economic activity picked up — both in the U.S. and elsewhere — the price of gas rose as well. If future President Gingrich were to somehow be able to deliver $2.50-a-gallon gas, it would probably mean the economy had tanked again.

But what about encouraging more production of oil, both in the U.S. and in friendly nations like Canada, with its vast oil-sands reserve? For one thing, domestic oil production has increased under President Obama, thanks largely to the new unconventional reserves in states like North Dakota. Does Obama deserve much credit for that increase in domestic oil? Probably not. Though Obama has put some additional regulations on the oil industry in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it’s hard to imagine that oil companies wouldn’t have been just as eager and able to tap those new resources under a Republican as they have been under a Democrat. And more to the point, that additional domestic oil has done little to alleviate gas prices, in part because oil functions on a global market, and extra American crude is just a drop in that much larger bucket.

(MORE: Pipeline Politics: Keystone, Advocates and Analysts)

Republicans will counter by charging that Obama blocked the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have transported over 800,000 barrels a day of oil-sands crude into the U.S. They’re on firmer ground here — the oil sands are a potentially massive resource, and if that crude can flow unimpeded to the U.S., there’s every reason to expect it would help reduce gas prices somewhat. (That’s ignoring the very real environmental and climate risks presented by the oil sands.) But even so, Keystone would have little immediate effect, especially since there’s already sufficient pipeline infrastructure in place for the next few years. The extra oil brought in by the pipeline might — might — reduce gas prices a few cents a gallon.

In truth, gas prices have increased largely because the U.S. economy is doing better, raising demand for gas along with everything else. Europe’s economy has remained sluggish and risks falling apart completely, which has acted as a drag on oil, but China has kept chugging along — chances are it will use 5% more oil this year. And then there’s Iran, which exports 2.2 million barrels of oil a day. That’s just a tiny part of the 89 million barrels of oil that are consumed globally, but if something goes seriously wrong in Iran — imagine an Israeli attack on the country’s nuclear facilities or even a total ban on exports — the impact on oil markets and gas prices would be ugly.

Can the President of the United States control exactly what happens inside Iran or the rate of Chinese economic growth? Obviously not — and one would hope that, as important as gas prices may be to his re-election campaign, President Obama has other priorities in mind when he’s dealing with the Middle East. Gas prices should be largely a byproduct of presidential policy—not its aim.

In fact, it’s not the price of gas the President should focus on — it’s the effect high gas prices can have on the economy. A more energy-efficient economy — from gas mileage on up — is naturally more resilient to high energy prices. That’s one area the President can help shape — and it’s an area President Obama has found quiet success. The White House has pushed through measures that will mandate significant increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules, which means in the future, American drivers will be better protected against the next big hike in gas prices. And that’s not something one hears often from the Republican presidential field.

Read more:</a>

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: bentway who wrote (646385)2/25/2012 12:30:46 PM
From: i-node
1 Recommendation   of 1075150
>> But does a President really have that much control over how much it costs for you to fill your car?

Here's how it works. Democrat presidents are never responsible for higher gasoline prices; higher prices under a Democrat are directly attributable to the most recent Republican president.

Republican presidents are, however, directly responsible for increased prices at the pump.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: bentway who wrote (646383)2/25/2012 12:33:19 PM
From: longnshort
1 Recommendation   of 1075150
Why didn't obama tell the troops this, this is all obama's fault and he should be charged as a war criminal

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: bentway2/25/2012 12:35:49 PM
   of 1075150
Obama’s dream: To run against Santorum
By Kathleen Parker, Published: February 24

Let me be blunt: If Republicans nominate Rick Santorum to run for president, they will lose.

The prospect of four more years of President Barack Obama holds some appeal for many Americans but probably not for most Republicans. It may give doubters among them some comfort, however, to know that Obama and Santorum share the same prayer: that Santorum be the Republican nominee.

It gives me no pleasure to rap Santorum, a man I know and respect even if I disagree with him on some issues. Not that he minds. He’s a scrapper who loves a fight — and he forgives. Bottom line: Santorum is a good man. He’s just a good man in the wrong century.

This doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong about everything, but he’s so far out of step with the majority of Americans that he can’t hope to win the votes of moderates and independents so crucial to victory in November. The Republican Party’s insistence on conservative purity, meanwhile, will result in the cold comfort of defeat with honor and, in the longer term, potential extinction.

Increasingly, the party is growing grayer and whiter. Nine out of 10 Republicans are non-Hispanic white, and more than half are highly religious, according to Gallup. This isn’t news, but when this demographic is suddenly associated with renewed debate about whether women should have access to contraception — never mind abortion — suddenly they begin to look like the Republican Brotherhood.

Add to that perception the abhorrent, pre-abortion ultrasound legislation proposed in Virginia, and you can kiss the pope’s ring and voters’ retreating backsides.

The proposed law, temporarily tabled, called for women seeking an abortion to be forced to submit to a vaginal ultrasound. Aldous Huxley’s “The Devils of Loudon” comes to mind, but he was writing about exorcisms in a convent of 17th-century France. When did Republicans, who supposedly believe in less government intervention, begin thinking that invading a person’s body against her will was remotely acceptable?

Saner minds have prevailed, at least for now, but the fact that the bill was ever conceived and taken seriously by at least some legislators gives freedom-loving voters every reason to run the other way.

Informed consent is, in my view, a reasonable goal. Surely removal of a human fetus deserves the same level of awareness we would insist upon in removing, say, a gall bladder. If some women change their minds after viewing the contents of their womb, then they obviously needed more information than they had going in. Still, any procedure should be voluntary, and inserting a probe into a woman against her will is rape by any other name.

Obviously, this is no place for the state.

The Virginia bill and the broader, bogus message often repeated on left-leaning talk shows that Republicans are campaigning against birth control have created a perfect storm for defeat. The math is clear: Sixty-seven percent of women are either Democrats (41 percent) or independents (26 percent); more women than men vote; 55 percent of women ages 18-22 voted in the 2008 presidential election.

Republicans are caught in a nearly impossible situation, none more than the more temperate-minded Mitt Romney. It is important to remember, however, why contraception came up in the first place. Republicans were forced to man their battlements by the Obama administration’s new health-care rule requiring that Catholic organizations pay for contraception in violation of conscience. From there, things spiraled out of the realm of religious liberty, where this debate belongs, and into the fray of moral differences.

Santorum’s original surge was based not on social issues but on his authenticity and his ability to identify with middle-class struggles. He was the un-Romney. But now this appealing profile has been occluded by social positions that make him an outlier to mainstream Americans.

Republicans may sleep better if they nominate The Most Conservative Person In The World, but they won’t be seeing the executive branch anytime soon. It’s too bad this election season got lost in the weeds of religious conviction. It wouldn’t have happened if the Obama administration had simply taken one of several other routes available for providing birth control to women who want it. Instead, Obama aimed right at the heart of the Republican Party and, one can only assume, got exactly what he wanted: a culture war in which Rick Santorum would be the natural point man and, in the broader public’s perception, the voice of the GOP.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: bentway who wrote (646388)2/25/2012 12:38:03 PM
From: TopCat
   of 1075150
"Obama’s dream: To run against Santorum"

Yeah...Obama does a lot of dreaming. Why doesn't he wake up and do something?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: bentway2/25/2012 12:53:27 PM
   of 1075150
Man tests body armor by firing point blank into own stomach

By David Edwards
Friday, February 24, 2012 16:09 EST

A man who wanted to prove that his body armor would really protect him put it to the ultimate test by firing a round point blank into his own stomach.

In video uploaded to YouTube on Thursday, a man is seen wearing a bullet-proof vest with the word “security” on the back.

“We got a Glock Model 20 10mm,” the man says as he approaches the camera inside his untidy double-wide trailer. “I got a Hornady 200 grain hollow-point round in here.”

“I done psyched myself out on this already. So, I’m trying to get my nerves to do it,” he admitted.

The video shows him backing up, putting the barrel of the pistol flat against his stomach and placing his thumb his on the trigger.

Seconds later, he grimaces and fires.

“Fuck!” the man exclaims as paces around his living room. “Oh, shit! Oh, I’d hate to be hit multiple times like that. That fucking hurt.”

“I got American Body Armor, the best on level IIIA,” he explained. “But the panel I got on here is made by Second Chance Level II. Go ahead and cut that shit off.”

Gizmodo noted that the video was “further proof that handguns should be illegal or that the human race doesn’t deserve to exist.”

“Surely this daring experiment should have ended not with extreme pain, but with our bearded hero deflecting the projectile, ramming his head into a keg to celebrate, and then happily passing out in a pool of fluids, stench and sawdust.”

Watch this video from YouTube, uploaded Feb. 23, 2012.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: longnshort who wrote (646387)2/25/2012 12:56:18 PM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 1075150
VIDEO - The Horrific Muslim Infestation Of Britain - Luton, 2012

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: bentway who wrote (646385)2/25/2012 1:01:34 PM
From: longnshort
5 Recommendations   of 1075150
Now that President Obama is in the White House, Democrats and the Administration have been trying to assert that the spike in gas prices is not really affected by the President's actions.

Four years ago they had a very different take,

High Gas Hypocrisy: Stunning 15 Times Obama And Top Dems Politicized Gas Price

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.