Online Now 508

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Online now 518
Record: 4487 (2/14/2012)

Boards ▾

OUInsider - Owen Field

The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports

Basketball & Other Sports

Men's & women's basketball, baseball, softball and other OU sports

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Tickets Exchange

The place to buy, sell or trade tickets

Reply

New and Improved Political Thread

  • My first post on the new board....and I agree with a Republican???? wtf

    Some GOP Senators Become Unlikely Allies Of Green Groups In Fight To Gut Ethanol Subsidies
    First Posted: 11-23-10 05:47 PM | Updated: 11-23-10 06:19 PM

    WASHINGTON -- After being elected with a strong mandate to cut spending, all Republicans don't agree on how best to rein in the deficit -- and some have become unlikely allies with green groups in the fight to gut federal subsidies of ethanol.

    Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley was irked when his colleagues, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) voiced their support for letting ethanol subsidies expire, claiming that Demint and Coburn should be willing to give up their oil-gas subsidies.

    Coburn appears to be ready to accept the challenge -- and green groups, for their part, couldn't be happier about it.

    "This is exactly the chink in the armor we're hoping to see," said Sierra Club lobbyist Melinda Pierce. "That these fiscal hawks will be willing to go after and gore their own..."

    John Krieger, a staff attorney with US PIRG, said that if the GOP is serious about reining in government spending, more lawmakers will have to join Coburn in calling for an end to ethanol subsidies.

    "They're going to have to find common ground or they're going to be completely paralyzed," he said. "And I think any member now understands the punishment that comes with paralysis and not taking action especially on an issue that so many Americans voted on in the last election."

    Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the issue is beyond left and right.

    Story continues below
    Advertisement"I do think when you have... politicians as diverse as Senator Feinstein and Senators McCain, DeMint and Coburn, and Al Gore, all agreeing that a tax credit is wasteful and bad for our deficit and therefore bad for our economy, and bad for our environment -- that that's got to be a wake-up call for Congress and the president that it's time to put politics and partisanship and party down and really focus on the principles and protecting the environment. What does the Tea Party say? Put principles ahead of party. That's what a lot of people are saying -- it's time to do that here."

    Greene said that the money being spent on corn ethanol is money that can't be invested in other clean energy technologies, noting 75 percent of the money the federal government spends on renewables goes to corn ethanol.

    Krieger told HuffPost that there's significant interest in this issue among Republican moderates and that PIRG's lobbying efforts have received a very positive response, especially in the Senate. He declined to name names.

    Indeed ending ethanol subsidies is a top priority for PIRG, which authored a report this fall identifying "patently wasteful programs" like the ethanol tax credit.

    Pierce told HuffPost that she thinks these subsides will be a key area for environmental reforms in the next Congress. With fiscal problems being what they are, she said some of the sacred cow subsidies will likely be falling under the knife. "I do think they're going to roll back both ethanol and oil and gas subsidies, although you know the oil industry will fight hard as hell to keep it," Pierce said.

    She noted that many Democratic offices have long sided with green groups in seeing ethanol as more of a boondoggle than an environmental boon, but added that she's happy to have some company from the other side of the aisle.

    "We enviros have always been trying to go after the oil and gas subsidies to level the playing field for clean energy," Pierce added. "So we're delighted to have our friend Tom Coburn pick up the gauntlet and go after both issues -- ethanol, and oil and gas subsidies -- because not only is it good fiscal policy, it would be good environmental policy."

    It's rare good news amid a political climate that looks to be bleak for environmental advocates.

    "There's not a lot of bright sunshine on the horizon if you look at trying to move a proactive environmental agenda in the House and the Senate, where ideas go to die," said Pierce. "But this may be one area that we can make some advances in."

  • tooney:

    Gore has said the support for ethanol was a mistake. Glad he finally came around to the conclusion must have us have arrived at several years ago.

    signature image

    Seven blunders of the world that lead to violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce w

  • It's amazing that enviros like Pierce can manage to alienate people even when they are possible supporters.

    So fiscal conservatives will Gore their own (funny terminology). So removing subsidies for oil and gas will even the playing field for green technology. Ha Ha. The only way green technology makes it now is through massive subsidies. Does Pierce really think that green technology could stand on its own?

    And this absolute nonsense that dems have always been ready to end ethanol subsidies just shows how poorly she is tilted. There wasn't one repub that voted for cap and trade that mandated ethanol subsidation and use in the house. She also better check on where the president stands on the issue since she obviously missed his insistence that ethanol be subsidized the same day the epa stated it was dirtier than gasoline.

    I'll go along with Coburn on ending all subsidies for oil and gas and ethanol and any other energy source. Let them stand on their own.

    But lets not stop there. Let's end it for all subsidies like home mortgages, capital gains, farm subsidies and virtually any other subsidized venture or investment.

  • The situation in Korea is really scary. I am not sure what is the best move. Obama has taken a pretty tough stand against them with sanctions. Based on what I have read they are starting to have another famine. At this point I think we would be better off to let them starve instead of having our sons and daughters die fighting them.

    Analysis: Attack is North Korean bid for attention
    By JEAN H. LEE, Associated Press Jean H. Lee, Associated Press
    Tue Nov 23, 4:48 pm ET

    A frustrated North Korea is lashing out again, this time with a deadly volley of artillery aimed at reminding rival South Korea — and the world — that it will not be ignored.

    The barrage of shots fired Tuesday at a South Korean island lying within sight of its shores did not come out of nowhere. For weeks, North Korea has been angling for credit for reaching out to the U.S. and South Korea, and has warned that the cool response would come at a cost.

    The destruction that set homes ablaze, sent civilians fleeing for underground shelters and killed two South Korean marines may have been more than Pyongyang bargained for in its game of chicken with the South.

    But it gets attention, which is what Pyongyang wants as it seeks to restart negotiations to barter its nuclear program for much-needed aid.

    It can be hard to remember in bustling, cosmopolitan Seoul that the Korean peninsula remains in a state of war.

    Sixty years after the fighting began, the U.S.-backed South has risen to become the world's 15th-largest economy, an example of industriousness and pluck.

    Two weeks ago, Seoul basked in the limelight of hosting more than 30 world leaders for the Group of 20 summit in what was seen as the country's diplomatic debut. Next week, South Korea will make its case for the right to hold the 2022 World Cup.

    But a rising South Korea does not sit well with its poorer northern neighbor. Once the richer of the two Koreas, the North has suffered over the years from the loss of Soviet aid, economic mismanagement and natural disasters that destroyed its precious few resources.

    And as the rest of the communist bloc has crumbled, North Korea has remained staunch in its "juche" policy of self-reliance, continuing to build up a nuclear program that has earned it pariah status with the West.

    Its nuclear bombs and its unpredictability remain North Korea's most valuable assets, and Pyongyang has played its cards shrewdly over the decades.

    The last two years have been a particularly delicate time in Pyongyang, with leader Kim Jong Il reportedly suffering a stroke in 2008 and then paving the way to name his youngest son as his successor.

    But Kim Jong Un, still in his 20s and known as the Young General, won't have the benefit of decades of preparation that his father had before taking over from his father, the late North Korea founder Kim Il Sung.

    There are at least three things Kim will want to secure before he can comfortably hand over the reins: loyalty to the Young General, economic stability and political security ensuring the regime's grip on power.

    Time may be running out. Health issues notwithstanding, Kim is likely to want to formally anoint his heir in 2012, the centennial of Kim Il Sung's birth, a significant milestone that would cement the family's ruling status in ritualistic North Korea.

    Winning the military's loyalty will be key in a society that operates under a "military first" policy.

    The armistice signed in 1953 was designed to keep the peace, but North Korea has never accepted the maritime border drawn by the U.N. at the close of the Korean War, and the western waters have long been a flashpoint.

    They've fought three deadly skirmishes there since 1999. The last one, a year ago, was particularly humiliating, with the North suffering one death and more wounded.

    Revenge may have been behind the plot to take down South Korea's Cheonan warship, which investigators say was torn in two by a North Korean torpedo in March. If the young son wanted to earn the military's loyalty, it would have been a prize: 46 South Koreans died in the worst attack on Seoul's military since the Korean War.

    Pyongyang denies involvement, as it has past provocations.

    However, neither nation wants another war, and both have sought ways to repair relations without losing face.

    Since taking office in February 2008, South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak has been sticking to a hard-line policy of demanding concrete action on denuclearization before offering the North any significant aid.

    Yet in recent weeks, he has shown a limited willingness to yield, offering North Korea a shipment of rice and other humanitarian aid to help with devastating flooding and backing off demands that Pyongyang apologize for the Cheonan sinking.

    North Korea, which is suffering under U.N. economic sanctions for its nuclear defiance, also has been reaching out, eager to get back to talks on winning aid in exchange for nuclear concessions.

    Pyongyang has been putting out feelers in unprecedented fashion, allowing foreign journalists to cover a massive 65th anniversary parade for its ruling Workers' Party that served as an international debut for his son and heir.

    Both sides also agreed to let families divided since the Korean War meet at a North Korean resort for reunions that inevitably draw attention to the emotional toll the peninsula's division has taken. There are rumors that top-level aides were trying to negotiate a summit between their two leaders.

    But Pyongyang has become frustrated by the slow pace of restoring relations with Seoul and eventually the U.S., a key step toward its goal of securing aid and stability. That impatience has bubbled over into petulance.

    The regime wants respect. And though it increasingly has turned to neighboring China for political and financial support — a strategic alliance that has broader geopolitical consequences — its sense of being rebuffed by the U.S. and South Korea still stings.

    The decision to show off a new uranium enrichment plant to a U.S. scientist recently was a clear ploy to pressure Washington and Seoul and remind the allies what's at risk in putting off disarmament talks.

    Drawing South Korean troops into a skirmish on an island populated by civilians was a pointed escalation that emphasized that Pyongyang, or the Young General, is prepared to play tough.

    Smoke billowed into the air and screams sounded as Yeonpyeong's islanders ran from burning homes with shells raining down upon them.

    For those who lived through the Korean War, the scene recalled the death and destruction of that conflict. It was North Korea's way of reminding the world that the war is not over and that ignoring it comes with dire consequences.

    ___

    Jean H. Lee is AP's bureau chief in Seoul, South Korea, and recently visited North Korea.

    Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Questions or CommentsPrivacy PolicyAbout Our AdsTerms of ServiceCopyright/IP Policy

    signature image

    Seven blunders of the world that lead to violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce w

  • Pretty frustrating dealing with this worthless regime. Truly insane group. I like the approach to N Korea I heard on the radio yesterday. If China won't intervene then arm Japan and S Korea with Nukes. China won't like it but they have done nothing so far to help the situation and, in fact, they are probably the only reason N Korea is in existence today.

  • What are the stars and the up voting/sown voting all about?

    Other posters rating your post(s)? One post may get a 5 star and another gets a one....does that relate to the stars?

  • The situation in Korea is really scary. I am not sure what is the best move. Obama has taken a pretty tough stand against them with sanctions. Based on what I have read they are starting to have another famine. At this point I think we would be better off to let them starve instead of having our sons and daughters die fighting them.

    The move that we need to take would be whatever that hurts China the worst. It'll be great if they get flooded with refugees fleeing north and have to deal with that mess.

  • diverdog said... (original post)

    The situation in Korea is really scary. I am not sure what is the best move. Obama has taken a pretty tough stand against them with sanctions. Based on what I have read they are starting to have another famine. At this point I think we would be better off to let them starve instead of having our sons and daughters die fighting them.

    Analysis: Attack is North Korean bid for attention By JEAN H. LEE, Associated Press Jean H. Lee, Associated Press Tue Nov 23, 4:48 pm ET

    A frustrated North Korea is lashing out again, this time with a deadly volley of artillery aimed at reminding rival South Korea — and the world — that it will not be ignored.

    The barrage of shots fired Tuesday at a South Korean island lying within sight of its shores did not come out of nowhere. For weeks, North Korea has been angling for credit for reaching out to the U.S. and South Korea, and has warned that the cool response would come at a cost.

    The destruction that set homes ablaze, sent civilians fleeing for underground shelters and killed two South Korean marines may have been more than Pyongyang bargained for in its game of chicken with the South.

    But it gets attention, which is what Pyongyang wants as it seeks to restart negotiations to barter its nuclear program for much-needed aid.

    It can be hard to remember in bustling, cosmopolitan Seoul that the Korean peninsula remains in a state of war.

    Sixty years after the fighting began, the U.S.-backed South has risen to become the world's 15th-largest economy, an example of industriousness and pluck.

    Two weeks ago, Seoul basked in the limelight of hosting more than 30 world leaders for the Group of 20 summit in what was seen as the country's diplomatic debut. Next week, South Korea will make its case for the right to hold the 2022 World Cup.

    But a rising South Korea does not sit well with its poorer northern neighbor. Once the richer of the two Koreas, the North has suffered over the years from the loss of Soviet aid, economic mismanagement and natural disasters that destroyed its precious few resources.

    And as the rest of the communist bloc has crumbled, North Korea has remained staunch in its "juche" policy of self-reliance, continuing to build up a nuclear program that has earned it pariah status with the West.

    Its nuclear bombs and its unpredictability remain North Korea's most valuable assets, and Pyongyang has played its cards shrewdly over the decades.

    The last two years have been a particularly delicate time in Pyongyang, with leader Kim Jong Il reportedly suffering a stroke in 2008 and then paving the way to name his youngest son as his successor.

    But Kim Jong Un, still in his 20s and known as the Young General, won't have the benefit of decades of preparation that his father had before taking over from his father, the late North Korea founder Kim Il Sung.

    There are at least three things Kim will want to secure before he can comfortably hand over the reins: loyalty to the Young General, economic stability and political security ensuring the regime's grip on power.

    Time may be running out. Health issues notwithstanding, Kim is likely to want to formally anoint his heir in 2012, the centennial of Kim Il Sung's birth, a significant milestone that would cement the family's ruling status in ritualistic North Korea.

    Winning the military's loyalty will be key in a society that operates under a "military first" policy.

    The armistice signed in 1953 was designed to keep the peace, but North Korea has never accepted the maritime border drawn by the U.N. at the close of the Korean War, and the western waters have long been a flashpoint.

    They've fought three deadly skirmishes there since 1999. The last one, a year ago, was particularly humiliating, with the North suffering one death and more wounded.

    Revenge may have been behind the plot to take down South Korea's Cheonan warship, which investigators say was torn in two by a North Korean torpedo in March. If the young son wanted to earn the military's loyalty, it would have been a prize: 46 South Koreans died in the worst attack on Seoul's military since the Korean War.

    Pyongyang denies involvement, as it has past provocations.

    However, neither nation wants another war, and both have sought ways to repair relations without losing face.

    Since taking office in February 2008, South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak has been sticking to a hard-line policy of demanding concrete action on denuclearization before offering the North any significant aid.

    Yet in recent weeks, he has shown a limited willingness to yield, offering North Korea a shipment of rice and other humanitarian aid to help with devastating flooding and backing off demands that Pyongyang apologize for the Cheonan sinking.

    North Korea, which is suffering under U.N. economic sanctions for its nuclear defiance, also has been reaching out, eager to get back to talks on winning aid in exchange for nuclear concessions.

    Pyongyang has been putting out feelers in unprecedented fashion, allowing foreign journalists to cover a massive 65th anniversary parade for its ruling Workers' Party that served as an international debut for his son and heir.

    Both sides also agreed to let families divided since the Korean War meet at a North Korean resort for reunions that inevitably draw attention to the emotional toll the peninsula's division has taken. There are rumors that top-level aides were trying to negotiate a summit between their two leaders.

    But Pyongyang has become frustrated by the slow pace of restoring relations with Seoul and eventually the U.S., a key step toward its goal of securing aid and stability. That impatience has bubbled over into petulance.

    The regime wants respect. And though it increasingly has turned to neighboring China for political and financial support — a strategic alliance that has broader geopolitical consequences — its sense of being rebuffed by the U.S. and South Korea still stings.

    The decision to show off a new uranium enrichment plant to a U.S. scientist recently was a clear ploy to pressure Washington and Seoul and remind the allies what's at risk in putting off disarmament talks.

    Drawing South Korean troops into a skirmish on an island populated by civilians was a pointed escalation that emphasized that Pyongyang, or the Young General, is prepared to play tough.

    Smoke billowed into the air and screams sounded as Yeonpyeong's islanders ran from burning homes with shells raining down upon them.

    For those who lived through the Korean War, the scene recalled the death and destruction of that conflict. It was North Korea's way of reminding the world that the war is not over and that ignoring it comes with dire consequences.

    ___

    Jean H. Lee is AP's bureau chief in Seoul, South Korea, and recently visited North Korea.

    Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Questions or CommentsPrivacy PolicyAbout Our AdsTerms of ServiceCopyright/IP Policy

    The best move would be not to reward them with talks or anything else at this point...

  • okie54 said... (original post)

    What are the stars and the up voting/sown voting all about?

    Other posters rating your post(s)? One post may get a 5 star and another gets a one....does that relate to the stars?

    Not sure myself but it seems you can vote up or down each post and that reflects on your star level...

  • Has everyone checked out this site? It's easy to navigate. Doesn't lag. It's free. And not overly obscene like landthieves.com may be to some.

  • Just signed up for it. This board is slow and I don't like the layout. Soonerfans and Soonerboards have the best layouts.

    Landthieve's layout is fine but there aren't many posters.

  • I must admit that I am shocked that Al would say he was wrong about ethanol...most in DC would rather be neutered than admit they were wrong...

    Big thumbs up to Al Gore...

  • okie54 said... (original post)

    Just signed up for it. This board is slow and I don't like the layout.

    That's my only beef with 247. It has a lot of posters, but it's frustrating with the lag and 404s.

  • As well as Jimmy Carter helped install the Ayatollah Komein in Iran. How's that working out for us?

  • Had today's political class been in power in 1623, tomorrow's holiday would have been called "Starvation Day" instead of Thanksgiving. Of course, most of us wouldn't be alive to celebrate it.

    Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.

    Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of collectivism. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.

    The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.

    That's why they nearly all starved.

    When people can get the same return with less effort, most people make less effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. This went on for two years.

    "So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented," wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, "began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, (I) (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land."

    In other words, the people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic

    This had very good success," Bradford wrote, "for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many."

    Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623.

    What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. The problem has been known since ancient Greece. As Aristotle noted, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

    If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free-rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty.

    What private property does — as the Pilgrims discovered — is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce far more. Then, if there's a free market, people will trade their surpluses to others for the things they lack. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer.

    Here's the biggest irony of all: The U.S. government has yet to apply the lesson to its first conquest, Native Americans. The U.S. government has held most Indian land in trust since the 19th century. This discourages initiative and risk-taking because, among other reasons, it can't be used as collateral for loans. On Indian reservations, "private land is 40 to 90 percent more productive than land owned through the Bureau of Indian Affairs," says economist Terry Anderson, executive director of PERC. "If you drive through western reservations, you will see on one side cultivated fields, irrigation, and on the other side, overgrazed pasture, run-down pastures and homes. One is a simple commons; the other side is private property. You have Indians on both sides. The important thing is someone owns one side."

    Secure property rights are the key. When producers know their future products are safe from confiscation, they take risks and invest. But when they fear they will be deprived of the fruits of their labor, they will do as little as possible.

    That's the lost lesson of Thanksgiving.

    http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel.html

  • okie54 said... (original post)

    Pretty frustrating dealing with this worthless regime. Truly insane group. I like the approach to N Korea I heard on the radio yesterday. If China won't intervene then arm Japan and S Korea with Nukes. China won't like it but they have done nothing so far to help the situation and, in fact, they are probably the only reason N Korea is in existence today.

    Okie:

    I thought the same thing. Arming Japan with nukes would be a nightmare for China.

    We need to figure out how to shoot down artillary rounds in mass with some sort of point of defense system. That is the real power that NK has over the South. They can reign down hundreds of thousands of shells per hour on the capital. We figure that out we would really put them in a tough situation. In the meantime we need to put an all out embargo on food going into the North.

    signature image

    Seven blunders of the world that lead to violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce w

  • not yet, the con man does not deserve a "thumbs up" until he admits that most of what he was putting out there was exagerated, embellished and manufactured to fit his political position. Ethanol is only a small part of the "lie".

    This post was edited by champions77 4 years ago

  • I honestly hope this doesn't lead to a currency war that would lead to a great depression in the U.S.

    China, Russia quit dollar

    St. Petersburg, Russia - China and Russia have decided to renounce the US dollar and resort to using their own currencies for bilateral trade, Premier Wen Jiabao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin announced late on Tuesday.

    Chinese experts said the move reflected closer relations between Beijing and Moscow and is not aimed at challenging the dollar, but to protect their domestic economies.

    "About trade settlement, we have decided to use our own currencies," Putin said at a joint news conference with Wen in St. Petersburg.

    The two countries were accustomed to using other currencies, especially the dollar, for bilateral trade. Since the financial crisis, however, high-ranking officials on both sides began to explore other possibilities.

    The yuan has now started trading against the Russian rouble in the Chinese interbank market, while the renminbi will soon be allowed to trade against the rouble in Russia, Putin said.

    "That has forged an important step in bilateral trade and it is a result of the consolidated financial systems of world countries," he said.

    Putin made his remarks after a meeting with Wen. They also officiated at a signing ceremony for 12 documents, including energy cooperation.

    The documents covered cooperation on aviation, railroad construction, customs, protecting intellectual property, culture and a joint communiqu. Details of the documents have yet to be released.

    Putin said one of the pacts between the two countries is about the purchase of two nuclear reactors from Russia by China's Tianwan nuclear power plant, the most advanced nuclear power complex in China.

    Putin has called for boosting sales of natural resources - Russia's main export - to China, but price has proven to be a sticking point.

    Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, who holds sway over Russia's energy sector, said following a meeting with Chinese representatives that Moscow and Beijing are unlikely to agree on the price of Russian gas supplies to China before the middle of next year.

    Russia is looking for China to pay prices similar to those Russian gas giant Gazprom charges its European customers, but Beijing wants a discount. The two sides were about $100 per 1,000 cubic meters apart, according to Chinese officials last week.

    Wen's trip follows Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's three-day visit to China in September, during which he and President Hu Jintao launched a cross-border pipeline linking the world's biggest energy producer with the largest energy consumer.

    Wen said at the press conference that the partnership between Beijing and Moscow has "reached an unprecedented level" and pledged the two countries will "never become each other's enemy".

    Over the past year, "our strategic cooperative partnership endured strenuous tests and reached an unprecedented level," Wen said, adding the two nations are now more confident and determined to defend their mutual interests.

    "China will firmly follow the path of peaceful development and support the renaissance of Russia as a great power," he said.

    "The modernization of China will not affect other countries' interests, while a solid and strong Sino-Russian relationship is in line with the fundamental interests of both countries."

    Wen said Beijing is willing to boost cooperation with Moscow in Northeast Asia, Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, as well as in major international organizations and on mechanisms in pursuit of a "fair and reasonable new order" in international politics and the economy.

    Sun Zhuangzhi, a senior researcher in Central Asian studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the new mode of trade settlement between China and Russia follows a global trend after the financial crisis exposed the faults of a dollar-dominated world financial system.

    Pang Zhongying, who specializes in international politics at Renmin University of China, said the proposal is not challenging the dollar, but aimed at avoiding the risks the dollar represents.

    Wen arrived in the northern Russian city on Monday evening for a regular meeting between Chinese and Russian heads of government.

    He left St. Petersburg for Moscow late on Tuesday and is set to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday.
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-11/24/content_11599087.htm

  • I don't know if NickDanger has made it over here......but I guess the rest of you would like to read about "the hammer"......

    This really surprises me.....I didn't think he would be convicted...although I thought he was guilty. I had decided that the country was so divided that a trial about "politics" would be very difficult to prosecute and receive a guilty verdict. I'm pleasantly surprised....

    Tom DeLay GUILTY: Jury Convicts Republican In Money Laundering Trial

    JUAN A. LOZANO | 11/24/10 06:29 PM |

    AUSTIN, Texas — A jury in Texas has convicted former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on charges he illegally funneled corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002. Delay was once one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress. He now faces up to life in prison.

    Jurors in Austin deliberated for 19 hours before returning guilty verdicts on Wednesday on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

    Prosecutors say the former Houston-area congressman used his political action committee to illegally channel $190,000 in corporate donations into Texas legislative races through a money swap.

    DeLay and his attorneys maintained no corporate funds went to Texas candidates and the money swap was legal.

  • This is from US NEWS & WORLD REPORT
    This could get very interesting. If you own any of these stocks take note.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/11/22/next-tea-party-target-corporate-america

    Jesse Jackson isn't the only activist that can use corporate boycotts for political purposes. Starting next year, the huge Tea Party organizer FreedomWorks will urge supporters to punish huge corporations like General Electric and Johnson and Johnson for backing President Obama's progressive agenda.

    In an exclusive review for Whispers of their plan, FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe says: "Tea Party activists are willing to tackle progressive CEOs just as they tackled progressive politicians. Judging by the results of the midterm elections, progressive CEOs should buckle up, because Tea Party activists are going to give them a very bumpy ride."
    His project partner, Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, added: "Big businesses are now on notice that there is a measurable business risk for actively supporting the Obama, Reid, and Pelosi progressive public policy agenda."
    Their initial focus will be on consumer firms that lobbied for passage of Obama's agenda items that helped their firms. "We are going after the rent-seeking corporations feeding at the public trough," said FreedomWorks' spokesman Adam Brandon.
    The groups released a new Wilson Research Strategies poll to Whispers which shows how companies could suffer when conservatives are told of their support for Obama's agenda. The poll found that when customers are told of a consumer product firm's support for healthcare reform, bailouts, cap-and-trade energy policies or other issues pushed by the administration, their favorability among conservatives plummets.
    A few examples:
    -- General Electric. The firm has a 51 percent favorable image, but when poll takers were told of it's support for the Obama economic stimulus plan, only 20 percent had a favorably impression of the consumer giant.
    -- Johnson and Johnson. Nearly 69 percent had a favorable impression of the health company before Johnson and Johnson's support for health reform legislation was detailed to survey-takers. Afterward, that favorability dropped to 16 percent.
    The poll also found that 81 percent of conservative voters active in the Tea Party would be "less likely to buy products from companies that actively lobbied to pass Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan," and 61 percent would blog, Facebook, or upload a YouTube video urging backers to boycott their products.

    FreedomWorks and the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project will first start by releasing the poll on Tuesday. It will then urge bloggers and other activists to spread the news about how companies lobbied for Obama's agenda. And soon after look for the groups to list the ties of major firms to the Democrats and progressives. "To break up this unholy alliance between government and business, we have to shine a light on it," says Kibbe. "This is a next step in a series of battles," adds Borelli.
    Consumer boycotts by activists such as Jesse Jackson have a long record of success. But a Tea Party boycott could be bigger and impact the political world in Washington where corporations are generally viewed as supporting Republicans. "For too long, big business elites have leveraged their special interest group politics to profit from the size and growth of government. The poll demonstrates that the days of easy money through back room deals are over," says Kibbe.

  • tooney said... (original post)

    I don't know if NickDanger has made it over here......but I guess the rest of you would like to read about "the hammer"......

    This really surprises me.....I didn't think he would be convicted...although I thought he was guilty. I had decided that the country was so divided that a trial about "politics" would be very difficult to prosecute and receive a guilty verdict. I'm pleasantly surprised....

    Tom DeLay GUILTY: Jury Convicts Republican In Money Laundering Trial

    JUAN A. LOZANO | 11/24/10 06:29 PM |

    AUSTIN, Texas — A jury in Texas has convicted former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on charges he illegally funneled corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002. Delay was once one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress. He now faces up to life in prison.

    Jurors in Austin deliberated for 19 hours before returning guilty verdicts on Wednesday on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

    Prosecutors say the former Houston-area congressman used his political action committee to illegally channel $190,000 in corporate donations into Texas legislative races through a money swap.

    DeLay and his attorneys maintained no corporate funds went to Texas candidates and the money swap was legal.

    They say he could get very serious jail time. He will probably appeal.

    signature image

    Seven blunders of the world that lead to violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce w