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 (199397)	5/16/2017 2:37:31 PM
From: TopCat	4 Recommendations Recommended By DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck locogringo rayrohn TideGlider Respond to of 224858

A leaker is not a patriot....he's a traitor, just like you.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (199397)	5/16/2017 2:42:28 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224858

A patriot like the tranny Obama pardoned?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (199397)	5/16/2017 2:55:26 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Recommended By lorne Respond to of 224858

You Won’t Believe Why Washington State Isn’t Allowed to Prepare for Nuclear Warby Ready Nutrition · Published May 16, 2017 · Updated May 16, 2017 You Won’t Believe Why Washington State Isn’t Allowed to Prepare for Nuclear War by Joshua Krause – Ready Nutrition If the government was able to take care of everyone during any foreseeable disaster, there probably wouldn’t be a thriving prepper movement today. So many people have taken it upon themselves to prepare for disasters, because they know how the government often reacts to crisis situations. Our government’s response to disasters is often slow and lacking, and the victims of these events are frequently forced to fend for themselves. Still, what they do is better than nothing, and at least at the local level first responders do a great job. With that said, there’s an expectation among most people that when disaster strikes, the government will do something. And worst case scenario, sometimes there are disasters that the government doesn’t foresee, and they simply don’t have a plan. However, most people don’t realize that sometimes, not only does the government not have a plan, they deliberately avoid making a plan for political reasons. That may sound totally asinine, but it’s absolutely true. Especially in the state of Washington. With all the hype surrounding North Korea’s missile tests, many states are reexamining their nuclear preparedness plans, except in Washington, where apparently it’s illegal for state authorities to even make those plans. According to King5 news out of Seattle: Despite the constant threats and missile tests coming out of North Korea, emergency management officials in Washington state say they are prevented from forming an evacuation plan in the event of a nuclear attack. “State law does not allow any advanced planning,” said Karina Shagren with the Washington State Emergency Management Division. RCW 38.52.030, passed in 1983, says “The comprehensive, all-hazard emergency plan authorized under this subsection may not include preparation for emergency evacuation or relocation of residents in anticipation of nuclear attack.” Can you believe that? You might be wondering why any government would actively refuse to prepare for a nuclear war. It turns out that the only thing dumber than this law, is the reason why it exists. The author of the state law preventing a nuclear attack plan, former Democratic state lawmaker Dick Nelson, says at the time, Washington state was inundated with nuclear threats, and the idea was to create an example of peace. “It was about finding a middle ground we could all agree on,” he said. Nelson also felt that if Seattle were to be attacked, the chances of survival would be so low that a preparation plan would have been moot anyway. Today, Nelson still says he has no regrets. So in other words, the state decided that refusing to prepare for a nuclear war would send the message that nuclear war is bad and peace is good…or something. I’m struggling to follow the logic here. It’d be like refusing to prepare for hurricanes, because hurricanes are bad and destructive. It doesn’t make any sense. Trying set a peaceful example by refusing to prepare for war; a preparation that I might add is totally non-violent and only exists to save civilians, doesn’t do anything to actually reduce the probability of that war happening. It doesn’t bring more peace to the world, and it doesn’t save anyone. With this law, Washington has traded the safety of many of their citizens for a shallow political statement. Joshua Krause was born and raised in the Bay Area. He is a writer and researcher focused on principles of self-sufficiency and liberty at Ready Nutrition. You can follow Joshua’s work at our Facebook page or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (199397)	5/16/2017 2:57:58 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Recommended By Investor Clouseau Respond to of 224858

Martha McSally: Man 'threatened to shoot' Trump supporter 3 hours ago From the section US & Canada These are external links and will open in a new window Share this with Facebook Share this with Twitter Share this with Messenger Share this with Messenger Share this with Email Share Share this with These are external links and will open in a new window Email Share this with Email Facebook Share this with Facebook Messenger Share this with Messenger Messenger Share this with Messenger Twitter Share this with Twitter Pinterest Share this with Pinterest WhatsApp Share this with WhatsApp LinkedIn Share this with LinkedIn Copy this link bbc.com Read more about sharing.These are external links and will open in a new window Close share panel Image copyright @RepMcSally A man in the US has been put arrested after threatening to shoot a Republican congresswoman who supports President Donald Trump. Steve Martan allegedly called Martha McSally's office several times, making death threats and saying she should be careful if she visited Tucson, Arizona. FBI officials traced the calls back to his mobile phone. When they visited him, he said he was "venting frustrations" with Ms McSally's votes in support of Mr Trump. A complaint filed with a local court alleges that Mr Martan called the congressional office three times, using expletives and making general threats such as saying her days were "numbered", as well as threats to wring Ms McSally's neck or shoot her. Ms McSally said the threats were "especially sickening" in view of the shooting of another congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, in Tucson six years ago. Six people died in that attack in 2011, and a total of 13 were wounded. Ms Giffords survived the attack but spent time in an induced coma and suffered serious brain injury that left one of her arms paralysed and affected her speech. The man who shot her pleaded guilty on 19 counts of murder and attempted murder, and is serving seven life sentences plus 140 years. How did Gabrielle Giffords survive being shot in the head?Ms Giffords has issued a statement saying that the threats against Ms McSally were "reprehensible and deeply disturbing". Ms McSally said: "We can disagree about issues and policies. We should have robust debates about the future of our country. But threats of violence cross a clear line." Mr Martan has been released from custody, but will have to wear an electronic tag and is not permitted to contact Ms McSally or carry a gun, a local newspaper reported. He is only allowed to leave the house for his work at a school and for his governmentally-mandated mental health programme.