Miscellaneous News.

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited November 2015
This is a thread were you can post and discuss any news you find interesting but don't want to start a new thread and there isn't already one that you think is applicable.



Here's positive news about a breakthrough on nuclear weapons with Russia-



"WASHINGTON — President Obama and his Russian counterpart, President Dmitri A. Medvedev, have broken through a logjam in their arms control negotiations and expect to sign a new treaty in Prague next month that would slash American and Russian nuclear arsenals, officials from both nations said Wednesday.



Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev still need to talk once more to finalize the agreement, but officials were optimistic that the deal was nearly done.



The two sides have discussed a signing ceremony in Prague in early April, marking the anniversary of the first meeting between the two presidents and of Mr. Obama’s speech outlining his vision for eventually eliminating nuclear weapons.



The new pact would replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, which expired in December, and would require both sides to reduce their warheads and launchers by more than one-quarter. The agreement is the most significant accomplishment so far for Mr. Obama’s policy of trying to “reset” relations with Russia. It is intended to pave the way for another more far-reaching round of reductions later in his term."

~ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/wo...5start.html?hp
«134567143

Comments

  • bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member
    I'll add one.



    Did GW wipe his hand on Bill Clinton's shirt after he shook hands with people in Haiti?





    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_511188.html
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Judge on Prom



    I found this one interesting because he ruled against the dress code requirement but wouldn't rule against the district to hold the prom. I think the dress code ramifications aren't well thought out though.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Judge on Prom



    I found this one interesting because he ruled against the dress code requirement but wouldn't rule against the district to hold the prom. I think the dress code ramifications aren't well thought out though.



    That story had 60,000 comments!



    I'm not sure why you think the judge would rule against holding the prom if by holding the prom the district had to allow the female wearing the tuxedo.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    I'll add one.



    Did GW wipe his hand on Bill Clinton's shirt after he shook hands with people in Haiti?





    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_511188.html



    LOL. Bizarre. It almost seems to suggest that Bush and Clinton have a closer relationship/friendship than is publicly known if he feels like he can do that. Weird anyway though, especially in front of cameras.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:



    I had no idea it's been/is on such a large scale. Horrific.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    That story had 60,000 comments!



    I'm not sure why you think the judge would rule against holding the prom if by holding the prom the district had to allow the female wearing the tuxedo.



    I said rule against the district to HOLD the prom. The district cancelled the prom. The plaintiff was seeking an injunction to compel them to continue to hold the prom. The judge ruled against the dress requirement but did not declare that the district had to hold the prom. The decision amounts to, you can wear a tux, but there won't be a prom to which to wear it. There is talk of a private prom, but no guarantees by the court.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I said rule against the district to HOLD the prom. The district cancelled the prom. The plaintiff was seeking an injunction to compel them to continue to hold the prom. The judge ruled against the dress requirement but did not declare that the district had to hold the prom. The decision amounts to, you can wear a tux, but there won't be a prom to which to wear it. There is talk of a private prom, but no guarantees by the court.



    I know, but it's one thing for the judge to say the district couldn't stop her from wearing the tuxedo it's another thing entirely to say that they can't not hold the prom. I see your point that that cancels out the benefits to the female, but I don't find it surprising that that's how the judge ruled.
  • bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member
    The Pope has now been implicated in a cover-up case from Wisconsin.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/wo...25vatican.html
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    The Pope has now been implicated in a cover-up case from Wisconsin.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/wo...25vatican.html



    You know this is a real disgrace. The way the Church is handling this is almost as bad as the abuse.



    Example 1: Basically a priest - one of hundreds - molested a load of children and was called on it. The letters were sent to the relevant office where they disappeared. More letters sent and again - poof! Into a black hole.



    No action taken. No authorities involved and the priest free to offend again.



    Example 2: Same Office. A pervert priest (a different one) was caught and this Office sent him for psychiatric treatment. That's it. No authorities...nothing else...priest back on duty with kids.



    Now the thing is that the head of this Office was RATZINGER when he was a Cardinal.



    So he was the responsible.



    BUT the Vatican is saying that everyone mentioning this is part of a Conspiracy to blacken the name of the Pope.



    Is that or is that not sick?



    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8588294.stm
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    "President Obama finalized a new arms control treaty with Russia on Friday that will pare back the still-formidable cold war nuclear arsenals of each country. The agreement brings to fruition one of the president?s signature foreign policy objectives, just days after he signed into law the most expansive domestic program in decades.



    Disarmament is only part of the agenda. Mr. Obama will be host to the leaders of as many as 45 countries in Washington on April 12, four days after the treaty signing in Prague, to discuss how to prevent nuclear material from falling into the wrong hands. No president has ever before gathered more than 40 heads of state for a stand-alone summit meeting, according to the White House."

    ~ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/wo...ed=1&ref=world



    This line I thought amusing-



    ?President Obama has said that he will send Rahm Emanuel to Moscow? to help out, she said, laughing, referring to Mr. Obama?s bulldog chief of staff. ?We all endorsed that offer.?

    ~ Hillary Clinton
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Very cute and congrats to President Obama on the treaty!
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Very cute and congrats to President Obama on the treaty!



    ?



    Someone explain this comment.
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    ?



    Someone explain this comment.



    Seems clear to me...
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Seems clear to me...



    trumptman had just posted this pic before making that comment-

  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Seems clear to me...



    Uh-oh.....We need someone to explain that now...



    This could go on and on...
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Uh-oh.....We need someone to explain that now...



    This could go on and on...



    It could if you wanted to be be purposely dense. And you do, so...
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    It could if you wanted to be be purposely dense. And you do, so...



    Uhh.....
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    trumptman had just posted this pic before making that comment-

    [IMG]



    Saw the pic, another thread on a separate topic about a totally different issue. Obviously the Pic represents a singular action as the date is clearly stamped on the side what it is referring to. One is (or should be) capable of disagreeing with one policy while congratulating a person for a totally separate issue. You guys practically scream for it all the time. What is the real problem here? That he congratulated Obama for the treaty he got signed, or that he thought the quote you posted was "very cute" (another way of saying funny)?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Bingo!
Sign In or Register to comment.