McCain just sealed my vote

Obama on Nuclear Energy:

Nuclear power ok if we safeguard against waste & terrorism

Q: Would you be in favor of developing more nuclear power to reduce oil dependency?
A: I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store waste properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism. And if we can do that in a technologically sound way, then we should pursue it. If we can't, we should not. But there is no magic bullet on energy. We're going to have to look at all the various options.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007
 
Are you insane? Colin Powell, who knew the war was a lie but went along was smart?

Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and John McCain who all said we'd be greeted as liberators and the war would last no more than 6 months and cost only several hundred million- they were smart?

Why do you think they all resigned in disgrace?
 
I'd say you're a fuck wit for falling for this- its amazingly clear right now that nobody wants to pay for nuclear power- especially 45 plants. What, is the government going to pay for it? 15 trillion dollar debt

Oh, and without the war that McCain wants to keep fighting, we could have built 75 power plants and had change left over.
 
It's fun looking at a problem that requires many attributes and focusing on one.

Price. Yield. Efficiency. Reliability. Cleanliness. Safety.

Nuclear energy (and clean coal to a lesser extent) are the only 2 options. Yield, efficiency, and reliability all eliminate wind and solar. And the cost difference is negligible, a far cry from your claim that nuclear energy is expensive.
 
There is no longer any doubt that the Iraq War is a moral and strategic disaster for the United States. But what has not yet been fully recognized is that it has also been an economic disaster. To date, the government has spent more than $522 billion on the war, with another $70 billion already allocated for 2008.

With just the amount of the Iraq budget of 2007, $138 billion, the government could instead have provided Medicaid-level health insurance for all 45 million Americans who are uninsured. What's more, we could have added 30,000 elementary and secondary schoolteachers and built 400 schools in which they could teach. And we could have provided basic home weatherization for about 1.6 million existing homes, reducing energy consumption in these homes by 30 percent.

But the economic consequences of Iraq run even deeper than the squandered opportunities for vital public investments. Spending on Iraq is also a job killer. Every $1 billion spent on a combination of education, healthcare, energy conservation and infrastructure investments creates between 50 and 100 percent more jobs than the same money going to Iraq. Taking the 2007 Iraq budget of $138 billion, this means that upward of 1 million jobs were lost because the Bush Administration chose the Iraq sinkhole over public investment.

Recognizing these costs of the Iraq War is even more crucial now that the economy is facing recession. lyWhile a recession is probably unavoidable, its length and severity will depend on the effectiveness of the government's stimulus initiatives. By a wide margin, the most effective stimulus is to expand public investment projects, especial at the state and local levels. The least effective fiscal stimulus is the one crafted by the Bush Administration and Congress--mostly to just send out rebate checks to all taxpayers. This is because a high proportion of the new spending encouraged by the rebates will purchase imports rather than financing new jobs in the United States, whereas public investment would concentrate job expansion within the country. Combining this Bush stimulus initiative with the ongoing spending on Iraq will only deepen the severity of the recession.




Sorry redneck, this isn't a WW2-era military-industrial complex anymore.
 
You still don't get it do you? Correct that politicians don't give a rat's ass about the public's opinions. They DO however care about one thing, power. If the voters get pissed enough because their wallets are being sucked dry due to the lack of action, then they are liable to throw people back out of office and there goes their power. That is the scariest outcome to a politician and they will do what's necessary to avoid that happening.
 
That's if the federal government subsidizes the plant's financing, meaning you pay for the difference in taxes.

Do you read items before you cite them?

Even if it wasn't a federal subsidy, your claim of "that's only for 5-6 years" would still be transparently manufactured bullshit, but good thing you mutated away from that argument to "this lower estiamte (still higher than wind) is better. You really are slime.
 
Yeah... I got up to like page 8 or 9 when I posted the "ifl"

Tek's refusal to acknowledge Obama's clear sentiment about the needs of nuclear power to aid in the move to alternative energy was pretty funny so far.

I'll assume he never addressed those three points that you called him out on.
 
Back
Top