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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (76710)	1/13/2010 8:38:08 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Portrait of a typical gay marraige? Yeah, normal married couples have basement sex dungeons where they huff aerosols and play Russian roulette all the time. Speaking of underground bunkers - ;>) But Other Than The Drugs and Sado-Masochistic Gunplay, They're Just Like Every Other Couple Posted by Gregory of Yardale at January 13, 2010 5:18 PM Bruce Lavallee-Davidson is a gay activist from Portland ME who testified in favor of keeping Maine's now-overturned gay marriage law at a public hearing. He testified that he was in a committed long-term relationship that deserved to be treated equally to any marriage among heterosexuals. His testimony came four days after he shot a man in the head after a night of drug abuse in a basement sex dungeon culminated in a deadly game of Russian roulette. You know, the exact same kind of things every normal, heterosexual married couple does all the time. The fatal shooting happened after Wilson, Lavallee-Davidson and a third man had been smoking pot, consuming the party drug GBL, huffing aerosol inhalants and having sex over a 12-hour period in the basement of Wilson's Colonial home in a middle-class neighborhood two blocks from the ocean. Earlier today, Lavallee-Davidson was convicted of manslaughter after one hour of jury deliberation. Maybe the Gay Marriage crowd should be more selective about who they want to represent them. Or maybe this really is what they want to be the new normal. moonbattery.com

To: Sully- who wrote (76710)	1/15/2010 5:59:27 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

We're Doomed January 15, 2010 12:14 PM EST by John Stossel "Atomic scientists move Doomsday Clock one minute further away from midnight" (NY Daily News) "Doomsday Clock Gets 'Hopeful' Adjustment" (CBS News) The media yesterday dutifully reported that that the "doomsday clock" was turned back by a minute from the "midnight" of nuclear annihilation. The measure of how close we are to the end of civilization gets such straight-faced reporting because of the prestigious group behind the clock, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. CBS News writes: The world has nudged a bit further from a nuclear apocalypse and environmental disaster, a trans-Atlantic group of prominent scientists declared... It is now 6 minutes to midnight, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which made the decision in consultation with its board, which includes 19 Nobel Laureates. But most stories don't tell you that the editors of the Bulletin are "made up almost wholly of left-leaning physicists and engineers who work in the nuclear field," according to Michael Anton. (W)hat the clock really gauges is Bulletin editors’ approval or disapproval of the incumbent administration’s commitment to the arms control agenda of the antiwar and anti-nuclear left. Causes for losing a minute almost always boil down to some significant victory for that agenda, and for gaining one, some defeat. Hence, when the United Stated withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 (in order to move ahead developing systems that might save American lives), the scientists subtracted two minutes. But when we initially signed the treaty in 1972, they added two. There's no dispute that the board includes 19 Nobel Laureates. But Anton writes that while the scientists may feel "especially qualified to judge" when "doomsday" will occur, they're kidding themselves. (K)nowing in detail how the bomb works does not necessarily grant one any special insight into the complex geopolitics of nuclear posture, deployments, bargaining, and hosts of other issues. To believe otherwise is a conceit... that ignores the enormous gulf between technical proficiency—even scientific brilliance—and political wisdom. It’s the job of statesmen, not scientists, to think through the latter, and they may not always come to the same conclusion. Nuclear war is serious; journalists should be more skeptical of politics and public relations cloaked as science. stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com