PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: goldworldnet who wrote (481286)4/7/2012 12:58:26 PM
From: TideGlider
1 Recommendation   of 658862
this one is far from over..

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill4/7/2012 1:03:37 PM
   of 658862

David Samuels: The new mastermind of jihad.

Neil Shah and Carol Lee: U.S. labor market slows its stride.

Ylan Q. Mui: Good weather artificially inflated jobs data.

James Freeman: How Silicon Valley won Washington.

Charles Fishman: Five myths about water.

Steve Forbes: Skidding to oblivion.

Tim Dahlberg: Tiger Woods’ display a disgrace to the game.

Alina Selyukh: Key Democratic donors cool to pro-Obama Super PAC.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: TideGlider who wrote (481253)4/7/2012 1:12:01 PM
From: Farmboy
7 Recommendations   of 658862
<<The wire service said that the network regarded the producer's action as a very bad mistake but not deliberate.>>

I thought deliberate meant it was done intentionally ...

Are they trying to say it was done by accident?

Sure, and Lee Harvey Oswald's shooting of JFK was not 'deliberate' ....

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: LindyBill4/7/2012 1:12:19 PM
3 Recommendations   of 658862
"The Growing Turkish Threat
April 7, 2012: Iran does not like Turkey supporting Syrian rebels, but does little beyond complain about Turkey and Iran disagreeing about what is happening in Syria. Iran is intent on maintaining good relations with the Turks, who have been a formidable (and usually victorious) foe for centuries. This strategy is based on fear, reflected in a recent Turkish opinion poll that showed 54 percent of Turks approved Turkey developing nuclear weapons if Iran does. To make matters worse Turkey has joined with the Sunni Arabs to rebuild the old (pre-1918 when the Ottoman Turk empire collapsed) coalition opposing Shia Iran. Back in Ottoman times, Turkey was the undisputed leader, but now must share that with Saudi Arabia. Much to Iran's discomfort, the Turks are making this unnatural marriage (the Turks and Arabs never really got along) work.

In Syria, Iranian advisors have prevailed over more bloody minded Syrian leaders who wanted to kill a lot more protestors, in order to terrorize all the others. The Iranian advisors speak from experience, and it is Iranian cash that keeps the Syrian government running in the face of economic sanctions. Iran loses a lot if the pro-democracy rebellion in Syria succeeds. At that point a loyal ally turns into another bitter Arab enemy. Worse, it becomes much harder to support the Hezbollah militia that runs southern Lebanon. Hezbollah, armed with over 40,000 Iranian rockets, is the only weapon Iran has to use against Israel if Israel tries to bomb Iranian nuclear weapons facilities. While Hezbollah would lose another war with Israel (like they did in 2006 when they accidentally started one); Hezbollah would also lose most of its rockets and other Iranian weapons. Without Syria, replacing all those rockets would take a long time, and might be impossible. For this reason, Hezbollah is supplying men (as trainers, technicians and, in a few cases, fighters) and weapons to Syria. Throughout all this, Syrian and Hezbollah personnel in Syria are under orders to keep their heads down. The Lebanese and Iranians wear Syrian uniforms as needed, unobtrusive civilian clothes otherwise. Foreign media are kept at a distance. But a growing number of Syrians fleeing the country have seen the foreigners in action, and recognized where they were from and what they were doing.

Iran needs also Hezbollah to support a worldwide network of Iranian spies and terrorists. Since Hezbollah is Lebanese, they have an easier time connecting with the worldwide network of Lebanese expatriates (many of whom fled during the 1975-90 civil war that helped create Hezbollah). Iran uses this network as a support force for Iranian agents. If Hezbollah is weakened or destroyed, so is much of Iran's foreign espionage and terror capability. Some overseas efforts would not be hurt, like those closer to home (in Afghanistan, Yemen and Arabia).

Iran is not too worries about an Israeli air strike, because the Israelis are already waging a covert war against Iran's nuclear weapons program. This has been going on for several years and is doing an increasing amount of damage.

Iran is also using rather quiet moves to increase its influence in Iraq. One critical operation is to get a pro-Iranian Iraqi cleric appointed (by a council of senior clerics) the chief Shia cleric for Iraq. Because most Shia clerics, especially the elite ones, go to elite religious schools in Iran, the Iranians have a good idea how all the Iraqi candidates think. Using the same tools (bribes, favors, blackmail, whatever it takes) employed to ensnare Iraqi politicians, the Iranians are trying to persuade the senior Iraqi clerics to pick the right buy when the aging and sickly incumbent (81 year old Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani) finally dies.

In Afghanistan, Iran is using more money than guns to influence the media and public opinion. Western Afghanistan has, in the past, often been a part of Iran and Afghans are willing to take what they can get from the Iranians. If the Iranians want to pay the local media to say nasty things about the Afghan government or the Americans, or local people to stage demonstrations for those causes, there is not a lot of resistance. Iran has always played the long game, and the Afghans (including the Afghan government) respect that.

The U.S. believes that there is enough spare capacity in the world oil supply to replace what is lost by cutting off Iranian exports. Starting June 28, the world is supposed to stop buying Iranian oil, as part of a sanctions program to get Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons. Iranian oil shipments are already down 14 percent. But two of Iran's major oil buyers, China and India, refuse to abide by the sanctions. China is doing it largely for economic reasons. By defying the sanctions China has more leverage and is able to get a lower price for Iranian oil. India, on the other hand, wants to keep good relations with Iran in order to gain access to Central Asian (including Afghanistan) trade routes. In addition, "sticking it to the West" is still popular in India (which was an anti-West "neutral" during the Cold War.) Despite Chinese and Indian support, it looks like there will be a ban on insurance for ships trading with Iran. This will force China and India to provide insurance, which will increase their costs a bit.

The sanctions are having a growing impact. Shortages of foreign currency mean many foreign goods cannot be imported. General mismanagement of the economy by the corrupt government means inflation is now running at a high rate (north of 20 percent a year). Most Iranians are feeling the pain, but not the corrupt officials that are responsible for it."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Sdgla4/7/2012 1:19:53 PM
1 Recommendation   of 658862
Somethings never change...

Two oil men' to blame for high gas prices, Pelosi says

July 17, 2008

Groups in the House and the Senate are trying to reach a compromise on domestic oil and gas drilling.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday blamed the "two oil men in the White House," President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Republican allies in Congress for gas prices exceeding $4 a gallon.

Pelosi, a California Democrat, said multiple initiatives intended to lower high energy costs have passed the Democratically controlled House only to "run into a brick wall" in the Senate because they did not receive the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican filibusters.

"The price of oil is... is attributed to two oil men in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate," Pelosi said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Pelosi said there are plenty of opportunities that oil companies should explore before environmentally sensitive areas such as ANWR are open to drilling, pointing to the 33 million acres that have already been approved for offshore drilling and the 68 million acres of federal land in the lower 48 states that is open to exploration.

"The impression that the White House has given you is that if you could drill in these protected areas, the price of gasoline will come down," Pelosi said. "Even the president in his press conference the other day acknowledged that that was not the case."

Pelosi's renewed opposition to more drilling comes as two bipartisan groups -- one in the House, the other in the Senate -- are trying to rekindle stalled energy legislation by forging a compromise to expand domestic oil and gas drilling.

The compromise would include new domestic drilling to satisfy Republicans and promote conservation and alternative energy sources to satisfy Democrats, lawmakers said.

Despite Pelosi and the Democratic leadership opposing efforts to repeal a 1981 law barring most offshore drilling, the Senate group said its plan probably would allow offshore drilling in new areas of the outer continental shelf.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, is bucking his party's leadership by supporting new drilling. He said he and the other senators advocating the deal are "people who are all seriously concerned about the issue who want to find solutions that are most likely to involve compromise."

Another group member, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, said, "Somebody around here's got to do it. We think the Senate can vote in the majority for energy proposals that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the pressure on gas prices."

The Senate group met behind closed doors Wednesday at the Capitol, seeking to forge legislation that could be introduced after the August recess. Talks were to continue later in the week, according to one senator who attended the meeting.

In the House, the bipartisan "energy working group" -- formed by Reps. John Peterson, R-Pennsylvania, and Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii -- includes 23 members, roughly split between the two parties.

Peterson said energy legislation should be the priority for Congress and said he hopes the group can yield a comprehensive plan next week.

"Leaders are going to have a hard time refusing to address this issue. This is the issue of the year. This is the issue of the decade," Peterson said.

Another member of the group, Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said that "everything is on the table" except drilling in Alaska's ANWR, which he described as a "lightning rod."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: TideGlider who wrote (481265)4/7/2012 1:20:41 PM
From: Brumar89
5 Recommendations   of 658862
Just like with Rathergate, the media would have gotten away with this if not for the blogosphere.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (481292)4/7/2012 1:22:57 PM
From: TideGlider
1 Recommendation   of 658862
It's a damned shame that they have no shame! However biting law suits will stun NBC and the individuals responsible.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Farmboy who wrote (481289)4/7/2012 1:24:59 PM
From: TideGlider
   of 658862
yes, like Obama accidentally said this or that....oh American what is going on!!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Bill who wrote (481269)4/7/2012 3:20:20 PM
From: Tom Clarke
1 Recommendation   of 658862
What Does Inciting A Riot Mean?
Jeralyn Merritt

Q. What does the charge inciting a riot mean and what will happen?

-- Anonymous

A. Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons who are assembled in a group of at least three people. The act of violence must be one that presents a clear and present danger of injury to another person or damage to another person\\\'s property. Threatening to commit a violent act in such a group situation that could injure another person or damage property is also considered a riot if one of the persons in the group has the ability at the time to carry out the threatened violence.

Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. It does not apply to someone who merely advocates ideas or expresses beliefs, if those ideas and beliefs do not involve advocating violence.

The federal crime of inciting a riot carries a possible penalty of up to five years in prison a fine.

State and local governments also have laws that make it a crime to incite a riot. The penalties range from fines only to jail time. It is important that the law, even if only a municipal ordinance, specify the conduct that that is prohibited with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.

If you have been charged with inciting a riot, I recommend you seek out a criminal defense lawyer in your area who can tell you exactly what conduct the law prohibits in your jurisdiction, and advise you as whether the law is subject to a challenge on the grounds that it is unconstitutionally vague--either because it fails to sufficiently set forth what conduct is prohibited, or fails to set minimal guidelines for police to use in enforcing the law.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: unclewest who wrote (481242)4/7/2012 3:24:26 PM
From: Crony
   of 658862
Wouldn't work here. He would sue the police for millions and will probably win the case.

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.