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.
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 6/7/2009, 08:44
Rappel du premier message :
Bonjour Biloulou
Il me semblait que cette nouvelle plairait!
Auteur
Message
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1549 - 7/11/2009, 04:02
Hello, Tipping Point By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
The Obama presidency was always a race against time.
'We don't look at either of these gubernatorial races . . . as something that portends a lot for our legislative efforts," insisted White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday, as New Jersey and Virginia voters gave Democrats a thumping. Unfortunately for the White House, its opinion no longer counts.
Spoiler:
On Jan. 20, Barack Obama began a race against time. The White House knew its liberal agenda would prove unpopular in many parts of the country represented by Democrats. So long as the president looked strong, those Blue Dogs and freshmen and swing-state senators would stick. Show them any sign of weakness, however, and rattled Dems would begin to care more about their own re-elections than they did their president.
Tuesday, the White House hit that tipping point.
To understand why, join some of those "nervous Democrats" who at this very moment are digging into, say, Virginia's returns. Last year, Dems captured three GOP House seats in the Old Dominion as the state voted for its first Democratic president since 1964. This week, those very same districts provided Democrats their first proof that the Obama agenda is a liability.
Associated Press
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Rep. Gerry Connolly (D., Va.)
There's freshman Rep. Tom Perriello, who, buoyed by the big Obama turnout, won Virginia's fifth congressional district by a scant 727 votes. Today, Mr. Perriello's farming and manufacturing area sports the state's highest unemployment rate. The Democrat suffered a furious backlash over his vote for a cap-and-trade bill that will further crush local manufacturing and was then walloped at a series of health-care town halls.
Voters took their frustration to the polls on Tuesday. Republican Bob McDonnell, who campaigned for governor on jobs and against ObamaCare and climate legislation, took 61.4% of the district's vote. At the local level, Democrats challenged two incumbent GOP Virginia delegates; the Republicans each won by more than 30 points. The GOP last month succeeded in recruiting veteran state Sen. Robert Hurt, a district native, to challenge Mr. Perriello. He's already campaigning on jobs.
Or take Rep. Glenn Nye, who last year won Virginia's Hampton Roads district. Criticized as an outsider with few ties to the local military culture, Mr. Nye nonetheless benefited from Mr. Obama's fierce campaign for the district (which the president won with 50.5%). Yet residents are today anxious about the Democratic commitment to defense spending, and bitter about a Washington proposal to move the Navy's newest aircraft carrier from Virginia to Florida. Mr. Nye was wary enough to buck his party's leadership and vote against cap and trade, though he then got caught lauding the bill's passage.
Mr. McDonnell carried Mr. Nye's district by a 24-point margin. Locally, Republicans ousted two incumbent Democratic delegates. Mr. Nye already faces two GOP challengers—both veterans—who, combined, have $400,000 in the bank.
Gerry Connolly? The freshman Democrat last year won the 11th congressional district, a Northern Virginia suburb of Washington that has trended blue. Mr. Obama cleaned up 57% of voters, and the district was hailed as an example of a new tide toward Democrats. Mr. Connolly, feeling safe, has supported every aspect of the Democratic agenda, from stimulus to health care.
Tuesday, those suburban voters came swinging back. Mr. McDonnell won 55% of the vote, improving John McCain's number by 13 points. Two more Democratic incumbents on the local ballot went down to GOP contenders. Local businessman Keith Fimian has already announced a rematch against Mr. Connolly; he outraised him by $100,000 in his first fund-raising quarter.
Forget the freshmen—how about Virginia's ninth district, home to 27-year-incumbent Rick Boucher? That's coal country, though Mr. Boucher, confident in incumbency, has been playing a dangerous game of shepherding through his party's climate bill. Will Morefield, a little-known Republican running for the Virginia House of Delegates, centered his campaign against that legislation. He beat the Democratic incumbent by 14 points. Mr. McDonnell? He won a devastating 66% of the district vote. These are the numbers the 49 Democrats who sit in McCain districts are dissecting. The mass defection in the independent vote, the uptick in the angry-senior vote, the swing in suburban voters, the drop-off in Democratic turnout—the figures have even hot incumbent blood running cold. The White House can shout that this is not a referendum on the president's policies. What vulnerable Democrat wants to take that chance?
The White House and the congressional leadership saw this coming, and it is why Speaker Nancy Pelosi is force-marching her health bill to a vote tomorrow. She's not about to give her members time to absorb the ugly results, or to be further rattled by next week's Veteran's Day break, when they go home for a repeat of the August furies. If not now, she knows, maybe never.
Look for it, nonetheless, to be a squeaker. A lot of Democrats are getting a sneaky suspicion Mrs. Pelosi is willing to sacrifice their seats on the altar of liberal government health care. Combined with the election results and Mr. Obama's falling poll numbers, this is no recipe for loyalty. Hello, tipping point. Hello, even crazier Washington.
EddieCochran Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768 Age : 64 Localisation : Countat da Nissa Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 7/11/2009, 14:32
1550 - Sylvette - p.55 Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise Sam 7 Nov 2009 à 1:41
Citation :
Decidement, ca devient grave, mon pauvre Eddie
Ah ma pauv' dame vous ne croyez pas si bien dire. J'ai l'impression d'entendre kékun de très proche...
Citation :
vous oubliez avoir utilise un smiley qui brandissait le nom de Dean pendant la campagne electorale; maintenant vous n'avez aucun souvenir de m'avoir demande d'utiliser un chien plutot qu'une rose
Pour l'histoire de Dean j'ai fait ça moi ?! C'est curieux, ça ne me ressemble pas de faire de la nargue syndicale avec banderoles et tout et tout. C'est devenu grave.
Citation :
maintenant vous n'avez aucun souvenir de m'avoir demande d'utiliser un chien plutot qu'une rose
Si, en effet, ça me revient maintenant que vous le dites. Je mesure avec effroi que l'on puisse donner de la crédibilité à mes futilités, les retenir alors que je les efface aussi sec de ma mémoire. C'est devenu très grave.
Citation :
Vous etes un peu jeune (quoi que... - d'une facon generale, je fais rarement allusion a l'age de quelqu'un, pour moi ca n'a aucune importance, mais puisque vous vous amusez a rappeler le mien... ) pour avoir de tels problemes de perte de memoire.
Il doit y avoir du vrai. Mon épouse me fait le reproche quotidien que mes passages prolongés sur les fori sont des gamineries qui m'abêtissent. Quand on s'est comme moi fixé une ligne de conduite fondée sur la dérision, l'amusement, la déconnade, la vanne, la satire, le pamphlet il est difficile de garder à l'esprit toutes les khônneries que l'on a pu commettre. Dans une telle circonstance, oublier revient à purger sa propre bêtise. C'est devenu très très grave.
Citation :
Alors tant pis, ca sera une rose comme pour tout le monde...
Pitié, pas ça maîtresse, je serai sage à l'avenir(comme pour tout le monde, n'importe quoi !). Remettez le chien, un lézard, un chat, un rat, un bonobo, un iguane, peu importe. Si vous tenez aux fleurs, mettez un pissenlit, un liseron, un cactus (sauf un coussin de belle-mère), un strelitzia, un pavot, oui un pavot c'est pas mal le pavot, ça fait un petit rappel des succès de la guerre en Afghanistan. Trouvez-moi un pavot, ça sera chouette pour un vieil hibou comme moi. C'est devenu très très très grave.
Citation :
Ou n'importe quelle autre bestiole qui ne pisse pas aux quatre coins de son territoire et qui vous adore même si vous lui bottez le train. Quelle surprise de lire ca sous votre frappe alors que vous nous avez parle de la mort de votre compagnon et de la peine que vous en avez eue
Oui, la brave bête, bien morte depuis le temps, ce temps qui est si galant homme qu'il vous excise la peine pour reboucher la cavité par de doux souvenirs. Si c'est pour mon brave toutou qui est au Ciel que j'avais écris kekchose c'est que je le pensais sincèrement à ce moment-là. Je ne change rien à cet état de fait. Je me suis rattrapé avec les gazelles. C'est devenu si grave que ça ne s'arrange plus.
Citation :
Mauvaise journee et nuit et journee....?
Je vous remercie, tout va bien, les eaux sont claires et les rhumatismes silencieux. Et de votre côté, toujours une forme de yé-yé ?
Bonne dominique, Chère Sylvette.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1551 - 7/11/2009, 16:23
Eddie
Mon épouse me fait le reproche quotidien que mes passages prolongés sur les fori sont des gamineries qui m'abêtissent.
Sympa pour les autres participants que vous honorez de votre presence. A moins, a moins qu'il ne s'agisse la encore d'un probleme d'age; ne dit-on pas, en effet, qu'en vieillissant les defauts s'exacerbent?
Donc, c'est decide, a partir de maintenant je suis votre exemple et ferai l'effort d'oublier tout ce que vous avez ecrit. Ca evitera les echanges denues de tout interet. Bon dimanche, demain!
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1552 - 7/11/2009, 16:29
FOXNews.com
- November 06, 2009
AMA's Endorsement of House Health Care Bill Sparks Internal Uprising
The American Medical Association's much-touted endorsement of the House health care reform bill has triggered a revolt among some members who want the endorsement withdrawn.
Some members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.
On Monday, delegates will vote on a resolution offered by some members that, if approved, will withdraw the AMA’s endorsement of the bill.
President Obama cited the endorsement of the influential AMA, along with AARP's, in a surprise appearance Thursday in the White House briefing room as he attempted to beat back criticism that the bill would gut Medicare.
"They're endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it," he told reporters. "They know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them."
"So I want everyone to remember that the next time you hear the same tired arguments to the contrary from insurance companies and their lobbyists and remember this endorsement the next time you see a bunch of misleading ads on television," he added.
Fox News' Trish Turner contributed to this report.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1553 - 7/11/2009, 16:41
NOVEMBER 7, 2009, 9:58 A.M. ET
What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation. By BETSY MCCAUGHEY The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
Spoiler:
What the government will require you to do: • Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit. • Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
Associated Press
Protestors wave signs in front of the Capitol on Thursday. On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill. • Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement. • Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less. Eviscerating Medicare: In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions. • Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients. • Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida. • Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care. • Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services. • Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services. • Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities." • Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us. Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.
Peu de tout cela est constitutionnel mais l'elite mediatique est largement muette depuis janvier 2009 a ce sujet.
La meme qui reprochait a Pres. Bush 43 de ne pas respecter la Constitution!
L'administration Obama continue son offensive contre FOX News menacant les consultants Democrates qui ose apparaitre dans des talk-shows de la chaine.
Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News
'We better not see you on again,' the strategist says he was told by a White House official. Obama aides have taken an aggressive stance against the network and may be seeking to isolate it.
By Peter Nicholas Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 6, 2009 | 8:59 a.m.
Reporting from Washington - At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.
Spoiler:
Political consultants are a staple of cable television talk shows, analyzing current events based on their own experiences working on campaigns or in government.
One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.
The message was, " 'We better not see you on again,' " said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."
In urging Democratic consultants to spurn Fox, White House officials might be trying to isolate the network and make it appear more partisan.
A boycott by Democratic strategists could also help drive the White House narrative that Fox is a fundamentally different creature than the other TV news networks. For their part, White House officials appear on Fox News -- but sporadically and with "eyes wide open," as one aide put it.
David Plouffe, the president's campaign manager and author of a new campaign book, "The Audacity to Win," was scheduled to appear on Fox's "On the Record" with Greta Van Susteren Thursday night as he promotes his book. His appearance, preempted by the breaking news of the shootings at Ft. Hood, Texas, has been rescheduled for Monday.
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Thursday night that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an e-mail.
But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and a former pollster for President Carter, said he has spoken to Democratic consultants who have been told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names.
Caddell said he had not gotten that message himself from the White House. "They know better than to tell me anything like that," he said.
Caddell added: "I have heard that they've done that to others in not-too-subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself."
The White House has taken an aggressive stance toward Fox. When President Obama appeared on five separate talk shows one Sunday in September, he avoided Fox.
"It would be foolish for us to just treat it like it's CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS," said a White House aide.
"That doesn't make any sense. That would be like saying we're going to do [interviews] with the newsmagazines and we're going to do Time, Newsweek and the [conservative] National Review."
The aide spoke on condition of anonymity in order to talk more openly about the White House's thinking.
Last month, Dunn told CNN that Fox was, in effect, an "arm" of the Republican Party. Dunn said in an appearance on the rival cable network: "Let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."
As the dust-up played out, Fox's senior vice president of news, Michael Clemente, countered: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, healthcare and two wars."
Fox's commentators have been sharply critical of the Obama administration. After the president won the Nobel Peace Prize, Sean Hannity, who has a prime-time show on Fox, said he got the award for "trashing America."
The two sides seemed interested in easing tensions. On Oct. 28, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs met privately with Clemente.
But White House aides haven't changed their underlying view of Fox.
Fox's audience is by far the largest of the cable networks, with an average of more than 2.1 million viewers in prime-time this year. CNN is second with 932,000 prime-time viewers.
Fox's viewership is not what worries the White House, though. More troubling to White House aides is that other news organizations may uncritically follow stories that Fox has showcased.
The White House aide said: "Where some of the falsehoods become dangerous is when the rest of the media accepts them as fact and reports on them, either out of a desire to tap into Fox's news audience -- which you can understand, given where circulation and viewership rates are -- or as some sort of knee-jerk fear of being considered liberally biased, which is what conservatives have been saying of the mainstream media for years."
The White House's pugnacious approach to the network leaves some Democrats troubled.
Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, said in an interview: "This approach is out of sync with my conception of what the Obama administration stands for and what they're trying to do. I think they'll think better of it and this will be a passing phase."
Peter.nicholas@latimes.comCopyright 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1555 - et c'est le Boston Globe... 7/11/2009, 17:06
qui ose.
Je m'etais faite les memes reflections, repensant aux allocutions de Pres. Reagan, apres l'explosion de la navette, et de Pres. Bush apres le 11 Septembre, mais les avais gardees pour moi. Evidemment, le Globe ne parle pas de Pres. Bush 43, on ne peut pas demander l'impossible... Globe Editorial
Obama’s delayed empathy November 7, 2009
IN TIMES of national tragedy, Americans expect their president to capture the mood and moment with the right blend of emotion, empathy, and urgency. It’s a delicate act of timing and tone. And President Obama, despite his eloquence and dignity, has yet to master it, as illustrated by his awkward response to the deadly shootings at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas.
Spoiler:
Obama’s initial remarks came shortly after 5 p.m. Thursday, while Americans were struggling to come to grips with the shocking rampage and its chaotic aftermath. The stage was set for the president to quickly and somberly address the tragedy. Instead, a serene-looking Obama offered light introductory comments, keyed to those attending a Tribal Nations Conference that was hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. His introduction included a convivial “shout-out’’ to one of the conference attendees.
Several minutes in, Obama finally called the Fort Hood shootings “a horrific outburst of violence.’’ The words he spoke next were respectful and appropriate. But it took him too long to get to the point of delivering them.
It takes more than scripted eloquence for presidents to connect with their fellow Americans. It requires a visceral ability to grasp the scope of tragedy, calculate its impact on the national psyche, and react swiftly to it. Ronald Reagan did it after the Challenger explosion took the lives of seven crew members on Jan. 28, 1986. So did Bill Clinton, after the Oklahoma City bombings of April 19, 1995, left 168 dead and more than 600 injured.
When a gunman fired those shots at Fort Hood, the country immediately felt the pain. Obama missed the first moment to show he understood just how much it hurt. Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company
.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1556 - 7/11/2009, 17:14
=====
=====
(pas trouve le speech fait le jour meme de l'attentat. Y en a-t-il eu un? je suppose mais je ne m'en souviens pas) =====
Le POTUS actuel est un cool cucumber...
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1557 - 7/11/2009, 17:40
USS New York Commissioning (Live)
Le POTUS n'y est pas (Hillary le remplace), il est parti a la Chambre des Representants pour essayer de recuperer quelques votes ici et la. Il ne pouvait pas y aller cet apres-midi? Apparemment pas.
EddieCochran Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768 Age : 64 Localisation : Countat da Nissa Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 7/11/2009, 19:35
1557 - Sylvette - p 56 Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise Sam 7 Nov 2009 à 16:23
Citation :
A moins, a moins qu'il ne s'agisse la encore d'un probleme d'age; ne dit-on pas, en effet, qu'en vieillissant les defauts s'exacerbent?
Pour l'heure je ne suis pas en position de pouvoir me prononcer sur une expérience qui vous est propre. Mais je tiendrai compte de votre évolution pour en tirer les bons enseignements.
Citation :
Ca evitera les echanges denues de tout interet.
Pourtant ce n'est pas faute d'efforts de ma part pour tenter de rendre vos billets attractifs. Mais à l'impossible nul n'est tenu.Je retiens cependant qu'il y a de l'espoir, vous avez écrit "échanges". ---------------------------- Franchement je me dis que nos camarades de LP doivent trouver ce feuilleton de coups de pique et de griffe particulièrement fallabraque. Mais c'est si bon de se défouler en fin de semaine pour un risque zéro, sauf à passer pour un branque. Je les prie de faire preuve d'indulgence envers ce micro conflit générationnel.
Merci Chère Sylvette de vous être prêtée au jeu de cette sympathique et conviviale passe d'ânes d'armes entièrement compensée carbone.(Rendue à ce point, je suppose que de votre côté il ne s'agit que d'une trêve).
Je vous embrasse, bon dimanche à vous et gardez vous des psychiatres armés en uniforme.
UMP : le bonhomme avec le ventilateur sur le caillou est très bien dans son époque toute éprise d'énergies renouvelables. Ça me plaît. Conservez-le.Il pourra m'inspirer à faire décoller le débat.
Zed
Nombre de messages : 16907 Age : 59 Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 8/11/2009, 01:37
La folie est de tout part tout côté.
Nous sommes les bons et l'islam les michants.
Il me semble que celà est simpliste.
La question est: En quoi avons nous manqué le rendez vous?
Serions nous plus imbécile que ce que nous considérons comme imbécile?
Le combat, est-il fait pour le combat ou pour arriver a une entente???
Shansaa
Nombre de messages : 1674 Date d'inscription : 02/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 9/11/2009, 00:36
Gingrich and Perry Tout Texas Health Care Mess Everything, they say, is bigger in the Texas. So it is with the failure of the health care system. Leading the nation with a jaw-dropping 25% of its residents uninsured, Texas ranked 46th in the Commonwealth Fund's 2009 scorecard of state health care performance. All of which makes today's op-ed by Newt Gingrich and Governor Rick Perry touting the mess in Texas all the more puzzling.
Just two days after the CBO dismissed a House Republican plan that would barely dent the rolls of the uninsured, Perry and Gingrich blasted Democratic health care reform in a Washington Post screed titled, "Let States Lead the Way." Besides dredging up Newt's worn out 1990's vintage talking points on unfunded mandates, the duo insist it is the Lone Star State which should be at the front of that vanguard:
Texas, for example, has adopted approaches to controlling health-care costs while improving choice, advancing quality of care and expanding coverage. Consider the successful 2003 tort reform. Fewer frivolous lawsuits have attracted record numbers of doctors to the state as medical malpractice insurance premiums dropped by half. Christus Health, a large Catholic nonprofit system with a significant presence in Texas, spent about $100 million on liability defense payments in 2003. Last year, Christus spent $2.3 million on such payments. Much of that savings has gone into expanding health-care services in low-income neighborhoods. As the Post's Erza Klein asks, "how's that working out?"
The answer, of course, is quite poorly. While from 2007 to 2009 Texas nudged its way from a horrific 48th to a merely miserable 46th in the Commonwealth Fund rankings, the health care system there remains an ongoing calamity for its residents. Among the poster children for the failure of red state health care, Perry's state brought up the rear across the five indicators measured. When it comes to health care access and equity, Texas is dead last.
While it is predictable that Republicans Gingrich and Perry cite Texas' draconian tort reform law as an example for the nation, the data is far from clear as to its benefits in actually reducing malpractice premiums, lowering costs and attracting physicians to the underserved state.
As I previously noted in "Republican Malpractice Myths," it comes as no surprise that a cavalcade of GOP leaders, including Perry, Sarah Palin, John Cornyn and John Kyl cited the same study showing malpractice awards caps enacted in 2003 in Texas fueled an increase in the number of physicians in the Lone Star State:
According to the Pacific Research Institute, medical licenses in Texas have increased 18 percent in the last four years, with 7,000 new doctors moving to the state. The actual impact of the Texas law, however, remains in dispute. The state's rising population, its 48th place ranking in physicians per capita, its staggering percentage of uninsured, its lack of an income tax and the 147% jump in malpractice premiums in 2003 alone make gauging the unique contribution of malpractice caps difficult to assess. Regardless, health care costs in Texas have continued their upward spiral.
What seems beyond dispute is that other similar malpractice cap states like Mississippi have not seen an influx of new doctors. The Jackson Free Press took exception to Governor Haley Barbour's claim that tort reform meant that physicians "have quit leaving the state and limiting their practices to avoid lawsuit abuse":
But non-partisan facts show that doctors were never really leaving the state in the first place. A 2003 Government Accountability Office report, "Medical Malpractice: Implications of Rising Premiums on Access to Health Care," took a hard look at five medical "crisis" states--Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Florida--and dismissed reports of doctor emigration from states. Information compiled by the American Medical Association--which supports tort reform and President Obama's vision of health reform--shows that the number of physicians in Mississippi rose steadily in years leading up to tort-reform legislation in 2004, and even slowed its increase following 2004.
From 2004 to 2005, the state actually recorded no increase over the 5,872 doctors counted in 2004, and added only 18 new physicians in 2006. The year 2007 reflected an increase of 71 physicians--still less than the 145-increase between 2000 and 2001 and the 99-doctor increase between 1998 and 1999. Even the time between 2002 and 2003--arguably the years of the worst tort abuse, according to tort-reform proponents--experienced a growth in the state doctor population of 140.
Ironically, to the degree that Texas and other red state bastions of medical misery have made minor improvements in recent years, the credit in large part goes to the federal government and the expansion by Democrats of initiatives like the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). As the Commonwealth Fund concluded its 2009 study:
The 2009 State Scorecard paints a picture of health care systems under stress, with deteriorating health insurance coverage for adults and rising health care costs. On a positive note, there were gains in children's coverage as a result of national reforms, and improvement in some measures of hospital and nursing home care following federal efforts to publicly report quality data. In a final irony, as Klein suggests, there is a Republican Governor with whom Gingrich could have partnered to make the case for the states as the laboratories of health care reform: Mitt Romney. Thanks to its own insurance mandate passed during Mitt's tenure, the percentage of uninsured in 6th ranked Massachusetts has dropped to 3%. But as Klein muses:
Romney, however, disowned his bill after he realized the Republican base didn't like health-care reform. Regardless, when it comes to a model for reforming the U.S. health care system, don't mess with Texas.
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 9/11/2009, 01:00
Leading the nation with a jaw-dropping 25% of its residents uninsured, Texas ranked 46th in the Commonwealth Fund's 2009 scorecard of state health care performance. All of which makes today's op-ed by Newt Gingrich and Governor Rick Perry touting the mess in Texas all the more puzzling.
Peut-etre les chiffres seraient-ils differents si l'on acceptait de faire la difference entre residents et residents legaux.
Il ne me semble pas que les illegaux "residant" en France soient assures... si?
De plus, toute personne a acces aux salles d'urgence de tous les hopitaux et il existe des Hopitaux qui offrent gratuitement des soins aux non-assures.
C'est marrant comme les feux sont diriges sur le Texas.
=====
Question charite, chaque annee les resultats sont les memes, les Conservateurs/Republicains donnent beaucoup plus que les Democrates. C'est marrant non?
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 9/11/2009, 01:41, édité 1 fois
Shansaa
Nombre de messages : 1674 Date d'inscription : 02/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 9/11/2009, 01:32
Citation :
Peut-etre les chiffres seraient-ils differents si l'on acceptait de faire la difference entre residents et residents legaux.
Il ne me semble pas que les illegaux "residant" en France soient assures... si?
Tout résident en situation illegale peut obtenir une affiliation à la sécurité sociale française par le biais de l 'AME (Aide Médicale d Etat) , et ce dès que l' etranger en situation irregulière est capable de prouver par tous moyens qu'il réside depuis plus de 3 mois sur le territoire français.
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 9/11/2009, 01:41
Il faudra le preciser a ceux qui vivent dans la "jungle"!
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1564 - 9/11/2009, 05:14
People Statistics > Estimated number of Illegal Immigrants (most recent) by state Showing latest available data.
Rank States Amount
# 1
California:
2,209,000
# 2
Texas:
1,041,000
# 3
New York:
489,000
# 4
Illinois:
432,000
# 5
Florida:
337,000
# 6
Arizona:
283,000
# 7
Georgia:
228,000
# 8
New Jersey:
221,000
# 9
North Carolina:
206,000
# 10
Colorado:
144,000
# 11
Washington:
136,000
# 12
Virginia:
103,000
# 13
Nevada:
101,000
# 14
Oregon:
90,000
# 15
Massachusetts:
87,000
# 16
Michigan:
70,000
# 17
Utah:
65,000
# 18
Minnesota:
60,000
# 19
Maryland:
56,000
# 20
Pennsylvania:
49,000
# 21
Kansas:
47,000
= 22
Tennessee:
46,000
= 22
Oklahoma:
46,000
# 24
Indiana:
45,000
# 25
Wisconsin:
41,000
# 26
Ohio:
40,000
= 27
Connecticut:
39,000
= 27
New Mexico:
39,000
# 29
South Carolina:
36,000
# 30
Arkansas:
27,000
= 31
Alabama:
24,000
= 31
Iowa:
24,000
= 31
Nebraska:
24,000
# 34
Missouri:
22,000
# 35
Idaho:
19,000
# 36
Rhode Island:
16,000
# 37
Kentucky:
15,000
# 38
Delaware:
10,000
# 39
Mississippi:
8,000
# 40
District of Columbia:
7,000
= 41
Louisiana:
5,000
= 41
Alaska:
5,000
# 43
Hawaii:
2,000
Total:
6,994,000
Weighted average:
162,651.2
Selon le recensement de l'an 2000, donc vieux de 9ans.
En 2009, la Californie en etait a 2,9 millions alors il est juste de dire qu'il y a a peu pres 1.5 million de "residents illegaux au Texas". Le cout (sante, education, incarceration etc...) supporte par les Texans est de 4.7 milliards de dollars et "on" ose venir leur faire des remontrances?
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1565 - 9/11/2009, 05:59
FOXNews.com
- November 08, 2009
Obama Draws Criticism for Sitting Out Berlin Wall Anniversary
The president does not plan to travel to Germany to attend the 20th anniversary celebration Monday of the fall of the Berlin Wall, drawing heated criticism from those who say he's ignoring a shining triumph of American-inspired democracy.
Spoiler:
President Obama squeezed in a trip to Copenhagen last month to lobby, unsuccessfully, for Chicago to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. He plans to travel to Oslo next month to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, an award that even Obama has said he does not deserve. And this coming week, he sets out on a weeklong tour of Asia.
But the president does not plan to travel to Germany to attend the 20th anniversary celebration Monday of the fall of the Berlin Wall, drawing heated criticism from those who say he's ignoring a shining triumph of American-inspired democracy.
"A tragedy," is how former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described Obama's absence.
Some question whether the decision not to go was a nod to Russia, with which the Obama administration is trying to mend relations, or just another attempt to play down the perception of the United States as an exceptional superpower.
For its part, the administration is citing a scheduling conflict. The White House says the president simply does not have the time to go, with the trip to Asia starting Wednesday.
"Obviously we have a lot to work on here and we have commitments for an upcoming Asia trip," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday, noting that a "very senior delegation" of U.S. officials would attend.
That delegation is led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who traveled to Berlin Sunday ahead of the festivities -- the first stop for the secretary on a trip through Europe and Asia.
Obama acknowledged the anniversary of the fall of the wall last week during his meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"We are now moving towards the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down and Germany being reunified after so many painful years," Obama said. "And this is a special moment for Chancellor Merkel, as somebody who grew up in East Germany, who understands what it's like to be under the shadow of a dictatorial regime, and to see how freedom has bloomed in Germany, how it has become the centerpiece for a extraordinarily strong European Union."
He said the U.S.-Germany alliance is an "extraordinary pillar of the transatlantic relationship." But some saw Obama's decision not to travel personally to Berlin as a snub to Merkel, Germany and the history behind the anniversary.
"Barack Is Too Busy," Germany's Der Spiegel magazine declared in a headline last month, writing that Obama had declined Merkel's invitation.
While Obama has traveled to Germany since taking office, he has not as president traveled to Berlin -- the site of his major speech in July 2008 during his overseas campaign tour. During that speech, he acknowledged Berlin's struggle, saying, "This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom."
Why then, critics asked, would the U.S. president not revisit that site to mark the culmination of that dream? After all, he has established himself as an intrepid traveler in office, setting off on a slew of overseas trips during his first 10 months on the job.
On several of the stops he has expressed regret for past American behavior, but the Berlin Wall anniversary was seen as an opportunity for the president to honor an American and Western victory for which the U.S. need feel no regret.
"It is a true shame that the president of the United States -- this man who cloaks himself in the rhetoric of hope -- won't be pausing to remember," Gingrich wrote in a column last week in The Washington Examiner.
The National Review's Rich Lowry wrote that the decision speaks to Obama's "dismissive view of the Cold War as a relic distorting our thinking."
"John F. Kennedy famously told Berliners, 'Ich bin ein Berliner.' On the 20th anniversary of the last century's most stirring triumph of freedom, Obama is telling them, 'Ich bin beschaftigt' -- i.e., I'm busy," he wrote. "Obama's failure to go to Berlin is the most telling nonevent of his presidency. It's hard to imagine any other American president eschewing the occasion."
Shansaa
Nombre de messages : 1674 Date d'inscription : 02/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 9/11/2009, 13:11
Sylvette a écrit:
Leading the nation with a jaw-dropping 25% of its residents uninsured, Texas ranked 46th in the Commonwealth Fund's 2009 scorecard of state health care performance. All of which makes today's op-ed by Newt Gingrich and Governor Rick Perry touting the mess in Texas all the more puzzling.
Peut-etre les chiffres seraient-ils differents si l'on acceptait de faire la difference entre residents et residents legaux.
Il ne me semble pas que les illegaux "residant" en France soient assures... si?
De plus, toute personne a acces aux salles d'urgence de tous les hopitaux et il existe des Hopitaux qui offrent gratuitement des soins aux non-assures.
C'est marrant comme les feux sont diriges sur le Texas.
=====
Question charite, chaque annee les resultats sont les memes, les Conservateurs/Republicains donnent beaucoup plus que les Democrates. C'est marrant non?
Le texte a change entre deux.... Les feux ne sont pas specialement diriges contre le Texas, il se trouve qu'il s'agissait du Texas, pas de la Californie et.....de Gingrich qui a toute votre sympathie. Bien sur que tout le monde a acces aux salles d'urgence, encore heureux que ce soit le cas mais je rejoins Ombreblanche dans son avis sur le systeme de sante Americain.
De plus il est facile de dire que "des hopitaux qui offrent gratuitement des soins aux non-assures", mais il faut savoir de quels soins il s'agit et la qualite de ces derniers. Vous iriez vous y faire soigner vous ? J'en doute !
En general le pauvre type aux US qui a besoin d'une operation lourde et qui coute cher a le choix entre s'endetter a vie et encore elle n'est pas assez longue ou alors ne pas subir l'operation et mourir. Oui je simplifie sinon ce serait trop long et surtout rebarbatif. Ce choix la n'est pas normal ni digne d'une nation solidaire et civilisee. Combien de "pauvres" peuvent se targuer d'avoir acces a une greffe de coeur, de foie ou des soins pour une pancreatite ? Le systeme Francais a de gros defauts certes, mais il reste tout de meme plus solidaire.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1567 - 9/11/2009, 15:01
Le texte a change entre deux....
Ca aussi c'est INTERDIT?
Les pauvres et les moins pauvres vont maintenant etre obliges de s'assurer sous peine de penalites, des millions annoncent deja preferer payer les penalites en question plutot que de s'assurer. En quoi cela est-il une amelioration?
J'ai ete appelee l'autre jour pour participer a une reunion d'hotel de ville par telephone. Une dame etait au bord des larmes expliquant qu'elle avait paye toute sa vie les cotisations necessaires et esperait pouvoir compter sur medicare et que maintenant a l'heure de la retraite, medicare passant sous le controle des etats l'annee suivant la signature de ce projet de loi elle avait de grandes chances de se retrouver sans assurance. En quoi oter a Pierre pour donner a Jacques en matiere de sante est-il une amelioration?
Il n'etait absolument pas necessaire de voir Washington s'emparer d'une telle partie de l'economie. Il etait necessaire que les primes d'assurance baissent. oui!
Une des solutions, l'ouverture au niveau nationale de toutes les assurances, c'est la base meme du systeme capitaliste plus il y a de competition sur le marche, plus les prix baissent, mais le POTUS n'est pas vraiment un capitaliste des lors, il prefere engager des fonctionnaires qui seront payes par de nouveaux impots, obliger les gens a s'assurer meme s'ils ne le veulent ou ne le peuvent pas, ou alors il faudra lever d'autres impots pour les aider, payer moins les medecins, (ils seront deja le meme nombre pour 40 millions de patients en plus, maintenant, les jeunes prendront une filiere ou ils pourront faire valoir leur cout de leur diplome), et baisser les retraites (le POTUS est en train de faire un nouveau cadeau aux retraites, apres leur oter leur assurance, il va GENEREUSEMENT leur faire donner $ 250.00 - a tous hein, il faut etre juste, il faut niveler - et il n'y aura pas d'augmentation cette annee au moins. Mais bon, ils auront une petite pillule bleue (je doute qu'ils aient le coeur a s'en servir) parce qu'elle est moins chere et donne de meilleurs resultats). Incroyable!
Je repete: Il aurait coute moins cher, comme le disait l'autre jour Stein de payer l'assurance des pauvres que de mettre en place ce systeme qui va asphyxier et detruire l'economie americaine.Alors que nous avons 10.2 % de chomage, nombreuses sont les grandes societes qui commencent a regarder vers l'Asie (pas Londres ou la droite est tombee sous la propagande socialiste europeenne; les petites societes ne pourront pas se permettre de payer les cotisations requises. C'est formidablement bien pense de la part des Democrates, non? Vraiment n'importe quoi.
Et les elus eux, ceux que nous payons, ont leur systeme d'assurance sante et les syndicats sont eux aussi "epargne" et on veut nous faire croire que ce projet de loi est juste?
Les 2000 pages n'ont pas ete lues par la majorite des representants, c'est impossible. Nancy et tous ceux qui sont en train de lui passer de la pommade ont refuse de le poster sur l'internet. Quelle suprise lorsqu'on sait qu'il n'y est pas uniquement question d'assurance sante, mais de mise en place de projets sociaux pour les minorites. On n'arrive meme pas a reellement savoir si oui ou non, les illegaux seront assures, si les avortements seront rembourses.
Le POTUS avait promis la transparence, la comprehension, l'ouverture en un mot: le CHANGEment? nous en sommes loin, de ce CHANGEment. Mais les independants qui avaient vote pour lui avait-il bien compris de quel CHANGEment il etait question? Apparemment non, puisqu'un an apres la majorite d'entre eux a change d'avis.
PS: J'allais presque oublier qu'une des raisons donnee par le POTUS pour ce projet est l'enraillement de la fraude. Un Francais peut-il sans eclater de rire, me dire qu'il n'y ait pas de fraude dans le systeme social francais?
Allez pour sourire... meme pas
=========
C'est en dehors de la discussion, mais tout de meme, on ne sait toujours pas s'il a fait vacciner sa famille ou non. Vive la transparence.
L'egalite c'est bien pour les autres.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1568 - 9/11/2009, 15:40
AP
- November 09, 2009
Ce titre n'a pas vraiment grand chose a voir avec la realite des choses presentee dans le contenu de l'article!
House Health Bill Has Nowhere to Go in Senate
Government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to some Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.
WASHINGTON -- Don't look for the Senate to quickly follow the House on health care overhaul.
Spoiler:
A government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate. They're locked in a battle with liberals, with the fate of President Obama's signature issue at stake.
If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.
"The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said.
Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.
Nonetheless, the House vote provided an important lesson in how to succeed with less-than-perfect party unity, and one that Senate Democrats may be able to adapt. House Democrats overcame their own divisions and broke an impasse that threatened the bill after liberals grudgingly accepted tougher restrictions on abortion funding, as abortion opponents demanded.
In the Senate, the stumbling block is the idea of the government competing with private insurers.
Liberals may have to swallow hard and accept a deal without a public plan to keep the legislation alive. As in the House, the compromise appears to be to the right of the political spectrum.
Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has given the Democrats a possible way out. She's proposing to allow a government plan, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. This is the "trigger" option.
That approach appeals to moderates such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "If the private market fails to reform, there would be a fallback position," Landrieu said last week. "It should be triggered by choice and affordability, not by political whim."
Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program.
For now, Reid is trying to find the votes for a different approach: a government plan that states could opt out of.
He will keep meeting with senators this week to see if he can work out a political formula that will give him not only the 60 votes needed to begin debate, but the 60 needed to shut off discussion and bring the bill to a final vote.
Toward the end of the week, the Congressional Budget Office may report back with a costs-and-coverage estimate on Reid's bill, which he assembled from legislation passed by the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The Finance Committee version does not include a government plan.
Reid has pledged to Obama that he will get the bill done by the end of the year and remains committed to doing that, according to a Senate leadership aide.
Both the House and Senate bills gradually would extend coverage to nearly all Americans by providing government subsidies to help pay premiums. The measures would bar insurers' practices such as charging more to those in poor health or denying them coverage altogether.
All Americans would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government plan or by purchasing it on their own.
To keep down costs, the government subsidies and consumer protections don't take effect until 2013. During the three-year transition, both bills would provide $5 billion in federal dollars to help get coverage for people with medical problems who are turned down by private insurers.
Both House and Senate would expand significantly the federal-state Medicaid health program for low-income people.
The majority of people with employer-provided health insurance would not see changes. The main beneficiaries would be some 30 million people who have no coverage at work or have to buy it on their own. The legislation would create a federally regulated marketplace where they could shop for coverage.
The are several major differences between the bills.
• The House would require employers to provide coverage; the Senate does not. • The House would pay for the coverage expansion by raising taxes on upper-income earners; the Senate uses a variety of taxes and fees, including a levy on high-cost insurance plans. • The House plan costs about $1.2 trillion over 10 years; the Senate version is under $900 billion. By defusing the abortion issue — at least for now — the House may have helped the long-term prospects for the bill. Catholic bishops also eager to expand society's safety net may yet endorse the final legislation.
Lieberman appeared on "Fox News Sunday," while Graham was CBS' "Face the Nation."
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1569 - 10/11/2009, 01:19
Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR. Barack Obama's shameful absence from Berlin: Four Key Reasons why the President stayed away
By Nile GardinerWorld Last updated: November 9th, 2009
Barack Obama was quick off the mark last year in heading for Berlin during his election campaign, when he was cheered by a crowd of 200,000 adoring Germans. Yet as president of the United States he has decided to stay away from Berlin as the city commemorates the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. In contrast, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have both made the trip to Germany, while President Obama has decided to send his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
Spoiler:
It is shameful when the US president can’t even be bothered to show up at a ceremony marking one of the most momentous events of modern times. As Rich Lowry wrote in his column for National Review, “Obama’s failure to go to Berlin is the most telling nonevent of his presidency.” Newt Gingrich put it well when he described Obama’s foolhardy decision as “a tragedy”. Writing in The Washington Examiner, Gingrich declared:
“To commemorate, after all, is to remember. And Americans need to remember, not just that the Wall fell, but why it fell. We need to remember that the Berlin Wall was the symbol of more than just the Cold War, more than just the division of Europe. It was the symbol of an evil ideology that denied human dignity, denied truth, and respected only power. When the Wall fell, truth and human dignity, in a rare moment in the 20th century, triumphed over power. But that victory is not permanent.”
In my view, Barack Obama’s absence from Berlin today can be explained by four key factors:
1/ Obama is uncomfortable with the idea of American greatness The fall of the Berlin Wall was the direct result of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher’s determination to confront and defeat Soviet communism. Barack Obama is distinctly uncomfortable with the notion of celebrating the successes of American global power. Practically every speech he has given on foreign soil since taking office has been marked by an apology or apologies for America’s past. A recognition of American leadership, especially an acknowledgement of Ronald Reagan’s leadership, would have been an awkward moment for a US president who seems ashamed of American greatness and exceptionalism.
2/ Obama attaches little importance to the advancement of human rights on the world stage The Wall’s downfall symbolized the defeat of a brutal ideology, Communism, that enslaved hundreds of millions in Europe. It marked the end of a dictatorial regime in East Germany that oppressed its own people under the auspices of an evil Empire. Barack Obama simply does not view the world as Reagan did, in terms of good versus evil, as a world divided between the forces of freedom on one side and totalitarianism on the other. For the Obama administration the advancement of human rights and individual liberty on the world stage is a distinctly low priority, as we have seen with its engagement strategy towards the likes of Iran, Burma, Sudan, Venezuela and Russia.
3/ Obama cares little about the transatlantic alliance Barack Obama has paid less attention to the transatlantic alliance than any US president since the Second World War. With the exception of Russia, relations with Europe appear to be of only passing interest to President Obama, as is the NATO alliance, unless it involves matters of European integration. The only European issue that seems to energize the Obama administration is the EU’s drive to create a federal European superstate, which is enthusiastically supported by Washington despite the threat it poses to US interests.
4/ Obama is keen to appease Russia The Obama administration has gone to great lengths to avoid doing anything to offend the Russians, as part of its “reset” strategy. This was exemplified by its monumental surrender to Moscow by reversing the American policy of installing Third Site missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic. In effect, Barack Obama threw key US allies in eastern and central Europe under the bus in order to placate Russian demands. The White House no doubt calculated that Obama’s presence in Berlin would be interpreted by hawks in Russia as provocative triumphalism on the part of the Americans. Embarrassingly for President Obama, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev actually showed up at the Berlin celebrations, while the leader of the free world was nowhere to be seen.
The striking absence of the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth from ceremonies marking the fall of the Berlin Wall is yet another damning indictment of Barack Obama’s world leadership, or lack of it. The United States is currently faced with an array of challenges as great as those confronted by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, from the war in Afghanistan and the global fight against Islamist terrorism, to the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran.
America today badly needs Reagan’s vision of forceful US leadership if it is to remain as the world’s dominant power. Instead its position is being rapidly undermined by a foreign policy of weakness and indecision, one that will only strengthen the hand of its enemies.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1570 - 11/11/2009, 09:01
Au sujet du meurtrier de l'attaque a la base de Fort Hood
O'Reilly
Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566 Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/11/2009, 09:20
Bonjour Sylvette !
N'est-ce pas plutôt ceci ?
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/11/2009, 09:31
Bonjour BIloulou et merci
Oh la la en effet. En plus meme la video que vous postez (et que je vais terminer de regarder maintenant) n'est pas celle que je souhaitais, c'est tres bizarrrrre!
C'etait celle-la ==> O'Reilly
Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566 Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/11/2009, 09:42
Heu.... je suis très perplexe en cliquant sur votre dernier lien... puis sur le mien... Il faut que je surveille votre café, oui, oui.
(Je vais prendre le mien, moi !)
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/11/2009, 09:45
J'aime beaucoup Lieutenant Colonel Peters mais au sujet de la comparaison des 20 emails reels echanges avec al qaida avec 20 autres emails fictifs avec l'URSS, je rappellerai tout de meme que nous avons eu pour president un homme qui a eu un visa et qui s'est rendu en l'URSS du temps de la guerre froide... (Clinton en 1969)
.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.
A moins, a moins qu'il ne s'agisse la encore d'un probleme d'age; ne dit-on pas, en effet, qu'en vieillissant les defauts s'exacerbent?
2009, The Los Angeles Times
Amount 
et tous ceux qui sont en train de lui passer de la pommade ont refuse de le poster sur l'internet. Quelle suprise lorsqu'on sait qu'il n'y est pas uniquement question d'assurance sante, mais de mise en place de projets sociaux pour les minorites. On n'arrive meme pas a reellement savoir si oui ou non, les illegaux seront assures, si les avortements seront rembourses.
et merci