Obama's acceptance speech

[gocolts 300]

You're right I guess. I just don't see how invading a soverign nation, which had no WMD's, and with no evidence whatsoever that said nation had ANY involvement whatsoever in terrorist activities, is in America's necessary interests.

 

You can't be serious with this claim.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I don't disagree. So,simple yes no question. Do you think it's feasible to

 

1) Get everyone off of gasoline vehicles

2) Upgrade our power grid

3) Create enough alternate forms of energy to get us off of oil

 

within 10 years? Is this remotely possible?

 

No, probably not.

 

But its past time we get damn serious about trying.

 

And if 10 years from now, we use even slightly less oil, and slightly more alternative sources, that's progress.

 

That is the problem with our political system. Two parties of opposing views trading power back and forth is not conducive to long term planning and implementation.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

You can't be serious with this claim.

 

Yes, I am. Of course Sadaam was a doosh who hated America. So are the thug leaders of at least 20 other countries.

 

What evidence was there that Sadaam was sponsering terrorism against the U.S.? I'm seriously asking, becasue maybe I just missed it. To the best of my knowledge, there is none, and I'm pretty sure that the Bush administration would have made sure to get the word out if they actually stumbled accross some justtification for their blunder.

[gocolts 300]

You took a small but valid point and are twisting it into something else: The fact that the neo-cons consistently bash Obama for "experience" when their current guy had none going into office. Not only did your current guy lack experience -- and we didn't hear a peep from the neo-cons who are squawking about experience right now -- he lacked intelligence and conviction, something that is far more important than experience for an office like the president of the united states.

 

But I think the reasons for voting for Obama are numerous, I'm just not going to waste my time or breath on you or gocoltsjetsreclinerbuckeye, because your minds have long been made up.......

 

The first one of you who admits that they haven't listened to a word Obama has said because they've been told over and over that he is a commie homo non-patriotic tax raiser will have my utmost respect for honesty.

Damn, for some reason I thought Bush was a governor for 5 years.

[Strike 4,098]

No, probably not.

 

But its past time we get damn serious about trying.

 

And if 10 years from now, we use even slightly less oil, and slightly more alternative sources, that's progress.

 

That is the problem with our political system. Two parties of opposing views trading power back and forth is not conducive to long term planning and implementation.

 

So, Obama lied?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

so what would your ideal experience be leading up to the presidency??? Using your daddy's connections to get you into law school with a "D" average, using your daddy's connection to sissy out of a war you believe in, rampant drinking and drug use for decades, running a few of your daddy's business into the ground and six years as governor????

Neo-cons are hilarious when they pull out the "experience" card and then forget about whose been in office for the last 8 years

 

You claim the last 8 years have been a disaster, yet you want someone with even less experience to take over the job.

[Flashover 0]

No, probably not.

 

But its past time we get damn serious about trying.

 

And if 10 years from now, we use even slightly less oil, and slightly more alternative sources, that's progress.

 

That is the problem with our political system. Two parties of opposing views trading power back and forth is not conducive to long term planning and implementation.

I don't understand people criticizing this. Will we be off oil in 10 years? Most likely not but we need to get started. Imagine if we got started back in 1979, where we would be now?

[donhaas 18]

I disagree on two basic points:

 

1. I think Bush has moral convictions. You may not agree with them, but he has them.

2. I think the lower tax, lower entitlement, lower govt interference in our life message is more "American" than govt control of everything.

 

Well, Jerry, I disagree with your no. 1.... but I empathize with GWB. He has no real-life experience in his life. He has no idea of the devastation that his policies that fock the little guy to the gain of the ultra-rich look like. He's never paid a mortgage, save for children's school, started a small business, been a single mother, etc. He's just going by the convictions he knows as some rich spoiled brat whose been allowed to fock up as many times in his life and get bailed out by his daddy. Likewise, having used his rich daddy to avoid the war he believed in, there is no way he could ever know the tremendous pain and suffering that American families of 4,000 brave soldiers face (and way more maimed, focked in the head for life) who had to endure his employment of them to some crapass country's quagmire.

So, yes, Bush comes at his decison-making process from a much, much different persepective than any of us would and we have to take that into account when judging him. It's probably not fair for us to judge him.

 

On no. 2. I agree. I don't want to pay a single dime in taxes. Find me somebody who does. None of us want any of our hard-earned money that we earned talking about crap on the internet all day being pissed away.

But I'm also a Christian and there are many powerful tenets and these things called "commandments" that we believe in. Many passages in the Bible about charity and helping our brother and a "rich man going to heaven is less likely than a camel passing through the eye of a needle." etc.

If some of my money is being used to help somebody who is downtrodden or suffering make a better life, I really have no qualms. I think handouts hurt the handoutee much more than the handouter and I discourage that. But I think that constructive programs to give a boost to the least will help all of us in the long run.... not just less crime, unemployment, etc. .... We lose so many geniuses in America every day because of lack of access...... Granted if we start giving these a people a chance, a lot of rich dumbasses might lose their jobs.... but I'm willing to make that trade-off. Just so long as I never have to see an election in the greatest country in the world come down to 2 rich, connected "D" student dumbasses (Kerry v. Bush) again.

The thing that puzzles me beyond belief is that I have heard that a few Republicans are Christian, too. I've actually heard that some are very Christian. Thus, I don't understand the bile and the hatred that is spewed from their lips when somebody tells them that $50 is going to be given to a young, needy child for help at school in America, and then the absolute silence about $500 billion to be spent in some other country's crapass quagmire building their roads, schools, and helping Iraqi needy children at school.

[Snoopy1 0]

I don't disagree. So,simple yes no question. Do you think it's feasible to

 

1) Get everyone off of gasoline vehicles

2) Upgrade our power grid

3) Create enough alternate forms of energy to get us off of oil

 

within 10 years? Is this remotely possible?

 

1) No-Market driven-will be a slow progress(tax incentives + increasing gas prices would speed the process---but it will be a consumer driven where demand becomes high enough to lower the cost of production)***

 

2) No-but I think in 10 years substantial progress could be made here. Again, this IMO is the absolute essential first step.

 

3) No-the incentive to produce alt energy I think would be driven by companies, but if the infrastructrure isn't there, what company is going to build something that they can't sell---goes back to my initial point of why I think the feds need to step up to the plate here.

 

10 years seems like a pipedream, though LOL-people said the same thing when Kennedy said we'd walk on the moon in 10 years. Still it's got to start sometime---and tax-rebates to help the over-burdened consumer, gas-tax holidays, off sure drilling, 70Million fed reserve gallons....are just reactionary temporary band-aids that don't adress the problem. Like giving asprin to a guy with a brain tumor...sure he feels better for a bit, but he's still got a friggin brain tumor.

 

***Interestingly, I was recently at a round table QA(cameraman) where developmental guys from GM, Ford and a automobile expert/journalist were asked quite a bit about eletrical vehicles. GM looks to have a model out by 2010, Ford unclear. The industry expert also mentioned how the foreigners were really pushing into battery/electrical cars-stating the tech to mass produce such vehichles that would perform as well as gas was pretty much available now. Hydro-fuel cell vehicles weren't even being discussed as viable by these guys.

 

 

How is it possible for people from differing parties to have a conversation with name-calling---it's the appocolypse

 

(sorry for elaborting on my simple yes/no answers-I've never been able to follow directions well. )

[Strike 4,098]

1) No-Market driven-will be a slow progress(tax incentives + increasing gas prices would speed the process---but it will be a consumer driven where demand becomes high enough to lower the cost of production)***

 

2) No-but I think in 10 years substantial progress could be made here. Again, this IMO is the absolute essential first step.

 

3) No-the incentive to produce alt energy I think would be driven by companies, but if the infrastructrure isn't there, what company is going to build something that they can't sell---goes back to my initial point of why I think the feds need to step up to the plate here.

 

10 years seems like a pipedream, though LOL-people said the same thing when Kennedy said we'd walk on the moon in 10 years. Still it's got to start sometime---and tax-rebates to help the over-burdened consumer, gas-tax holidays, off sure drilling, 70Million fed reserve gallons....are just reactionary temporary band-aids that don't adress the problem. Like giving asprin to a guy with a brain tumor...sure he feels better for a bit, but he's still got a friggin brain tumor.

 

***Interestingly, I was recently at a round table QA(cameraman) where developmental guys from GM, Ford and a automobile expert/journalist were asked quite a bit about eletrical vehicles. GM looks to have a model out by 2010, Ford unclear. The industry expert also mentioned how the foreigners were really pushing into battery/electrical cars-stating the tech to mass produce such vehichles that would perform as well as gas was pretty much available now. Hydro-fuel cell vehicles weren't even being discussed as viable by these guys.

How is it possible for people from differing parties to have a conversation with name-calling---it's the appocolypse

 

(sorry for elaborting on my simple yes/no answers-I've never been able to follow directions well. )

 

So, Obama lied?

[gocolts 300]

Yes, I am. Of course Sadaam was a doosh who hated America. So are the thug leaders of at least 20 other countries.

 

What evidence was there that Sadaam was sponsering terrorism against the U.S.? I'm seriously asking, becasue maybe I just missed it. To the best of my knowledge, there is none, and I'm pretty sure that the Bush administration would have made sure to get the word out if they actually stumbled accross some justtification for their blunder.

When I posted that I thought you said "with no evidence whatsoever that said nation had ANY involvement whatsoever in terrorist activities."

 

You left off the against the US in the first quote. Sodom Insane was very much in terrorist activities. Here is some pentagon report about Sodom Insane and terrorists activities. Maybe it's all a bunch of lies.

 

Pentagon_Report

 

List of Extracts

(Harmony documentfalders and mediafiles)

Extract 1. Code Name: BLESSED JULY. Terrorist operations in Kurdish areas,

Iran, and London (Fedayeen Saddam staff planner to Uday Hussein, May

1999) 1

Extract 2. Weapon caches in overseas embassies (lIS to Saddam, July 2002) ......... 3

Extract 3. Embassy in London requesting disposal guidance for weapons and

munitions (Iraqi embassy in London to Baghdad, July 2002) .4

Extract 4. Iraqi embassy in London explaining disposal requirements (Iraqi

embassy in London to Baghdad, July 2002) .4

Extract 5. IIS/Ml6 annual report: explosives research and testing for the

years 2000- 2001 (2000) 6

Extract 6. Encouraging suicide volunteers (Director, lIS, to Saddam,

17-29 September 200 l) 7

Extract 7. Age and educational background of a group of suicide volunteers

(Ba'ath party al-Sumud Division to the 17 Tammuz Section Command,

22 September 200 l) 8

Extract 8. Government policy on training suicide volunteers (Fedayeen Saddam

Security Director to Uday Hussein, 24 August 2002) 9

Extract 9. Volunteer statement from Iraqi Army major (forwarded from Security

Director of the Air Defense Security Program to the GMID Directorate

42/8,22 March 2003) 10

Extract 10. lIS list of terrorist organizations (lIS to Saddam, 18 March 1993) 13

Extract 11. Foreign national fighters by country (lIS to Saddam, 18 March 1993).. 16

x

Extract 12. Memorandum on fmancial support for the Islamic Group (Egypt)

(President Secretary, ca. January-March 1993) 16

Extract 13. Stirring up religious movements against the Kuwait royal family (Iraq

agent to director, IIS, ca. late September 2001) 20

Extract 14. Transcript (Saddam Hussein and some senior Ba'ath party members,

February 1991) 22

Extract 15. Report on a conversation with Hamas leader, Abd al-Aziz al-Rantisi

(Iraqi intelligence representative to Director, Section 3/IIS, 5 July 2001) ....24

Extract 16. Hamas support (demonstrations and suicide attacks) offered to

Saddam (director, IIS, 26 March 2003) 25

Extract 17. Iran's pact with Hamas (Iraqi Embassy in Amman, Jordan, to the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Office of the Minister Research and

Information Analysis Bureau, 1 August 1998) 25

Extract 18. PLF leader Abu aI-Abbas discussing money problems and the Libyans

(Revolutionary Command Council - Arab Liberation Movements Office

to Saddam, January 1988) 27

Extract 19. Casting aspersions on Abu aI-Abbas (director, IIS, to Saddam,

January 1988) 28

Extract 20. Examples ofAbu al-Abbas's "good intentions" toward Iraq (Republic

of Iraq Presidential Office - Office ofArab Liberations to the Deputy

Director, IIS, 28 July 1998) 28

Extract 21. Terrorist activities against UN and NGO workers (director, GMID,

to MOD, 16 May 1993) 31

Extract 22. Attacking American aid workers working for the UN (Uday Hussein

to Saddam Hussein, May-September 2001) 33

Extract 23. Bombing attacks against foreigners in the Kurdish areas of Iraq

(Fedayeen staff officer to Uday Hussein, 8 December 2001) 34

Extract 24. Researching the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain (IIS Director for

International Intelligence to Iraqi operative, July 2001) 34

Extract 25. Army of Muhammad working for Osama bin Laden (Iraqi operative to

IIS Director for International Intelligence, 9 July 2001) 35

Extract 26. Volunteers for martyr work in Saudi Arabia (Fallujah Section

Command Secretary to Fallujah Branch Command, 2001) 36

Extract 27. Unit 999's operation for Saudi Arabia (Director, IIS, to a

military command, January 1991) 36

Extract 28. Agent type and training requirements (Director, IIS, to a

military command, January 1991) 37

Extract 29. The agent's "personal commitment" statement: pledging the lives of

himself and his family (Director, lIS, to a military command, January

1991) 37

Extract 30. The mission: Elimination of the Kuwait royal family (Director, lIS, to

a military command, January 1991) 38

Extract 31. Training report on Iraqi agent (January 1991) 38

Extract 32. Status of Iraqi assassins in Saudi Arabia (Unit 999 to lIS HQ) 39

Extract 33. Possible targets: ARAMCO, Kuwait royal family, and "foreign"

military headquarters (Unit 999 to lIS, January 1991) .40

Extract 34. Video of Saddam Hussein and Yassir Arafat discussing

international affairs (19 April 1990) .45

 

Executive Summary

The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents

uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional

and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many

terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At

times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the

period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex

and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging

pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of

pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities

of the Ba'ath movement.

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating

radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no

"smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.

Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety

of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some

in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining

relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some

cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks. A review of available Iraqi

documents indicated the following:

• The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist

operations prior to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. The predominant tar-

ES-1

The classification markings are original to the Iraqi documents and do not reflect current U.S. classification.

gets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and

outside of Iraq.

• On occasion, the Iraqi intelligence servIces directly targeted the regime's

perceived enemies, including non-Iraqis. Non-Iraqi casualties

often resulted from Iraqi sponsorship of non-governmental terrorist

groups.

• Saddam's regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist

groups when they believed such groups could help advance

Iraq's long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections

to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos.

One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of

suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

• State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state

power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor

progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing

of terrorists. Examples include the regime's development, construction,

certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999

and 2000.

From the beginning of his rise to power, one of Saddam's major

objectives was to shift the regional balance of power favorably towards Iraq. After

the 1991 Gulf War, pursuing this objective motivated Saddam and his regime to

increase their cooperation with-and attempts to manipulate-Islamic fundamentalists

and related terrorist organizations. Documents indicate that the regime's use

of terrorism was standard practice, although not always successful. From 1991

through 2003, the Saddam regime regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing, and

executing acts of terrorism as an element of state power.

 

link

 

Again though, I thought you meant terrorist activities.

[GettnHuge 1]

I don't disagree. So,simple yes no question. Do you think it's feasible to

 

1) Get everyone off of gasoline vehicles

2) Upgrade our power grid

3) Create enough alternate forms of energy to get us off of oil

 

within 10 years? Is this remotely possible?

 

they can heat the northern states with warm fuzzy feelings next winter

[phillybear 365]

But I'm also a Christian and there are many powerful tenets and these things called "commandments" that we believe in. Many passages in the Bible about charity and helping our brother and a "rich man going to heaven is less likely than a camel passing through the eye of a needle." etc.

If some of my money is being used to help somebody who is downtrodden or suffering make a better life, I really have no qualms. I think handouts hurt the handoutee much more than the handouter and I discourage that. But I think that constructive programs to give a boost to the least will help all of us in the long run.... not just less crime, unemployment, etc. .... We lose so many geniuses in America every day because of lack of access...... Granted if we start giving these a people a chance, a lot of rich dumbasses might lose their jobs.... but I'm willing to make that trade-off. Just so long as I never have to see an election in the greatest country in the world come down to 2 rich, connected "D" student dumbasses (Kerry v. Bush) again.

The thing that puzzles me beyond belief is that I have heard that a few Republicans are Christian, too. I've actually heard that some are very Christian. Thus, I don't understand the bile and the hatred that is spewed from their lips when somebody tells them that $50 is going to be given to a young, needy child for help at school in America, and then the absolute silence about $500 billion to be spent in some other country's crapass quagmire building their roads, schools, and helping Iraqi needy children at school.

 

The Loch Ness Monster is much more real that a Christian Democrat. No. Such. Thing. Is. Possible.

 

FLAI.

[donhaas 18]

The Loch Ness Monster is much more real that a Christian Democrat. No. Such. Thing. Is. Possible.

 

FLAI.

 

You don't bring anything to the table do you?

 

Give us something about AIDS or a puddle and lets keep moving with the grown-ups talking

[Snoopy1 0]

So, Obama lied?

 

Assuming you meant:

 

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

 

I can see how it could be construed as a lie-if you take "goal" as an absolute.

 

It's a vague open to interpretation statement-what's dependence, ie Iraq/Saudi Arabi supply about 20% of US oil. Does that mean a cut to 5%---10%---15% or completely 0 from the middle east.

 

 

From the speech:

And in that time, he has said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil than we had on the day that Senator McCain took office.

 

Now is the time to end this addiction and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution, not even close.

 

As president, as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America.

 

I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars.

 

And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power, and solar power, and the next generation of biofuels -- an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced.

 

None of the above are absolutes as you questioned:

 

1) Get everyone off of gasoline vehicles

2) Upgrade our power grid

3) Create enough alternate forms of energy to get us off of oil

 

I can see how the first part "ending dependence on middle east oil" could be construed as a lie, though he did say it was a goal---sort of like I have a goal of working harder and posting at FFT less...it's just a goal. So I don't believe it's a lie-unlikely, unrealistic, but not a lie.

 

ETA: I do realize that these are semantics, IMO it would be better if people could just accept the cold truth instead of politicians giving us these soundbite/goal promises, but we don't live like that. You don't get elected saying "It sure would be nice to get off middle east oil in 10 years and gosh darn I'm going to try and reduce our dependence---but it probably will take closer to 25...hell even 50 years...who knows...

[Strike 4,098]

Assuming you meant:

I can see how it could be construed as a lie-if you take "goal" as an absolute.

 

It's a vague open to interpretation statement-what's dependence, ie Iraq/Saudi Arabi supply about 20% of US oil. Does that mean a cut to 5%---10%---15% or completely 0 from the middle east.

From the speech:

None of the above are absolutes as you questioned:

I can see how the first part "ending dependence on middle east oil" could be construed as a lie, though he did say it was a goal---sort of like I have a goal of working harder and posting at FFT less...it's just a goal. So I don't believe it's a lie-unlikely, unrealistic, but not a lie.

 

Here's the thing. McCain has been pushing alternative energy as well, especially Nuclear which is where we should be going. Obama has been lukewarm at best to Nuclear but wind and solar can not replace our current energy sources. His whole energy agenda is disingenuous IMO. He didn't want to support drilling until it was politically expedient and he doesn't support Nuclear. I'm not sure where he expects to get all this energy from, especially within 10 years. I didn't see his speech so I'm glad to hear he phrased it as a goal but without a major change to his policy there's no way significant progress will be made within the 10 year timeframe he has outlined.

[parrot 789]

I hear Oprah was there crying her eyes out. That may be enough to make me vote for McCain just on principle.

 

It's funny how skin color isn't supposed to matter until it happens to be the right skin color.

[phillybear 365]

You don't bring anything to the table do you?

 

Give us something about AIDS or a puddle and lets keep moving with the grown-ups talking

 

I bring the PAIN.

 

Go drown in a puddle of FAL:E

[donhaas 18]

I bring the PAIN.

 

Go drown in a puddle of FAL:E

 

Well played

[Snoopy1 0]

Here's the thing. McCain has been pushing alternative energy as well, especially Nuclear which is where we should be going. Obama has been lukewarm at best to Nuclear but wind and solar can not replace our current energy sources. His whole energy agenda is disingenuous IMO. He didn't want to support drilling until it was politically expedient and he doesn't support Nuclear. I'm not sure where he expects to get all this energy from, especially within 10 years. I didn't see his speech so I'm glad to hear he phrased it as a goal but without a major change to his policy there's no way significant progress will be made within the 10 year timeframe he has outlined.

 

 

Wow...can't believe I wrote all of that and completely skipped nuclear. I agree 100% that nuclear should play a huge role in the next 10 years.

 

Heck, I might vote for the guy who says "screw it, I'm opening up Yucca now, construction starts January 21" Absolute BS the little political games and fiefdoms that control the majority of decisions that affect this country---it's not a large wonder why little/nothing gets done for greater long term good.

[Flashover 0]

He didn't want to support drilling until it was politically expedient and he doesn't support Nuclear.

Actually Obama does support nuclear energy, the myth that he doesn't has been debunked many times.

[Strike 4,098]

Wow...can't believe I wrote all of that and completely skipped nuclear. I agree 100% that nuclear should play a huge role in the next 10 years.

 

Heck, I might vote for the guy who says "screw it, I'm opening up Yucca now, construction starts January 21" Absolute BS the little political games and fiefdoms that control the majority of decisions that affect this country---it's not a large wonder why little/nothing gets done for greater long term good.

 

Again, Obama is against Nuclear. Per your transcript he completed ignored it in his speech. We aren't going to make significant strides in our quest for an alternative to oil without Nuclear. How can anyone take him seriously on energy when he ignores our only option to make a significant dent in our dependence on oil, especially given the time frame he's throwing out?

 

Oh, and did I mention McCain is very pro Nuclear?

[Strike 4,098]

Actually Obama does support nuclear energy, the myth that he doesn't has been debunked many times.

 

He acts like he does. Just like he pretends oil drilling is acceptable in some cases. Neither will happen during his Presidency. If he's such a supporter how come he mentioned all sorts of alternative energy sources in his speech but ignored Nuclear? It's our quickest and best option to end our dependence on the Middle East for oil, his stated goal, and he completely ignored it in his speech.

[wiffleball 4,685]

Again, Obama is against Nuclear.

 

Hmm...

 

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday nuclear power was "not a panacea" for U.S. energy woes but it is worth investigating its further development.

 

During a meeting with U.S. governors, Obama noted that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and therefore the United States should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse.

[Strike 4,098]

Hmm...

 

Sure. We should "investigate" it yet he didn't mention it in his speech last night as he was discussing investigating other sources of energy. Yet France is running 88% on Nuclear RIGHT NOW. France has so much Nuclear energy they export it!!! What's to investigate? Build already. He's full of it. Period.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Well, Jerry, I disagree with your no. 1.... but I empathize with GWB. He has no real-life experience in his life. He has no idea of the devastation that his policies that fock the little guy to the gain of the ultra-rich look like. He's never paid a mortgage, save for children's school, started a small business, been a single mother, etc. He's just going by the convictions he knows as some rich spoiled brat whose been allowed to fock up as many times in his life and get bailed out by his daddy. Likewise, having used his rich daddy to avoid the war he believed in, there is no way he could ever know the tremendous pain and suffering that American families of 4,000 brave soldiers face (and way more maimed, focked in the head for life) who had to endure his employment of them to some crapass country's quagmire.

So, yes, Bush comes at his decison-making process from a much, much different persepective than any of us would and we have to take that into account when judging him. It's probably not fair for us to judge him.

 

On no. 2. I agree. I don't want to pay a single dime in taxes. Find me somebody who does. None of us want any of our hard-earned money that we earned talking about crap on the internet all day being pissed away.

But I'm also a Christian and there are many powerful tenets and these things called "commandments" that we believe in. Many passages in the Bible about charity and helping our brother and a "rich man going to heaven is less likely than a camel passing through the eye of a needle." etc.

If some of my money is being used to help somebody who is downtrodden or suffering make a better life, I really have no qualms. I think handouts hurt the handoutee much more than the handouter and I discourage that. But I think that constructive programs to give a boost to the least will help all of us in the long run.... not just less crime, unemployment, etc. .... We lose so many geniuses in America every day because of lack of access...... Granted if we start giving these a people a chance, a lot of rich dumbasses might lose their jobs.... but I'm willing to make that trade-off. Just so long as I never have to see an election in the greatest country in the world come down to 2 rich, connected "D" student dumbasses (Kerry v. Bush) again.

The thing that puzzles me beyond belief is that I have heard that a few Republicans are Christian, too. I've actually heard that some are very Christian. Thus, I don't understand the bile and the hatred that is spewed from their lips when somebody tells them that $50 is going to be given to a young, needy child for help at school in America, and then the absolute silence about $500 billion to be spent in some other country's crapass quagmire building their roads, schools, and helping Iraqi needy children at school.

 

Excellent post. Well done sir.

[Snoopy1 0]

Sure. We should "investigate" it yet he didn't mention it in his speech last night as he was discussing investigating other sources of energy. Yet France is running 88% on Nuclear RIGHT NOW. France has so much Nuclear energy they export it!!! What's to investigate? Build already. He's full of it. Period.

 

Should investigate it...how much more investigation do we need seriously.

 

I'm not sure how much as president he could do with this issue. For the most part Yucca's bogged down by congressman and their about "we can't have that stuff being transported through here"-disregarding the fact that sub commanders have been using nuclear reactors for 50 years---don't see a lot of transportation issues with them. In fact, I say we start impeaching every congressmen who brings up stupid crap like as reason against nuclear.

 

Aside from pressuring congress to get this started-it still would be up to energy companies to build the reactors-unless you are looking at the French model where the goverment controls the energy situation. Say it aint so, strike--you're turning into a socialist!

 

I agree it should of been mentioned last night and it shouldn't be just "investigated" but an actual part of a total energy package.

[Strike 4,098]

Aside from pressuring congress to get this started-it still would be up to energy companies to build the reactors-unless you are looking at the French model where the goverment controls the energy situation. Say it aint so, strike--you're turning into a socialist!

 

I'm sure there are plenty of energy companies willing to invest in Nuclear if the regulatory hurdles weren't impossible to navigate. They did it 40 years ago didn't they?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Should investigate it...how much more investigation do we need seriously.

 

I'm not sure how much as president he could do with this issue. For the most part Yucca's bogged down by congressman and their about "we can't have that stuff being transported through here"-disregarding the fact that sub commanders have been using nuclear reactors for 50 years---don't see a lot of transportation issues with them. In fact, I say we start impeaching every congressmen who brings up stupid crap like as reason against nuclear.

 

Aside from pressuring congress to get this started-it still would be up to energy companies to build the reactors-unless you are looking at the French model where the goverment controls the energy situation. Say it aint so, strike--you're turning into a socialist!

 

I agree it should of been mentioned last night and it shouldn't be just "investigated" but an actual part of a total energy package.

 

Um actually, wasn't there a story just last week about how some US sub has been leaking radiation all over the Western Pacific?

 

I support nuclear power, but warily. Our government can't even ensure that our kids toys aren't poionous, or our food, or our pets food, and we are going to trust them with preventing another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?

[Snoopy1 0]

Um actually, wasn't there a story just last week about how some US sub has been leaking radiation all over the Western Pacific?

 

I support nuclear power, but warily. Our government can't even ensure that our kids toys aren't poionous, or our food, or our pets food, and we are going to trust them with preventing another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?

 

If there was I was completely oblivious to that story. Did the story break while a football game was on...cause I wouldn't of seen it then.

[Rattlesnake 0]

The Loch Ness Monster is much more real that a Christian Democrat. No. Such. Thing. Is. Possible.

 

FLAI.

 

I feel the same about the all of these "evangelical" or "Christian" Republicans. Most of them are going to hell.

[Rattlesnake 0]

On no. 2. I agree. I don't want to pay a single dime in taxes. Find me somebody who does. None of us want any of our hard-earned money that we earned talking about crap on the internet all day being pissed away.

But I'm also a Christian and there are many powerful tenets and these things called "commandments" that we believe in. Many passages in the Bible about charity and helping our brother and a "rich man going to heaven is less likely than a camel passing through the eye of a needle." etc.

If some of my money is being used to help somebody who is downtrodden or suffering make a better life, I really have no qualms. I think handouts hurt the handoutee much more than the handouter and I discourage that. But I think that constructive programs to give a boost to the least will help all of us in the long run.... not just less crime, unemployment, etc. .... We lose so many geniuses in America every day because of lack of access...... Granted if we start giving these a people a chance, a lot of rich dumbasses might lose their jobs.... but I'm willing to make that trade-off. Just so long as I never have to see an election in the greatest country in the world come down to 2 rich, connected "D" student dumbasses (Kerry v. Bush) again.

The thing that puzzles me beyond belief is that I have heard that a few Republicans are Christian, too. I've actually heard that some are very Christian. Thus, I don't understand the bile and the hatred that is spewed from their lips when somebody tells them that $50 is going to be given to a young, needy child for help at school in America, and then the absolute silence about $500 billion to be spent in some other country's crapass quagmire building their roads, schools, and helping Iraqi needy children at school.

 

You just nailed it. Very well-done.

[gocolts 300]

The Loch Ness Monster is much more real that a Christian Democrat. No. Such. Thing. Is. Possible.

 

FLAI.

 

It is beyond belief that folks buy this crap of BO being a Christian. The guy is for gay marriage and infanticide. Those are not things Christians believe in.

[jerryskids 5,420]

Well, Jerry, I disagree with your no. 1.... but I empathize with GWB. He has no real-life experience in his life. He has no idea of the devastation that his policies that fock the little guy to the gain of the ultra-rich look like. He's never paid a mortgage, save for children's school, started a small business, been a single mother, etc. He's just going by the convictions he knows as some rich spoiled brat whose been allowed to fock up as many times in his life and get bailed out by his daddy. Likewise, having used his rich daddy to avoid the war he believed in, there is no way he could ever know the tremendous pain and suffering that American families of 4,000 brave soldiers face (and way more maimed, focked in the head for life) who had to endure his employment of them to some crapass country's quagmire.

So, yes, Bush comes at his decison-making process from a much, much different persepective than any of us would and we have to take that into account when judging him. It's probably not fair for us to judge him.

 

On no. 2. I agree. I don't want to pay a single dime in taxes. Find me somebody who does. None of us want any of our hard-earned money that we earned talking about crap on the internet all day being pissed away.

But I'm also a Christian and there are many powerful tenets and these things called "commandments" that we believe in. Many passages in the Bible about charity and helping our brother and a "rich man going to heaven is less likely than a camel passing through the eye of a needle." etc.

If some of my money is being used to help somebody who is downtrodden or suffering make a better life, I really have no qualms. I think handouts hurt the handoutee much more than the handouter and I discourage that. But I think that constructive programs to give a boost to the least will help all of us in the long run.... not just less crime, unemployment, etc. .... We lose so many geniuses in America every day because of lack of access...... Granted if we start giving these a people a chance, a lot of rich dumbasses might lose their jobs.... but I'm willing to make that trade-off. Just so long as I never have to see an election in the greatest country in the world come down to 2 rich, connected "D" student dumbasses (Kerry v. Bush) again.

The thing that puzzles me beyond belief is that I have heard that a few Republicans are Christian, too. I've actually heard that some are very Christian. Thus, I don't understand the bile and the hatred that is spewed from their lips when somebody tells them that $50 is going to be given to a young, needy child for help at school in America, and then the absolute silence about $500 billion to be spent in some other country's crapass quagmire building their roads, schools, and helping Iraqi needy children at school.

1. We can agree to disagree.

2. I'm Christian and I give my time and money to charities. I just think that governments are by definition the least efficient structures in the world. You want to give $50 to a broken school system. I want to give the kid a $50 voucher to go to a different school and thus create competition within schools. We differ on our opinions regarding the solution, but don't equate that to "not caring."

[donhaas 18]

2. I'm Christian and I give my time and money to charities. I just think that governments are by definition the least efficient structures in the world. You want to give $50 to a broken school system. I want to give the kid a $50 voucher to go to a different school and thus create competition within schools. We differ on our opinions regarding the solution, but don't equate that to "not caring."

 

I don't want to put money in a broken anything.

 

You did dodge the question... Why is it so utterly and excruciatingly painful for Republican Christians to give a small amount of money to help the young people in America who need it so much, but won't bat an eye for $500 billlion in the quagmire and to help build streets and schools for people who don't want us there?

 

You do bring up an interesting voucher point..... Maybe we can get the Republicans who believe so strongly in this war to voucher up and fund this thing privately.

 

You and I both know that if this was to happen, the war would be over in a day.... The only thing that could end the war faster is if we forced the Republicans to fight in it.

Although it would be funny to see the scramble for the rich and connected to get positions guarding Texas from al-Quaeda

 

 

 

Kudos to you on your charity work.

 

 

ETA: My question is for all Republicans here; not just jerryskids

[Rattlesnake 0]

It is beyond belief that folks buy this crap of BO being a Christian. The guy is for gay marriage and infanticide. Those are not things Christians believe in.

 

Says the guy who comes to a fantasy football website looking for rape/force pron videos..........

 

Obama believes that anyone should be able to see their loved one in the hospital, for example. Does that mean he's "for gay marriage"? He also doesn't believe that it's the government's job to regulate personal choice (and he's right, by the way). Does that mean he's "for 'infanticide'"???

 

It doesn't get any more stupid than this.

[jerryskids 5,420]

I don't want to put money in a broken anything.

 

You did dodge the question... Why is it so utterly and excruciatingly painful for Republican Christians to give a small amount of money to help the young people in America who need it so much, but won't bat an eye for $500 billlion in the quagmire and to help build streets and schools for people who don't want us there?

 

You do bring up an interesting voucher point..... Maybe we can get the Republicans who believe so strongly in this war to voucher up and fund this thing privately.

 

You and I both know that if this was to happen, the war would be over in a day.... The only thing that could end the war faster is if we forced the Republicans to fight in it.

Although it would be funny to see the scramble for the rich and connected to get positions guarding Texas from al-Quaeda

Kudos to you on your charity work.

ETA: My question is for all Republicans here; not just jerryskids

Your question is not a valid one, for me anyway. I've already shown that I do the former, and I know many other Republicans who do the same. As for the latter, I personally think we are investing too much in the rebuilding of the infrastructure; it needs to be done, but they and their middle east buddies should have some cha ching lying around. We help people in other countries as well though; should we stop doing that as well, or is your problem solely that you think we shouldn't have invaded?

[donhaas 18]

Your question is not a valid one, for me anyway. I've already shown that I do the former, and I know many other Republicans who do the same. As for the latter, I personally think we are investing too much in the rebuilding of the infrastructure; it needs to be done, but they and their middle east buddies should have some cha ching lying around. We help people in other countries as well though; should we stop doing that as well, or is your problem solely that you think we shouldn't have invaded?

 

 

You haven't proven anything to me beyond saying "I give to charity."

I'm not doubting you, personally..... but keep in mind that many, many Republicans say, "I give to charity." It's an easy thing to say.....it sounds very nice, too.

My problem (and it is a huge problem) is that so many noble, honorable, compassionate Republicans who supposedly give so much "privately" -- struggle, bittch, and complain so terriblly and painstakingly when a little public monies are used to help the people with food and programs that are so desperately needed.

 

It doesn't mesh.....

 

somebody is lying about something.....

 

But I amended my question. If the question is unanswerable; it's unanswerable.......

 

 

Why is it so utterly and excruciatingly painful for Republican Christians -- who just love to give.... giving so much of themselves privately and anonymously to charities and what not -- to give a small amount of money to help the young people in America who need it so much, but won't bat an eye for $500 billlion in the quagmire and to help build streets and schools for people who don't want us there?

 

[Strike 4,098]

Why is it so utterly and excruciatingly painful for Republican Christians -- who just love to give.... giving so much of themselves privately and anonymously to charities and what not -- to give a small amount of money to help the young people in America who need it so much, but won't bat an eye for $500 billlion in the quagmire and to help build streets and schools for people who don't want us there?

 

 

How is that not happening? I'm pretty sure we still have welfare and food stamps and stuff. And I'm pretty sure the cost of those programs is more than a "small amount".

[donhaas 18]

How is that not happening? I'm pretty sure we still have welfare and food stamps and stuff. And I'm pretty sure the cost of those programs is more than a "small amount".

 

It's pennies compared to what we spend in Iraq.....and it comes out of everybody's pockets.... even Godless commie liberal hom0s.

 

Republicans -- who give soooooo much privately to charities and love to help their fellow man like the Bible says -- should be the last people to bittch about these small monies, but are always the first.....

 

HTH!