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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103102)	4/19/2011 9:17:10 AM
From: tonto	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224755

Hopefully now the democrats will stop their extreme push to not verify voting eligibility and will instead support the integrity of voting.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103102)	4/19/2011 9:46:33 AM
From: TideGlider	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224755

What exactly is in these bills that you personally find extreme? Is it also "extreme" to require proof of citizenship for any particular application? Is it "extreme" to attempt to preserve the integrity of elections? I don't really care what Brewer has on her mind. Seems to me she was making some sort of show out of her veto. What things, in your opinion should require proofs? I know you don't want to have people prove their citizenship to vote. What applications in the USA should be able to demand any proofs at all ?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103102)	4/19/2011 10:22:36 AM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

kenny..."The birther bill in AZ was too extreme for even their Governor. There will be no birther bill.".... Don't count on that kenny boy..Is it true that it can become law without the governors signature? And maybe there were only a few things in the bill that she objected too. ?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103102)	4/19/2011 11:51:42 AM
From: JakeStraw	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

She was only against it because it included early baptism or circumcision certificates...I bet she would have supported it if it only included the birth certificate requirement.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103102)	4/19/2011 12:31:56 PM
From: lorne	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224755

kenny..."The birther bill in AZ was too extreme for even their Governor. There will be no birther bill.".... Ken ..will you need to have this explained to you? Arizona could override eligibility veto Governor: 'One could anticipate that because certainly they have the numbers' : April 19, 2011 By Joe Kovacs © 2011 WorldNetDaily wnd.com Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is admitting it's possible her veto of the state's eligibility bill for office-seekers could be overturned by members of the Legislature. "One could anticipate that because certainly they have the numbers down there, but I would be really disappointed," the Republican Brewer told Greta Van Susteren of the Fox News Channel last night. "I am hopeful that they won't." "Bottom line is that I just have to call 'em as I see 'em, and it doesn't help Arizona," she added. "This bill is a distraction and we just simply need to get on with the state's business." The measure, House Bill 2177, would have required presidential candidates to provide their birth certificates and other documentation to appear on the ballot. In her veto message to House Speaker Kirk Adams, Brewer wrote, "As a former secretary of state, I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions." She continued: "I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their 'early baptismal or circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state. This is a bridge too far." Activists are already urging Arizona residents to contact their lawmakers, urging them to override the veto. A letter one constituent sent to them states in part: "The governor says 'one person' should not have power over the ballot – well, she has just single-handedly vetoed a 2/3 vote of the Legislature and the will of those of us who voted you into office. I don't understand how she can veto a veto-proof vote! "I urgently urge all of you to please override this veto immediately and put HB2177 into law. This is simply a common-sense law which is long overdue and should have always been on the books. This should not even be a partisan issue, let alone a 'controversial' bill. What is the point of having requirements for various offices, if candidates do not have to prove they meet those requirements? To not pass this law is to make a mockery of the Constitution and law itself."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (103102)	4/20/2011 8:11:45 AM
From: lorne	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224755

ken..could you pass this along to king hussein obama? :-) BLOW FOR GREEN ENERGY AS WIND FARMS ARE EXPOSED AS UNRELIABLE Thursday April 7 2011 by John Ingham express.co.uk THE unreliability of wind power in Britain was exposed yesterday in a shock report issued by environmentalists. Over the past two years UK wind turbines metered by the National Grid ran at just 10 per cent of capacity for more than one-third of the time. And they ran at less than 20 per cent of their capacity for more than half the time, it was claimed. Yet the Government is committed to building thousands more taxpayer-subsidised wind turbines in the quest for greener energy. The report, carried out by consultant Stuart Young for conservation charity the John Muir Trust, said wind power “cannot be relied on” when electricity is most needed. It said that once a week on average the wind dropped so low that the turbines produced enough energy for “a mere 6,667 households to boil their kettles for a cup of tea”. During the four highest peak demands last year, the best wind could manage was 5.5 per cent of capacity. Wind should be part of a broad energy mix There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from wind farms metered by the National Grid was less than 1.25 per cent of nominal capacity. The report, entitled Analysis Of UK Wind Generation, also rejected the industry claim that wind farms generate on average 30 per cent of capacity. It found that average output from wind was 27.1 per cent of metered capacity in 2009 and 21.1 per cent last year. It concluded: “It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. “There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement.” The John Muir Trust was founded in 1983 to safeguard wild lands against development and has fought wind farm schemes in sensitive areas. Mr Young said: “The intermittent nature of wind also gives rise to low wind coinciding with high energy demand. “Sadly, wind power is not what it’s cracked up to be.” Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, called the report “a real eye-opener” particularly as a “fleet of wind turbines has taken over many of our most beautiful mountains and hillsides”. Michael Hird, for anti-wind farm campaigners Country Guardian, said: “The countryside is being industrialised for a technology that doesn’t work. “If we rely on wind power for energy we are living in cloud cuckoo land.” Ukip’s energy spokesman Lord Monckton said: “The report must be the beginning of the end for these ugly, bird-slicing, bat-killing leviathans. “Their sinister march across our land is destroying the remote and beautiful landscapes and the wild creatures of the UK.” But energy association Renewable UK described the report as “partial, confused and misleading”. A spokesman said: “The wind farms it has looked at are overwhelmingly from one part of the country, Scotland, so the picture is distorted. “All energy forms are intermittent. Wind should be part of a broad energy mix. We should have wind, gas, clean coal and nuclear supporting each other.” A Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman said: “Wind power provides a home-grown source of electricity that doesn’t produce carbon dioxide. “The electricity system always has more generating capacity available than the expected demand. By having a diverse energy mix, we can manage the fact that some technologies are intermittent.”