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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (858772)	5/20/2015 12:45:45 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (8) \| Respond to of 1574683

Despite protests, some workers thrilled by Shell oil rig in Seattle By Russ Bowen Published: May 19, 2015 at 10:22 PM PDT When the Polar Pioneer made her way into Elliott Bay, she did so with the help of tug boats. They are operated by what will add up to as many as 150 tug boat workers who could otherwise be sitting home waiting on work. "It's huge for the local economy," said Gail McCormick with the Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific. The entire local Shell project will employ an estimated 415 people across the region, including workers in Port Angeles. "Not only does it help the Seattle economy for them to be here, it helps the whole state's economy because my guys live all over the state," McCormick said. It was a dramatic contrast last weekend. Protestors on the water showed their anger against Arctic drilling and Shell's presence in Seattle. The plethora of kayaks juxtaposed with the dozens of longshoremen working on board was striking. The outcry has been so strong that the Port of Seattle asked Secretary of State John Kerry to avoid Seattle for a speech Tuesday because the Port's hands were full. McCormick said those working around or above the protests aren't bothered by the added attention. "It may be a little bit of a nuisance, but I don't think that any of the guys let it bother them at all," he said. He added that is if Shell listens and does pull out, "a lot of them would be laid off." komonews.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (858772)	5/20/2015 2:52:44 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574683

We keep a large and powerful navy mostly because we have world wide trade and security interests, and because we don't have powerful hostile neighbors that would cause us to shift most of our military spending to dealing with actual or potential ground based conflicts. But even if you where right, if it was all about feeding the special interest of the defense contractors, my point would still be correct, its not a subsidy for oil (it would then rather be a subsidy for defense contractors).

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (858772)	5/20/2015 3:04:35 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By TideGlider TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574683

Ike fought a world war. Intervened in Korea, Lebanon, Greece, and I'm sure other places .. he would NOT have said we don't need a navy.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (858772)	5/20/2015 3:25:35 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574683

>> We'll keep funding a large and powerful navy because we ignore this There is no way at all that he could have foreseen Medicare. And it is a safe bet that if he could seen what this program has become in 50 years, he would much more concerned about it than anything that might be going on with the military. It is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare that threaten the very existence of this country as we've known it. NOT the military industrial complex. Not to say that any of them are "good", only that no one can reasonably express concern today over the military without expressing MORE concern over Medicare and its disastrous effect on the nation's well being.