Thursday, June 9, 2011
Watch a Robot Try to Make Cookies From Scratch
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
**JP** America is using Chemical Munitions in Drone attack on Pakistan, where is international law???
Chemical warfare (CW) involves using the toxic properties ofchemical substances as weapons. This type of warfare is distinct from Nuclear warfare and Biological warfare, which together make up NBC, the military acronym for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (warfare or weapons). Neither of these falls under the term conventional weapons which are primarily effective due to their destructive potential. Chemical warfare does not depend uponexplosive force to achieve an objective. Rather it depends upon the unique properties of the chemical agent weaponized. A lethal agent is designed to injure or incapacitate the enemy, or deny unhindered use of a particular area of terrain. Defoliants are used to quickly kill vegetation and deny its use for cover and concealment. It can also be used against agriculture and livestock to promote hunger and starvation. With proper protective equipment, training, and decontamination measures, the primary effects of chemical weapons can be overcome. Many nations possess vast stockpiles of weaponized agents in preparation for wartime use. The threat and the perceived threat have become strategic tools in planning both measures, and counter–measures.
News
TEHRAN, June 8 -- Pakistani physicians and experts reported that the United States uses chemical munitions in its drone attacks on the country's civilians, Iran's Fars News Agency (FNA) said.
Given the fact that the Pakistani civilians who have come under the US drone attacks have been afflicted with different skin, optic and respiratory diseases, it can be concluded that Washington is using chemical weapons in its attacks in Pakistan, the physicians said.
"Since the missiles launched by the US drones contain dangerous chemical substances, a large number of the injured people in these attacks cannot be declared as dead or alive since they have been afflicted with complicated diseases due to the deadly chemical materials used in the missiles," a Pakistani physician, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told FNA.
Another physician in one of the biggest hospitals in Peshawar also lamented that there is no complete information about the patients injured in the US drone attacks and transferred to the state hospitals in different cities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
Officials and political figures as well as the people in Pakistan are all furious at the US drone attacks on their country.
In April, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Chief Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha called for an end to Washington's air raids on Pakistan as well as an end to the US espionage operations in the country, asking Washington to pull its spies out of Pakistan.
The issue was raised by Shuja Pasha in a meeting with Leon Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
Political observers say that if the US ignores Islamabad's above-mentioned demands, the Pakistani Army and the ISI will cut Islamabad's cooperation with the US.
US drone attacks have escalated in Northwest Pakistan since President Barack Obama took office. More than 100 raids were reported in the area last year.
The drone attacks arouse deep and broad anger within the Pakistani population against both the US and the Pakistani government.
Many Pakistani politicians and former officials have blasted the Islamabad government for its weak stances against the US and its drone attacks on innocent Pakistani people.
Given the fact that the Pakistani civilians who have come under the US drone attacks have been afflicted with different skin, optic and respiratory diseases, it can be concluded that Washington is using chemical weapons in its attacks in Pakistan, the physicians said.
"Since the missiles launched by the US drones contain dangerous chemical substances, a large number of the injured people in these attacks cannot be declared as dead or alive since they have been afflicted with complicated diseases due to the deadly chemical materials used in the missiles," a Pakistani physician, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told FNA.
Another physician in one of the biggest hospitals in Peshawar also lamented that there is no complete information about the patients injured in the US drone attacks and transferred to the state hospitals in different cities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
Officials and political figures as well as the people in Pakistan are all furious at the US drone attacks on their country.
In April, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Chief Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha called for an end to Washington's air raids on Pakistan as well as an end to the US espionage operations in the country, asking Washington to pull its spies out of Pakistan.
The issue was raised by Shuja Pasha in a meeting with Leon Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
Political observers say that if the US ignores Islamabad's above-mentioned demands, the Pakistani Army and the ISI will cut Islamabad's cooperation with the US.
US drone attacks have escalated in Northwest Pakistan since President Barack Obama took office. More than 100 raids were reported in the area last year.
The drone attacks arouse deep and broad anger within the Pakistani population against both the US and the Pakistani government.
Many Pakistani politicians and former officials have blasted the Islamabad government for its weak stances against the US and its drone attacks on innocent Pakistani people.
Read more: US drones launch chemical attacks on Pakistani civilians ~ Terminal X http://www.terminalx.org/2011/06/us-drones-launch-chemical-attacks-on.html#ixzz1Oj897jeY
Re: Save America by kicking all political rituals in the ass!
Dear plainol...: Please define the antecedent of "it". Though I
appreciate your general approval of my New Constitution, why do you
wish to let the Secret Service off-the-hook for aiding-and-abetting a
socialist-communist? Everyone in government must support the Supreme
Law of the Land! And the most basic premise of the latter is that
this country's government is "supposed to be" a Representative Republic
—where the PEOPLE tell government what to do, NEVER the government
telling the people what to do! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
appreciate your general approval of my New Constitution, why do you
wish to let the Secret Service off-the-hook for aiding-and-abetting a
socialist-communist? Everyone in government must support the Supreme
Law of the Land! And the most basic premise of the latter is that
this country's government is "supposed to be" a Representative Republic
—where the PEOPLE tell government what to do, NEVER the government
telling the people what to do! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
On Jun 8, 12:59 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> it does not show any oath of office taking place
> ---
> do you always refuse to admit it when you are wrong?
>
> On Jun 7, 12:24 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sorry, the press conference you linked to may be labeled "Swearing-In"
> > by C-SPAN, but it does not show any oath of office taking place. It's an
> > acceptance speech. Nothing more.
>
> > On 06/07/2011 07:50 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
>
> > > Reasonable to assume?
> > > ----
> > > yes
>
> > > How about some factual evidence?
> > > ---
> > >http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/86467-1
> > > start listening at 6:50
>
> > > On Jun 6, 5:17 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Reasonable to assume? How about some factual evidence?
>
> > >> John made a claim which he has as yet been unable to back up with
> > >> evidence. (This happens regularly, I might add.)
>
> > >> Choose sides carefully.<g>
>
> > >> On 06/06/2011 02:53 PM, plainolamerican wrote:
>
> > >>> you contention
> > >>> that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support
> > >>> the
> > >>> Constitution is incorrect.
> > >>> ----
> > >>> a naturalized citizen is required to swear an oath to protect and
> > >>> defend the constitution ... thus, it is reasonable to assume that a SS
> > >>> applicant, who is required to be a citizen, would be bound to support
> > >>> and defend the constitution
> > >>> On Jun 6, 2:34 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> John,
> > >>>> It is obvious you want to fight the good fight. It is also obvious you
> > >>>> are not equipped to do so. You continually infer that which does not exist.
> > >>>> Secret Service agents are not "executive or judicial officers" of either
> > >>>> "the United States or of the several states." Therefore, you contention
> > >>>> that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support the
> > >>>> Constitution is incorrect.
> > >>>> By the way, Article VI, paragraph three (properly quoted) states, "The
> > >>>> Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
> > >>>> several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
> > >>>> both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
> > >>>> Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
> > >>>> shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
> > >>>> under the United States."
> > >>>> On 06/06/2011 11:32 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > >>>>> Dear J. Ashley: I don't have the "existing Constitution" committed to
> > >>>>> memory. So, I had to scan such to locate Article VI. "... all
> > >>>>> executive and judicial officers, both of the USA and the several
> > >>>>> states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this
> > >>>>> constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
> > >>>>> qualification for any office or public trust under the United
> > >>>>> States." That OATH requires supporting that the USA is a REPUBLIC.
> > >>>>> As soon as Barack Obama started appointing czars and making executive
> > >>>>> orders pushing the USA toward socialism and communism, all officers,
> > >>>>> such as the Secret Service, are bound by the Constitution to ARREST
> > >>>>> his skinny ass for treason! Tens of thousands in our military have
> > >>>>> died fighting socialist and communist nations. So, why won't any one
> > >>>>> fight the grave enemy bastard who is in our midst? It's because
> > >>>>> people in government value their identity with... power. Doing WRONG
> > >>>>> makes one seem more powerful than doing right, "because the glory in
> > >>>>> doing right must always be shared with its unspoken moral
> > >>>>> imperative."
> > >>>>> Jonathan, for a shallow anarchist like you, you seem incapable of
> > >>>>> understanding that the spirit of the overall Constitution has
> > >>>>> deference over any "authorization". The Founding Fathers erred, big
> > >>>>> time, when they just assumed the laws and procedures passed and
> > >>>>> approved wouldn't run counter to this most simple premise: "Fair play
> > >>>>> and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!� Think about the
> > >>>>> simple premise, guy. So far, you can't see the forest for the trees!
> > >>>>> � J. A. Armistead � Patriot
> > >>>>> On Jun 4, 7:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> John,
> > >>>>>> You have certainly lived up to your moniker this time.
> > >>>>>> Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall
> > >>>>>> be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
> > >>>>>> Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
> > >>>>>> How can something specifically enumerated in the Constitution be
> > >>>>>> unconstitutional?
> > >>>>>> On 06/04/2011 03:37 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > >>>>>> > Dear plainol...: The Federal Government, especially the court system,
> > >>>>>>> has been disregarding the Constitution for over a century. If there
> > >>>>>>> is a disagreement, the only thing the Supreme Court is authorized to
> > >>>>>>> do is to send things back to CONGRESS to be resolved. Nothing in the
> > >>>>>>> Constitution grants one justice more total power than Congress!
> > >>>>>>> Therefore the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional... by RITUAL. � J. A.
> > >>>>>>> Armistead � Patriot
> > >>>>>>> On Jun 3, 3:11 pm, plainolamerican<plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Does the federal government's
> > >>>>>>>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers
> > >>>>>>>> granted to the states clause rule?
> > >>>>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>>> what states rights?
> > >>>>>>>> that was resolved in 1865 ... sorta
> > >>>>>>>> it's time for another showdown since it's obvious that the feds pick
> > >>>>>>>> and choose their responsibilities and powers
> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> No, MJ! Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations
> > >>>>>>>>> that will allow this, but not "that". Does the federal government's
> > >>>>>>>>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers
> > >>>>>>>>> granted to the states clause rule? That, supposedly, will determine
> > >>>>>>>>> the constitutionality of Obama Care. As I've explained: The Senate
> > >>>>>>>>> was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail).
> > >>>>>>>>> A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US
> > >>>>>>>>> Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Like our
> > >>>>>>>>> Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obama�s being in the White
> > >>>>>>>>> House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard! If you want 100 senile,
> > >>>>>>>>> career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution
> > >>>>>>>>> without a House of Representatives? For running a government, I'll
> > >>>>>>>>> take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US
> > >>>>>>>>> Senate every time! Harry Reid should be out of a job! � J. A.
> > >>>>>>>>> Armistead � Patriot
> > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your difficulties. When you ignore common definitions of words, it is difficult to convey your message in any meaningful way.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> > >>>>>>>>>> --MJ
> > >>>>>>>>>> "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive" -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and '40s.At 08:38 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ: What "definition" is that? That an anti-democracy and anti-
> > >>>>>>>>>> Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two? The US senate
> > >>>>>>>>>> is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth! We
> > >>>>>>>>>> could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to
> > >>>>>>>>>> cross Main Street! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot
> > >>>>>>>>>> On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the States -- those entities forming the United States (plural).
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will *magically* correct ills.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> --MJ
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ: The Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger states.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Republic. Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the side favoring fair
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Atlas Shrugged Part 2 - Official Movie Site
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
GM's CEO, appointed by Obama, is calling for $1 Dollar Federal Gas Tax Hike
 | GM's CEO, appointed by Obama, is calling for $1 Dollar Federal Gas Tax HikeScotty Starnes | June 8, 2011 at 9:58 AM | Tags: Dan Akerson, General Motors, GM, Government Motors, higher gas tax, President Obama | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5py |
What else would you expect from a guy appointed by the Obama regime? Obama, his Energy Secretary, his Interior Secretary and now Government Motor's CEO want higher gas prices. They do it because Democrats care about the working class.
Detroit — General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars, and he's confident the government will soon shed its remaining 26 percent stake in the once-bankrupt automaker.
"I actually think the government will be out this year — within the next 12 months, hopefully within the next six months," Akerson said in a two-hour interview with The Detroit News last week.
He is grateful for the government's rescue of GM — "I have nothing but good things to say about them" — but Akerson said the time for that relationship to end is coming because it's wearing on GM.
"It's kind of like your in-laws: It was a nice long weekend. We didn't say a week," Akerson said with a laugh.
GM had no issue with receiving our tax dollars that were handed over by President Obama.
And while he is eager to say goodbye to the government as a part owner of GM, Akerson would like to see it step up to the challenge of setting a higher gas tax, as part of a comprehensive energy policy.
A government-imposed tax hike, Akerson believes, will prompt more people to buy small cars and do more good for the environment than forcing automakers to comply with higher gas-mileage standards.
"There ought to be a discussion on the cost versus the benefits," he said. "What we are going to do is tax production here, and that will cost us jobs."
For the years 2017-25, federal officials are considering 3 percent to 6 percent annual fuel efficiency increases, or 47 mpg to 62 mpg. That could boost the cost of vehicles by up to $3,500.
So the American taxpayers are forced to bailout Obama's union buddies and now the cost of their vehicles will go up by $3,500. The taxpayers are getting screwed twice.
"You know what I'd rather have them do — this will make my Republican friends puke — as gas is going to go down here now, we ought to just slap a 50-cent or a dollar tax on a gallon of gas," Akerson said.
Sounds like someone wants to force Americans to pay more for gas to sell more vehicles. Brought to you by Government Motors and the Obama regime.
"People will start buying more Cruzes and they will start buying less Suburbans."
This is another myth. Americans have purchased more SUVs than hybrids.
 | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)