Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (14016)	12/22/2008 12:51:30 AM
From: Proud Deplorable	Respond to of 50327

Message 25270717

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (14016)	12/22/2008 11:46:30 AM
From: colburg	3 Recommendations Respond to of 50327

A few things to consider A lot of corn, soybeans still in US fields [url]http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2008/11/11/25261_grain-and-hay.html[/url] I've also read a few articles about the dakotas being low on or out of propane. Propane is used to dry the corn to a storable moisture level. Warehouses are currently full of corn that can't be dried and will rot if nothing is done. Couple this with what is happening in the fertilizer industry and the next fall will be very dismal. Fertilizer companies everywhere are scaling back production. How will this affect crops? [url]http://www.potashcorp.com/investor_relations/news_and_events/news/news_releases/?newsid=1237937[/url] Lower fertilizer usage = Lower crop yields Lower crop yields = Less food to go around Websites that sell storable food are running out of supplies. I've even seen sites that sell vegetable seeds claiming to be out of seeds. There's a new idea to charge cattle and pig owners a ridiculous tax for methane output. "But the American Farm Bureau Federation said, based on federal agriculture department figures, it would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog. The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and "all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them."" [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28070487/[/url] So, farms are going to have smaller crops, beef and milk product prices will substantially increase if congress passes a fart tax, and vegetables could possibly be in short supply, where are you going to get your food and how much will you pay for it? colburg

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (14016)	12/22/2008 2:57:14 PM
From: canbyte	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50327

Slider, thanks for posting the Lindsey Williams video. Much to think about and would not really question what he says. We have been hearing about the Alaska oil issue for some time with the blame put on environmental concerns for not drilling it. I my mind however, keeping that field out of the loop is a great strategic move for the US despite any short term pain at the pumps. 1. With so many fields in decline, better for the US to use up everybody else's oil first. Hope y'all get my drift. 2. Williams may be a bit too enthusiastic about its size. Remember how North Sea oil was going to keep England (and everybody else) going forever? I hear its about done. Similar for Russia, despite what Lindsey said in the video, unless of course, these are fabrications. So, again, I think this argues for sitting on it for awhile longer. "Mr Fedun says the western Siberian fields have reached their natural limit." economist.com Bottom line: Conservation is a good idea.

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (14016)	12/23/2008 3:21:49 AM
From: maceng2	1 Recommendation Respond to of 50327

Re cell phones. There is little doubt that political power can influence statistical interpretation of data and experiments. Message 21388099 and you just have to skim the government generated economic statistics to know often the data is deliberately interfered with. Government statisticians are amongst the best calibre available. Government statistics are typically otherwise very accurate. Back to cell phones though, yes there is data out there that can question the safety of strong electromagnetic fields on the human body. It can be a strong source of low frequency radiation acting at a distance like Hi-Voltage power lines or a cell phone radiating at high frequency but low power close to your head. There are lots of instances that warrant continued studies. I remember this guy was nearly always seen talking into a cell phone. It may have been older models emitted less safe power levels. en.wikipedia.org The French Interphone Study pointed to increased risk at only 260-467 hours of total lifetime use. It is not the first time the disclosure that a prominent public figure fighting this deadly diagnosis has raised the question of whether long-term use of cell phones is linked to brain tumors. The death of attorney Johnnie L. Cochran prompted his neurosurgeon, Dr. Keith Black, MD of Cedars Sinai Hospital, to make the connection. Black said he believes there was a relationship between Cochran’s heavy cell phone use and his death from a glioma in 2005. antennafree.com However, and it's a BIG "However" to suggest elite political power groups are intentionally distributing cell phones to dumb down the "American" population, THAT is definitely drifting into the the unreal wackozoid zone. Is it because in Finland they use mobile phones instead of cell phones or something? -g- Lots of studies worldwide out there. As such, to stay open minded, one has to question the veracity of the other facts delivered by Lindsey Williams. Much of what Lindsey Williams says is worth checking up on though.. imho. It certainly explains a lot of history that otherwise doesn't make much sense.