Unir os Pontos

  • 1275 Respostas
  • 301541 Visualizações
*

FoxTroop

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1859
  • Recebeu: 680 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 393 vez(es)
  • +374/-8765
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #615 em: Junho 23, 2014, 10:15:05 pm »
Citação de: "Cabeça de Martelo"
Chiça Fox, agora tive uns calafrios só de relembrar o sabor e o cheiro da água dos cantis de plástico! Era mesmo muito mau! :oops:

Mau é favor. A sede é que era tanta que um gajo tinha de a beber. À pala da sede que passei, pois a maior parte do curso foi de Verão e o exercicio final de curso coincidiu com os dias mais quente do ano, ainda hoje tenho de ter água sempre comigo, mesmo que não a beba, senão a coisa começa logo a funcionar mal.

O sadismo dos instructores também não conhecia limites. Durante o exercicio final, calhou apanharmos 3 dias de extremo calor lá pela zona de Grandola e Pinheiro da Cruz mesmo na altura em que iriamos ter a visita de um qualquer almirante ao desenrolar do exercicio. Como a malta estava já num estado lastimável de desidratação, graças especialmente aos "não-abastecimentos por actividade IN na zona", o comandante mandou reforçar a ração de água na véspera da visita de modo a que as coisas tivessem melhor aspecto. O reforço de água foi um copo de plástico daqueles pequeninos de beber o café, meio de água que tinhamos de beber à frente dos instructores.......


Citação de: "Luso"
Fox, é verdade que o alumínio tem uma série de problemas. Pensei num cantil de alumínio porque não iria submeter o interior a abrasivos. Mas depois acagacei-me.
A notícia diz que os Nalgene sem BPA mas verdes não têm o problema. Será do pigmento ou algo que o valha?
Os Nalgene que tenho não deixam sabor, mas com muitas, muitas utilizações devem-me pôr a falar fininho. Talvez os use agora para guardar arroz ou coisa parecida.

Não sei. Talvez tenha mesmo qualquer coisa a ver com os quimicos que dão cor ao plástico. Talvez seja psicológico mas a água sabe-me melhor num pucaro ou cantil de inox ou então em copo de vidro. No raio do plástico, nunca me sabe bem.
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 23336
  • Recebeu: 4265 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 3013 vez(es)
  • +3128/-4571
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #616 em: Junho 24, 2014, 03:08:48 pm »
Contra a Esquerda woke e a Direita populista marchar, marchar!...

 

*

chaimites

  • 1663
  • Recebeu: 61 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 2 vez(es)
  • +10334/-0
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #617 em: Junho 24, 2014, 08:05:04 pm »
O elemento  mais seguro e que emite menos contaminantes aos alimentos ou bebidas que existe no mercado atualmente é o titânio
 
 São mais caros mas muito mais seguros

   Alumínio,  inox, cobre, polímeros  e ate o vidro e o cristal emitem elementos para os líquidos e solidos  neles contidos.  
 

 PS: Nunca guardem por longos períodos de tempo  vinho do porto  ou licores   em garrafas ou recipientes de cristal, estarão  a consumir um nível apreciável de chumbo junto com o nectar dos   deuses
  :G-beer2:
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 23336
  • Recebeu: 4265 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 3013 vez(es)
  • +3128/-4571
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #618 em: Junho 25, 2014, 10:16:18 am »
Por aí não há problemas, os meus licores caseiros são consumidos regularmente ao final do dia a ver uma ou outra série quando tenho a pequena a dormir e a "grande" a caminho disso no sofá. São os meus 5 minutos de relax, porque eu também mereço.
Contra a Esquerda woke e a Direita populista marchar, marchar!...

 

*

chaimites

  • 1663
  • Recebeu: 61 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 2 vez(es)
  • +10334/-0
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #619 em: Junho 25, 2014, 10:51:26 am »
cabeça de martelo:

Quanto ao cantil    podes sempre comprar um filtro de carvão ativo, sei que ha alguns que são universais, dão para qualquer tipo de garrafa ou cantil,  elimina os contaminantes e melhora o sabor da agua.
 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: Cabeça de Martelo

*

chaimites

  • 1663
  • Recebeu: 61 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 2 vez(es)
  • +10334/-0
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #620 em: Julho 01, 2014, 12:06:29 am »
Alguem que una estes pontos que eu não consigo:

Todos se lembram do famoso Ferry recusado.

Entre outros  argumentos, foi usado o argumento que seria inviável economicamente a sua exploração, por excesso de consumo de combustível,  lembram-se???

 Os estaleiros onde atualmente trabalho,  concorreram à construção de 2 novos ferry´s para os Açores.  
 Estes novos ferry´s vão consumir o dobro do combustível do ferry recusado,  cerca de 50 toneladas por dia
 Estes novos navios para serem viáveis economicamente precisam de uma taxa de ocupação de 80%  365 dias por ano!

PAGA Zé!!!!!

PS:  E ninguêm põe este tipos na ordem!????

  s
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 23336
  • Recebeu: 4265 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 3013 vez(es)
  • +3128/-4571
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #621 em: Julho 01, 2014, 12:26:44 pm »
Óbviamente que não! :evil:
Contra a Esquerda woke e a Direita populista marchar, marchar!...

 

*

Luso

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 8711
  • Recebeu: 1858 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 816 vez(es)
  • +1079/-10657
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #622 em: Julho 01, 2014, 10:59:24 pm »
Commission européenne : Barroso et Juncker, anciens maoïste et trotskiste repérés par la CIA

http://www.humanite.fr/blogs/commission ... par-la-cia

Confirma-se um cenário que andava a construir. Adiantam muito estes exercício, apesar de tudo... :roll:
Ai de ti Lusitânia, que dominarás em todas as nações...
 

*

mafarrico

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #623 em: Julho 08, 2014, 12:19:34 am »
12 deadly products made by Monsanto

When you take a moment to reflect on the history of product development at Monsanto, what do you find?

Here are twelve products that Monsanto has brought to market. See if you can spot the pattern…

#1 – Saccharin

Did you know Monsanto got started because of an artificial sweetener? John Francisco Queeny founded Monsanto Chemical Works in St. Louis, Missouri with the goal of producing saccharin for Coca-Cola.

In stark contrast to its sweet beginnings, studies performed during the early 1970s,* including a study by the National Cancer Institute in 1980, showed that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice.

After mounting pressure from consumers, the Calorie Control Council, and manufacturers of artificial sweeteners and diet sodas, along with additional studies (several conducted by the sugar and sweetener industry) that reported flaws in the 1970s studies, saccharin was delisted from the NIH’s Carcinogen List.

A variety of letters from scientists advised against delisting; the official document includes the following wording to this day: “although it is impossible to absolutely conclude that it poses no threat to human health, sodium saccharin is not reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen under conditions of general usage as an artificial sweetener.”

(*Read the Chemical Heritage Foundation’s History of Saccharin here.)


#2 – PCBs

During the early 1920s, Monsanto began expanding their chemical production into polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to produce coolant fluids for electrical transformers, capacitors, and electric motors. Fifty years later, toxicity tests began reporting serious health effects from PCBs in laboratory rats exposed to the chemical.

After another decade of studies, the truth could no longer be contained: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a report citing PCBs as the cause of cancer in animals, with additional evidence that they can cause cancer in humans. Additional peer-reviewed health studies showed a causal link between exposure to PCBs and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a frequently fatal form of cancer.

In 1979, the United States Congress recognized PCBs as a significant environmental toxin and persistent organic pollutant, and banned its production in the U.S.  By then Monsanto already had manufacturing plants abroad, so they weren’t entirely stopped until the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants banned PCBs globally in 2001.

And that’s when Monsanto’s duplicity was uncovered: internal company memos from 1956 surfaced, proving that Monsanto had known about dangers of PCBs from early on.

In 2003, Monsanto paid out over $600 million to residents of Anniston, Alabama, who experienced severe health problems including liver disease, neurological disorders and cancer after being exposed to PCBs — more than double the payoff that was awarded in the case against Pacific Gas & Electric made famous by the movie “Erin Brockovich.”

And yet the damage persists: nearly 30 years after PCBs have been banned from the U.S., they are still showing up in the blood of pregnant women, as reported in a 2011 study by the University of California San Francisco; while other studies are indicating a parallel between PCBs and autism.

#3 – Polystyrene

In 1941, Monsanto began focusing on plastics and synthetic polystyrene, which is still widely used in food packaging and ranked 5th in the EPA’s 1980s listing of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste.


#4 – Atom bomb and nuclear weapons


Shortly after acquiring Thomas and Hochwalt Laboratories, Monsanto turned this division into their Central Research Department.

Between 1943 to 1945, this department coordinated key production efforts of the Manhattan Project—including plutonium purification and production and, as part of the Manhattan Project’s Dayton Project, techniques to refine chemicals used as triggers for atomic weapons (an era of U.S. history that sadly included the deadliest industrial accident).

#5 – DDT

In 1944, Monsanto became one of the first manufacturers of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria-transmitting mosquitoes.

Despite decades of Monsanto propaganda insisting that DDT was safe, the true effects of DDT’s toxicity were at last confirmed through outside research and in 1972, DDT was banned throughout the U.S.

#6 – Dioxin

In 1945, Monsanto began promoting the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture with the manufacture of the herbicide 2,4,5-T (one of the precursors to Agent Orange), containing dioxin.

Dioxins are a group of chemically-related compounds that since become known as one of the “Dirty Dozen” — persistent environmental pollutants that accumulate in the food chain, mainly in the fatty tissue of animals. In the decades since it was first developed, Monsanto has been accused of covering up or failing to report dioxin contamination in a wide range of its products.

#7 – Agent Orange

During the early 1960s, Monsanto was one of the two primary manufacturers of Agent Orange, an herbicide / defoliant used for chemical warfare during the Vietnam War. Except Monsanto’s formula had dioxin levels many times higher than the Agent Orange produced by Dow Chemicals, the other manufacturer (which is why Monsanto was the key defendant in the lawsuit brought by Vietnam War veterans in the United States).

As a result of the use of Agent Orange, Vietnam estimates that over 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 children were born with birth defects, and up to 1 million people were disabled or suffered from health problems—not to mention the far-reaching impact it had on the health of over 3 million American troops and their offspring.

Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems of dioxin contamination of Agent Orange when it sold it to the U.S. government for use in Vietnam. Despite the widespread health impact, Monsanto and Dow were allowed to appeal for and receive financial protection from the U.S. government against veterans seeking compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange.

In 2012, a long 50 years after Agent Orange was deployed, the clean-up effort has finally begun. Yet the legacy of Agent Orange, and successive generations of body deformities, will remain in orphanages throughout VietNam for decades to come.

(Think that can’t happen here? Two crops were recently genetically engineered to withstand a weedkiller made with one of the major components of Agent Orange, 2,4-D, in order to combat “super weeds” that evolved due to the excessive use of RoundUp.)

#8 – Petroleum-Based Fertilizer

In 1955, Monsanto began manufacturing petroleum-based fertilizer after purchasing a major oil refinery. Petroleum-based fertilizers can kill beneficial soil micro-organisms, sterilizing the soil and creating a dependence, like an addiction, to the synthetic replacements. Not the best addiction to have, considering the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil…

#9 – RoundUp

During the early 1970s, Monsanto founded their Agricultural Chemicals division with a focus on herbicides, and one herbicide in particular: RoundUp (glyphosate). Because of its ability to eradicate weeds literally overnight, RoundUp was quickly adopted by farmers. Its use increased even more when Monsanto introduced “RoundUp Ready” (glyphosate-resistant) crops, enabling farmers to saturate the entire field with weedkiller without killing the crops.

While glyphosate has been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and is widely used, concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist. RoundUp has been found in samples of groundwater, as well as soil, and even in streams and air throughout the Midwest U.S., and increasingly in food. It has been linked to butterfly mortality, and the proliferation of superweeds. Studies in rats have shown consistently negative health impacts ranging from tumors, altered organ function, and infertility, to cancer and premature death; click here to find countless study references to support these statements.

#10 – Aspartame (NutraSweet / Equal)

An accidental discovery during research on gastrointestinal hormones resulted in a uniquely sweet chemical: aspartame. During the clinical trials conducted on 7 infant monkeys as part of aspartame’s application for FDA approval, 1 monkey died and 5 other monkeys had grand mal seizures—yet somehow aspartame was still approved by the FDA in 1974.

In 1985, Monsanto acquired the company responsible for aspartame’s manufacture (G.D. Searle) and began marketing the product as NutraSweet. Twenty years later, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report listing 94 health issues caused by aspartame. (Watch a quick video here.)

#11 – Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)

This genetically modified hormone was developed by Monsanto to be injected into dairy cows to produce more milk.

Cows subjected to rBGH suffer excruciating pain due to swollen udders and mastitis, and the pus from the resulting infection enters the milk supply requiring the use of additional antibiotics.

rBGH milk has been linked to breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer in humans.

#12 – Genetically Modified Crops / GMOs

In the early 1990s, Monsanto began gene-splicing corn, cotton, soy, and canola with DNA from viruses and bacteria in order to achieve one of two traits: an internally-generated pesticide (the corn or soy causes the insect’s stomach to rupture if they eat it), or an internal resistance to Monsanto’s weedkiller RoundUp (enabling farmers to drench their field with RoundUp to kill ever-stronger weeds).

Despite decades of promises that genetically engineered crops would “feed the world” with “more nutrients,” drought resistance, or yield, the majority of Monsanto’s profits are from seeds that are engineered to tolerate Monsanto’s RoundUp—providing them with an ever-increasing, dual income stream as weeds continue to evolve resistance to RoundUp.

Most sobering however, is that the world is once again buying into Monsanto’s “safe” claims.

Just like the early days of PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange, Monsanto has successfully fooled the general public and regulatory agencies into believing that RoundUp, and the genetically modified crops that help sell RoundUp, are “safe.” Despite the fact that NO human testing has ever been done on GMO crops!

Meanwhile, Monsanto has learned a thing or two in the past 100+ years of defending its dirty products: these days, when a new study shows the negative health or environmental impacts of GMOs, Monsanto attacks the study and its scientist(s) by flooding the media with counter claims from “independent” organizations, scientists, industry associations, blogs, sponsored social media, and articles by “private” public relations firms—all endorsed, founded, funded or maintained by Monsanto.

Unfortunately, few of us take the time to trace the members, founders, and relationships of these seemingly valid sources back to their little Monsanto secret. (Read more on this page.)

Fooling the FDA required a slightly different approach: click on the below chart compiled by Millions Against Monsanto to see how many former Monsanto VPs and legal counsel are now holding positions with the FDA. And don’t forget Clarence Thomas, former Monsanto attorney who is now a Supreme Court Justice, ruling in favor of Monsanto in every case brought before him.

A Baker’s Dozen: #13 – Terminator Seeds

In the late 1990s, Monsanto developed the technology to produce sterile grains unable to germinate. The goal of these “Terminator Seeds” was to force farmers to buy new seeds from Monsanto year after year, rather than save and reuse the seeds from their harvest as they’ve been doing throughout centuries.

Fortunately this technology never came to market. Instead, Monsanto managed to accomplish the same thing by requiring farmers to sign a binding contract agreeing that they will not save or sell seeds from year to year, which forces them to buy new seeds and preempts the need for a “terminator gene.” Lucky for us… since the terminator seeds were capable of cross-pollination and could have contaminated local non-sterile crops.

What’s the Result of our Monsanto Legacy?

Between 75% to 80% of the processed food you consume every day has GMOs inside, and residues of Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide outside. But it’s not just processed food—fresh fruit and vegetables are next: genetically engineered sweet corn is already being sold at your local grocer, with apples and a host of other “natural” produce currently in field trials.

How is it that Monsanto is allowed to manipulate our food after such a dark product history? How is it they are allowed to cause such detrimental impact to our environment and our health?

According to the Organic Consumers Association, “There is a direct correlation between our genetically engineered food supply and the $2 trillion the U.S. spends annually on medical care, namely an epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases.

Instead of healthy fruits, vegetables, grains, and grass-fed animal products, U.S. factory farms and food processors produce a glut of genetically engineered junk foods that generate heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer—backed by farm subsidies—while organic farmers receive no such subsidies.

Monsanto’s history reflects a consistent pattern of toxic chemicals, lawsuits, and manipulated science. Is this the kind of company we want controlling our world’s food supply?

P.S. Monsanto’s not alone. Other companies in the “Big Six” include Pioneer Hi-Bred International (a subsidiary of DuPont), Syngenta AG, Dow Agrosciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, BASF (which is primarily a chemical company that is rapidly expanding their biotechnology division), and Bayer Cropscience (a subsidiary of Bayer).

The website Biofortified.org maintains a complete list of companies doing genetic engineering.

Source: http://gmo-awareness.com/2011/05/12/mon ... rty-dozen/
"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare

 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: Cabeça de Martelo

*

mafarrico

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #624 em: Agosto 01, 2014, 12:28:57 pm »
So who is Vladimir Putin?

Posted by Alex Krainer on May 15, 2014

The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. – George Orwell

Ukraine remains the topic of most discussions on global economy, and Russian president Vladimir Putin is an inevitable part of that subject. Although he is almost universally demonized by western leaders and media, more impartial observers increasingly concede that his administration’s conduct seems more rational and more constructive than that of his western counterparts. But even then, most people pad their comments with a kind of disclaimer:

    I don’t like Putin, but…
    Putin s a thug, but…
    Whatever you may think of Putin, …

I find that curious, so at some point I started asking people in such conversations to tell me why, specifically, they didn’t like Putin or thought that he was a thug? As I suspected, most people did not really have more than a vague answer reflecting the familiar mud slung daily by our mainstream media…

Somehow we all know that he used to be a KGB agent, that his regime is adversarial to freedom and democracy, that he’s a homophobe, that he has $9 or $17, or $40, or $70 billion stashed away somewhere outside Russia, etc. A more sinister version has it that he is the new Hitler and that he wants to remake the former Soviet empire. This largely uncritical acceptance, even among intellectual circles, that Putin is essentially a thuggish figure – made me curious about who this man really is. Recently I came across an article about him written by Sharon Tennison – an American who has worked in Russia (and USSR) for 30 years as a developer of programs to open up relations between Russia and the USA. Tennison has had personal experiences with Putin and has over the years known a “numerous American officials and US businessmen who have had years of experience working with him…” “None,” she writes, “would describe him as ‘brual,’ or ‘thuggish,’ or other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.” Here are a few excerpts from her article [1]:

    I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. … For years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two countries …  A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made. My friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit.  He inquired about my reason for coming in.  After scanning the proposal I provided he began asking intelligent questions.  After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question. I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans’ requests… This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor.  After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not.  A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all.  He simply and kindly showed us to the door.  Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “Volodya, this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!”  I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight––it read Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

    December 31, 1999: With no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin.  On hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered––he could never lead Russia. … “This is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he is too introverted and too intelligent––he will never be able to relate to Russia’s masses.”  Further, I lamented:  “For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen:  1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions”.  It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.

    February 2000:  Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge.  In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer: “What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs?  The same as anyone else.  The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop.”  This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West’s capitalists nervous. …

    Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal:  They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized ….  IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics. This was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia.  But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. …

    March 2000: I arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for our usual visit.  My first question was, “Lena what do you think about your new president?”  She laughed and retorted, “…I went to school with him!”  She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education).  He went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted.  I must have grimaced at this, because Lena said,  “Sharon in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural … to choose this career.  My next question was,  “What do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?”   Putting on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied,  “If left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is watching. If they don’t respond, he will address them personally, then if the behaviors don’t change–– some will be in prison in a couple of  years.”  I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.

    Throughout the 2000’s:  St.Petersburg’s many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working … Last, each was asked,  “So what do you think of your new president?”  None responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia’s bureaucrats.  Most answered similarly,  “Putin registered my business a few years ago”.  Next question, “So, how much did it cost you?”  To a person they replied, “Putin didn’t charge anything”.  One said,  “We went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at the Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.'”  

    Year 2001: Jack Gosnell [former US Consul General] explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between the two countries.  Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous and helpful. When Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland.  When Jack told Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous offer,  but ended saying that he couldn’t accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital. She did––although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.

    A senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media.  …Another former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of  bribery, pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.

    I had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin: At the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get answered:  “When did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why?  Without hesitating the answer came back:  “‘The knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the next president.”  I questioned WHY?  The answer: “I could never find out why––maybe because he was KGB.”  I offered that Bush #I, was head of the CIA.  The reply was,  “That would have made no difference, he was our guy.”

    The second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a radio interview on Russia.  Afterward when we were chatting,  I remarked, “You might be interested to know that  I’ve collected experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes”.  He firmly replied, “No one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin.”

    From 2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin …. even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler. No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During this time,  I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food.  Alcohol challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life expectancy began increasing.  Highways were being laid across the country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking industry was becoming dependable. Russia was beginning to look like a decent country –– certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for the first time in their memories.

    My 2013/14 Trips to Russia:  In addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm.  We traveled between cities via autos and rail––the fields and forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction. Today’s Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from China). Old concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place––and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow.  We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets.  Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations looks like those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have appeared. It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.

I must confess, Tennison’s article surprised me a bit: Putin stood up to schoolyard bullies; Putin went to the KGB for similar reasons why many young Americans joined the US Army after September 11 attacks; Putin takes no bribes; Putin was curteous and helpful as a public official; Putin turned down privileged treatment for his wife after her car accident… If this came from Russian sources, I would probably dismiss it as political PR. But Tennison is an American and a relatively anonymous American at that. Her article wasn’t circulated widely or cited by Voice of Russia or RT, so it seems genuine. That begs the question: what if Putin is actually a decent man who simply wants to run Russia for the benefit of the Russian people as best as he can? I sincerely wish that Tennison’s version reflects the true Putin – such a man would be less likely to invade Europe and escalate the present conflict over Ukraine to a new World War. At any rate, making him into a brutal thug in the eyes of the western public wouldn’t be the first bill of goods we’d been sold by the leaders of the free world. As Lord Nordcliffe put it in the run-up to World War I, “To create an atmosphere for war, you have to introduce in the populace the hatred of ‘the other’.” If such hatred must be based on lies, we would do well to reject it.



"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare

 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 23336
  • Recebeu: 4265 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 3013 vez(es)
  • +3128/-4571
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #625 em: Agosto 01, 2014, 12:57:41 pm »
NASA: Civilization Was Almost Wiped Out In July 2012

The danger to modern civilization posed by solar flares is starting to get real attention well beyond prepper circles. Witness this Washington Post article and Hacker News thread on a recent NASA report on the massive July 2012 solar flare that missed earth by a week.

First, the NASA report:

Citar
““In my view the July 2012 storm was in all respects at least as strong as the 1859 Carrington event,” says Baker. “The only difference is, it missed.”

In February 2014, physicist Pete Riley of Predictive Science Inc. published a paper in Space Weather entitled “On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events.” In it, he analyzed records of solar storms going back 50+ years. By extrapolating the frequency of ordinary storms to the extreme, he calculated the odds that a Carrington-class storm would hit Earth in the next ten years.

The answer: 12%.

“Initially, I was quite surprised that the odds were so high, but the statistics appear to be correct,” says Riley. “It is a sobering figure.”

…Says Baker, “we need to be prepared.”

The big question that has been going around in prepper circles for years is, how bad will it really be? There the answer ranges from TEOTWAWKI to “really bad”. In this respect, a recent Lloyd’s of London Insurance report on the threat of a solar superstorm is probably a good place to start. I’m going to quote a Hacker News user’s whole comment, because it contains links to the report and a summary:

Citar
“For those interested in an in-depth analysis of the risk, Lloyd’s insurance produced a detailed report last year looking at this issue:

Solar Storm Risk to the North American Electric Grid [PDF]

http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/re ... ing%20risk

Summary here/

Some key points:

Weighted by population, the highest risk of storm-induced power outages in the US is along the Atlantic corridor between Washington D.C. and New York City.

The total U.S. population at risk of extended power outage from a Carrington-level [estimated to occur every ~150 years] storm is between 20-40 million, with durations of 16 days to 1-2 years.

The wide variation of expected duration is is dependent on the number of transformers destroyed:

If spares are readily available, the total transportation and setup time for a large power transformer can range from a few weeks to months depending on distance and logistical issues. If new transformers need to be ordered, the lead-time is estimated to be between 5-12 months for domestic suppliers, and 6-12 months for international suppliers.

The Lloyd’s scenario of roughly 10 percent of North America without power for months or years is on the “downright rosy” end of the spectrum. There’s also no attempt made in the full report to assess the broader social impact of 40 million without power–mass migration out of the affected region of the country, the disruption or possible temporary shutdown of financial markets (if NYC is hit), civil unrest, and so on.

There’s also no discussion of the possibility that nuclear plants in the affected region would go full-blown Fukushima if they lost their connection to the grid.

People are rightfully concerned about getting blasted back to the 80′s–the 1880′s, but will power companies and the government actually wake up and spend the paltry few millions on the problem that it would take to protect our grid?

So if you needed another reason to start prepping, or a reminder to take your prepping seriously, there it is. Sobering stuff.
Contra a Esquerda woke e a Direita populista marchar, marchar!...

 

*

mafarrico

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #626 em: Agosto 01, 2014, 06:27:28 pm »
"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare

 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: HSMW

*

HSMW

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 12949
  • Recebeu: 3325 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 7946 vez(es)
  • +1202/-1989
    • http://youtube.com/HSMW
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #627 em: Agosto 01, 2014, 10:15:38 pm »
Citação de: "mafarrico"
Muito interessante!
https://www.youtube.com/user/HSMW/videos

"Tudo pela Nação, nada contra a Nação."
 

*

Luso

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 8711
  • Recebeu: 1858 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 816 vez(es)
  • +1079/-10657
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #628 em: Agosto 02, 2014, 09:44:31 pm »
Reparem no que diz o Francisco quanto às teorias de conspiração. Em parte concordo com ele. A questão chave, porém, não é a teoria, mas sim a Conspiração. Que existe.
Ai de ti Lusitânia, que dominarás em todas as nações...
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 23336
  • Recebeu: 4265 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 3013 vez(es)
  • +3128/-4571
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #629 em: Agosto 08, 2014, 11:06:59 am »
Votar em Portugal é crime. Elegemos representantes da banca, do BES, da PT, da EDP, etc e não representantes do interesse nacional.



25 governantes passaram pelo BES!
São várias as formas como o maior banco privado português construiu a sua rede de influência entre os governantes, como diferentes são os sinais de retribuição de cada um dos 25 Ministros e Secretários de Estado que se cruzaram com os destinos do BES. Dezasseis dos 19 governos constitucionais tiveram quadros vindos, ou que transitaram para o BES.

Numa entrevista ao canal da Bloomberg, o aparelho fonador da finança global, José Maria Ricciardi referia a transparência institucional e financeira como uma vantagem e uma diferença marcante entre as economias portuguesa e grega. Corria o ano da graça de 2012. O então presidente executivo do BES Investimento e homem forte da supervisão da EDP seria eleito, no ano seguinte, um dos banqueiros do ano pela revista World Finance. Esta história de encantar acabou com a divisão no seio da família Espírito Santo, lançada agora no segundo e mais brando exílio da sua longa dinastia. A importância deste caso reside, em parte, no poder político que o império Espírito Santo construiu ao longo de mais de um século. De seguida propomo-nos a levantar um pouco do véu.

Governa quem tem votos, governa quem manda
É preciso recuar ao governo de Maria de Lourdes Pintassilgo para encontrar um executivo cujos membros não estabeleceram, em algum momento, um vínculo com o BES.
A relação do BES com o poder político durante o século XX foi intensa e estruturante, por isso mereceu ser estuda em pormenor e o resultado está à nossa disposição (1).
Vale juntar a essa cartografia da força económica, as expressões políticas pela quais se manifestou nos diversos governos. A cooptação de dirigentes capazes de se moverem entre a política e os negócios, com a subtileza e hibridez necessárias, é a primeira evidência da grande mecânica. Basta, para tal, constatar que o grupo BES esteve presente, através de governantes que transitaram dos seus quadros para o governo ou que aí aportaram depois da passagem pelo executivo, em 16 dos 19 governos Constitucionais (2).
Encontramos percursos de relevo pelo papel desempenhado em momentos chave da economia portuguesa, como é caso de Ernâni Lopes, Ministro das Finanças do Governo do Bloco Central (1983-1985), responsável pela chamada Lei de Delimitação de sectores, aprovada em 1983, que pela primeira vez desde as nacionalizações abria o sector da banca à iniciativa privada, preparando assim a primeira fase de privatizações. A criação do Banco Comercial Português, em 1984, com capitais coordenados por Américo Amorim, teve o apoio deste economista e quadro do Banco de Portugal.  O BES foi, posteriormente, o único banco privado no qual Ernâni Lopes desempenhou funções de administração (2002-2003).

Na fase seguinte, os governos de Cavaco Silva são marcantes para a recomposição do grupo, abrindo os campos legais à privatização (criação das sociedades anónimas de capitais públicos e nova revisão constitucional), e gerindo estrategicamente a entrega das seguradoras como primeira etapa de recomposição do poder financeiro. A privatização da Tranquilidade, com o apoio do Crédit Agricole e o apadrinhamento político de Mário Soares, foi fundamental para o regresso da família Espírito Santo  e o fortalecimento financeiro indispensável no ataque à privatização do BES.

É um período no qual Miguel Horta e Costa ocupa o cargo de Secretário de Estado do Comércio Exterior (1987-1990), decisivo nas novas relações com a banca europeia, para logo depois ingressar na presidência do BES Investimento (1990-1995). Um acontecimento não inédito na família, uma vez que o seu tio, Miguel Jorge Horta e Costa, o quinto Barão de Santa Comba Dão, era muito próximo de Manuel Ricardo Espírito Santo, do qual recebeu a administração da Mocar e Santomar.  Nesta fase ingressam ainda no banco ex-governantes como Rui Machete (1990-1991), Emílio Vilar (1985-1986) e Almerindo Marques (1985). Este último viria a reencontrar o BES já na qualidade de presidente das Estradas de Portugal, tendo por função a supervisão do consórcio que o banco mantem com a Mota-Engil (Ascendi).

Um banco de todos os regimes, de vários partidos
As anunciadas nomeações de Vítor Bento e de João Moreira Rato para a condução do banco comprovam a tendência geral do sector: a burguesia financeira portuguesa perde espaço com a crise, o Estado é convocado e os quadros orgânicos do poder mobilizados.
O BES soube, de facto, acompanhar as mudanças de regime e as alternâncias da mudança política em Portugal.
Comprovamos essa adaptação com as privatizações dos sectores estratégicos lançadas por António Guterres, que conferiram ao BES um lugar de comando na banca nacional. A relação de credor com a PT passa a ser um dos pilares do grupo, com Murteira Nabo a saltar de Ministro de Guterres para a presidência da telefónica (1996-2003), integrando, quatro anos mais tarde, a administração do BES. No mesmo período, um ex-quadro do BES, António Mexia, chega ao comando da Galp, petrolífera onde o banco manteve uma posição até o ano 2000, alienando-a à ENI e Iberdrola por influência do inevitável Pina Moura.

O início do século marca a expansão do grupo BES a outras áreas de influência, como a saúde, cuja atividade pôde contar com a consultadoria da atual presidente do PS, Maria de Belém Roseira, assim como a consolidação do seu braço institucional, a Fundação Ricardo Espírito Santo, que coopta para a sua presidência a ex-Ministra da Cultura, Maria João Bustorff.
Já no tempo de Sócrates, a influência do BES permanece, com os destinos da economia entregues ao seu quadro de longa data, Manuel Pinho, que agora acordou uma reforma milionária com o banco.

Os laços de influência e poder do BES são hoje mais visíveis, uma vez que a crise no grupo exige uma mobilização agressiva dos seus recursos políticos. As anunciadas nomeações de Vítor Bento e de João Moreira Rato para a condução do banco comprovam a tendência geral do sector: a burguesia financeira portuguesa perde espaço com a crise, o Estado é convocado e os quadros orgânicos do poder mobilizados. A fatura será entregue, é certo, não fosse este ainda um começo de uma outra história, onde os bons possam, porventura, tentar a sua vez.
Notas:
1 - Os Donos de Portugal (2010), Afrontamento.
2 - http://www.osburgueses.net/
Visite ainda este estudo animado que expõe a promiscuidade politico-empresarial
Email trocado entre os antigos lideres do BPN, mostra como é que se escolhem os influentes... não os competentes.

Mas nada como mergulhar bem fundo no oceano de corrupção que afunda Portugal e desvendar mais alguns tentáculos do polvo BES.
BES - O BANCO DO SISTEMA, A SAGA CONTINUA

1.As escutas do BES e do CDS (video)
2.20 milhões, por assessoria do BES.
3.BES e os submarinos do PortasLusófona e o BES
4.BES e as grandes obras da Policia Judiciária
5.Paulo Morais denuncia
6.As SCUT´s e o BES
7.O BES e Almerindo Marques
8.O BES, o Mensalão e o Relvas
9.BES e a privatização da EDP
10.BES os juros e as PPP
11.Manuel Pinho e o BES
12.O BES e o desfalque nos CTT
13.O BES na comissão que negoceia com a troika?
14.O CDS e o depósito de 1 milhão no BES
15.BES beneficia das PPP de Sócrates.
16.O BES no Banco de Portugal
17.As conquistas do BES.
18.BES e o caso Portucale
19.PS amigo das PPP´s e do BES
20.O BES albergue de políticos
21.BES acusado de roubar empresa
22.Gomes Ferreira explica como a Banca manda
23.Os homens políticos do BES
24.Prender os que enganaram o estado nas PPP
25.Fisco aliado do BES, contra o cidadão?
26.Ana Gomes sem papas na língua, contra o BES.
27.Lista de casos por desvendar no BES
28.BES & CML uma parceria conveniente? Perguntem ao António Costa


PAULO MORAIS EXPÕE CASOS DE DEPUTADOS QUE ESTÃO ACTUALMENTE NO ACTIVO, A REPRESENTAR O POVO,  E JÁ ESTÃO A TRABALHAR NO PRIVADO... OU PARA O PRIVADO?


1.Moreira Rato fica sem resposta
2.As carreiras dos politicos
3.Os incontáveis tachos e boys que minam o país
4.Também elegemos a Maçonaria


ARTIGO COMPLETO: http://apodrecetuga.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... z39nGc4Jx3
ARTIGO COMPLETO: http://apodrecetuga.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... z39nGOr0Ig
Contra a Esquerda woke e a Direita populista marchar, marchar!...