north to home, are you seeing this

• S&P and Nasdaq UP!!!! hahahahaha!!! - Supreme Goddess Bridger
  • Wel, today they're all DOWN. HA HA HA HA - HomeAlone
    • Sorry, must penalize you for - Mythbuster
    • Very mature. Par for you, though. - GoHome
      • Okay, maybe this would be the perfect time - Mythbuster
      • My post just zooooomed right past you didn't it? - HomeAlone
        • Ummm...no.... - You're not that clever
          • The only thing you think is "intelligent" is a view that agrees with yours. - HomeAlone
  • There are many other things - Trigger Happy
  • You're just whistling past the - graveyard.
  • Market is often disconnected from the economy. Means - absolutely nothing.
    • Tell that to those who were SO gleeful when markets fell - Double Standards
      • Excuse me. - HomeAlone
        • Not afraid of looking foolish cuz... - it won't happen
          • Oh, I have no doubt the economy will improve - temporarily.
  • Don't be so happy. - Backwards typist
  • toothsayers? Is that ebonics? - nm
    • north to home, are you seeing this - A.Nonymous
    • Ah, geez... - A.Nonymous
    • bad toothsayers are the jack-o-lantern crowd - gum flappers! - Pope Bridger
      • You mean like the ones screaming in the streets - in Oakland, CA? LOL
      • Is this your experience as a gum flapper? - MsMT
  • So what!!!! Where were you when the stock market went down - Hannibal
    • I was hoping to get the shrub out of office...nm - Just the big bad
      • Ummm, the "shrub" wasn't running. We have this thing called "term limits". - HomeAlone
      • huh, what does that have to do with the market - Hannibal
        • No dupa - the shrub caused the crash and burn....... - Pope Bridger
          • You should come back and visit the real world sometime - me
            • Real World? - Shirley U. Jest
              • Okay then - here's another take - me
                • Let's see... - Shirley U. Jest
                  • yes, however.... - me
                    • So, you weren't exactly being honest. - Shirley U. Jest
                      • That’s all you got??? I was completely honest – you’re the one who did the assuming - me
                      • Oops...should be "think" not thin. - Shirley U. Jest
                        • Jes, and joo got some 'splainin to do. - Mythbuster
  • More Silence of the Lambs aka Pubs - Clarice
    • You're just desperate for any port in the - storm.
    • Yeah, why yell...'the sky is NOT falling'? - A.Nonymous
    • There's nothing good happening yet. - Backwards typist
    • Well hello there Clarice - ththhththsppp - Hannibal
      • Nastier than that..........ththhhhhthththssppp - J.H.C. Bridger
        • Isn't it hard to spell out a sound of something - Hannibal
  • Is that cherry or grape Kool Aid yer drinking? - Aunt Louise
    • Keep chugging that Bush juice! - Pope Bridger
      • FYI - Trigger Happy
      • You really should come up with a better line. - Hannibal
        • @$$ 2 mouth is not OK - Blessed Brother Bridger
          • Tell me - do you eat with that mouth? nm - TechSupport
          • My my - how nasty can you get - Hannibal

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I didn't say I was pro N. Korea.  You obviously need to hone your psychic skills.  What I am saying is that yes, I am anti nukes.  I am also anti "let's jes kill 'em all" mentality that we've had to put up with for the previous 8 years. 

Another thing you might want to consider is that N. Korea is not completely without allies.  Unless we're willing to catch one of those nukes, I would think it best if we didn't start playing hot pototoe with them. 

xx

I was surfing a bit this morning and found this news article from N. Korea. I doubt things will cool off for a long time, if ever. The article headlines state: "Lee Myung-Bak's Group Military Provocations Blasted. From there, it calls him a puppet war monger and states how Myung-Bak outbursts "over the non-existant provocation (my emphasis) by the North."

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01

President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.

Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.

The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.

In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.

At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.

You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.

Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.

The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.

Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.

But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.

Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.

The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.

Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.

But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.

Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.

The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.

Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.

This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.

Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.

The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new

A little bit of history on North Korea and the dilemma. Read the rest of the article from the link below.

"So it's another step backwards again with North Korea.

In defiance of a Security Council resolution (1718) passed after its first nuclear test in 2006, it has now announced a second. It has also implied that it has solved some at least of the problems it encountered in the first.

The actual technical achievement remains to be examined. But the test itself represents a continued belligerency whose destination is unknown. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8066719.stm

I remember feeling the very same way that Ted Rall felt, thinking the very same things, and realizing that if I'm no genius and can figure this out, why can't Bush? 

And I agree that the last paragraph IS good!!!  But all they do is talk.  None of them have the guts to go anywhere near the Sunni Triangle.  They're nothing but hot air, which is good for them, because they're going to need all the hot air they can get.

I can't wait until, say, February.  If you think it's tough now just filling the car tank, what's it going to be like for those with oil heating?  I wonder how easy it is to constantly chant the mantra "I love Bush" (or whatever they've been programmed to chant) when your teeth are chattering from the freezing cold.  And I wonder how many, once they regain the consciousness they lost while opening their heating bills, will still think Bush is so great. 

Paste this link or follow the link at the bottom of the post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKdTUcZLSXw

stick your hateful nose in the air.  You  start all kinds of crap then run away.   Typical.  Don't call people a racist and then expect them to not to respond. 

I guess the CONS will start accusing HIM of being against the troops next!

The more their ship sinks, the more angry and ridiculous their posts are, and all I can do is sit here and smile. 

Last Katrina child goes home By Tim Reid A mother and her missing daughter are reunited seven months after a hurricane devastated New Orleans

THE last of more than 5,000 children missing after Hurricane Katrina has finally been reunited with her mother, ending the largest child-recovery effort in US history. After seven months of searching by her mother, amid fears that her daughter had died in the flooding in New Orleans that followed the hurricane in August, four-year-old Cortez Stewart was reunited with her family in Texas. Cortez was the last of the 5,192 Gulf Coast children listed as missing or displaced after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the region. Of those, all but 12 have been found alive and all of those are now back with their parents. For Lisa Stewart the happy ending came when she was contacted by the National Centre for Missing & Exploited Children that said it had found her daughter. “I was overwhelmed, happy, joyous,” she said. During their separation her daughter’s fourth birthday had passed last November with no sign that she was dead or alive. “It was devastating,” Mrs Stewart said. When the storm struck, Cortez was with her godmother, Felicia Williams. After seeking refuge in a hotel, Cortez and Ms Williams were winched to safety by helicopter and flown to Atlanta, Georgia. Mrs Stewart and her five other children were rescued from their home in New Orleans as the floodwater rose. They were taken to the nearest piece of dry land, an interstate overpass, where they stayed for four days, before being evacuated and placed in a flat in Houston, Texas. For months Ms Williams and Mrs Stewart tried to make contact, not knowing if the other was alive, but without success. Their efforts were hampered by incorrect name spellings and other misleading information given to government officials. “Many agencies didn’t have a good account of who they were helping,” Bob O’Brien, director of the centre’s missing children division, said. “More than 411,000 were evacuated to more than 40 states, and it became very hard to track the movement.” The centre traced information about Ms Williams through her former employer and then located relations in Georgia. When Cortez was reunited with her mother and five siblings last week in Houston, Mrs Stewart almost fell upon her, screaming: “The baby! It’s the baby!” More than 12,000 adults were reported missing after Katrina. About 1,900 are still missing. More than 1,300 others have been confirmed dead.

You CANNOT work a regular fulltime job when your children are small and need you at home, let alone run for VP!!! There is no such thing as, "have it all!" You may THINK you have it all, but if your little ones could talk, they would say that you need to be home with them! They need you! I am so tired of people defending this lady!