Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 07:04 In article <1161700854.976916.304350(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >Eeyore wrote: >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> > >T Wake wrote: >> > > >> > >[... democrats ...] >> > >> They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien >> > >> attacks >> > > >> > >If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why >> > >they may not want the other side to hear of them. >> > > >> > >Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty >> > >coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better >> > >inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they >> > >haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen >> > >at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you >> > >wouldn't want a nuke to go off. >> > >> > What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete >> > silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important >> > action that can be taken right now. Only the person known >> > as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. >> > >> > It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit >> > to open a plant. We'll see what the will of these politicians >> > is. >> >> What on earth are you talking about ? > >The discussion seems to have turned to the idea of making more nuclear >power plants. One way to make the country more secure is to not have >to import large amounts of oil. > >The US still has oil with in its boundaries, but the dumbest thing you >can do is start using it. If you assume that the oil will run out one >day this just makes sure that the other guys have the last oil. If the >economy continues to rely on oil, the last guy with oil wins. > >Renewable energy, can reduce the need but it doesn't look like it can >meet all the need. This leaves use with few other options besides >eventually building more atomic power plants. Thank you for writing this clearly. > >The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and >screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant >isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that >makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing >because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell. The only person who is willing to say those "bad" words, nuclear power plant, is Bush. I haven't heard Republicans say them and Democrats always leave it off their list of items we have to do to become less dependent on oil imports. I want to kick their behinds and wake them up. All we get here in Mass. is Kennedy claiming there isn't a war on terror using lanugage that can be interpreted two different ways. The usual 95% assume the incorrect way...as he meant it to be misinterpreted. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 07:08 In article <1161700163.343842.50780(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <1161448269.254202.18890(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> > >> >T Wake wrote: >> > >> >[... democrats ...] >> >> They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien >> >> attacks >> > >> >If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why >> >they may not want the other side to hear of them. >> > >> >Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty >> >coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better >> >inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they >> >haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen >> >at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you >> >wouldn't want a nuke to go off. >> >> What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete >> silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important >> action that can be taken right now. > >.... so I type the words "democrat" and "nuclear" into google and the >very first page that comes up reads: >******** >WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Democrats from Iowa to powerful members of >Congress are endorsing more nuclear power in the United States, often >to combat climate change or dependence on oil, but critics say it's a >shortsighted venture. >*********** Interesting. Can you do a traceback of where that item came from? I haven't heard a single Democrat say those words. And it's an obvious campaign win. > > >> Only the person known >> as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. > >Perhaps the problem is that you spelled it "nucular" when you did your >google search. When I tried that I got mostly stuff about North Korea >gitting nucular wepins. Sorry. Would you believe that, before I got sick, I very rarely made spelling and typos? But the problem is that you found it written up but I haven't heard them say it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 07:17 In article <wlr%g.21222$e66.19412(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehkth3$8qk_002(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <1161448269.254202.18890(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>[... democrats ...] >>>> They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien >>>> attacks >>> >>>If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why >>>they may not want the other side to hear of them. >>> >>>Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty >>>coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better >>>inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they >>>haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen >>>at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you >>>wouldn't want a nuke to go off. >> >> What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete >> silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important >> action that can be taken right now. Only the person known >> as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. > >Because they're another smokescreen to try to keep people from focusing on >the real issues. As I mentioned several times, and you've refuse to >address, less than 3 % of our national electric power comes from pretroleum. >Since we only import about 2/3 of our petroleum, apportioning imports across >all uses leaves about 2 % of our electric power coming from imported oil. >Since only about half of our oil comes from the traditional Muslim nations >that might cause us trouble (fully 1/3 of our imported oil comes from Canada >and Mexico), that's down to about 1 % of our total electric power grid that >is at risk. You would truly never notice that if it went off-line, as coal- >and natural gas-fired power plants would easily take up that small amount of >slack. Those numbers sound too low. I've been paying an oil surcharge for years (on my electric bill). > >No, nuclear power plants have nothing to do with petroleum dependence on >Muslim nations, as you imply. They do, however, have to do with the future >of electric power in this country, once coal and natural gas run out. Exactly. So why aren't politicians talking about it in their campaigns? >However, between them, the reserve is estimated at well over 400 years, What reserve are you talking about? >so >it's clearly not a big issue in this election as Bush would have us believe. Bush isn't making this an issue. ***I AM****. I don't a single long-range plan sound bite out of any of these idiots' mouths. Sorry, we had yet another governor debate last night. >Where did you get your talking points, if not from the RNC--certainly not >from any analysis of actual information. I think them up. > > >> It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit >> to open a plant. > >Great, I'm all for it personally. However, it has nothing to do with the >quality of elected officials. Yes. It does. Do you even know about long-range planning of infrastructure? It exists. People in my state have eliminated it from their vocabulary. I don't think they even have it in their fairy tales. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Oct 2006 08:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >Nazi Germany was a nation with a powerful miliary machine and advanced > >technology. > > > >Islamic extremism isn't. > > hmm..that's why these extremists use weapons manfuactured by > the West to kill Westerners and Muslim moderates. So who's selling them this stuff ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 07:26
In article <_6M%g.15884$TV3.5959(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehngfd$8qk_013(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> In article <ehilc2$rv0$11(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >>>And what is Bush doing but taking away our basic liberties? >> >> Name one so we have something concrete to talk about. Note >> that Bush needs Congressional approval for what he does do. >> So I want you to name one liberty that Bush, the person, has >> removed. > > >Yet another smokescreen intended to obscure the fact that the Executive >branch of the government, under the leadership of GWB, is taking away >freedoms specifically named in the Constitution. Since Bush is the Chief >Executive of the US, that means that he is responsible for the actions of >the entire Executive branch. Try the 4th Amendment prohibition of searches >and seizures without the probable cause that would get them a warrant, for >starters. That Act passed by Congress is very specific. It is not a blanket clause that covers all search and seizures. >Try the implicit right not to be dragged into a war unilaterally >by the Executive branch of the government. Huh? /BAH |