I know its hard, but dont flatter yourself. The older women younger men chase are cougars, the older women who chase younger men are not called cougars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Ive seen your pic, you are no cougar.
Printable View
I know its hard, but dont flatter yourself. The older women younger men chase are cougars, the older women who chase younger men are not called cougars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Ive seen your pic, you are no cougar.
In an effort to take the spotlight away from the ego maniacs that think this thread is about them....
/Rant On
$2 Million to go to Brazil thanks to Obama.
Source.Quote:
U.S. Export-Import Bank promised Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil company, $2 billion in loan guarantees to help finance lucrative drilling off the shores of Rio De Janeiro.
With all the oil we Know is here in the USA, lets fund drilling off of Brazil. Makes sense right? No it doesnt! They dont even have to drill here with the amount of finds that have been capped. What we lack is refinery cappacity. One also might question why we have so much of our refining cappacity in Hurricane Alley.
Why increase our refineries output when the current push is to go green? Because our infrastructure is based on fosile fuels. Electric or Hybid cars, the electricity has to come from somewhere, batteries are not 100% efficient, so the electricity is produced from fosile fuels. Speaking of batteries, if you want a hybrid or electric car, you support strip mining if you expect the end product to be affordable. What happens to the batteries when they can no longer hold a charge, they get recycled. Recycled into what exactly?
/Rant off.
Regaurdless of the above rant, how many barrels of oil are sitting under our feet? We are importing millions of barrels of oil and gas because we dont have the cappacity to refine what we currently have in the ground on our own soil.
I may be mistaken but wasn't this month the worst for casualties in Afghanistan?
Where are those pesky war protestors?
So far this month is second to July. But there are several days left, and the way things have been going . . . . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
As for the protesters, one of them is sitting right here, in front of my computer, checking to see if anymore of our soldiers, sailors, marines have died since my last In Memoriam posting.
And Cindy Sheehan, well as ABC News puts it -
Quote:
If it's August, it must be time for Cindy Sheehan to drop in on a presidential vacation.
Hmmmmm. It's 100 degrees outdoors!Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Did it again twit. Oh ,and your source link didn't work.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Want the real facts? Check it out here..........
http://www.exim.gov/brazil/pressrelease_082009.cfm
Twit???? That's not very nice. Maybe the pot calling the kettle black.....????Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
And the "real" facts???? I guess that could depend on which source you care to believe. :eek:
:confused:BO's Jr press secretary should think about running for office. This guy is smarter, can talk without a teleprompter and off his cuff.
--------------------
I was thinking about how TK's political career would have been had he not been driving on that bridge way back when.
Then, I compared his experience being a senator with the current WH occupant.
Somehow I think the country was shortchanged.
Wow, fate can be cruel. :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by pomtzu
Geeze.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
You got that right!!! :p
:D :D :D :D :D
And here...although I do my check on Sundays...Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
When I was digging out the squirrel photos last night I came across photos of the anti-war march I attended in San Francisco in 2003.
How did I miss this?? blue...you are wrong again...Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
And I know how important links are to you so... What is a cougar?Quote:
The most commonly-accepted definition of a cougar is a woman 40 years of age or older who exclusively pursues very young men.
And you are quite right that I am not a cougar...I am a happily married woman...but ...my husband is a few years younger than I am!:D:D
As is mine :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Does that make us cradle robbers...or comitted former cougars??:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Grace
According to your definition of cougar, I don't qualify, as I was younger than 40 when Douglas and I started dating. As for cradle robbing, I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
I think it means we are wise women. When we find the right one, we don't get tangled up with what others may say. We go for it :D:D
I had just turned 40 when I started dating my husband.....oh no...I AM a cougar!!!!:eek::eek::eek:
:D
Here's what wikipedia has to say on their page on "Age disparity in sexual relationships" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_...29#Slang_terms):
Cougar—a woman over 40 who sexually pursues younger men, typically more than eight years her junior. The term appears to have been coined by Canadian website Cougardate.com and has been used in TV series, advertising and film. The 2007 film Cougar Club was dedicated to the subject and in Spring 2009 TV Land aired a reality show called The Cougar.
E.S., check out Phesina's post - a woman over 40. You made it just under the wire :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
But you know....this still leaves my original questions unanswered.
The older woman is called a cougar...what is the younger man called?
Other than very fortunate??;):p;)
so to get back on point....looks who was irritated by hecklers at town hall meetings...in fact having someone thrown out!!
Now...I am going to sit back and wait for those who were so incensed by the treatment of people at town hall meetings to chime in. After all...this woman just wanted to be heard...right?Quote:
PHOENIX — Sen. John McCain met with an angry crowd at a town-hall meeting about health care reform Wednesday, sometimes having to fight to talk and telling one woman who wouldn't stop yelling that she had to leave.
The Arizona senator hadn't yet opened up the meeting at McCain's central Phoenix church to questions when one audience member continuously yelled over him.
"You're going to have to stop or you're going to have to leave," McCain told the woman. When security guards approached to escort her out, he told her "Goodbye, see ya" to a round of applause.
Richard, August is now tied with July for most casualties (deaths). And August goes on for 4 more days.Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
As I recall the worst month in Iraq was sadly, 99 casualties. How does this compare?
Fortunately the total is about half that number. 44 to date, to be exact. July had 45. However, the total for this year, to this point, is more than in all of 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
I think one was too many.
Emphatically agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
One person being removed, others getting beaten. Hm, McCain had someone removed peacefully. The Unions that support the Dems, beating those opposing HCR. I can see your comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Just think, if nobody died in war, women would still be subjegated, slavery would be wide spread, and we would be living in the dark ages. Better living through superior firepower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
A link for that please? I have not a clue what subjegated (sic) is but I sure would like to know how people dying in war "unsubjegated" us????Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
"unsujegated"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
You really do think this thread is about you.
This whole white text thing and photo-spying is pathetic. Grow up, man.
Howinthehe!! did we get off the (once polite) debating on the theme of this thread? I'm just disgusted.
Anyway...my take on Afghanistan is that this is the only war we had any business fighting, because they harbored the criminals/terrorists responsible for murdering over 3000 citizens of the world. This war was IMO badly mismanaged, and only now is Obama making an effort to carry it out the way it should have been done 8 (!) years ago.
I agree with you about Afghanistan. However, those criminals have now moved into Pakistan - do we follow them? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by smokey the elder
I read an op-ed piece about Afghanistan by Bob Herbert. Link
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokey the elder
Agreed. This thread was taking on a somewhat sinister tone. Downright creepy.
I sometimes think we have no business fighting all over the globe. America
needs to look to it's own business. We have plenty of problems that we
need to be working on.
Now you are correct. From NPR -Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Quote:
August Deadliest Month In Afghanistan For U.S. Troops
By Frank James
A U.S. soldier was killed in a bomb blast in Afghanistan Friday, making it the deadliest month for U.S. troops in the eight years of the war.
The soldier was killed in eastern Afghanistan when the vehicle he was riding in struck a roadside bomb, according to the military.
All told, 45 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan in August as the U.S. has surged its military forces into the country with the aim of driving back the Taliban and insurgents.
Roadside bombs have caused many of the casualties since improvised explosive devices are so easy to conceal in the Afghanistan's unpaved roads. Meanwhile, the Taliban learned from observing the Iraq War how effectively deadly IEDs are.
The increasing death toll comes at the same time as support in the U.S. for the war appears to be declining among a war-weary public; the growing casualties are no doubt causing some of that loss of public backing.
Complicating President Barack Obama's challenge is the U.S. military's request for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan which would likely increase the casualties there, further eroding public support.
Why? This is the internetz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Z
I find that tends to happen when a group of members single out 1 or 2 others to publicly mock, ridicule, and insult.Quote:
Originally Posted by smokey the elder
Creepy, thats putting it mildly.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Do you think we should be helping to improve the living conditions of third world countries? Should we be helping to improve womens rights in countries where women are oppressed? When American civilian volunteers are killed for trying to improve conditions in other countries should we just shrug our shoulders?Quote:
I sometimes think we have no business fighting all over the globe. America needs to look to it's own business. We have plenty of problems that we need to be working on.
I wish I had a flunky to send to important events to represent me.
I'm on vacay! don't bug me.:rolleyes:
Is Cindy Sheehan protesting out front of Obama's vacation house?
Sharia law. Something yall didnt have to overcome that here in the states. Can Iranian women vote? Can Suadi women vote? How many women got stoned to death yesterday under sharia law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Not that type of stoned, you hippies!!!
Iraqi women get to vote now, because of us.
Because you're a grown man, aren't you? Or does ES intimidate you so much that you aren't brave enough to say what you think without the little treasure trail? Eesh. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Anyway, on the topic of various Islamic laws...
It's all well and good that we've managed to provide a little more freedom of speech in countries like Iraq, but I worry how far we're willing to push Westernisation on such countries, exactly what the terrorists in these nations are against. We could, or rather, we shall, end up doing more harm than good if we're not careful.
Terrorism is difficult to oppose when the act of opposing gains support. For this reason, I myself am undecided about whether it was just, and sensible, to declare war on Iraq. We removed a dictator, granted, but our very presence stirred a hatred that is difficult to reverse. I'm not a world leader, so I have no alternatives to how it could have been handled. Yet, I do believe we have outstayed our welcome in many respects.
So now you are playing their game? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Z
Its redirection, they cant honestly answer questions so they use it as an opportunity to feed their egos and deflect the question.
Not every believer of Islam wants to follow Sharia law. I would think that every woman that believes in equal rights would stand up and speak out against it.Quote:
Anyway, on the topic of various Islamic laws...
It's all well and good that we've managed to provide a little more freedom of speech in countries like Iraq, but I worry how far we're willing to push Westernisation on such countries, exactly what the terrorists in these nations are against. We could, or rather, we shall, end up doing more harm than good if we're not careful.
Terrorism is difficult to oppose when the act of opposing gains support. For this reason, I myself am undecided about whether it was just, and sensible, to declare war on Iraq. We removed a dictator, granted, but our very presence stirred a hatred that is difficult to reverse. I'm not a world leader, so I have no alternatives to how it could have been handled. Yet, I do believe we have outstayed our welcome in many respects.
Do you trust Obama and .gov with the internet and private networks?
Quote:
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.