Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )










Pages: (15) [1] 2 3 ... Last »

wdorholt Posted on: 05-Aug-2010, 01:53 AM

Replies: 11,299
Views: 212,708
Call
  Forum: Fun N Games  ·  Post Preview: #298796

No New Posts Pinned: Pub humour (Pages 1 2 3 ...211 )
wdorholt Posted on: 05-Aug-2010, 01:31 AM

Replies: 3,156
Views: 172,568
An avid duck hunter was in the market for a new bird dog. His search ended when he found a dog that could actually walk on water to retrieve a duck. Shocked by his find, he was sure none of his friends would ever believe him.

He decided to try to break the news to a friend of his, a pessimist by nature, and invited him to hunt with him and his new dog.

As they waited by the shore, a flock of ducks flew by. They fired, and a duck fell. The dog responded and jumped into the water.

The dog, however, did not sink but instead walked across the water to retrieve the bird, never getting more than his paws wet. The friend saw everything but did not say a single word.

On the drive home the hunter asked his friend, "Did you notice anything unusual about my new dog?"

"I sure did," responded his friend. "He can't swim."
  Forum: Ye Ole Celtic Pub - Open all day, all night!  ·  Post Preview: #298795

wdorholt Posted on: 04-Aug-2010, 10:00 PM

Replies: 1,711
Views: 181,903
Finally saw 2012. The world could have ended before the movie did! Thought it was too long and convoluted.

  Forum: Ye Ole Celtic Pub - Open all day, all night!  ·  Post Preview: #298794

wdorholt Posted on: 04-Aug-2010, 09:51 PM

Replies: 3
Views: 673
One of my favorite groups! Thanks for the info on the new album. I will be disappointed if they get too "country!"
  Forum: Celtic Music  ·  Post Preview: #298793

wdorholt Posted on: 08-Jul-2010, 04:01 AM

Replies: 12
Views: 403
QUOTE (Patch @ 06-Jul-2010, 09:27 AM)
Apples and onions!  The employer sanctions  case was settled and Az. won.  They have won in upholding ALL of their illegal alien legislation efforts.

The fed govt is charged with enforcing Illegal employment laws involving corrupt employers which is why we have E-verify.
Slàinte,    

Patch    

I'm not sure what you mean here. My post was in response to you saying that the AZ law was only about legal aliens. I was showing you that it is not.

The other issue is about e-verify. The federal statutes make it a voluntary program. AZ makes it mandatory. That is also why the government filed the brief. All of this started as a response to this statement at the beginning of the thread by The Washington Times: " Mr. Obama claimed to be holding employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers. In truth, his administration filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to throw out an Arizona law that held corporations to the same standards required of federal contractors."

It wasn't the same standards and prempted the federal law. That is why the brief was filed. This has little to do with whether the idea behind the law was a good thing or not. This has to do with doing coming up with legal remedies.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #298168

wdorholt Posted on: 08-Jul-2010, 03:39 AM

Replies: 6
Views: 641
Patch,

I think I get it. You believe that all the tax cuts would be restored to the previous levels. Yes, that would mean tax increases for folks other than the ones that Obama promised.

However, the plan outlined in the Obama administration's budget is to allow only one of those 12 provisions to revert exactly to what it was in early 2001:

The top tax rate will revert from 35% to 39.6%
Five of those dozen major provisions will change, but they won't go back to exactly what they were in 2001:

Estate tax law will revert to 2009 instead of 2001: exemption of $3.5 million and top rate of 45%
Rate on long-term capital gains will revert to 2001 law (rate of 20%) but only for couples with over $250,000 in AGI the year the gain is realized ($200K threshold for singles)
Dividends will be taxed just like long-term capital gains
The 33% tax rate will revert to 2001 law (rate of 36%) but the income threshold where that bracket starts will shift up to $250,000 in taxable income (couples) and $200,000 for singles
The PEP and Pease provisions will be restored, rescinding from high-income people the value of some exemptions and deductions, but the income threshold where they start to pay more will shift up to $250,000 in taxable income (couples) and $200,000 for singles
The other 6 of the 12 major Bush tax cut provisions for individuals listed above will be preserved as enacted during the Bush years.

I am unaware of your fact that the Democrats have refused to extend the Bush tax cuts for those in the middle class and below.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #298167

wdorholt Posted on: 08-Jul-2010, 03:06 AM

Replies: 19
Views: 1,422
I think we are all to blame for this state of affairs in that we have failed to have our representatives in congress pass immigration reform for many years. It has been one of those out of sight out of mind issues for most of the nation. It is similar to the off shore drilling fiasco and the resultant devastation to the Gulf coast states. Most of the nation doesn't live or visit there, so we don't tend to make these things priorities until a crisis hits. It is more important to us to have cheap food and cheap fuel, or to make a lot of money in those industries. It is not so important to pay attention to the collateral damage we may cause by it. Sure, if something is brought up about the dangers of oil spills or the negative impact of illegal entry into this country, we are glad to share opinions. Opinions are easy to have and don't appear to cost us anything. But we eventually move on to something else, driving gas guzzling vehicles while eating bags of Cheetos.

Our current ability to have instant, ongoing, 24/7, news and social networking has a lot to do with causing us to have our noses rubbed in things that we used to be able to ignore long enough to go away. It is getting more difficult to do this now. I hope that we get past the blame game, which was an effective way to make something go away in the past by distracting us from having to solve the issue, and move towards working together to figure out solutions and support efforts to solve problems. While I am not a fan of the AZ immigration law because of constitutional issues, I certainly give the law makers credit for trying to do something. The same with the militia.

And Patch, there is a word spelled malitia but it means evil as in malicious, or is also the name of a porn star.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #298166

wdorholt Posted on: 08-Jul-2010, 02:22 AM

Replies: 10
Views: 662
I'm having a little trouble understanding why you think this is Obama's fault. Aren't you and the tea party folks interested in less government? Don't you think that the Oil companies involved are responsible for this, and should fix this? Do you think that the government could fix this if it wanted to but won't?
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #298165

wdorholt Posted on: 06-Jul-2010, 03:14 AM

Replies: 12
Views: 403
QUOTE (Patch @ 04-Jul-2010, 01:40 AM)
Points 1,2 and 3 apply to legal workers only as does the CC suit.

We are opposed to illegals which obama seems to confuse with legal workers.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

Patch,

The first part of the case is this:

" Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions
on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is
invalid under a federal statute that expressly "preempt[
s] any State or local law imposing civil or
criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and
similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or
refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens."
8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2).

While legal aliens could be unauthorized aliens when it comes to being employed I suppose, would not "unauthorized" include illegal aliens also?

The definition that is used is in the Immigration and Control Act and is: (3) DEFINITION OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN. -- As used in this section, the term 'unauthorized alien' means, with respect to the employment of an alien at a particular time, that the alien is not at that time either (a) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (cool.gif(I have no idea how this emoticon got here but it won't leave) authorized to be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General.

Perhaps what is confusing is that the Arizona statute in question is called "Legal Arizona Workers Act."
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #298099

wdorholt Posted on: 06-Jul-2010, 02:47 AM

Replies: 10
Views: 224
QUOTE (Patch @ 04-Jul-2010, 07:43 AM)
I have no intent of comparing apples and onions with you, which is what you appear to be trying to do throughout this forum. 

Two people on the list are strong Tea Party supporters with both time and money.  One I have flown with to movement functions and talked with at length.  You presented the list as if it were official, so you verify it.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch,

You said: "It is too bad that our leaders have no business acumen." and in reference to Obama and his economic policy: "He is a community activist who has surrounded himself with the same, including also avowed communists, and has no experience beyond that"

I have listed some of his economic advisors. You seem to have doubted that the people on the list were really on his team. I sent you the minutes of one of the meetings and it had the names of most of these people in attendance.

The people on the list meet my standards of knowledgeable folks in the business and economic fields. Some of them are our leaders, some are advisors to our leaders.

Does that mean that I think we should always agree with them? Certainly not. But to characterize them as you do seems unfair. I would hope we could get past thinking we are smart and right because those that disagree with us are so stupid and wrong. The world is a much more complicated place than that I'm afraid.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #298098

wdorholt Posted on: 06-Jul-2010, 02:15 AM

Replies: 6
Views: 641
Here is the proposal as reported by the Brookings and Urban Institutes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2...high-income.cfm

I see nothing about an increase for the lower brackets.

Obama vowed during the 2008 presidential election campaign that he would not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 and households earning less than $250,000 a year. Evidently, those numbers were adjusted by applying the standard deductions and a couple of exemptions.

According to an ABC news report when the budget was proposed in Feb. "In all, Obama would increase taxes on some businesses and wealthy individuals by a total of about $1.4 trillion over the next decade, while cutting taxes for middle-class workers and other businesses by about $330 billion. The bottom line: Tax receipts would increase by about $1.1 trillion over the next decade."
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #298097

wdorholt Posted on: 06-Jul-2010, 01:20 AM

Replies: 3
Views: 166
Here is the link to a copy of the letter that was sent to Jefferson Parish concerning the rock barriers.

http://images.bimedia.net/images/070310corps.jpg

These are complicated issues and I have a good deal of sympathy for those struggling to figure out solutions that will work for everyone. Often the plans presented for one area have an adverse affect for another area so it is easy to see why it seems like nothing is being accomplished and no group is happy.

As far as the Taiwanese A-Whale being the first foreign flagged tanker working the spill, that is an error. The Juanita and Evi Knutsen have been capturing oil since at least the middle of June and are flagged in Norway. TransOcean has vessels out there and they are a Swiss company, although their vessels may be flagged elsewhere, they are still foreign. As indicated before, the Coast Guard said on June 15th that there were foreign vessels working the spill.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #298094

No New Posts Pinned: Pub humour (Pages 1 2 3 ...211 )
wdorholt Posted on: 05-Jul-2010, 10:56 PM

Replies: 3,156
Views: 172,568
Father Murphy walks into a pub in Donegal, and says to the first man he meets, "Do you want to go to heaven?"

The man said, "I do Father."

The priest said, "Then stand over there against the wall."

Then the priest asked the second man, "Do you want to got to heaven?"

"Certainly, Father," was the man's reply.

"Then stand over there against the wall," said the priest.

Then Father Murphy walked up to O'Toole and said, "Do you want to go to heaven?"

O'Toole said, "No, I don't Father."

The priest said, "I don't believe this. You mean to tell me that when you die you don't want to go to heaven?"

O'Toole said, "Oh, when I die, yes. I thought you were getting a group together to go right now."
  Forum: Ye Ole Celtic Pub - Open all day, all night!  ·  Post Preview: #298093

wdorholt Posted on: 04-Jul-2010, 02:00 AM

Replies: 10
Views: 224
Here is a copy of the minutes from one of the meetings listing the attendees:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fi...tingMinutes.pdf

Which of these fit your descriptions?
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297966

wdorholt Posted on: 04-Jul-2010, 12:25 AM

Replies: 12
Views: 403
QUOTE (Jillian @ 03-Jul-2010, 09:04 AM)
Let's face it...there will ALWAYS be some sort of profiling. Recently profiling has been made into something totally wrong that effects only illegal "Mexican" aliens (because all conversatives MUST be prejudice right?). My long-haired, leather-wearing, caucasian Harley riding friend gets pulled over all of the time...well...because...don't white Harely dudes naturally belong to the Pagans or deal drugs?!

Life is not always fair...but it should be just. My friend can joke about this and understands it. But AZ has focused on that to do the best they can to prevent it. The fact that the AZ law will put additional pressure on law enforcement is twisting things a bit...as if saying there is no pressure on them when they are not allowed to question one's nationhood, when in deed most Phoenix police I worked with complained about that very thing years ago stating, "our hands are tied".

No it may not be pleasant that a "good" illegal alien can't report crime, but it is a consequence of their choice. The left needs to understand that we don't relish the situation of hurting "nice" or "good" illegal aliens...those stories of good illegal families just trying to find a better life are heartbreaking, but we can't use a few heartbreak stories to generalize about the illegal element coming into this country now - and how the situation is dire along the border.

Dennis Miller pretty much sums up what I feel...allow a certain number of hard-working illigal aliens to stay and then enforce the borders, the laws, and extricate the criminal element.

But the point the author is making is that Obama is manipulating history for his agenda and attempting to insinuate that "give me your tired and your poor, your hackneyed..." meant we should be a swinging door for all. Anyone who believes this has no base in the reality of things. A nation simply cannot infinitely accept immigrants -- illegal or legal--or face having her need exceed her resources. That is why ALL countries have immigration policies...including Mexico.

Jillian

Jillian,

As I have indicated in a previous post, I mostly agree with your take on what should be done for immigration reform. I also think that the congress does also, or at least some of the leading attempts to draft something includes these ideas. Obama's speech includes some of them. I just don't see where Obama is advocating "a swinging door" or "infinitely accepting immigrants" in his speech.

"For example, there are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. And often this argument is framed in moral terms: Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living?

I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.

Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable."

Patch,

As far as your statement that my points were about legal workers only, I wasn't making any points about either types. The author said that the Obama administration filed a brief, and I merely reported what it was about, making the point that it was more complicated than what the author suggested.

As far as my comment about huddled masses, I agreed with what the author said, implying that he should tell the truth also.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297964

wdorholt Posted on: 03-Jul-2010, 11:50 PM

Replies: 15
Views: 497
Patch,

So you changed your mind about the Coast Guard saying that they didn't allow foreign vessels? You have any evidence that they haven't gotten help? You going to stick with everybody is a liar?
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297961

wdorholt Posted on: 03-Jul-2010, 11:45 PM

Replies: 7
Views: 536
I haven't seen anything in the major news, including CNN, on this has anyone else? Maybe there will be something on the Sunday talk shows.

Certainly would raise some issues and should be explained as to why the safety concerns require this 65 foot rule.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297960

wdorholt Posted on: 03-Jul-2010, 03:24 AM

Replies: 15
Views: 497
QUOTE (Patch @ 02-Jul-2010, 08:59 AM)
It is coming from the USCG  No ships NOT sailing under the US flag have been allowed to operate in US waters (which includes most of the gulf.)  The well is in US water. 

Fact check is wrong by obama's and his administration's own admission.

Foreign ships were just requested when the Hurricane was eminent and the water too rough for them to work.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

This is the Coast Guard:

National Incident Command: "15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved" in the response. A June 18 document released by National Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen and a June 15 press release from the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center state: "Currently 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations as part of the response in the Gulf of Mexico."

Acting Maritime administrator: "[T]wenty-three percent of the vessels responding to the oil spill are not U.S.-flag," and they are "not in violation of the Jones Act." David Matsuda, acting Maritime administrator, stated in June 17 congressional testimony that "[d]uring the current situation in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.-flag vessels have been used in every situation where U.S. vessels and crew are available. Seventy-seven percent of the vessels providing oil spill response in the Gulf are U.S.- flagged." He added: "Even though twenty-three percent of the vessels responding to the oil spill are not U.S.-flag, none of these are known to be in violation of any U.S. law or regulation. Vessels that do not call upon points in the United States are not in violation of the Jones Act.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297935

wdorholt Posted on: 03-Jul-2010, 03:08 AM

Replies: 12
Views: 403
An interesting editorial. I think the author is wrong that Obama was reporting on historical fact when he said "...she imagined what it could mean. She imagined the sight of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation -– but unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire. Instead, it would signal one’s arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom." I believe he was describing and interpreting the poem, which he then quoted a part of.

As far as the Arizona law is concerned he said "Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult. And you don’t have to take my word for this. You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing. These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound. And as other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country -– a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed. Our task then is to make our national laws actually work..."

The word potential is key here, and while the author of the editorial quotes it, h/she seems to ignore it. Also, quite obviously I would think, because something is stated in a law as being forbidden doesn't mean that it can't happen. But allso Obama was speaking of the broader context than just the Arizona law and was suggesting an understanding of why these states like Arizona feel compelled to do what they did, and that the federal government needs to "make laws actually work."

As far as the author's comments that "Mr. Obama claimed to be holding employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers. In truth, his administration filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to throw out an Arizona law that held corporations to the same standards required of federal contractors..."

I am guessing this refers to this case: United States Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria and according to the Petition for certiorari it is about the following:

1. Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions
on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is
invalid under a federal statute that expressly "preempt[
s] any State or local law imposing civil or
criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and
similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or
refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens."
8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2).
2. Whether the Arizona statute, which requires all
employers to participate in a federal electronic employment
verification system, is preempted by a federal
law that specifically makes that system voluntary.
8 U.S.C. § 1324a note.
3. Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted
because it undermines the "comprehensive
scheme" that Congress created to regulate the employment
of aliens. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc.
v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002).

It isn't as simple as the author of the editorial would suggest.

I do agree with the author on one point: "The huddled masses prefer the truth.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297934

wdorholt Posted on: 02-Jul-2010, 02:10 AM

Replies: 4
Views: 127
QUOTE (Patch @ 29-Jun-2010, 05:51 AM)
Your news is old, the stay order was denied when the govt decision to reissue the order to halt was announced.
Slàinte,    

Patch    

You missed my point. The article that the author quoted contained this additional information. He chose not to report it in his. To me, it changes significantly what one can conclude about the Administration "defying the order" or going around the legal channels.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297887

wdorholt Posted on: 02-Jul-2010, 02:01 AM

Replies: 10
Views: 224
QUOTE (Patch @ 30-Jun-2010, 07:38 AM)
Your list is flawed.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

How so?
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297886

wdorholt Posted on: 02-Jul-2010, 01:56 AM

Replies: 15
Views: 497
Not sure where you are getting your information Patch.

From Factcheck.org

Oil Spill, Foreign Help and the Jones Act

June 23, 2010
Corrected: July 1, 2010


Q: Did Obama turn down foreign offers of assistance in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill? Did he refuse to waive Jones Act restrictions on foreign-flag vessels?

A: No to both questions. So far, offers from six foreign countries or entities have been accepted and only one offer has been rejected. Fifteen foreign-flag vessels are working on the cleanup, and none required a waiver.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that Obama blocked foreign help with cleaning up the Gulf oil spill because he refused to waive the Jones Act, which requires all boats to be American made and crewed by Americans to work in U.S. waters, even though it has been routinely waived for similar events?

FULL ANSWER

We’ve received several questions about the federal government’s response to the oil spill. This one claims that a provision of the Merchant Marine Act, called the Jones Act, has prohibited foreign vessels from entering U.S. waters and assisting in the cleanup.

Some critics have charged — falsely — that Obama’s refusal to waive the Jones Act has kept foreign vessels from assisting in cleanup efforts. In a June 23 interview on "Fox & Friends," Republican Rep. Charles Djou of Hawaii was asked by show host Gretchen Carlson about the Jones Act and why the administration was refusing foreign assistance. Djou answered:

Djou, June 23: It’s important that we take help from whomever and wherever they’re willing to offer it. … So why are we not waiving the Jones Act to allow international help to come in? … Why we’re not waiving it here … is baffling.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, both Republicans, have also claimed that the Jones Act, which was temporarily lifted by President Bush after Hurricane Katrina, is now standing in the way of foreign vessels bringing assistance to the United States. They are both incorrect. Palin stated this in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren:

Palin, June 11: For one, there needs to be a waiving of the Jones Act so that we could have had many, many days ago, weeks ago, some help with skimmers from elsewhere, besides just U.S. flagships, come over and help in this tragedy. And that order needs to be given to [Coast Guard] Admiral [Thad] Allen right now. It’s amazing to me and to so many others that though President Bush had been able to waive Jones Act provisions for Katrina, President Obama hasn’t thought to do that yet? And yet surely, that has been suggested by those experts around him.

In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts. The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a June 15 press release that there are 15 foreign flagged ships currently participating in the oil spill cleanup. None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply. The Jones Act is a trade and commerce law that was enacted in 1920 as part of a larger Marine Merchant Act. It requires all trade delivered between U.S. ports to be carried in U.S. flagged vessels constructed in the United States and owned by American citizens. The law states its purpose is to develop a merchant marine for national defense and commerce.

Why was the Jones Act waived as part of the Hurricane Katrina response, and why hasn’t it been waived now? Katrina inflicted massive infrastructure damage, which restricted the availability of key resources. According to the Deepwater Horizon response team: "A Jones Act waiver was granted during Hurricane Katrina due to the significant disruption in the production and transportation of petroleum and/or refined petroleum products in the region during that emergency and the impact this had on national defense." The Deepwater Horizon spill has yet to affect infrastructure or oil and gas availability; the damage is environmental, and foreign vessels are approved for delivering resources and conducting offshore skimming. Although the Jones Act is currently not applicable, the federal government has taken steps to expedite the waiver process should the oil spill response require a Jones Act waiver for trade and commerce.

Also, contrary to reports such as the one on "Fox & Friends," international assistance has been accepted. To date, 25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others. A chart provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 offers from six foreign countries or entities had been accepted. Fifty more offers were under consideration — including multiple offers from a single country or entity. One offer had been declined: France offered a chemical dispersant that is not approved for use in the United States. President Barack Obama described this process in his May 27 press conference:

Obama, May 27: The job of our response team is to say, okay, if 17 countries have offered equipment and help, let’s evaluate what they’ve offered: How fast can it get here? Is it actually going to be redundant, or will it actually add to the overall effort — because in some cases, more may not actually be better. And decisions have been made based on the best information available that says here’s what we need right now. It may be that a week from now or two weeks from now or a month from now the offers from some of those countries might be more effectively utilized.

Each offer must be compliant not only with the needs outlined by the Unified Command, but also with U.S. safety regulations. The Unified Command provided us with this statement and information:

Unified Command, June 22: Those offers of international assistance that were not accepted, while greatly appreciated, did not meet the operational requirements of the Unified Command. These offers have not been declined because they may be needed in the future as response strategies change. Some challenges in accepting these offers included:

* Equipment failed to meet US requirements/specifications (i.e. dispersant not on approved list/containment boom made of non-approved material)
* Contingencies placed on the offers proved logistically impracticable when compared to other sources.
* In one instance, the offering country’s export laws prohibited delivery of the assistance
* Contingencies placed on the offers made it difficult for the Unified Command to meet the contingency

Also, all offers, except for a few, come with a serious price tag. The Associated Press compared these offers with recent aid that the U.S. gave to some of these countries. The AP reported:

Associated Press, June 18: U.S. disaster aid is almost always free of charge; other nations expect the U.S. to pay for help.

"These offers are not typically offers of aid," said Lt. Erik Halvorson, a Coast Guard spokesman. "Normally, they are offers to sell resources to BP or the U.S. government."

Reports claiming that the federal government has refused help are not only incorrect — foreign assistance has been utilized — but are also misleading: purchasing resources and expertise is vastly different from accepting "foreign aid."

–Joshua Goldman

Correction, July 1: As of June 23, the U.S. had accepted six offers of assistance from six foreign countries or entities. The original post said five offers were accepted. We have updated the post to include the correct number.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297885

wdorholt Posted on: 02-Jul-2010, 01:04 AM

Replies: 3
Views: 116
QUOTE (Jillian @ 01-Jul-2010, 06:22 AM)
So did Al want to share a littel "global warmth" or is the masseuse simply stirring a hurricane of false accusations?

...regardless...he's always creeped me out a bit!

Jillian

I have learned over time that women have an excellent sense of hearing, so if there is a noise somewhere, auto mechanics never ask the guy to locate the source; they have an uncanny sense of smell, so folks at the gas company only respond to women who call and say there is a gas leak, if a man calls, they send the fire department and a coroner, because it is probably too late to save him; and an uncanny "creep radar" that can identify those hidden behaviors in people that will eventually surface as problems.

So, as much as I like the guy's politics, I have to go with Jillian's assessment here.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297884

wdorholt Posted on: 02-Jul-2010, 12:50 AM

Replies: 4
Views: 1,624
"Canada is probably the most free country in the world where a man still has room to breathe, to spread out, to move forward, to move out, an open country with an open frontier. Canada has created harmony and cooperation among ethnic groups, and it must take this experience to the world because there is yet to be such an example of harmony and cooperation among ethnic groups."
Valentyn Moroz
  Forum: Canada  ·  Post Preview: #297882

wdorholt Posted on: 02-Jul-2010, 12:31 AM

Replies: 6
Views: 156
There is no requirement specified in the constitution that requires Supreme Court Justices to be citizens, judges or attorneys. Of the 111, only 46 have had law degrees.
  Forum: Politics & Current Events  ·  Post Preview: #297881

Pages: (15) [1] 2 3 ... Last »
New Posts  Open Topic (new replies)
No New Posts  Open Topic (no new replies)
Hot topic  Hot Topic (new replies)
No new  Hot Topic (no new replies)
Poll  Poll (new votes)
No new votes  Poll (no new votes)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic







© Celtic Radio Network
Celtic Radio is a TorontoCast radio station that is based in Canada.
TorontoCast provides music license coverage through SOCAN.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.








[Home] [Top]