PoliticsFormerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: longnshort who wrote (649525)3/29/2012 7:22:10 PM
   of 1073916
She should be expelled from school and do some time. Not fit to live among normal society.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: longnshort who wrote (649525)3/29/2012 7:22:11 PM
   of 1073916
She should be expelled from school and do some time. Not fit to live among normal society.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: joseffy who wrote (649531)3/29/2012 7:36:13 PM
   of 1073916
There was no foul.

There was no contact made.

Wrong. There was contact. It was a foul. See the second clip. Doesn't change anything though

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (649566)3/29/2012 7:37:24 PM
From: joseffy
   of 1073916
There was zero contact.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: longnshort who wrote (649525)3/29/2012 7:45:35 PM
   of 1073916
Sorry, have no idea why that message posted four times.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (649545)3/29/2012 7:46:23 PM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 1073916
Obama kills coal - as promised GOP is MIA on EPA overreach

By Steve Milloy The Washington Times Thursday, March 29, 2012

The Obama Environmental Protection Agency just condemned to death an entire U.S. industry - a legal and scientific horror story that congressional Republicans failed miserably to prevent.

The EPA’s newly proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for coal-fired power plants will be finalized by the Obama administration, win or lose, after the November election.

Though the proposed standards leave alone existing coal-fired power plants, they effectively prohibit the construction of new plants by establishing an impossible-to-meet emissions standard.

But don’t get the idea that the EPA threw the coal industry a bone by omitting existing coal-fired plants, as the agency has already issued two regulations - the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury Air Toxics Standard - that will prematurely retire about 20 percent of existing coal-fired plants over the next few years.

The supposed scientific grounds for the new EPA greenhouse gas emissions is global warming. But even if you believe that man-made emissions are changing climate for the worse, there are two realities that expose the EPA’s moves as purely political.

First, if all U.S. coal plant emissions were to stop today, the average global temperature might be reduced over the next 90 years by, at most, an insignificant 0.15 degrees Celsius, according to United Nations-approved models. EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson essentially admitted to this futility in a July 2009 Senate hearing.

Next, as the United States reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, the rest of the world, especially China, has its emissions pedal to the metal. It has been estimated that by 2035 China will become the all-time leading emitter of greenhouse gases. That is, in the space of about 45 years, China will have emitted more greenhouse gases than the United States has in 150 years.

So the Obama EPA is accomplishing nothing with its new power plant rules except the destruction of the U.S. coal industry, which has played a leading role in powering America for more than 100 years.

On the legal side, and notwithstanding the narrow 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 that gave the agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it is obvious that when Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1970, 1977 and 1990, it did not intend to provide the agency with authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

It is simply not credible that Congress intended for the EPA to write emissions permits for more than 6 million sources of greenhouse gases - an effort the agency has estimated would cost $63 billion and require an extra 250,000 employees over a period of three years.

But President Obama has decided that the coal industry should no longer exist and so has ordered new EPA and other regulatory agency controls to implement his political whim.

So where is the Republican opposition?

In their defeat, Senate Republicans can at least point to the fact that they don’t run their body. Still, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s failure to convince Sen. Lamar Alexander, Sen. Scott P. Brown, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe and Sen. Susan M. Collins to vote for GOP-sponsored bills to rein in the EPA certainly draws into question his leadership capabilities, if not his zeal.

On the other side of Capitol Hill, House Republicans have held many hearings on the EPA. On occasion, some members have even made an effort to express mild outrage at the agency - that is, when they’re not pandering to the EPA for constituent permit approvals or handouts from the slush funds that the EPA controls.

The GOP-controlled House has even passed bills to rein in the EPA, but none that had a prayer of passing in the Senate.

Although House Speaker John A. Boehner has had the power to threaten the EPA’s budget, he has inexplicably refused to use his only real weapon against the agency.

Considering that in the 2012 election cycle Republicans have so far received 89 percent of the coal industry’s contributions to political parties - amounting to more than $3 million - the industry must be asking itself why it continues to support politicians who fail so miserably.

Ironically, the coal industry’s only hope is to support Republican candidates across the board in 2012, in hopes of gaining the White House and both houses of Congress. Then, a GOP-controlled Congress could pass and a Republican president could sign a single bill rolling back or overriding all Obama EPA overreaches.

Recapturing the White House or Senate alone will not be enough to alter the fate of the coal industry. It’s not at all clear that a Republican president would be willing to undergo a painfully drawn-out process for rescinding EPA regulations on a rule-by-rule basis. Even with a GOP-controlled Congress, it’s unlikely that there would be a two-thirds majorities to face down Obama vetoes of efforts to rein in the agency.

It ought to shock the conscience that for no scientific reason or legal justification at all, a single regulatory agency can unilaterally kill off a multibillion-dollar industry that supplies more than 40 percent of the nation’s electricity - and get away scot-free.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: bentway who wrote (649520)3/29/2012 7:51:11 PM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 1073916
Roseanne Barr Becomes Second Leftist Celebrity to Threaten George Zimmerman's Parents

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: longnshort who wrote (649471)3/29/2012 7:59:03 PM
From: joseffy
2 Recommendations   of 1073916
Bolton accuses administration of leaking story on Israeli planning along Iran border March 29, 2012

Former U.S. diplomat John Bolton alleged Thursday that the Obama administration leaked a story about covert Israeli activity in order to foil potential plans by the country to attack Iran's nuclear program.

Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan -- along Iran's northern border.

The article did not state exactly what the Israelis' intentions were, but it suggested it could point to a possible strike on Iran.

"I think this leak today is part of the administration's campaign against an Israeli attack," Bolton claimed on Fox News.

The White House did not respond to Bolton's claims Thursday.

Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country -- jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis' hand by revealing "very sensitive, very important information" could frustrate such a plan.

Speaking afterward to, Bolton said he didn't have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack.

But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that's the case, Bolton said, then it would be "entirely consistent" for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome.

The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as "high-level sources ... inside the U.S. government." It specifically mentioned "four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers."

One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was "watching" the activity and was "not happy about it."

The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.

"Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak," Bolton told "This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I'll leak this out."

"It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies," Bolton said.

Read more:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: longnshort who wrote (649479)3/29/2012 8:13:24 PM
From: joseffy
   of 1073916
Bowing to the Kremlin BY MITT ROMNEY

Why Obama's "hot mic" diplomacy is endangering America.


Sometimes it's the unguarded moments that are the most revealing of all. President Obama just had such a moment at the summit in South Korea. "This is my last election," Obama told Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, in an exchange that was inadvertently picked up by microphones. "After my election I have more flexibility."

But flexibility to do what? The president mentioned missile defense to Medvedev as one area where the Kremlin should expect more flexibility. This is alarming.

It is not an accident that Mr. Medvedev is now busy attacking me. The Russians clearly prefer to do business with the current incumbent of the White House.

And it is not hard to understand why. The record shows that President Obama has already been pliant on missile defense and other areas of nuclear security. Without extracting meaningful concessions from Russia, he abandoned our missile defense sites in Poland. He granted Russia new limits on our nuclear arsenal. He capitulated to Russia's demand that a United Nations resolution on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program exclude crippling sanctions.

Moscow has rewarded these gifts with nothing but obstructionism at the United Nations on a whole raft of issues. It has continued to arm the regime of Syria's vicious dictator and blocked multilateral efforts to stop the ongoing carnage there. Across the board, it has been a thorn in our side on questions vital to America's national security. For three years, the sum total of President Obama's policy toward Russia has been: "We give, Russia gets."

Russian intransigence has elicited no push-back from the White House. Indeed, as the conversation in South Korea shows, President Obama appears determined to ingratiate himself with the Kremlin. This, unfortunately, seems to be the real meaning of his "reset" policy. An outstanding example is the personal phone call that Barack Obama made to Vladimir Putin from Air Force One congratulating the Russian leader on his election as Russia's next president.

The call followed a declaration from the State Department that "the United States congratulates the Russian people on the completion of the Presidential elections." Given that the Russian elections were widely seen to have been compromised by fraud and intimidation, these words made a mockery of America's commitment to democracy and human rights. They undercut all those in Russia who are risking so much to struggle for the universal rights that we ourselves enjoy. They are a shameful betrayal of our country's first principles.

President Obama's conversation with Dmitry Medvedev raises questions not only about his policy toward Russia, but his entire foreign policy.

Would post-election "flexibility" lead him to reach out once again to the Iranian regime "without preconditions"? Would it lead him to resume pressuring Israel into making unilateral concessions to the Palestinians? Would it permit him to take an even softer line, if that is imaginable, toward the authoritarian regimes of the Castro brothers and Hugo Chávez? Would he further shrink our Navy and Air Force below the already-too-low force numbers currently planned? Would he pour more money into United Nations bodies that have recognized a Palestinian state and seem to spend an inordinate amount of their time and energy denouncing Israel?

In a self-governing country like ours, the people have a right to know what kinds of decisions are being taken in their name. The American people deserve candor. They also deserve a foreign policy founded upon our enduring principles and a recognition of our exceptional place in the world.

That is not what they are getting now. Unfortunately, what they are getting is a sad replay of Jimmy Carter's bungling at a moment when the United States needs the backbone and courage of a Ronald Reagan. In his dealings with the Kremlin, as in his dealings with the rest of the world, President Obama has demonstrated breathtaking weakness -- and given the word "flexibility" a new and ominous meaning.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (649424)3/29/2012 8:16:00 PM
From: steve harris
4 Recommendations   of 1073916
To think ted's a teacher, that explains why today's children are ignorant.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)
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.