SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (155170)4/22/2013 8:05:57 AM
From: TideGlider5 Recommendations  Respond to of 224755
 
You would be a Judas goat if not for your blind eyes. Your wish to die ignorant, with faith Obama and Democrat politicians is disturbing, but not surprising. Ignorance is blissful.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (155170)4/22/2013 11:53:14 AM
From: longnshort3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224755
 
13 Worst Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970

The 1970s were a lousy decade. Embarrassing movies, dreadful music and downright terrifying clothes reflected the national mood following an unpopular war, endless political scandals and a faltering economy.

Popular culture was consumed with decline, especially Hollywood. The Omega Man, Soylent Green, Damnation Alley and countless other dystopian films showed a planet wrecked by war, pollution and neglect. In large part, the entertainment industry was reflecting the culture at large.

In 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.

Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction."New York Timeseditorial"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich"Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter"In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half."Lifemagazine"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt"[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born."Newsweek magazine"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt



  • To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (155170)4/22/2013 11:56:53 AM
    From: lorne6 Recommendations  Respond to of 224755
     
    A sampling of President Barack Hussein Obama's morally bankrupt White House "Brain Trust"
    1. Valerie Jarrett
    2. Patrick Gaspard
    3. Eric Holder
    4. Cecelia Muñoz
    5. Samantha Power(s)
    6. Charles Freeman
    7. Scott Gration
    8. Rahm Emmanuel
    9. Ezekiel Emmanuel
    10. Cass Sunstein
    11. Van Jones
    12. Carol Browner
    13. John Holdren
    14. Kevin Jennings
    15. Chai Feldblum
    16. William



    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (155170)4/22/2013 3:38:48 PM
    From: longnshort5 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224755
     
    America You Have Been Very, Very Bad So President Obama is Punishing You lid 8 112



    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (155170)4/22/2013 3:46:07 PM
    From: longnshort3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224755
     
    The details of the charges were not released to the public, but according to the US Attorney for Massachusetts’ office, he was “charged with conspiring to use weapon of mass destruction against persons and property in U.S. resulting in death":

    Holder will plea bargain it down to Disturbing the Peace.



    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (155170)4/22/2013 4:14:54 PM
    From: TideGlider  Respond to of 224755
     
    Rob Lovitt , NBC News contributor – 5 hrs.

    U.S fliers believe obese should buy second seatAmericans are getting bigger; airplanes are flying fuller, and the price of jet fuel remains stubbornly high. Is the solution to too many "seatmates of size" to weigh passengers in the terminal?

    According to a public opinion survey by YouGov, an Internet market research company, 4 in 10 Americans say they wouldn't mind being publicly weighed at the airport. Conducted April 12–14, the results suggest that a once-unthinkable concept could become a fact of life for fliers.





    “The airlines are always looking to reduce weight or the cost of carrying it,” said YouGov Senior Vice President Ray Martin, “and we’re finding that more people don’t seem to mind the concept.”

    One airline, in fact, has already begun charging by the combined weight of passengers and their baggage. With a fleet of small planes and a local population with the highest obesity rates in the world, Samoa Air now charges passengers 93 cents to $1.06 per kilogram, depending on the flight.

    “If Samoa Air can do it, then there’s scope for other airlines to follow suit,” said Martin, adding that “whoever it does it first is going to take the flak.”

    They’d also take the brunt of any claims of discrimination: “If you’re going to treat people like freight, then you have to accommodate those people the way freight carriers do,” said Peggy Howell, spokesperson for the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA).

    “Freight carriers don’t try to fit a big box into a space the size of a 17-inch seat,” she told NBC News. “Are airlines going to reconfigure their planes so you have small, medium and large seats for passengers of different weights? Anything less would be discriminatory.”

    As for the 40 percent of people who favor pre-flight weigh-ins, they might give new meaning to the phrase "penny wise, pound foolish." For airlines operating hundreds of flights and carrying thousands of passengers per day, implementation would likely be a nightmare, says George Hobica of AirfareWatchdog.com.

    “You’d have to get to the airport two or three hours early; flights would be delayed, and you’d need more staff so it could lead to higher fares,” he told NBC News. "People just think they don't want fat people on planes but it would slow everything down — and planes on the ground don't make money."

    A more sensible approach, says Hobica, would be for airlines to enforce so-called second-seat rules in which passengers are charged for a second seat if they can’t fit in a single seat with the armrest down. Such policies vary from airline to airline and are often inconsistently applied, which can further aggravate what is already an uncomfortable situation for all concerned.

    In fact, according to Martin, 63 percent of survey respondents agreed that passengers should be required to buy a second seat if they couldn’t fit in a single seat with the armrest down.





    “If you pay money for a seat, you expect to have use of all of it,” he said, “and even larger people said that if you don’t fit into one seat, you should pay.”

    And that, suggests Martin, could be a first small step toward pay-by-the-pound flying beyond the South Pacific: “People are already comfortable with the two-seat concept,” he told NBC News. “That could be the way for the airlines to move along toward the point where they start weighing people.”

    Hobica, on the other hand, says it will never happen, although he does see one potential benefit if the idea ever becomes standard operating procedure.

    "A lot of people don't even weigh themselves once a year," he said. "It could be a good reality check for people and good for the health of the American public.



    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (155170)4/23/2013 10:23:21 AM
    From: longnshort7 Recommendations  Respond to of 224755
     
    Poll: George W. Bush’s Approval Rating Tied With Obama Among Registered Voters At 47%…


    Oh my.

    Via NRO:

    The Washington Post asks Americans how they feel about President George W. Bush today, and the results may surprise his critics: “Days before his second term ended in 2009, Bush’s approval rating among all adults was 33 percent positive and 66 percent negative. The new poll found 47 percent saying they approve and 50 percent saying they disapprove. Among registered voters, his approval rating today is equal to President Obama’s, at 47 percent, according to the latest Post-ABC surveys.”




    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (155170)4/23/2013 4:59:46 PM
    From: longnshort7 Recommendations  Respond to of 224755
     
    Obama's Chechens have come home to roost