We can and do affect this planet.
Posted By: Zauber on 2005-09-02
In Reply to: I'm sorry, I just HAVE to respond here... - SM
While I agree that we can't exactly know how much we have to do with changing cycles on the planet, there is simply NO doubt that we have had a profound impact upon it. Even when I was a kid there were springs we could drink from and rivers we could swim in without fear of chemical burns. The fields were loaded with turtles and other creatures, every pond and creek was alive wtih frogs and tadpoles and fish. Ask your grandparents what they remember the countryside being like before the supreme arrogance of corporate policy poisoned every water source we have. There was a time that tuna fish didn't have mercury in it. On and on. Don't dismiss the concern many have over the impact we DO have on our planet as arrogance - we are certainly having a BAD BAD impact globally.
And true, not just us. However, America along with other industrialized nations and bankers is certainly complicit in the globalization movement (i.e., move into other lands, usurp the resouces from the native people, give them toxic sludge for their crops as a sort of side joke, suck out all their groundwater, make the corporations richer). We certainly don't stand against it politically or financially.
While the planet may survive the sweeping changes its most prolific environment-altering parasites inflict upon it, we probably will not. Just look at Mars if you don't think a planet can die. Regardless of why, it's certainly dead enough. So are we going to wait to be shaken off like pesky fleas - or are we going to make some effort to SUSTAIN our world and keep it in balance rather than continuously insulting it to the point where we DESERVE to be exterminated? Some of us don't have a deep-seated death wish. Some of us don't think money is more important than good living. Some of us are actually fond of this planet. Excuse US for thinking of it that way.
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
So how would this plan affect you?
If it doesn't apply to you, then nothing about your mortgage would change. How is that unfair to you? Would it be more fair to charge the taxpayers, including you, whether in you're arrears or not or owning a mortgage or not, the $700 billion dollars?
I don't get what about this is upsetting to you. You already have a better rate and your credit must be great. Any resolution to this problem should not result in someone making out better than before the problem started.
It does affect your paycheck...
Gays marrying gives them the same benefits and tax breaks as married couples. That means they can be insured through each other's workplace at the subsidized rates, which of course will affect how much employers subsidize you insurance. It also gives them married tax breaks and social security status. So, gay marriage does inadvertently affect your paycheck in a roundabout way.
How does this affect me personally?
AIG is losing more and more money every day... we all know that. My story is that my BF is on Worker's Comp for an injury. He will never be back to what he was, but is as good as he is going to get until he can have a knee replacement, which they will not because of his young age. So we are thinking it is time to settle with the insurance company - who is backed by AIG...
They are already offering us a lot less than what we expected because they say they don't have money to give, but what happens if we hold out and then the company goes belly up? Do we just lose out completely then?
Can WC go belly up? I mean, is it backed by the government since it is mandated by the government and he will keep getting his benefits if he does not settle or are we looking at maybe losing even his weekly check and medical benefits and so we need to take what we can get while we can? 
This plan is not going to affect this debt
growth rate at all, it will continue to grow on a daily basis. This stimulus package will just be added to the total debt. And, actually we do NOT KNOW THAT THIS MONEY WILL BENEFIT people. At this point, we can only pray that it will, we have no other choice. Time will tell.
Listen, this IS going to affect us, too. Watch as the...sm
tax rates are raised by end of the year that will affect all paying taxpayers on next year's returns! Unfortunately we are ALL going to feel this, in spite of that "generous" $13.00 that we will supposedly see on our checks.
What planet do you guys come from?
You actually think people by this stuff as genuine. Again, do you actually think through what you state, or do you state it for the shock effect. I assume it's the latter.
Flying around? What planet are you from?
He got on Airforce One following the protocol for protecting the POTUS. You know, Air Force One, the flying command center of the United States? The VP has a separate protocol and was taken to a separate location. Geeze, maybe you should avail yourself of some information before you post from now on.
He wasn't 'flying around.' Sorry to pop your conspiracy theory bubble, darling, but get your head on straight. And maybe you should educate yourself about the Katrina situation before you open your gob and vomit out the same tired 'bush caused katrina' drivel.
OBAMA IS A WEAKLING. GRAB YOUR ANKLES AND WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
What planet do you live on?
"When it comes to disease, we have a choice." Just taking the moist obvious, those babies born with fatal anomalies made bad choices? The stillborn infants made bad choices? You must have had a much busier uterus than I did.
Be glad you're not Catholic. Based on your acknowledgement that being judgmental is a sin, you'd be spending a lot of time on your knees in that confessional.
Well, then you're lucky! Maybe it doesn't affect
nm
socialism for a shrinking planet
Im not beating around the bush. Im amazed there is a leader who is that compassionate to care for all of his people. I cant remember a time when America had a leader like that. Closest I can think of is when Social Security was created. Socialism is a fair ideology for all the people of a country. Capitalism certainly isnt, that is unless all a person cares about is making as much money as they can and then locking themselves away in a gated community, driving on the outskirts of the ghetto areas of downtown so they dont have to see how the unfortunate ones live. I, on the other hand, care about people. I put caring before money. All Americans should have a well paying job, a chance to go to college, even if you cant afford it, a roof over your head, a full belly at night, medical care. One major thing that eats away at me is knowing some people do not go through life happy because their whole life is a neverending struggle, mostly due to no fault of their own. I see the writing on the wall, too bad the fat cat capitalists who are so greedy and hording that money away dont. As the population grows in the world, supplies and resources will dwindle. Government programs will have to be created to take care of the people whose only fault is they werent born with a silver spoon in their mouth and not born when houses were inexpensive, college was easy to get into and inexpensive, jobs were plentiful and not outsourced, etc. The masses will out-mass the greedy capitalists and then we will see something like what is happening in Venezuela now..Equality for ALL Americans in the basic needs of life and dignity. Sure there are some fat cat capitalists who are truly good people and are helping the unfortunate and I applaud them but from what I have seen, the majority of the super rich, dont give a darn about the working class or working poor or poor. No person should die on the street for lack of housing or only have a minimum wage job so they cant afford to rent or buy. No person should go to bed at night hungry even though they have worked one or two jobs but had to choose between the rent, gas or food. I see where Capitalism can go hand and hand with Socialism and that is what truly is going to happen. America, the richest country on earth, yet we dont have medical care for our citizens, we have homeless in the streets, maternity leave is not paid for, we take the less amount of vacation days than any other industrialized country. When Kruschev visited America for the first time, he asked why did America have homeless. He stated that The Soviet Socialists Republic did not have homeless, they might have a few families living in the same apartment but they werent homeless. How shameful for America. America might have been great a few decades ago but it is leaving much to want for now and it will only get worse with the division of the classes..poor, working poor, middle class, rich and super rich, which is happening now, and the dwindling resources and opportunities. Now, go ahead, call me a raging lunatic. You have your right to your opinion, however, this is my take on today's America and it makes my heart heavy.
what planet did you drop in on......no, all welfare
nm
Roberts: Iraq Will Affect Future War Votes
Fool me once, shame on you....etc.
I feel better knowing Congress is smart enough to not believe BU_ _ SH _ _ twice from this farce of a president.
Roberts: Iraq Will Affect Future War Votes
Experience With Faulty Data Has Made Senators More Wary, Panel Chairman Says
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 14, 2005; A04
The Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said yesterday that one lesson of the faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq is that senators would take a hard look at intelligence before voting to go to war.
I think a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action, Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) said on Fox News Sunday.
We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore, he added. We get into preemptive oversight and do digging in regards to our hard targets.
He said that agreement has been reached on the Phase 2 review that the intelligence panel is doing to look into whether the Bush administration exaggerated or misused prewar intelligence. The review may not be finished this year, he said.
The intelligence panel vice chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), also appearing on Fox, called the review absolutely useful because if it is the fact that they [the Bush administration] created intelligence or shaped intelligence in order to bring American opinion along to support them in going to war, that's a really bad thing -- it should not ever be repeated.
Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said the White House is supporting the study, adding: I think that what you're going to find is that the statements by the administration had backing at the time from accepted intelligence sources.
He said that when administration statements turned out to be wrong, that was because the underlying intelligence was not true, but that's not the same as manipulating intelligence, and that is not misleading the American people.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), appearing with Roberts on Late Edition, said that Iraq became the center of terrorism after the March 2003 invasion.
I'm afraid we're going to see Iraq is not only the center of the war on terror, which it was not before we attacked Iraq, but now it is going to, I'm afraid, export it.
He added that Iraq has become the heartland of terrorism. It was not before we attacked.
Levin, a member of both the Senate intelligence committee and Armed Services Committee, has been a leading critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war.
Levin also said that the United States must get allies, as many as we can, including in the Muslim world because this is a form of fanatic Islam which has to be defeated by the moderate Islamic people.
In a column in yesterday's Washington Post, former senator John Edwards (N.C.), the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, said the failures of the Bush administration turned Iraq into a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists [and] has made fighting the global war on terrorist organizations more difficult rather than less.
The president and his senior aides have said since before the invasion that Washington went to war primarily because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States and its neighbors because of his connection to terrorists. Once fighting began, they argued that Iraq was the central front in the battle against terrorism.
In his Veterans Day speech on Friday, the president turned his original argument around, saying, The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity, and therefore, We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists.
Bush wants to nuke the planet first, ask questions later.
I hope the Congress isn't stupid enough to go along with this idiotic plan and once again trust Bush's lying claims about who has WMD and who doesn't. Bush isn't going to be happy until he blows up the entire planet. It's becoming clearer every day that he meant what he said when asked about his legacy, he responded with, Who cares? We'll all be dead. 
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said all options would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Titled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.
A summary of changes included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations.
The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using or intending to use WMD against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.
Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere.
The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.
But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.
The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction raises the danger of nuclear weapons use. It says that there are about thirty nations with WMD programs along with nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state.
To meet that situation, the document says that responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today.
To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.
The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective. The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program. She added that members certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy without hearings, closed door if necessary.
A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.
Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions.
Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.
This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons, Kristensen said. It provides justification for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP.
One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized nuclear weapons.
In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research and not to begin production on any particular warhead. The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld said. It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world.
Barney Frank.....what planet did he fall off
Barney Frank wants less govt and state rights when it comes to drugs.... but he wants "regulation" and "more enforcement" when it comes to everything else that takes away MY rights...... what a joke!
I don't see how it can affect her ability to read questions and sit and listen to answers - nm
x
At least I will be on the other side of the planet from you when your vale of tears start.
NM
Really? Pubs in charge of the purse strings? What planet
...no wonder we're in this mess, and it will only get worse.
What planet R U from that you think Welfare and WIC can even come close truly supporting adequately.
A mother (job training, if you want her to pay taxes back into society, day care, so she can work with a safe place for her chld), a SAFE neighborhood to bring up the child, emotional support, do you even know what clothing and shoes cost, formula, diapers, and if we just keep handing out WElfare, how do we break that "chain" when the child grows and the cycle repeats, the President realizes it takes much, much more than a cheap handout, it takes work programs, work training programs, availabiity of safe, good child care, medical care, nutritional care, educational opportunities.....that was a cold statement without forethought to what it is really like, I have three chldren, my husband and I both work very hard, overtime and all, and it is still unbelievably hard and close!
G. Gordon Liddy says he hopes Sotomayor menstruation doesn't affect judgment
A major conservative radio host, G. Gordon Liddy, attacked President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Thursday in perhaps one of the most grotesque politically-oriented tirades in recent times.
"Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate," Liddy said. "That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."
Liddy is no stranger to controversy -- in fact, he spent four years in jail for his role in the Nixon-era Watergate burglaries. His radio show is syndicated in 160 markets and on the Sirius Radio network.
Liddy also attacked Sotomayor for her affiliation with LA Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group (which was also maligned Thursday by former GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo, who called it the Latino KKK). Liddy referred to the Spanish language as "illegal alien."
"I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, 'the race,'" Liddy quipped. "And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments."
"And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote," Liddy added later. "And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body."
The comments were noted by the blog ThinkProgress. Audio of Liddy's comments follow.
The following audio is The G. Gordon Liddy Show , broadcast on May 28, 2009.
|
