[Old School]

I realize Earth Day has already past, but I got a chuckle when I ran across these predictions from the first Earth Day held in 1970. A lot of these predictions from 39 years ago are very familar to the ones we hear today. Check out the link below for more predictions.

“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, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: 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….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“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.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-p...ns-of-2009

[donathanhurley]

Those are some insane predictions!

Just think, the predictions we make today could be just as bizarre as those above!
LOL.

[phs1986]

Thanks for the trivia.... got a kick outta them!!!

[Spud6]

That's some crazy predictions.

[Hilbily]

Man thats so old.

[Old School]

Once again it's Earth Day, and time to remember these quotes and comments from the first Earth Day in 1970.

These never get old.:biggrin:

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-2...-earth-day

...and the rest of the story.

On a day when many Americans will be reflecting upon how they can reduce their impact on the environment, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will board separate jets in Washington on Earth Day morning to fly 250 miles up the east coast to New York, where they will land at separate airports to attend separate events within a few miles of each other.
The parallel visits of Air Force One (a 747/VC-25 aircraft) and Air Force Two (a 757/C-32A aircraft) will delay dozens, if not hundreds of commercial flights at Kennedy and LaGurdia and other nearby airports as no-fly zones are implemented. Jets will be forced to circle and burn more fuel as they wait for the VIPs to come and go. Their security contingents consisting of dozens of cars, SUVs and helicopters will burn even more. Throw in thousands of commuters’ cars and delivery trucks sitting idle in traffic as law enforcement closes large swaths of the city and you have yourself a very Earth-unfriendly day.

[TheRealVille]

Once again it's Earth Day, and time to remember these quotes and comments from the first Earth Day in 1970.

These never get old.:biggrin:

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-2...-earth-day

...and the rest of the story.

On a day when many Americans will be reflecting upon how they can reduce their impact on the environment, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will board separate jets in Washington on Earth Day morning to fly 250 miles up the east coast to New York, where they will land at separate airports to attend separate events within a few miles of each other.
The parallel visits of Air Force One (a 747/VC-25 aircraft) and Air Force Two (a 757/C-32A aircraft) will delay dozens, if not hundreds of commercial flights at Kennedy and LaGurdia and other nearby airports as no-fly zones are implemented. Jets will be forced to circle and burn more fuel as they wait for the VIPs to come and go. Their security contingents consisting of dozens of cars, SUVs and helicopters will burn even more. Throw in thousands of commuters’ cars and delivery trucks sitting idle in traffic as law enforcement closes large swaths of the city and you have yourself a very Earth-unfriendly day.

You do understand that the President and Vice-President have never traveled together, right? Bush and Cheyney never traveled together either. None do, it's not allowed. This sight is one big right wing hack fest. I think I'm tired of it. Bye all.

[Hoot Gibson]

You do understand that the President and Vice-President have never traveled together, right? Bush and Cheyney never traveled together either. None do, it's not allowed. This sight is one big right wing hack fest. I think I'm tired of it. Bye all.

Good bye........again.

[Wildcatk23]

You do understand that the President and Vice-President have never traveled together, right? Bush and Cheyney never traveled together either. None do, it's not allowed. This sight is one big right wing hack fest. I think I'm tired of it. Bye all.

I wonder how the site was when Bush was President.....

[back_in_black]

I wonder how the site was when Bush was President.....

:popcorn:

[Wildcatk23]

:popcorn:

All you ever see is people looking and searching for something Obama has done wrong.

[Old School]

You do understand that the President and Vice-President have never traveled together, right? Bush and Cheyney never traveled together either. None do, it's not allowed. This sight is one big right wing hack fest. I think I'm tired of it. Bye all.

Yes, I realize that the president and VP never travel together. Either your missing the point or you decided to ignore it for whatever reason. It seems to me that if Barry and Joe really cared about the environment and to honor Earth Day they would have stayed in DC instead of spending the day traveling with security causing more harm than good.

I wonder how the site was when Bush was President.....

Bush was bashed and cursed more than Barry, just ask CM and DW.

Good bye........again.

Don't worry he'll be back. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

All you ever see is people looking and searching for something Obama has done wrong.

Who has to spend any time looking and searching? Obama's screw-ups are right there smacking me in the face every day. I have never seen the job market anywhere near as bad as it is right now and Obama is doing all of the right things to make the situation worse.

[Wildcatk23]

Who has to spend any time looking and searching? Obama's screw-ups are right there smacking me in the face every day. I have never seen the job market anywhere near as bad as it is right now and Obama is doing all of the right things to make the situation worse.

Well i would rather Obama cause me to lose my job then have family and friends die for a war craving monster Named Bush. The war in Afghanistan is the only war we should be fighting.

[Hoot Gibson]

Well i would rather Obama cause me to lose my job then have family and friends die for a war craving monster Named Bush. The war in Afghanistan is the only war we should be fighting.

Typical liberal response to a legitimate criticism of Obama's policies - blame Bush. If you have a problem with the war that most Democrats supported, then why not blame Obama for not withdrawing from Iraq, as he promised to do repeatedly during the campaign? Of course, that would make too much sense and require a certain amount of objectivity.

Obama's policies in Afghanistan and Iraq have been one rare area where Obama has shown some responsibility.

Until you have actually lost your job as a consequence of Obama's ridiculous domestic policies such as expanding the size of federal government and adding trillions of dollars to our national debt in the midst of an already deep recession - maybe you should stick with cheerleading Obama and his socialist agenda. The loss of millions of jobs and the explosion in federal spending and debt will have devastating consequences on a growing number of Americans.

[thecavemaster]

Judas Iscariot ragged on Jesus saying, "This perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor." So it is with folks who look in every nook and cranny for dust mites to criticize. Obama and Biden will have ample opportunity through far reaching policy decisions to impact the environment. The "strain out the gnat" nagging of "Why don't they take the bus or walk" and all that is simply Judas like in its tone and bent.

[Wildcatk23]

Typical liberal response to a legitimate criticism of Obama's policies - blame Bush. If you have a problem with the war that most Democrats supported, then why not blame Obama for not withdrawing from Iraq, as he promised to do repeatedly during the campaign? Of course, that would make too much sense and require a certain amount of objectivity.

Obama's policies in Afghanistan and Iraq have been one rare area where Obama has shown some responsibility.

Until you have actually lost your job as a consequence of Obama's ridiculous domestic policies such as expanding the size of federal government and adding trillions of dollars to our national debt in the midst of an already deep recession - maybe you should stick with cheerleading Obama and his socialist agenda. The loss of millions of jobs and the explosion in federal spending and debt will have devastating consequences on a growing number of Americans.

Did i blame bush for the economy? Though we all know he played his roll. Before Obama, The Bush administration has created a “national financial security problem” by borrowing more than all 42 previous presidents.

And we both know he just cant up and leave Iraq or Afghanistan, However the "false" Intel of W.M.D created by bush and his administration to invade Iraq For whatever purposes the American People May Think.

[Hoot Gibson]

Did i blame bush for the economy? Though we all know he played his roll. Before Obama, The Bush administration has created a “national financial security problem” by borrowing more than all 42 previous presidents.

And we both know he just cant up and leave Iraq or Afghanistan, However the "false" Intel of W.M.D created by bush and his administration to invade Iraq For whatever purposes the American People May Think.

If you can read a chart, please take a look at this one and then tell me how Bush has borrowed this country into a "national financial security problem." If you really believe that Bush's borrowing was a problem, then you should really have serious issues with what Obama has done in such a short time. Obama is not even trying to create a business climate conducive to job creation. To him, a financial crisis is a tool to be used for the feds to tighten their grip over the economy and an excuse to raise taxes. How's that Obama tax cut working out for you? Are you ready to the coming VAT that Obama wants to impose?

[Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uplo...udget1.jpg]

[nky]

However the "false" Intel of W.M.D created by bush and his administration to invade Iraq For whatever purposes the American People May Think.

Oh the wisdom of youth and the lies the Internet tells me. :eyeroll:Let's not forget what our Democrat brothers had said about Iraq and [SIZE=2]Saddam Hussein [/SIZE]
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

[nky]

But as Billy Mays used to say...... But wait there's more.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[nky]

Sorry about getting this topic off point but........ To place blame on President Bush solely for the invasion of Iraq is disingenuous when both sides of the isle saw the saw evidence and came to the same conclusion.
But wisdom comes with age and I guess the understanding of history and context is more than a 30 second sound bite

[Hoot Gibson]

Sorry about getting this topic off point but........ To place blame on President Bush solely for the invasion of Iraq is disingenuous when both sides of the isle saw the saw evidence and came to the same conclusion.
But wisdom comes with age and I guess the understanding of history and context is more than a 30 second sound bite

:Thumbs: Those quotes need to be trotted out every single time the "Bush lied, people died!" crowd starts warming up its collective vocal chords. There is really no way to refute the truth once the facts are clearly listed, as you have done above.

[Wildcatk23]

Oh the wisdom of youth and the lies the Internet tells me. :eyeroll:Let's not forget what our Democrat brothers had said about Iraq and [SIZE=2]Saddam Hussein [/SIZE]
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

So Why are we still there? Clinton,Bush, Obama, Reasoning?
How come we Suddenly go to war with Iraq while fighting with Afghanistan if we had known this all along?

[nky]

So Why are we still there? Clinton,Bush, Obama, Reasoning?
How come we Suddenly go to war with Iraq while fighting with Afghanistan if we had known this all along?

not to stay off task but................
Again look at History at the end of WWI the Treaty of Versailles set up democracies across Eastern Europe. Because the victorious nations left these countries to go it alone ALL except for Czechoslovakia fell to some form of totalitarian leader within a decade. Just saying a country is a democracy doesn't make it so it needs time to grow into it. (it took US 20+ years and two different forms to get it right here). A democracy or a Republic is one of the hardest forms of governments to have. It requires people to be engaged. You don't wake up one day and know how to do it. What are we still doing in Iraq, you asked? We're helping them wake up, we're helping them grow, we're giving them the protections so that the tree of Liberty may flourish and not wither away like it has done so many times before.

[Hoot Gibson]

I would like to see this country abandon the "you break it, you own it" approach to the war on terror. I am not sure that there was any international law requiring the winner of wars to rebuild the country of the aggressor following a war before the US rebuilt Japan and Europe following WWII. When we did so, we did so in our own self interest because the economies of our allies and adversaries had pretty much been destroyed by the war and we needed a stable market for exporting goods and services.

Given that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda scurry like rats from one country to another, I think that a policy of obliterating terror camps and governments that support terrorst groups - without taking on an obligation of providing post-war aid would be an effective deterrent if we adopted such a policy as a doctrine. We cannot afford to continue to fight the war on terror and put the host nations back in "better than new" condition.

[nky]

I would like to see this country abandon the "you break it, you own it" approach to the war on terror. I am not sure that there was any international law requiring the winner of wars to rebuild the country of the aggressor following a war before the US rebuilt Japan and Europe following WWII. When we did so, we did so in our own self interest because the economies of our allies and adversaries had pretty much been destroyed by the war and we needed a stable market for exporting goods and services.

Given that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda scurry like rats from one country to another, I think that a policy of obliterating terror camps and governments that support terrorst groups - without taking on an obligation of providing post-war aid would be an effective deterrent if we adopted such a policy as a doctrine. We cannot afford to continue to fight the war on terror and put the host nations back in "better than new" condition.

But in the long run is it in our best interest to help these countries? Do we want to pay now or pay later?

[Hoot Gibson]

But in the long run is it in our best interest to help these countries? Do we want to pay now or pay later?

I would try to limit the collateral damage but in the long run, dependency breeds contempt. For example, despite all that we did for western Europe after WWII, the French denied fly-over rights to the US when Reagan retaliated against Libya. The Germans and the French, in particular, have only played lip service to sanctions that were imposed against countries like Iraq and looked the other way as companies in those countries provided weapons technologies to our enemies after agreeing to support our efforts.

Had we not decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime militarily, we could have weakened it incrementally by destroying his ability to wage war and we could have done so cheaply and had plenty of money left in the war chest to have done the same to Iran when it began developing nukes and threatening to wipe the US and Israel from the face of the map. If we adopted such a policy, the Somali pirates would no longer be a problem. We could use those inflatable rafts for target practice for our military.

[Wildcatk23]

I would like to see this country abandon the "you break it, you own it" approach to the war on terror. I am not sure that there was any international law requiring the winner of wars to rebuild the country of the aggressor following a war before the US rebuilt Japan and Europe following WWII. When we did so, we did so in our own self interest because the economies of our allies and adversaries had pretty much been destroyed by the war and we needed a stable market for exporting goods and services.

Given that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda scurry like rats from one country to another, I think that a policy of obliterating terror camps and governments that support terrorst groups - without taking on an obligation of providing post-war aid would be an effective deterrent if we adopted such a policy as a doctrine. We cannot afford to continue to fight the war on terror and put the host nations back in "better than new" condition.

WOW. We just Agreed, I'm going back to sleep.!

[Wildcatk23]

not to stay off task but................
Again look at History at the end of WWI the Treaty of Versailles set up democracies across Eastern Europe. Because the victorious nations left these countries to go it alone ALL except for Czechoslovakia fell to some form of totalitarian leader within a decade. Just saying a country is a democracy doesn't make it so it needs time to grow into it. (it took US 20+ years and two different forms to get it right here). A democracy or a Republic is one of the hardest forms of governments to have. It requires people to be engaged. You don't wake up one day and know how to do it. What are we still doing in Iraq, you asked? We're helping them wake up, we're helping them grow, we're giving them the protections so that the tree of Liberty may flourish and not wither away like it has done so many times before.

And you truly believe this is going to happen? Were not even growing or flourishing. Since we started the was the national Debt went crazy. And if im not mistaken i dont think the UN requires us to rebuild anything right"? And who listens to the UN......

[nky]

I would try to limit the collateral damage but in the long run, dependency breeds contempt. For example, despite all that we did for western Europe after WWII, the French denied fly-over rights to the US when Reagan retaliated against Libya. The Germans and the French, in particular, have only played lip service to sanctions that were imposed against countries like Iraq and looked the other way as companies in those countries provided weapons technologies to our enemies after agreeing to support our efforts.

Had we not decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime militarily, we could have weakened it incrementally by destroying his ability to wage war and we could have done so cheaply and had plenty of money left in the war chest to have done the same to Iran when it began developing nukes and threatening to wipe the US and Israel from the face of the map. If we adopted such a policy, the Somali pirates would no longer be a problem. We could use those inflatable rafts for target practice for our military.

and by the 1980's France/Germany and those other European countries were no longer under our rebuilding. They were their own independent countries. As a result they could make their own decesiions. Sometimes it may not be what we want(but isn't the the real meaning of freedom) look at the Warsaw Pact countries at the same time. Where they free or just puppets of the USSR. Freedom means you can rule as you see fit. In time Iraq and Afganistan will be able to do this- Live Free and rule by the people.