Many interesting articles on this site...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-28
In Reply to:
http://clintondems.com/2008/09/obama-admits-dual-citizenship-with-kenya/
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Another interesting site...
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
kyoto, one of many articles
INDEPTH: KYOTO
Kyoto Protocol FAQs
April 13, 2005
Depending on who you talk to, the Kyoto Protocol is either a) an expensive, bureaucratic solution to fix a problem that may not even exist; or b) the last, best chance to save the world from the time bomb of global warming.
Those are the extremes in what has become a polarizing debate that has engaged governments, consumers, environmental groups and industry all over the world for more than 20 years.
The problem the Kyoto Protocol is trying to address is climate change, and more specifically, the speed at which the earth is warming up. Whether Kyoto can accomplish this is very much a matter of debate.
For the record, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country – except the United States, Australia and Monaco. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of the emissions that have been blamed for global warming.
Two of the world's biggest – and growing – polluters also have not signed on. India and China don't have to – they're considered developing countries and are outside the protocol's framework.
First, the science behind Kyoto.
Is the climate changing?
The United Nations certainly thinks so. And so do most (but not all) scientists who study climate. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes the work of 2,000 of the world's top climate experts. Its latest report (2001) makes for some sobering reading.
Yes, the world is getting warmer, the report concludes. The IPCC says the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, with much of that rise coming in the 1990s – likely the warmest decade in 1,000 years.
The IPCC also found that snow cover since the late 1960s has decreased by about 10 per cent and lakes and rivers in the Northern Hemisphere are frozen over about two weeks less each year than they were in the late 1960s. Mountain glaciers in non-polar regions have also been in noticeable retreat in the 20th century, and the average global sea level has risen between 0.1 and 0.2 metres since 1900.
Simply put, the world is getting warmer and the temperature is rising faster than ever.
What are the very long-term climate predictions?
The IPCC predicts more floods, intense storms, heat waves and droughts. Its study forecasts a rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the global mean surface temperature over the next 100 years, with developing countries most vulnerable.
Other studies are even more apocalyptic. A report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund predicts dangerous warming of the earth's surface in as little as 20 years, with the Arctic warming so much that its polar ice could melt in the summer by the year 2100, pushing polar bears close to extinction.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment predicts that caribou, musk ox and reindeer would find their habitats severely reduced. Northern aboriginal peoples around the world would find their way of life changed forever, the study said.
What is causing the world to warm up?
The 6 greenhouse gases Kyoto targets |
Carbon dioxide.
Methane.
Nitrous oxide
Sulphur hexafluoride.
Hydrofluorocarbons.
Perfluorocarbons.
|
Most scientists blame industrialization. Since the 19th century, the richer countries of the Northern Hemisphere have been pumping out ever-increasing volumes of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Industrial societies burn fossil fuels in their power plants, homes, factories and cars. They clear forests (trees absorb carbon dioxide) and they build big cities.
Greenhouse gases allow solar radiation to pass through the earth's atmosphere. But after the earth absorbs part of that radiation, it reflects the rest back. That's where the problem lies. Particles of greenhouse gas absorb the radiation, heating up, and warming the atmosphere. The increasing levels of greenhouse gases are causing too much energy to be trapped – the so-called greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse gas emissions targets apply to 38 industrialized countries and economies in transition
|
For a list of these countries and their emissions targets, click here:
UNFCCC
|
Isn't there a lot of debate over the whole issue of climate change?
While scientists tend to agree that the earth is warming, not all agree that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the culprits. A vocal minority say the earth's climate warms and cools in long cycles that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
Some dispute the data concerning rising sea levels and rising temperatures. Others dispute the projections, which are based on computer models. But again, those views are those of a minority. Most climatologists agree that global warming is causing unprecedented climate change…and that things will get worse unless something is done.
What does the Kyoto Protocol require?
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in late 1997 to address the problem of global warming by reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered a first step and is not expected to solve the world's climate change problems by the time its first commitment period ends in 2012.
Kyoto sets out an agenda for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels (although economies in transition, like Russia, can pick different base years). Some reports say the lower target is to be met by 2010. But that's shorthand for the actual target date, which is to achieve those emission cuts over a five-year average (2008 to 2012).
All countries are not treated equally by Kyoto. Canada, for instance, has committed to chopping its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent. The U.S. target was a seven per cent reduction. But in 2001, one of the first acts of newly-elected President George W. Bush was to formally withdraw the U.S. from Kyoto. Bush said the U.S. would not ratify the treaty because it would damage the U.S. economy and major developing nations like China and India were not covered by its provisions.
Kyoto also allows some industrialized countries to make no cuts, or even to emit more greenhouse gases that they did in 1990. Russia's and New Zealand's emission levels are capped at their 1990 levels. Iceland can emit up to 10 per cent more greenhouse gases, Australia eight per cent more. (Like the U.S., Australia has announced it won't ratify Kyoto). Developing nations are not subject to any emissions reduction caps under Kyoto.
Much of the criticism around the Kyoto Protocol is over political realities and the limitations of the treaty. Critics say a five per cent cut will accomplish little, especially with the United States not on board. Some Canadian critics say our economy will pay a heavy price for meeting our Kyoto commitments because we'll have to compete with an American economy that faces no such restrictions. Many doubt that Canada's target cuts can be reached in Kyoto's first phase that ends in 2012.
Others say the money to implement Kyoto would be much better spent on improving land usage and infrastructure in poor countries.
How are emission targets met?
Emission targets can be met several ways. The most obvious way is to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions – more fuel-efficient cars, fewer coal-fired power plants. But Kyoto also allows for three other mechanisms.
Countries can buy emissions credits from countries that don't need them to stay below their emissions quotas. A country can also earn emissions credits through something called joint implementation, which allows a country to benefit by carrying out something like a reforestation project in another industrialized country or economy in transition. There's also what's called a clean development mechanism that encourages investment in developing countries by promoting the transfer of environmentally-friendly technologies.
Each developed country must develop its own strategy to meet its Kyoto commitments. Industrial countries that ratify Kyoto are legally bound to see that their emissions do not exceed their 2008/2012 targets.
What happens if a country fails to reach its Kyoto emissions target?
The Kyoto Protocol contains measures to assess performance and progress. It also contains some penalties. Countries that fail to meet their emissions targets by the end of the first commitment period (2012) must make up the difference plus a penalty of 30 per cent in the second commitment period. Their ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended.
Articles 39 and 42 of the U.N. Charter
permit the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
I read your articles - all of them - and...
In the first link you provided, the fourth paragraph in the gray box says, "Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position."
Also, in this article it clearly states that Obama still plans to withdraw in the 6th paragraph:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/mccain_obama_position_on_iraq.html
Also, Obama's website still states the same information of 16 months -
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
You put up THIS site or the site you said to check out
Unless you are the administrator which I highly doubt you didn't put up THIS site.
There are several articles...goggle it....see inside...
this is just one.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2008_09_13_Obama_s_female_staffers_shortchanged:_He_s_no_great_equalizer/
There have been numerous news articles......sm
stating that Obama's mother was a self-proclamed atheist. You can find them if you Google and check out news web sites.
The beliefs of the Catholic church are very different in some respects than those of most Christian denominations. Catholics, as I understand, believe that without baptism (infant christening) that even a baby is not saved. Most mainstream Christian denominations believe that a person makes a choice to believe in Christ and accept him as Savior once they reach the age where they have the capability of making that decision. I am not saying all this to get into a long theological discussion with you but simply to point out the differences between the two. If you want to discuss religion, we have been asked to use the Faith board to do that.
Oh please. We just post articles of Obama
x
There are all sorts of articles; just google
x
I won't read these articles - the last time I did so,
No thanks!
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
Articles of impeachment filed on Cheney sm
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the former mayor of Cleveland who is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president for the second time, introduced articles to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday, basing his decision on Cheney's initial push to send the United States into war with Iraq.
The vice president is beating the same drums of war against Iran that he beat against Iraq under false pretenses, and he's doing it all over again, against Iran, Kucinich said. And I say that it's time to stand up to that. Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President.
See: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html
Excuse me. Did you bother to read the articles and
In every single reference I provided for you, the phrase "OFFICE of the President Elect" appears....in 1969, 1989, 2000 as well as in the language of the Act. Don't care what your fringe sites say....especially Malkin. Wouldn't be the first time they invented phoney outrage over fairy tales they spin, and it won't be the last. Read the language of the ACT that created the OFFICE of the President Elect, then the articles I provided, and you might see what I mean....or NOT. You seem to have an affinity for make-believe.
BTW, I know my history, but I believe you were trying to ask me specifically about civics. The electoral college makes the election official. However, it has always been customary to refer to the successful candidate on the Nov 4 election as the President Elect. The media is not the driving force behind this...tradition is.
She posted articles about the big 3 in Europe, not European car cos.....(nm)
Lots of articles on Churchill and Henry Ford and sm
Jews and communism. It doesn't matter if the pillars were made of salt (of course, history tells us that they were eventually). It matters that historically this was what Hitler built his Reich on. This is indisuptable and absolute. Henry Ford's hatred for Jews was legendary, BECAUSE of communism.
Excuse me, but you will not dictate whether or not I include articles in my post.
I post articles here in order to encourage a debate about the articles. In your limited Israel-is-always-right-and-anyone-who-questions-that-is-worthy-of-a-rabid-attack attitude, you can't see that and once again wish to control everything, even how people communicate with each other.
All you want to do is tear down, not build anything. I gave my reasons for posting this article. In those reasons I expressed some skepticism about Hezbollah's sincerity. Instead of offering an intelligent response to those reasons, you once again slammed the door of dialogue and showed that your abilities to communicate are so limited that all you can do is berate and insult. To call me anti-American only highlights your ignorance. I am absolutely pro-American, and I'm very fearful where President Bush is leading us. It's the duty of every American to question what he or she sees as failures or inadequacies in the administration that is in power regardless of party affiliation. I felt the same way during the Clinton administration, and I feel the same way now.
If I were to come on here and say that Hezbollah is rebuilding Lebanon and now the Bush administration wants to compete with them, I would get responses that demand I provide my source, and rightly so. That is the reason I post the entire article itself. I want to gauge if it brings the same questions to the minds of other (repeat once again) LIBERALS as it does to me.
You're free to have your opinion of me, but you come off as pompous and controlling, demanding that everyone bow down and kiss Israel's feet. The mere suggestion that Israel may be even slightly wrong elicits anger and rage from you, and you have shown that repeatedly.
No, you are not obligated to engage in debate with anyone here, but don't whine and complain that you're unable to when someone offers you the opportunity. Your failure to do so when invited only proves how angry and full of rage you are.
For the record, I have never said you were sent to shut down the board. It's laughable to even imagine you have the power to do that. You are no more important or influential than I am or than any other poster on this board is. Get over yourself already.
And, no, I have no idea which sentence of the original article you find disturbing. I personally found several of them disturbing, but I refuse to engage in any guessing games with you.
Am I paranoid? I sure am these days. I'm pro-peace and I'm living in a country run by a President who is trigger happy and who has done nothing but incite the world.
If looking at Israel objectively is anti-Israel according to your definition, then so be it. You said previously on this board that just because Israel didn't bother to send any troops to Iraq didn't mean they're an ally. Please enlighten me. With the BILLIONS of dollars we give Israel every year, along with weapons, we are definitely an ally to Israel. Please explain how Israel is an ally to us. Is it because they grace us with their agreement to take our money and then spy on us? (I could post a number of articles regarding the spying, but since you don't like it when I do that, feel free to Google it on your own.) What have they done for us in return?
I have always believed Israel was the underdog in the Middle East and have always favored them. This is the first time I have ever questioned their actions. We here in America still have freedom of thought and speech, whether you like it or not. You know nothing of me, including how I believe. Your assessment of me is not only wrong, it's absurd and only proves how you interact with people who disagree. I am very relieved that you are not representative of all Israelis, as it gives me a small sense of hope.
I doubt your sincerity in stating that I'm not worth the time to answer, considering all the time you spent doing just that. Another example of your hypocrisy. No doubt you will waste your time once again responding to this with more hatred and insults, only this time I will let you have the last word, since you are now no longer worth the time it takes to respond.
It means you're good at paraphrasing articles others
nm
Lies? What we show are facts, links, articles.
What about poor Palin? She is a human being and look at the ATTACKS on her. By the way, she is a republican and I would say Dem's are bashing. We are not bashing Obama, we try to show you articles, links from CNN who by the way supported Obama, and you state we are bashing Obama.
A very intelligent and honorable man, but the articles leans severely to the right.....sm
I tipped over twice reading it. I am not trying to be mean or facetious, I think sometimes people feel so strongly in their beliefs,and I agree with many of his beliefs, that they comes get "tunnel vision", they lose their peripheral vision for that part of humanity that has been good and honest, but has been dealt some very bad, unfair blows and needs help. In my own heart and opinion, there is a difference between radical, fundamentalist Muslims, and mainstream, peaceful, truly religions Muslims, and have have met and worked with many with lovely families. Basically, the author seems to want to cling onto an idealistic life where everything is fair, the good guys always win, and there is only black and white. Well, there are lots of shades of gray in between, and like it or not (and I grew up in the Beaver Cleaver generation), the earth has moved on, time has moved on, and we have to deal effectively with WHAT IS. Yup, I am tired too, especially since my husband and I both have health issues, we certainly aren't kids anymore, and retirement is looking more and more like a pipe dream, even though we invested, sacrificed, and saved. But whining or wishing will not solve anything, as Americans we are famous for pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps and getting the job done, and our job now is to work together, search out viable answers, care for each other, and pull through this depression INTACT AND WHOLE. Off my ratty soapbox now!
Yes, let's post articles to mother's of military. So helpful. Geez. nm
I found several opposition articles and will post the high points....
and actually I was surprised to see that there were some common concerns and actually very little concerning *a move toward socialized medicine.* This is what I found:
Proposals to expand coverage to children from families earning three or four times the federal poverty limit ($61,940 and $82,600, respectively, for a family of four) also highlights the question of just how many should be subsidized, necessarily at others' expense. The $61,940 eligibility limit would cover median-income families in 14 states, and the $82,600 limit would do so in 42 states. Parents earning such incomes do not need additional subsidies for their children to get health care.
************************
Baucus, Grassley Comment
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) jointly requested the CBO study but "had divergent views of its findings," according to CQ Today.
Baucus, who supports spending $50 billion over five years to expand SCHIP, said the report validates the program. CQ Today reports that Baucus "expressed little concern" that people would leave private insurance plans to enroll in SCHIP, saying that every public health insurance program provides coverage to some people who might be able to obtain private health insurance (CQ Today, 5/10). Baucus said, "The fact that uninsurance for children in higher-income families has stayed about the same means that SCHIP is helping the lower-income families it's meant to serve."
Grassley said the report supports his argument that SCHIP eligibility should not be expanded beyond 200% of the poverty level. He said, "This report tells us that Congress needs to make sure that whatever it does, it should actually result in more kids having health insurance, rather than simply shifting children from private to public health insurance" (CongressDaily, 5/10).
****************************
SCHIP is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty line but have difficulty paying for private insurance. Already, the program is generous. A family of four with an income of more than $72,000 (350% of the federal poverty level) is eligible for SCHIP's subsidized insurance. Now, Congress wants to expand coverage even further, to families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four). But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 89% of families earning between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty level already have coverage. The CBO estimates that some 2 million kids already covered under private insurance would be switched over to government insurance. The only purpose of all of this seems to be to turn children's health insurance into an outright entitlement — part of the Democrat's broader push to move all of America's health-care industry under government control.
Along with expanding SCHIP coverage to include people higher and higher up in the middle class, the Democrats' bill would also give states incentives to sign up aggressively new "clients," by loosening requirements to join the program and encouraging states to market the program (anyone who rides the New York City subway knows how active the Empire State is already being on this front). How is all of this to be funded? Well, the bill would impose a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent a pack federal cigarette tax, bringing it up to an even dollar. We've written before on how corrupt is the government's interest in the cigarette business. It turns out that the government needs to keep people smoking; the Heritage Foundation estimates the government would need to sign up some 22 million more Americans to take up smoking by 2017 to fund this increase in SCHIP. To add to the irony, most smokers are low-income Americans, meaning that the poor essentially will be funding the health insurance of the middle class. Mr. Bush would be right to veto it while working to increase access to private insurance through tax breaks and deregulation.
****************************
So, it would appear to me that the major problems some have against it are: it will shift children who are now covered by private insurance onto a program unncessarily; it will allow for more adults on the program, something that was never intended; that paying for it with a tobacco tax targets the very people who need the assistance, the lower income families as statistically that is where the most smokers are...essentially shifting the burden for adding middle class families to the lower income families...and I think we can all agree that is not a good thing.
In my research I also found something VERY interesting...
I am sorry to say I did not know the particulars of the President's proposal regarding insuring children...only his proposal extends to everyone, not just children...sure have not seen the media report it....
Opposing view: President's plan is better
Extend SCHIP program without spending billions to expand it.
By Mike Leavitt
We all want to see every American insured, and President Bush has proposed a plan to see that everyone is. Congress, instead, is pushing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that grows government without helping nearly as many children.
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
Ideology is really behind the Democrats' plan. They trust government more than the free choices of American consumers. Some in Congress want the federal government to pay for everyone's health care, and expanding SCHIP is a step in that direction.
SCHIP is part of the fix for low-income children, and Congress should put politics aside and send the president a clean, temporary extension of the current program. Expanding SCHIP is not the only way or the best way to insure the uninsured. The president's plan is better. It would benefit many more Americans. It would focus SCHIP on the children who need help most. And it would move us more sensibly toward our common goal of every American insured.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a $15,000 tax break would help more American families afford health insurance, thereby covering more kids AND adults, which is the goal, right? And no raising of taxes or targeting the lower income families with a tobacco tax...sounds like a win-win. I don't care if it is Bush's idea or the Democratic Congress' idea...it is a good idea. This time it happened to be Bush's.
Just my take on it.
If you want to find the articles, just put *expanding SCHIP* in a Google search. I read several articles in support of both sides. I did not see much about the income leveling, except in one article, which did mention that New York had a "sliding scale." It did not define it, but I am thinking it is at the purview of the states, and if New York did it others probably could too?
This site.
When I said this site, I meant the site to the link I originally put up not the LIBERAL board. Of course I am not the administrator. Geeze get a life, you dissect and pick apart anything that is posted here.
On that particular web site, yes, I would
sign what they asked me to sign which was a thank you to Harry Taylor for saying what so many of us feel and have felt for the last 5-1/2 years. I am willing to sign any petition that decries this administration and its horrendous policies. I know all about Not In Our Name but thanks for your article.
I was proud that I stood up for what I believed during in the 70s and that I continue to walk my talk to this day. Being arrested just proved that I was willing to do whatever it took to be heard and I would do it again today. I have the courage of my convictions and I am proud of that.
You question my causes...what does that mean?? You don't like the organizations I support and you just felt the need to share that with me...
Also, the state of our union is beyond party politics; we are so far beyond differences in ideologies; I am not following any party line in saying that I would sign a petition. I am following my conscience and my gut and history, not the Democratic party.
I was just on her site. There is nothing there about it. sm
I think most of us are waiting to hear from Bruce himself. I don't trust any of the other sources.
I came across this site while
looking for more information on this whole situation.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52545
I have never seen nor heard of this web site but it explains a little more about what happened. It is confusing. The assistant DA said it violates the 4th amendment to shoot someone you don't know, don't know what he is doing, is unarmed and running away. At first I thought, well that makes sense; that's the law but then it doesn't make sense because this was not a case on Law and Order with cops making mistakes carrying out the arrest of American citizens, no matter how despicable their crimes. This was the border patrol doing their jobs, umm, patrolling the border and the person in question is not an American citizen. I am not, as you may suspect, as hard on the immigrants as some are. I don't know what the answer is. This country is not big enough for everyone to live here, yet when I see starving, poverty-beyond-belief kids living in the sewer systems in Brazil and Mexico and being killed periodically by the police because they (the police) have no answers either. It is almost like euthanizing pets at the humane shelter. They just don't know what else to do, the kids are starving, learning how to survive on the street which means more and more crime...its heartbreaking to me anyway. But that has nothing to do with this. I think these guys got a raw deal, not sure why but 12 and 11 years is way out of line.
Site
I just copied and pasted it and it came right up.
Take a look at this site.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
It shows the amount of money in a 20-year period and BO has gotten a helluva lot more money in a 4 year period than McCain has in 20 years.
I have seen that site before, however
it only lists contributions from individuals and PACs. Directors, officers, and lobbyists are not included in that chart. I am not denying Obama took money. My point is look at all the numbers, not just a select few. I think the TOTAL amount of contributions is important.
I am not so blinded by either candidate that I am going to defend them no matter what.
Thanks for that site -- both of my
senators voted in favor. Hoping my rep will see it definitely.
Not sure which site she was at - sm
I just went to his web site. There is a short video of him talking about things being hard the past 8 years, he goes on to say we need a new direction and he has a plan. He says "your savings? We'll rebuild them. Your investments? They'll grow again. Energy? We'll drill here and we'll create a renewable energy economy. Lower taxes and less spending will protect your job and create new ones. That will restore our country. Stand up with me, let's fight for America. I'm John McCain and I approved this message".
That's a positive message to me and I don't see any negativity. Nothing about Obama on the site.
Then to the side there's buttons that lead to differnet things to view on his site (his job plan, healthcare plan, and taxes). I'm looking all over the site for something negative and can't find anything. Are you sure she went to the right site. I'll post a link below. I'd hate her to get a false message.
As for his family and such. I would rather read about his plans for America and what he's going to do for America. I need facts about the candidates. I wish your daughter best of luck with her project. It's great when kids get involved with politics. Here is the site your daughter should go to. It's the official McCain website and it's quite positive.
http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/
This site might help. (sm)
http://www.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm
Another Site
This one breaks it down with exactly how much money is going where.
http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stimulus-plan-a-detailed-list-of-spending
It is not the DHS site.
x
It SHOULD be on the DHS site.......ya know,
xx
Here's another site where you can
register your vote, see percentages of how the rest of the country is voting on it, and check candidates' voting records on bills. You can get a synopsis of the text of bills (yeah, I know, lots of luck with 1200 pages.)
http://www.thepeopledecide.us/index.php
Quote from this site. sm
“heatherb” a Soldier from OK, submitted 9-6-04:
“You cannot tell me that we are not doing the right thing when you watch little kids run, literally run from their one room mud hut a mile away from the road come running as your convoy is passing just to wave, not to beg for food or water, just to wave. Or to be a woman and invited to sit amoung the Iraqi men and share their Chai with them and listen as they share their stories of the days when their country was oppressed. To have shared such time with the people of tha t country and to have learned about their culture and that they are such a powerful proud people. And to know that I was a part of liberating that, makes me proud to have gone over there to give those kids that run up to us all those times the chance to never have tell the stories that the men sharing tea told, but listen to them as I did. We are doing the right thing regardless of the disillusion of our politicians. Be proud of what you've done. I am."
God Bless them.
Credible site
What I would tend NOT to believe is government figures as to how many are out there. I know for a fact that a friend of mine in 2000 received $2,000 per month from the VA, in addition to Social Security benefits of a few more hundred dollars, for his PTSD disability, along with free medication from the VA to the tune of 200 5-mg Valiums per month in addition to 200 15-mg Serax tablets per month.
I have no idea what today's monthly payments are to these veterans. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to commit suicide on the pills the VA gave him (with the full knowledge of the VA), he finally succeeded in 2000 and is no longer with us.
I know firsthand what the effects of this disease are. It's not conjecture. It's fact.
As far as a credible site, how about this VETERANS site?
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&id=2468&NoMenu=1
Battling the Effects of War
Combat can wound the mind. New science helps vets from Iraq to cope
By Peg Tyre
Newsweek
December 6, 2004
It wasn't the gunshot wound in the arm that bothered Jose Hernandez when he returned home to Cincinnati after serving in Iraq. It was the lock on the front door. He couldn't relax until he secured it twice, three times and sometimes more. Even then he was still on edge. "I kept thinking about the things I saw over there—shooting on the streets, dead bodies and the terror in people's eyes. I couldn't get it out of my mind," says Hernandez, who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division. He stopped sleeping, withdrew from friends and dropped plans to go back to college. His girlfriend finally demanded that he get help. A Veterans Administration psychiatrist diagnosed Hernandez with posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, a potentially crippling mental condition caused by extreme stress.
Hernandez says he was one of the lucky ones. With a combination of antianxiety medication and talk therapy, his symptoms have begun to fade. Many of the 170,000 men and women now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may not be as fortunate. When they get home, tens of thousands of them will be grappling with psychological problems such as PTSD, anxiety, mood disorders and depression. Though scientists are learning just how trauma affects the brain—and how best to help patients heal—there are still many obstacles to getting the treatment to the people who need it most. For starters, no one knows how many soldiers will be affected or how serious their problems will become. Early in the war the Army surveyed 3,671 returning Iraq veterans and found that 17 percent of the soldiers were already suffering from depression, anxiety and symptoms of PTSD.
Experts say those numbers are likely to grow. A study of Vietnam veterans conducted in 1980 found that 30 percent suffered from an anxiety condition later dubbed PTSD. Experts say the protracted warfare in Iraq—with its intense urban street fighting, civilian combatants and terrorism—could drive PTSD rates even higher. National Guard members, who make up 40 percent of the fighting force, with less training and less cohesive units, may be more vulnerable to psychological injuries than regular soldiers. Last year 5,100 soldiers who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan sought treatment in VA clinics for PTSD. That figure is expected to triple.
PTSD, a specific diagnosis, is not the only psychological damage soldiers can sustain. And experts say that mental disorders can make the already rugged transition from military to civilian life a harrowing one. Soldiers can experience depression, hypervigilance, insomnia, emotional numbing, recurring nightmares and intrusive thoughts. And in many cases, the symptoms worsen with time, leaving the victims at higher risk for alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, homelessness and suicide. Sometimes families can become collateral damage. Christine Hansen, executive director of the Miles Foundation, which runs a hot line for domestic-violence victims in the military, says that since start of the Iraq war, calls have jumped from 50 to more than 500 a month.
Without treatment, some conditions such as chronic PTSD can be lethal. Five years after the Vietnam War, epidemiologists studying combat veterans found that they were nearly twice as likely to die from motor-vehicle accidents and accidental poisoning than veterans who didn't see combat. In a 30-year follow up, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine this year, the same combat vets continued to die at greater rates and remained especially vulnerable to drug overdose and accidental poisoning. "We had the John Wayne syndrome," says Vietnam veteran Greg Helle, who grappled with severe PTSD for decades. "We were men, we'd been to war. We thought we could tough it out." Doctors hadn't developed effective treatment for PTSD and besides, says Helle, seeking help was an admission of weakness.
Doctors now know that PTSD is the product of subtle biological changes that occur in the brain in response to extreme stress. Using sophisticated imaging techniques, researchers now believe that extreme stress alters the way memory is stored. During a major upheaval, the body releases massive doses of adrenaline which speeds up the heart, quickens the reflexes and, over several hours, burns vivid memories that are capable of activating the amygdala, or fear center, in the brain. People can get PTSD, doctors say, when that mechanism works too well. Instead of creating protective memories (ducking at the sound of gunfire), says Dr. Roger Pitman, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School, "the rush of adrenaline creates memories that intrude on everyday life and without treatment, can actually hinder survival."
Why some people get PTSD and others don't remains a mystery. Recent studies suggest that a predisposition to the disorder may be genetic and that previous traumatic experiences can make soldiers more vulnerable to it. Once a soldier has it, though, says Dr. Matthew Friedman, executive director of the Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for PTSD, the good news is that the medical community now knows that "PTSD is very real and very treatable."
The challenge, says Friedman, is getting help—counseling or drug treatment—to veterans who need it most. As the Iraq war continues, officials at the Department of Defense and the VA are scrambling. After a rash of suicides among soldiers, they've increased the number of psychiatrists and psychologists in combat areas. Social workers trained to spot PTSD and other mental disorders are assigned to military hospitals around the country. Primary-care physicians at VA clinics and hospitals are now able to access combat records to see if their patients might be at risk for PTSD. Doctors are issued wallet-size reminders on how to spot PTSD and refer patients for further treatment. The VA has recently hired about 50 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to do outreach in the Vet Centers, a system of 206 community-based mental-health clinics around the country. But their resources are limited: Congress has set aside an additional $5 million a year for three years to deal with the new mental-health problem.
VA officials admit they're not catching everyone who needs help. National Guard members often do many tours and can be exposed to more combat than regular soldiers. But instead of rotating back to military bases where they can be monitored, they often return to their hometowns where readjustment problems can become a family crisis. If they begin to exhibit signs of PTSD or other psychological problems, they need to get help quickly. The VA will provide mental-health benefits for them for only two years following their service [The article is incorrect: Vet Center benefits are available for the remainder of a combat veterans life, not just two years; however, some physical care benefits are available for only two years].
Regular soldiers get mental-health benefits indefinitely.
Help came too late for Marine reservist Jeffrey Lucey. In July 2003, he returned home to Belchertown, Mass., from Iraq and gradually sank into a deep depression. His family looked on in anguish as he began drinking too much and isolating himself from their close-knit clan. By spring of 2004, he'd stopped sleeping, eating and attending college. When his sister Debra Lucey tried to have a heart-to-heart, "he'd describe the terrible things he'd seen and done," she says, "and he'd always end by saying 'You'll never be able to understand'." Frantic, family members had him committed to a psychiatric hospital but he was soon released. A few weeks later he crashed the family car, and the following month a neighbor found him wandering the streets in the middle of the night dressed in full camouflage with two battle knives he'd been issued in Iraq. Last June, Jeffrey Lucey hanged himself in the basement of his family home.
Shortly before he died, Lucey talked to an Iraq vet turned counselor at his local Vet Center. "He said he'd found someone who could really understand," says Debra. But before he could keep his next appointment, his demons took hold. Now Debra is telling her brother's story in the hope that others find the help they need in time. Psychological problems, she says, are an enemy that no soldier should face alone.
funny site
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/index.htm
IPs can only be seen by the Administrator of this site.
t
posting site
another good place to post is communicate.excite.com.
Check out this site
 http://www.filmstripinternational.com/index.php?asshole
Great Site
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
I just wanted to share this website with my fellow liberals in case you haven't seen it yet. Lots of interesting news and hot topics regarding our concerns about the right wing nuts.
This is a very informative site.
Thanks for posting it. I'd be interested in knowing your views on the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 (killing 34 American soldiers and wounding 171).
Also, how do you feel about Israel spying on the United States?
We all pretty much know Hezbollah's/Iran's/Syria's role in all this. I think it's time we take a good look at the other countries involved in this region including America and Israel.
Again, thank you for a very interesting and informative site. I hope you keep posting. I think I can learn a lot from you.
This is really not such an informative site.
This is a very small handful of Jews (I am Jewish) and they are here in the United States. They have lost touch with what is happening in Israel. The rest of what you are saying is just confusing to me. What are you getting at? To see the few posters on this board, all of a sudden, Israel is the great evil and Hezbollah are saints. It's really sickening.
Nice web site
Very many thanks for a good work. Nice and useful. Like it!
Try reading this site. SM
You might also learn what actions of the prostestors during VN had on the soldiers who fought there then, just as they are now.
Can someone direct me to a site (sm)
that states the candidates' detailed respective platforms at a glance? I've watched most of the debates, as much as I can anyhow, but I've not been able glean and distinguish a lot of specifics.
I'm in FL and vote on Tuesday. Believe it or not, I am undecided. I liked Dennis, but he pulled out today and probably wouldn't have voted for him... won't go into why, but I'm sure I don't have to :-)
Dennis says to go Obama.... not sure if I want to. What I want is to have a Dem president. I like Edwards...
My demographic falls into Hilary's (female 45 and over lol).
Input appreciated.
Actually, I got it off the CBS News site....
Apparently, THEY got it off Politico. CBS is HARDLY a right wing news source. And there were no caveats on their site. Yes, Murtha has added some caveats, as I knew he would, but the fact remains, he said it.
Thanks for jumping in and being so judgmental, Taiga. Par for the course.
Isn't this a liberal site?
Why are you posting here? You're the furthest thing from a "liberal" I've seen in a long time.
Well, if you have the guts, go to the site...
http://www.abort73.com/ and view that video. The one that starts out with warning, graphic images. Then you come back here and tell me about baby mutilation.
And frankly, the way a bill is worded means nothing. If you would vote against a bill designed to save a child born alive for ANY reason, you are, in MY opinion, morally bankrupt. That is putting politics above the life of a child, and that tells me all I want to know about Barack Obama's decision-making process. If that sits okay in your books, fine, you certainly have the right to your opinion. I have the right to mine as well...and it does not sit okay with me.
Web site best place.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Mouse over the issues and a drop down list will provide you with lots of links that should keep you busy. You can also check out some of his better speeches if you like. If you are interested in being conversational and social and an Obama party, this is the place for you.
As you have already discovered, this chat room is the last place to look. The web site simply lays out the platform and policies in Obama's own words, without bias one way or the other..simple straight talk.
If, however, you are interested in getting kicked out of the party and labeled a right-wing fringe element, then go to the other links on black liberation theology. You are free, of course, to read about it and come to your own conclusions. But if you do explore that issue, please read the website throughly before deciding whether or not you think he subscribes to that theology. I can tell you categorically, none of his supporters believe the propaganda suggested to you in the other posts in this regard. It would be interesting to ask others at the party what they think about the assertions that Obama embodies those beliefs.
How refreshing to find a voter as open minded as this. Good luck with our research. Feel free to email me with any questions you may have.
|
