.gif) Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension. |
|
| | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise |  |
|
+10Shansaa jam Ungern Laogorus EddieCochran OmbreBlanche Le chanoine quantat Zed Biloulou 14 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 8/11/2008, 13:47 | |
| Rappel du premier message :Browse Newspapers by country
http://newsdirectory.com/
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Canada
United States
Oceania
South America
Resources
Breaking News
Business Newspapers
College Newspapers
Media Industry Associations
Metropolitan Daily Press
Searchable Archives
Coffee Break
Television
Broadcast TV Stations
Network News
TV Networks
Additional Research
City Governments
County Governments
Travel Planner
College Locator Browse Magazines by subject
Arts and Entertainment
Automotive
Business
Computer
Culture and Society
Current Issues
Health
Home
Industry Trade Publications
Pets and Animals
Religion
Science
Sports
Travel
. . . more subjects
Magazines by Region
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Oceania
South America
More |
| | | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/8/2010, 14:21 | |
| « Mais bon, je dois dire que dans un sens c'est assez flatteur que vous me portiez ainsi tant d'interet, si, si... »
À vous personnellement? Non.
Mais à ce que vous représentez, oui.
C'est que malheureusement ce 1% Club auquel vous voudriez tant appartenir s'accapare tout de même 95% de toutes la richesse non seulement de ce pays qui a eu la délicatesse de vous accueillir mais du reste de la planète et qui espère trouver encore plus à spolier.
Votre appel à St-Pierre est instructif, typique du colonisateur qui implore l'aide de la mère-patrie pour faire taire par la force le colonisé qui ose élever la voix ou prétendre corriger cette vérité distordue que vous propagez comme parole d'évangile. Il est typique aussi, cet appel, de ces libertariens et dominionistes à qui vous avez voué votre âme qui trafiquent les faits et qui, à couvert et ignomineusement, manipulent la masse des Tea-Partyers, ces tealibans et fedayins ignares et incultes qui composent votre armée de croisade.
S'il y en a pour défendre ceux que vous appelez des petits criminels à deux ronds, je ne suis pas de ceux-là. Mais vous Madame, vous défendez des criminels de haut-vol, les poches pleines à craquer de l'argent extorqué à la classe moyenne, qui commettent crimes de guerre et tortures de par la planète en toute impunité, protégés par leur gouvernement exécré mené par un demi-blanc, et qui s'apprêtent à établir une théocratie en Amérique pour le profit exclusif de leurs actionnaires.
En me traitant de canard déplumé, c'est vous Madame qui recourez à l'insulte et qui devrait être ramenée à l'ordre. Mais tous savent qu'il n'en sera rien. St-Pierre est un gentleman, toujours prêt à sauver la belle de l'ire des canards enragés. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2637 - The Most Fiscally Irresponsible Government in U.S. History 27/8/2010, 14:27 | |
| The Most Fiscally Irresponsible Government in U.S. HistoryCurrent federal budget trends are capable of destroying this country
By Mortimer B. ZuckermanPosted: August 26, 2010
There is an instinctive conclusion among the American public that President Obama's stimulus package has failed to create a sustained recovery. Unemployment has increased, not declined; consumers have retrenched; housing starts have crashed along with mortgage applications; and there is a fear that a double-dip recession may very well be in the pipeline. The public perception, reflected in Pew Research/National Journal polls, is that the measures to combat the Great Recession have mostly helped large banks and financial institutions, and that's a view common to Republicans (75 percent) and Democrats (73 percent). Only one third of either political leaning thinks government policies have done a great deal or a fair amount for the poor.- Spoiler:
There is another instinctive conclusion among the American people. It is that the national deficit, and the debts we have accumulated, are of critical political importance. On the national debt, the money the government has spent without the tax revenues to pay for it has produced mind-numbing numbers so large as to be disconnected from reality. Zeros from here to infinity. The sums are hard to describe; it is hard to describe an elephant, but you know one when you see one. The public knows that, shuffle the numbers as you may, the level of debt is unsustainable.
Who could be surprised since millions of voters have discovered that for themselves? As one realizes the morning after the night before, there is an unavoidable penalty for excess. It is unnerving to wake up and learn that you have a [color:fc4f=#005497 !important][color:fc4f=#005497 !important]mortgage on your home that exceeds the value of the property. Or, and too often both, you have a credit card line that you cannot repay and the issuer has you on the rack for ever bigger compound interest on the debt. The lesson has been well and truly learned that debt catches up with you. Millions understand that they are just going to have to find a way to live within their means—and then still eke out some savings to pay down debt. And there are well over 14 million Americans without a paying job, so the level of discontent is very high. Just how are they going to regain control of their lives?
In a usnews.com post on July 26, Jodie Allen of the Pew Research Center reported that in recent weeks more academic and market economists have been urging the government to defer budget cuts and tax increases and instead provide additional stimulus to a still-fragile economy, some by continuing the Bush tax cuts. But among the public there has been a suggestive shift of opinion the other way, reflecting worries about debt. "Deficit and government spending" has jumped from 10th or 11th place as a priority for the federal government to one that is second only to job creation and economic growth. The drift of opinion is manifest in other recent polls. For instance, a CBS poll conducted July 9-12 assessed the most important problem facing the country as the economy and jobs (38 percent), with concern about the budget deficit and national debt way down at 5 percent. Yet CNN (July 16-21) has 47 percent preoccupied first with the economy, and 13 percent with the federal deficit. In a recent Time magazine poll, two thirds of the respondents say they oppose a second government stimulus program and more than half say the country would have been better off without the first one.
People see the stimulus, fashioned and passed by Congress in such a hurry, as a metaphor for wasted [color:fc4f=#005497 !important][color:fc4f=#005497 !important]money. They are highly critical about the lack of discipline among our political leaders. The question that naturally arises is how to forestall a long-term economic decline.
The Fed has lowered rates dramatically to keep the economy ticking and maybe continue the painfully slow recovery, but at the receiving end there is no feeling of relief at all. People know that the stimulus is about to stop stimulating. They know that money is petering out. They know that states are preparing to cut $200 billion to balance their budgets. They realize that the Great Recession has wiped out huge amounts of [color:fc4f=#005497 !important][color:fc4f=#005497 !important]wealth and that, unlike other recessions, this will not be followed by the kind of economic boom when people who had sat on their money during the lean years unleash pent-up demand for all sorts of goods and services.
There is no sign of that happening this time around. Households and businesses have kept their hands in their pockets. And so while many think that the only way to revive the economy and to inject more money into it is through governmental spending, the general feeling is that we can't afford that right now. The government will be writing more IOUs on top of those we already can't afford. Why plan a second stimulus if the first stimulus couldn't prevent high unemployment?
Of course, the question remains whether public sentiment coincides with sound economics. The challenge we face as a country is how to get growing vigorously again while achieving fiscal sustainability. We are learning from the Europeans what happens when the risks that came with excessive debt become realities. There seems to be an emerging consensus that if there is to be any additional stimulus, it must be explicitly linked to credible fiscal restraint down the road. This would include a commitment to binding legislation that would change the algebra so that both programs and budget procedures get us on a benign trajectory.
There are two warning signs of a budget crisis: rising debt and the loss of confidence that the government will deal with it. This administration is on the verge of fulfilling both conditions. In fairness, there is no majority coalition in Congress for deficit reduction today. It is also true that the growth of public debt has been driven by a dramatic diminution of tax receipts due to the recession, the extra spending to avoid sinking into a self-perpetuating depression, and all those billions we invested to save the financial sectors from their sins. Voters see the politicians most vociferous about reining in the federal budget as those who are out of power and want to use it against the majority party. Too many politicians claim they are all for balanced budgets—but only by reducing the other party's priorities. Republicans want to reduce social spending. Democrats want to reduce military spending. It is Washington as usual.
Amid the clamor and counterpromises, the historic record is worth keeping in mind. We paid for World War II through growth. The national debt, as a percentage of gross domestic product, fell sharply through the postwar presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson (despite the Vietnam War) and continued edging down through most of Nixon's, rising a little with Ford's. We marked time in the stagflation of the Carter years, and then the debt percentage increased dramatically during the Reagan-Bush presidencies. It shot up again to the present dangerous levels under George W. Bush and Obama. The only good years were Clinton's.
An old saying that can apply to the deficit is called the "rule of holes" and goes as follows: "When you're in one, stop digging." But Washington politics remains the barrier. Government programs seem to live on forever. The budget becomes a perpetual-motion machine for higher spending. New programs for new needs get piled on top of old programs for old needs.
Then there are the retirees. Their numbers and their health costs will keep on rising. There were 35 million Americans over 65 in 2000 and the number of retirees is expected to double by 2030. The impending retirement of millions of baby boomers, with their claims on federal retirement programs, comes at a time when both parties seem to be willing to worsen tomorrow's problems to win more of today's votes. The result is that the federal budget is drifting into a future of huge deficits or unprecedented tax increases, or both.
Federal spending is moving toward a higher plateau—from roughly 18 percent of the GDP to almost 25 percent by 2030. We don't know how we are going to pay for this. We don't know how the economy would fare with much higher taxes. We have seen the clouds gathering for years but haven't invested in an umbrella by adjusting federal retirement programs or taking other steps to reduce entitlements. One response would have been to begin gradually phasing in eligibility ages and tying benefits more to income. No doubt we have to think about raising the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare, perhaps by one month for each two-month increase in average life expectancy. We will have to think of ways to reduce the cost-of-living increases on Social Security benefits for wealthy seniors by slowly increasing their Medicare premiums and leaving everybody else's untouched. We may have to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, certainly for households earning more than $250,000 (and more for the super-rich) given the concentration of wealth in the top 1 percent of the population. It is entirely appropriate that they begin to make a greater contribution to our longer-term fiscal health.
The United States simply seems to lack a system that can fund the government that the people say they want. We are good at crises, but we do not seem to be good at tackling chronic problems. If we wait until a crisis happens, it will be too late. It is simply not possible to close the gap entirely with the tax increases on the rich that Democratic liberals so desperately believe in. Nor can we close the gap with spending cuts, as the Republicans would like. The liberals will have to concede that benefits and spending ought to be reduced. Conservatives will have to concede the need for higher taxes.
Hope may lie in a new bipartisan panel headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, two unique, wise, and centrist political leaders whose characters raise some degree of confidence that they might be able to come forth with productive programs. As former President Clinton said of them, they "are free enough to disregard the polls but smart enough to take them into account."
But let's not forget, current budgetary trends are capable of destroying the country. As Bowles pointed out, according to a Washington Post report, we can't just grow our way out of this. We can't just tax our way out of this. We have to do what governors do—cut spending or increase revenues in some combination that will begin to pull us back from the cliff.
Obama must know that if he doesn't address this, he will be the president who drove us toward a debt crisis. And so too must Congress, for both have now participated in the most fiscally irresponsible government in American history.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/8/2010, 14:34 | |
| « Only one third of either political leaning thinks government policies have done a great deal or a fair amount for the poor. »
Voilà, c'est dit. Il n'y a pas de différences significatives entre Obama et BaBush. Obama n'est définitivement pas un «socialiste» mais à genoux, lui-aussi, devant le 1% Club...
Donc... Madame conviendra que ce qui lui rend POTUS indigeste, c'est bien la couleur de sa peau et une partie de son nom. Ou alors quoi?
Au fait Madame est-elle une Birther? J'étais absent lors de cet important débat! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2639 - 27/8/2010, 14:38 | |
| Video MSNBC: Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and former New York Gov. George Pataki (R-NY) join Hardball’s Chris Matthews to wade through the arguments put forth by opponents of the plan.
Pataki hits Matthews with the fact that the GOP isn't the only ground opposed to the mosque. Pataki notes the governor of NY and Democratic leader of the state House opposes the mosque. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/8/2010, 14:48 | |
| « Pataki notes the governor of NY and Democratic leader of the state House opposes the mosque. »
La bêtise, la haine ou la peur de l'autre, la complaisance électorale ne sont pas l'apanage exclusif des Republicains.
J'use mon clavier à force d'écrire que les Democrates ne sont qu'une copie humanisée, humanisée tout de même, des Republicains avec un demi-noir au nom arabisé à leur tête.
Ça prend quand même pas la tête à Papineau pour comprendre ça!
Ou alors... |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2641 - Why another fiscal stimulus won't do 27/8/2010, 15:16 | |
| Why another fiscal stimulus won't do By Mohamed A. El-Erian
Friday, August 27, 2010
The great hope a few months ago was for a "recovery summer," with the economy responding favorably to various policy initiatives. Yet the recovery has lost momentum, and while the end of the year will not be as gut-wrenching as the final 3 1/2 months of 2008, when the global economy suffered a cardiac arrest, it will be as consequential in affecting the welfare of millions of people. - Spoiler:
Throughout the summer, data signals have become more alarming. Despite all the rhetoric about job creation, unemployment remains stubbornly high and the problem is becoming structural in nature (and, therefore, harder to solve). Consumer credit continues to contract while small companies find it difficult to access new bank lines of credit. Housing activity is falling, and home values are poised for further declines as foreclosures increase. The trade balance has taken an ominous turn, with exports stagnating and imports surging. More Americans are falling through the large holes in the country's safety net.
The equity markets are again under pressure while yields on Treasury bonds have collapsed, reflecting that market's growing concerns about the weak economic outlook. With such fragility, households and companies have become even more cautious, undermining the "animal spirits" needed for economic expansion.
Meanwhile, the United States has received little help from the rest of the world. Yes, German growth is up, but a significant part reflects its well-functioning export machine. The beneficial spillover effects have been immaterial. And despite the political narrative to the contrary, market concerns with debt solvency in some eurozone countries (Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain) remain high.
Even a steadily growing China is proving to be of limited help. While Beijing is implementing additional structural changes to reorient its economy toward domestic consumption, the pace remains measured; what is understandable from a Chinese national perspective does little to help sustainably rebalance the global economy.
In sum, the current policy approaches here and abroad are unlikely to deliver a durable and robust U.S. recovery and, critically, create sufficient growth in jobs. Yet the main debate in Washington is whether to do more of the same -- namely, another fiscal stimulus and another round of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve. This clearly conflicts with evidence that a broader and more holistic response is needed.
These realities will fuel debate among economists, who already hold unusually divergent views, and reignite the discomforting notion that economic unthinkables and improbables -- such as a double-dip recession and a deflation trap -- are more of a possibility.
What is critical to keep in mind is that this situation is part of a broad, multiyear process driven by national and global realignments. It's a secular phenomenon that needs to be better understood and navigated -- by recognizing its structural dimensions and by urgently broadening the excessively cyclical policy mindsets that abound. Unfortunately, the approach in too many industrial countries has been to kick the can down the road, seemingly hoping for a series of immaculate economic recoveries.
Policymakers must break this active inertia by implementing a structural vision to accompany their current cyclical focus. Measures are needed to address key issues, which include the change in drivers of growth and employment creation; the high risk of skill erosion and lost labor productivity; financial deleveraging in the private sector; debt overhangs; the uncertain regulatory environment; and the unacceptably high risks facing the most vulnerable segments of society.
Specific measures would include pro-growth tax reform, housing finance reform, increased infrastructure investments, greater support for education and research, job retraining programs, removal of outdated interstate competition barriers and stronger social safety nets.
That, of course, is what is desirable; how about what is likely?
With the recovery's visible loss in momentum, more people are coming to appreciate the importance of structural issues. Indeed, some elements of the package are visible. Yet, to my dismay, the prospects for a sufficiently bold policy reaction are doubtful. Post-financial crisis, it is no longer just about the "unusually uncertain" economic outlook and related challenges for a policy approach that remains too reactive and ad hoc. The politics of structural change are now a material impediment.
An already polarized political environment is becoming even more fractured by real and far less substantive issues. There is virtually no political center that can anchor consensus and enable sustained implementation of policy. Meanwhile, as anti-Washington sentiments rise, interest in a national agenda is increasingly giving way to the election cycle. Internationally, the impressive degree of cross-border coordination seen during the global financial crisis has been reduced to inconsistent -- and at times contradictory -- national responses.
This worrisome trio of increasingly ineffective national and global policy stances, intense political polarization and growing social pressures speaks to the risk that the economy's recent soft patch will evolve into something even more troublesome and sinister.
I hope that sober policy responses will accompany the coming cooler temperatures. Given the proximity of the November elections, however, I worry they may not.
Mohamed A. El-Erian is chief executive and co-chief investment officer of the investment management firm Pimco and author of the 2008 book "When Markets Collide."
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/8/2010, 15:30 | |
| bonjour Sylvette  j'ai beaucoup de lecture en retard mais je crois que je ne vais pas tout lire  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/8/2010, 20:46 | |
| |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2644 - Hunters, Conservationists Square Off Over Lead in Ammunition and Tackle 27/8/2010, 21:01 | |
| Je comprends parfaitement, Marieden...  Peut-etre pas le comble du ridicule, mais on ne doit pas etre trop loin tout-de-meme. Incapables d'interdire la vente d'armes, les activistes gauchistes s'en prennent aux munitions.  Hunters, Conservationists Square Off Over Lead in Ammunition and TackleBy Joshua Rhett MillerPublished August 27, 2010| FoxNews.comAt least 75 wild bird species, including the American bald eagle, are poisoned by spent lead ammunition, conservationists say.- Spoiler:
Hunters and fishermen across the U.S. are battling environmental activists over the use of lead in ammunition and fishing tackle.
A coalition of conservation groups filed a petition earlier this month with the Environmental Protection Agency in which they argue that the use of lead in ammo and tackle is poisoning the nation's lakes, ponds and forests. The environmentalists are asking the EPA to ban the "manufacture, processing and distribution" of lead shot, bullets and fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
According to the petitioners, who include the Center for Biological Diversity and the American Bird Conservancy, up to 20 million birds and other animals are killed each year due to lead poisoning in the United States, and at least 75 wild bird species -- including bald eagles, ravens and endangered California condors -- are poisoned by spent lead ammunition. They say roughly 3,000 tons of lead are expelled into U.S. hunting grounds annually, with another 80,000 tons released at shooting ranges, and another 4,000 tons of lead fishing lures and sinkers are lost in ponds and streams.
"Based on information extending back to Roman times more than 2,000 years ago, lead has long been identified as a highly toxic substance with lethal properties and numerous pathological effects on living organisms," their petition reads. "Health effects from lead exposure can run the gamut from acute, paralytic poisoning and seizures to subtle, long-term mental impairment, miscarriage and impotence …
"Despite this knowledge, lead continues to be used in manufactured products, many of which are sources of toxic lead exposure to wildlife and to human beings."But sportsmen don't want anyone tinkering with the tools of their trade, and they say the EPA doesn't have the authority to do anything in this case.
Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, urged EPA officials to reject the petition in an Aug. 20 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
"Simply put," Cox wrote, "the [Toxic Substances Control Act] does not grant EPA the authority to regulate ammunition of any composition."
The Toxic Substances Control Act allows EPA to regulate "chemical substances" under certain circumstances, but Cox says Congress explicitly excluded from regulation any article subject to excise taxes -- including pistols, revolvers, firearms, shells and cartridges.
He says the conservationists are trying to circumvent this rule by suggesting that while ammunition itself is exempt from regulation, the chemical components of the ammo and fishing lures -- specifically, the lead -- can fall under the EPA's jurisdiction.
Cox said the petition appears to be first time since 1976 that any organization or individual has suggested that the EPA regulate projectiles used in firearms under the act. But environmental activists like Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy told FoxNews.com that the petitioners waited to submit their request until nontoxic alternatives such as steel, copper and alloy became readily available. They say the petition is not an attempt to regulate the firearms industry.
"Ammunition itself cannot be regulated [under the Act], but the components itself can be regulated," Fry said. "In other words, you cannot ban ammunition, but you can require nontoxic ammunition. ... We're not trying to ban handgun ammunition. This is strictly a toxicity issue, with lead poisoning wildlife."
In recent years, federal authorities have implemented widespread regulations to reduce lead exposure in drinking water, paint, batteries, gasoline, toys and other items.
Aside from animals, Fry said lead ammunition also poses severe health risks to humans. Conservationists cite a recent study that showed that imperceptible, dust-sized particles of lead can infect meat up to 18 inches away from a bullet wound, posing a health risk to humans who consume lead-shot game. Another recent study found that up to 87 percent of cooked game killed by lead ammunition can contain unsafe levels of lead.
"It's long past time [to] do something about this deadly -- and preventable -- epidemic of lead poisoning in the wild," Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity said earlier this month. "Over the past several decades we've wisely taken steps to get lead out of our gasoline, paint, water pipes and other sources that are dangerous to people. Now it's time to get the lead out of hunting and fishing sports to save wildlife from needless poisoning."
But representatives of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms and hunting industry, say there's no need to change existing restrictions on traditional ammunition.
"There is simply no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations that would require restricting or banning the use of traditional ammunition beyond current limitations, such as the scientifically based restriction on waterfowl hunting," the foundation's president, Steve Sanetti, said in a written statement.
He cited recent statistics from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicating that the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States has increased by more than 700 percent from 1981 through 2006.
Firearm advocates also warn against the ramifications a ban on traditional ammunition would have on wildlife conservation, since the 11 percent federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of ammunition is a primary source of conservation funding.
"Needlessly restricting or banning traditional ammunition absent sound science will hurt wildlife conservation efforts as fewer hunters take to the field," Lawrence Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundations' senior vice president and general counsel, said in a written statement. "Hunters and their ammunition have done more for wildlife than the (Center for Biological Diversity) ever will. And the (center's) scientifically baseless petition and endless lawsuits against state and federal wildlife managers certainly do not serve the wildlife that the organization claims to protect."
EPA officials, meanwhile, are staying mum on the issue prior to the end of a public comment period that ends on Oct. 31.
In a statement to FoxNews.com, EPA officials say they are neither "considering nor developing" regulations on the issue.
"Hundreds of petitions are submitted to EPA each year and the law requires the agency to review each of them," the statement read. "Earlier this month a petition was submitted to EPA by outside groups asking EPA to 'prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead for shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers.' The law allows citizens to file such petitions and requires us to respond to any petition within 90 days of receiving it. EPA has just begun its review of this citizens' petition."
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/8/2010, 21:19 | |
| Dites-moi chère Madame, auriez-vous des nouvelles fraîches de votre ancien camarade de combat Ken Mehlman, l'ancien directeur des affaires politiques de la Maison Blanche sous POTUS BaBush.
En janvier 2005, il avait le prix de « Directeur de campagne de l'année » par l'association américaine des consultants politiques pour son organisation de la campagne présidentielle de POTUS BaBush, non?
Si je ne me trompe pas, il raconte des drôles de choses par les temps qui courent, votre ex copain de régiment.
Vous pourriez pas nous en glisser un petit mot? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/8/2010, 23:50 | |
| Ah oui, j'allais presque oublier.
Que pensez vous, chère Madame do votre amie Sharron Angle, glorieuse teapartyeuse et candidate Republicaine au Sénat pour l'état du Nevada, qui affirme ouvertement que le noir est la couleur du diable?
Allez-vous vous débarrasser de cette petite robe noire qui traîne dans votre placard à côté de ce baby-doll affriolant de la même couleur et qui s'y cache discrètement depuis des lunes à la suite de l'affirmation catégorique de la candidate hautement médiatisée de votre parti ?
Et pour terminer, allez-vous demain samedi le 28 vous joindre à ce pelerinage historique qui se tiendra au Lincoln Center, pelerinage qui se terminera par de vibrants appels à la grandeur de l'Amérique, appels passionnés que livreront vos mentors Palin et Beck?
Houlala! Qu'est-ce quelle doit être excitante votre vie socio-politique! Tant de grands personnages à fréquenter! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/8/2010, 23:59 | |
| Ceci n'est pas mal non plus mais d'un autre registre... quoique pas moins délirant:
Yale conference on anti-Semitism targets Palestinian identity, ’self-hating’ Jews, and anyone who criticizes Israel
Ben voyons, ils ont bien raison ces trop-bien-pensants. Pour vivre heureux, libres et satisfaits il ne faut surtout pas avoir l'esprit critique!
Comme on m'a déjà affirmé, il faut choisir son camp, peu importe sa moralité... |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 00:22 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- Je comprends parfaitement, Marieden...
Peut-etre pas le comble du ridicule, mais on ne doit pas etre trop loin tout-de-meme.
Incapables d'interdire la vente d'armes, les activistes gauchistes s'en prennent aux munitions.
Hunters, Conservationists Square Off Over Lead in Ammunition and Tackle
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published August 27, 2010
| FoxNews.com
At least 75 wild bird species, including the American bald eagle, are poisoned by spent lead ammunition, conservationists say.
- Spoiler:
Hunters and fishermen across the U.S. are battling environmental activists over the use of lead in ammunition and fishing tackle.
A coalition of conservation groups filed a petition earlier this month with the Environmental Protection Agency in which they argue that the use of lead in ammo and tackle is poisoning the nation's lakes, ponds and forests. The environmentalists are asking the EPA to ban the "manufacture, processing and distribution" of lead shot, bullets and fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
According to the petitioners, who include the Center for Biological Diversity and the American Bird Conservancy, up to 20 million birds and other animals are killed each year due to lead poisoning in the United States, and at least 75 wild bird species -- including bald eagles, ravens and endangered California condors -- are poisoned by spent lead ammunition. They say roughly 3,000 tons of lead are expelled into U.S. hunting grounds annually, with another 80,000 tons released at shooting ranges, and another 4,000 tons of lead fishing lures and sinkers are lost in ponds and streams.
"Based on information extending back to Roman times more than 2,000 years ago, lead has long been identified as a highly toxic substance with lethal properties and numerous pathological effects on living organisms," their petition reads. "Health effects from lead exposure can run the gamut from acute, paralytic poisoning and seizures to subtle, long-term mental impairment, miscarriage and impotence …
"Despite this knowledge, lead continues to be used in manufactured products, many of which are sources of toxic lead exposure to wildlife and to human beings."But sportsmen don't want anyone tinkering with the tools of their trade, and they say the EPA doesn't have the authority to do anything in this case.
Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, urged EPA officials to reject the petition in an Aug. 20 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
"Simply put," Cox wrote, "the [Toxic Substances Control Act] does not grant EPA the authority to regulate ammunition of any composition."
The Toxic Substances Control Act allows EPA to regulate "chemical substances" under certain circumstances, but Cox says Congress explicitly excluded from regulation any article subject to excise taxes -- including pistols, revolvers, firearms, shells and cartridges.
He says the conservationists are trying to circumvent this rule by suggesting that while ammunition itself is exempt from regulation, the chemical components of the ammo and fishing lures -- specifically, the lead -- can fall under the EPA's jurisdiction.
Cox said the petition appears to be first time since 1976 that any organization or individual has suggested that the EPA regulate projectiles used in firearms under the act. But environmental activists like Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy told FoxNews.com that the petitioners waited to submit their request until nontoxic alternatives such as steel, copper and alloy became readily available. They say the petition is not an attempt to regulate the firearms industry.
"Ammunition itself cannot be regulated [under the Act], but the components itself can be regulated," Fry said. "In other words, you cannot ban ammunition, but you can require nontoxic ammunition. ... We're not trying to ban handgun ammunition. This is strictly a toxicity issue, with lead poisoning wildlife."
In recent years, federal authorities have implemented widespread regulations to reduce lead exposure in drinking water, paint, batteries, gasoline, toys and other items.
Aside from animals, Fry said lead ammunition also poses severe health risks to humans. Conservationists cite a recent study that showed that imperceptible, dust-sized particles of lead can infect meat up to 18 inches away from a bullet wound, posing a health risk to humans who consume lead-shot game. Another recent study found that up to 87 percent of cooked game killed by lead ammunition can contain unsafe levels of lead.
"It's long past time [to] do something about this deadly -- and preventable -- epidemic of lead poisoning in the wild," Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity said earlier this month. "Over the past several decades we've wisely taken steps to get lead out of our gasoline, paint, water pipes and other sources that are dangerous to people. Now it's time to get the lead out of hunting and fishing sports to save wildlife from needless poisoning."
But representatives of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms and hunting industry, say there's no need to change existing restrictions on traditional ammunition.
"There is simply no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations that would require restricting or banning the use of traditional ammunition beyond current limitations, such as the scientifically based restriction on waterfowl hunting," the foundation's president, Steve Sanetti, said in a written statement.
He cited recent statistics from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicating that the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States has increased by more than 700 percent from 1981 through 2006.
Firearm advocates also warn against the ramifications a ban on traditional ammunition would have on wildlife conservation, since the 11 percent federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of ammunition is a primary source of conservation funding.
"Needlessly restricting or banning traditional ammunition absent sound science will hurt wildlife conservation efforts as fewer hunters take to the field," Lawrence Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundations' senior vice president and general counsel, said in a written statement. "Hunters and their ammunition have done more for wildlife than the (Center for Biological Diversity) ever will. And the (center's) scientifically baseless petition and endless lawsuits against state and federal wildlife managers certainly do not serve the wildlife that the organization claims to protect."
EPA officials, meanwhile, are staying mum on the issue prior to the end of a public comment period that ends on Oct. 31.
In a statement to FoxNews.com, EPA officials say they are neither "considering nor developing" regulations on the issue.
"Hundreds of petitions are submitted to EPA each year and the law requires the agency to review each of them," the statement read. "Earlier this month a petition was submitted to EPA by outside groups asking EPA to 'prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead for shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers.' The law allows citizens to file such petitions and requires us to respond to any petition within 90 days of receiving it. EPA has just begun its review of this citizens' petition."
µµ  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 00:32 | |
| « Incapables d'interdire la vente d'armes, les activistes gauchistes s'en prennent aux munitions. »
Tiens donc! Moi qui croyais que les activistes gauchistes sont justement ceux qui fabriquent des bombes, cachent des cutters dans leurs bas et attaquent le bon citoyen blanc tealiban moyen?
Un bon activiste gauchiste... n'est-il pas tout de noir habillé, anarchiste et ne crie-t-il pas à tue-tête «Ni dieu, ni maître»?
Méchants activistes qui s'en prennent au plomb des munitions!
P.S.: C'est eux aussi qui s'en sont pris, il y a des décennies au plomb qu'on utilisait dans les glaçures de la vaisselle de table et qu'on a banni. Le plomb rend débile. J'imagine qu'il y en a dans cet entourage qui utilisent encore de la vielle vaisselle d'avant le ban! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 10:45 | |
| Merci Marieden
C'est tres marrant ce smiley, il va falloir que j'essaye. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 11:03 | |
| |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 11:09 | |
|  Votre avatar, c'est Minette? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 11:11 | |
| Vous préférez discourir au sujet des smileys? Bonne idée! En voici un que vous devriez adopter en signature. C'est certainement ce que vous conseillerait cette renommée analyste psychologue républicaine, grande propagatrice du «N. word», votre bonne amie la Dr. Laura Schlessinger:  En passant, c'est vrai la rumeur voulant que maintenant GOP signifie Gay Old Party?
Dernière édition par Pétard le 28/8/2010, 11:28, édité 2 fois |
| | | | Charly
 Nombre de messages : 23689
Localisation : belgique
Date d'inscription : 30/11/2008
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 11:20 | |
| Bonjour Charly!  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 11:32 | |
| Ton ordi fait défaut, Charly?
Sérieusement... C'est Forumactif qui fait des siennes!
Elle est jolie la tête de piaf Black, tu trouves pas?
La bonne docteure, la bonne amie de Madame, adore la couleur. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 11:41 | |
| « Ahhh Charly, c'est fote a Forumactif... »
Ben oui!
Ça vous fait problème car Forumactif contribue à la caisse du GOP?
Suffisait de l'dire! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 11:44 | |
| Ahhh Charly, c'est fote a Forumactif... mais bon apres 2 editions, ca fonctionne quand meme
.....Dernière édition par Pétard le Sam 28 Aoû - 10:28, édité 2 foiset maintenant, ca marche. Il faisait long feu chez vous, Charly, l'ouvrier malchanceux qui avoir toujours de movais zoutils? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 11:52 | |
| Si quelqu'un se demande pourquoi le canard nous honore de sa presence, je crois que c'est PEUT-ETRE qu'il s'ennuie chez lui.... Evidemment, DMaudio, c'est le.. kanard... |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/8/2010, 11:53 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- Votre avatar, c'est Minette?
non, mais on dirait bien pourtant |
| | | | Contenu sponsorisé
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
| |
| | | | | | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
|
Sujets similaires | |
|
| | Permission de ce forum: | Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
| |
| |
| |
|
