Dems plan immediate climate action.

ib1yysguy said:
I believe it was an article in Time magazine. The technical challenges of reactors aren't that difficult to overcome. It's a public perception problem. Obama is pro nuclear energy, but not as a "silver bullet" solution. It needs to be a part of a larger energy solution (OMG, this is starting to sound more complicated than what Republicans typically like!)
Click to expand...
If such is the case then he and I are generally in agreement. I suggest using Nuclear power for electricity, and every other local source we can find and using the Natural Gas for the interim to drive our cars. It burns cleaner and we have an abundant supply.

Not as a "silver bullet" as people try to simplify the R's ideas, but as a program that can bridge us over using local energy until the next generation energy becomes more realistic.

But then, being honest about what a Republican says and trying to oversimplify and thus easily reject their ideas is the regular Democratic inanity on this board.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Quotes mean nothing. ANyone can lie. We have to watch what he does.

Do you know how much of the new stimulus package is going to nuclear development?
Click to expand...

Zero is probably more than necessary considering nuclear energy has nothing to do with economic stimulus. Wait for the energy plan before you get excited and cum in your pants about how Obama hates nuclear energy.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Is Obama a liberal? Is Obama championing nuclear energy? Yes and yes. Many liberals support it. So you were deaf or blind or just plain dishonest. I'm guessing you're dishonest.
Click to expand...

can you provide one quote where obama is "for" or "champtioning" newkleer power? i have never seen obama outright endorse nuclear energy...so i am wondering where you read or heard where is championing, not just "considering" or "leaving open", but advocating/championing it.

just one quote or source will do....
 
ib1yysguy said:
Zero is probably more than necessary considering nuclear energy has nothing to do with economic stimulus. Wait for the energy plan before you get excited and cum in your pants about how Obama hates nuclear energy.
Click to expand...


But I thought energy jobs were part of the stimulus plan? Is that not true?
 
http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/obama_nuclear.htm

You can skip to the conclusion at the bottom if you like, since you're not bright enough to lead me to believe you're interested in reading the nuances of his position on nuclear energy and are just going to look for a word or two from him to make you disbelieve if you can find it.

"Bottom line: Obama believes the United States will need to continue, and probably expand, its use of nuclear power to meet its energy and climate goals."
 
AssHatZombie said:
But I thought energy jobs were part of the stimulus plan? Is that not true?
Click to expand...

Considering the legal process for getting a nuclear plant online takes 8-11 years itself before construction begins, it's not exactly high on the list of immediately relevant growing job sectors to recover our economy. However, spending lots of dough building green energy is something we could do TODAY if we wanted and furnish millions of Americans with jobs as a result.

Long term, nuclear energy is going to be part of the solution to energy and probably create jobs too. Short term, it's not exactly something that's going to create work as effectively as any number of other alternatives.
 
ib1yysguy said:
http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/obama_nuclear.htm

You can skip to the conclusion at the bottom if you like, since you're not bright enough to lead me to believe you're interested in reading the nuances of his position on nuclear energy and are just going to look for a word or two from him to make you disbelieve if you can find it.

"Bottom line: Obama believes the United States will need to continue, and probably expand, its use of nuclear power to meet its energy and climate goals."
Click to expand...

nuances = bullshit and lies.

And like I said before, quotes = nothing. I look for deeds.
 
AssHatZombie said:
nuances = bullshit and lies.

And like I said before, quotes = nothing. I look for deeds.
Click to expand...

We'll have to wait then. Until we see something tangible, all we have to go on is what he says and his track record. Everything else is guessing.

Nuances are how the world works. If you want everything to be black and white, you're probably a simpleton and aren't worth having a real discussion about anything with.
 
ib1yysguy said:
He's certainly not an opponent, is he? That's what you guys were saying about the liberals who put the guy in office.
Click to expand...
They said they hadn't heard anybody "championing" it and were speaking to people on the board here.

I never said he was an opponent, but I asked for evidence that he was championing it as you said he was.

He isn't. It's a sidebar, a barely nuanced phrase that suggests he recognizes that it exists and we'll "probably have to" keep using it and "maybe even" (maybe) have to expand it?

Come on.... that isn't a "champion".
 
ib1yysguy said:
We'll have to wait then. Until we see something tangible, all we have to go on is what he says and his track record. Everything else is guessing.

Nuances are how the world works. If you want everything to be black and white, you're probably a simpleton and aren't worth having a real discussion about anything with.
Click to expand...

Yeah. ANd what he says is weak ass at best, despite your delusional interpretation.
 
ib1yysguy said:
http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/obama_nuclear.htm

You can skip to the conclusion at the bottom if you like, since you're not bright enough to lead me to believe you're interested in reading the nuances of his position on nuclear energy and are just going to look for a word or two from him to make you disbelieve if you can find it.

"Bottom line: Obama believes the United States will need to continue, and probably expand, its use of nuclear power to meet its energy and climate goals."
Click to expand...

:lmao:

first he is "championing" it... and now, after i ask for anything where is "for" OR "championing" it, not just "considering" it or "leaving it open", you backpeddle with nuances....and find me something that says "probably"....priceless and what is even more funny is you insult my intelligence in your reply!

there is nothing in that quote about him being for it or championing it...

you're funny! let me go get wiseass's nuance self-help book so i can understand you better and we can have sssooo super awesome discussions.
 
He speaks often about the usefulness of nuclear energy in his forthcoming energy plan. That's championing it. It's not a silver bullet. He's said that on occasion as well, but it will certainly be part of the total solution.
 
ib1yysguy said:
He speaks often about the usefulness of nuclear energy in his forthcoming energy plan. That's championing it. It's not a silver bullet. He's said that on occasion as well, but it will certainly be part of the total solution.
Click to expand...

His comments are lame and weak-assed.
 
ib1yysguy said:
He speaks often about the usefulness of nuclear energy in his forthcoming energy plan. That's championing it. It's not a silver bullet. He's said that on occasion as well, but it will certainly be part of the total solution.
Click to expand...

no, he is accepting of its possible usefulness, but has never championed it.

how to champion a cause

3.An ardent defender or supporter of a cause

ardent = eager zealous support

no way, no how is this guy eager or zealously supporting nuclear energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top