Support NeoGAF

[Stumpokapow]

I live in Clifton during the summer. NYC during the school year.

Jersey, seriously? You lost like 2 full points on the cool scale.

 

[Karma Kramer]

God how emotional was the end of countdown today.

Almost cried and absolutely breathtaking that a rainbow appeared after the memorial was over.

 

[Tamanon]

I can't believe we're actually having to have a debate on whether or not the rule of law is soft on terror.

 

[Y2Kev]

Jersey, seriously? You lost like 2 full points on the cool scale.

MY PARENTS MADE A SERIOUS ERROR IN JUDGMENT

 

[scorcho]

MY PARENTS MADE A SERIOUS ERROR IN JUDGMENT

the 2nd was letting you go to Columbia.

ew. everyone knows all the cool universities surround Washington and Union Square

 

[Tamanon]

Lars Larson is digging himself a deep hole on this Michelle Obama crap.:lol

"She hates her country, which is bizarre because she was GIVEN an Ivy League education and a do-nothing job"

 

[Y2Kev]

the 2nd was letting you go to Columbia.

ew. everyone knows all the cool universities surround Washington and Union Square

no no, i have short hair and i don't smell

heyooooooooo

 

[DEO3]

Obama's response to all the shit McCain has been throwing these past couple of days.

Good afternoon. We just finished the first meeting of my new Senior Working Group on National Security. We had a productive discussion about the challenges facing our nation, and I’m grateful that these distinguished men and women will be advising me in the months to come.

As we discussed in the meeting, we face serious challenges to our security. Our nation is fighting two wars. There are terrorists who are determined to kill as many Americans as they can. The world’s most dangerous weapons risk falling into the wrong hands. And that is why the single greatest priority of my presidency will be doing anything and everything that I can to keep the American people safe.

In the face of these real threats, we can’t afford another campaign in which national security issues—and the truth– are distorted and manipulated. So let me take this opportunity to talk about some of the attacks that the McCain campaign has made the last few days. For all his talk about civil debate and bipartisanship, Senator McCain has shown that he’s going to use predictable, petty and divisive attacks to try to score a few political points on national security. If these attacks seem familiar, it’s because they are. It’s the same tired political playbook that George Bush and Karl Rove have used for eight years. And it’s a political strategy that’s been used to prop up policies that have completely failed.

First, let me say a few words about Guantanamo. By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure. Over the course of nearly seven years, there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist act at Guantanamo. There has been just one conviction for material support for terrorism. Meanwhile, this legal black hole has substantially set back America’s ability to lead the world against the threat of terrorism, and undermined our most basic values. Make no mistake: we are less safe because of the way George Bush has handled this.

My approach is guided by a simple premise: I have confidence that our system of justice is strong enough to deal with terrorists; Senator McCain does not. That is not the same as giving these detainees the same full privileges as Americans citizens. I never said that, the Supreme Court never said that, and I would never do that as President of the United States. So either Senator McCain’s campaign doesn’t understand what the Court decided, or they are distorting my position.

I have made the same arguments as Republicans like Arlen Specter, countless Generals and national security experts, and the largely Republican-appointed Supreme Court of the United States of America – which is that we need not throw away 200 years of American jurisprudence while we fight terrorism. We do not need to choose between our most deeply held values, and keeping this nation safe. That’s a false choice, and I completely reject it.

Now in their attempt to distort my position, Senator McCain’s campaign has said I want to pursue a law enforcement approach to terrorism. This is demonstrably false, since I have laid out a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy that includes military force, intelligence operations, financial sanctions and diplomatic action. But the fact that I want to abide by the United States Constitution, they say, shows that I have a “pre-9/11 mindset.”

Well I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.

We had al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run back in 2002. But then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that, “Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.” I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts, and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan.

Our military is overstretched in Iraq. We have nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq, many on their second, third, or fourth tour of duty. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is sliding toward chaos, and risks turning into a narco-terrorist state. The Taliban is on the offensive in the south. A recent Taliban prison break in Kandahar freed hundreds of militants, and underscored the volatile situation on the ground. The coalition casualties in Afghanistan last month were higher than in Iraq. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.

We need more resources in Afghanistan. I have been arguing for this since 2002, when I said that we should finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban instead of going into Iraq. I have called for at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts there. I have also called for at least $1 billion in non-military assistance each year. And I have repeatedly challenged George Bush and John McCain’s refusal to hold the Pakistani government accountable for their inability to crack down on al Qaeda and the Taliban operating within their borders. Because we are not going to get Afghanistan right until we get our Pakistan policy right.

So we have a choice in this election. We can listen to the other side make the same false arguments about why we need to violate our Constitution, stay in Iraq indefinitely, build permanent bases in a country that doesn’t want them, and keep shortchanging our effort in Afghanistan and our ability to deal with nearly every other national security challenge that we face. We can do that.

Or, we can finally end this disastrous approach to national security. Because the record shows that George Bush and John McCain have been weak on terrorism. Their approach has failed. Because of their policies, we are less safe, less respected, and less able to lead the world. It’s time to turn the page. It’s time to end the war in Iraq responsibly. It’s time to stop wasting time, and to start putting away terrorists. It’s time to finally take out al Qaeda’s top leadership, and to finish the fight in Afghanistan. It’s time to restore our standing so that we can once again lead the world. That’s why I’m running for President of the United States.

Took him a bit longer than usual, but worth the wait.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama's response to all the shit McCain has been throwing these past couple of days.

Took him a bit longer than usual, but worth the wait.

My approach is guided by a simple premise: I have confidence that our system of justice is strong enough to deal with terrorists; Senator McCain does not. That is not the same as giving these detainees the same full privileges as Americans citizens. I never said that, the Supreme Court never said that, and I would never do that as President of the United States. So either Senator McCain’s campaign doesn’t understand what the Court decided, or they are distorting my position.

I have made the same arguments as Republicans like Arlen Specter, countless Generals and national security experts, and the largely Republican-appointed Supreme Court of the United States of America – which is that we need not throw away 200 years of American jurisprudence while we fight terrorism. We do not need to choose between our most deeply held values, and keeping this nation safe. That’s a false choice, and I completely reject it.

A-fucking-men.

He needs to reiterate this forcefully at his next several campaign stops/speeches.

 

[Formless]

Does anyone have a large image of Obama drinking that water bottle?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Elizabeth Hasselbeck on Hannity

What an asshole she is. Totally throwing Michelle Obama under a bus and doubting her sincerity because of rev wright.

Michelle was flawless and dignified this morning on The View and the Hasselbeck threw nothing controversial her way, she apparently saved up all her spew to unload on Hannity.

Why didn't she say that shit to Michelle's face this morning?!

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Michelle was flawless and dignified this morning on The View and the Hasselbeck threw nothing controversial her way, she apparently saved up all her spew to unload on Hannity.

Why didn't she say that shit to Michelle's face this morning?!

Because she's a not only a vacuous bimbo, but a spineless two faced bitch as well?

 

[Xeke]

I wish Obama were more open to Nuclear power plants.

 

[StoOgE]

You know what, Ive decided something, the republicans can spew all the hate filled venom they want. I dont give two shits. Im going to lick the bitter tears off their faces on Nov 2nd and enjoy the shit out of it.

Also, Cindy "Trollup" McCain is going after Michelle now for not being patriotic.

 

[ToyMachine228]

I wish Obama were more open to Nuclear power plants.

Of all the candidates this cycle, Obama seemed to be the warmest on nuclear power.

 

[ViperVisor]

Elisabeth is just a dimwit.

And when Whoopi shattered her world by saying we don't know what McCain is about she blew a few of her limited brain cells.

Must question Obama for not leaving Trinity but then question him when he leaves cause it was politics. She doesn't think and takes the Hannity position on everything, Dem bad. GOP good.

McCain's religion evolving is surely unknown to her.

 

[Xeke]

Of all the candidates this cycle, Obama seemed to be the warmest on nuclear power.

McCain: 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030

 

[sangreal]

Obama is for more Nuclear power plants, or at least for exploring the possibility. One of the attacks Hillary used to use (back in Nevada or so) is that he was too close to Nuclear power companies

 

[schuelma]

Jersey, seriously? You lost like 2 full points on the cool scale.

I actually CHOSE to live in New Jersey! How cool am I??

 

[DrForester]

God how emotional was the end of countdown today.

Almost cried and absolutely breathtaking that a rainbow appeared after the memorial was over.

Yeah, then I called Olberman a dick when he said his little "It's been **** days since mission accomplished was announced for the Iraq War" Seemed a pretty inappropriate thing to say 2 seconds after the eulogy clip just finished airing.

 

[scorcho]

I actually CHOSE to live in New Jersey! How cool am I??

my lady-friend finally got out of a death condo on Edgewater (the whole complex is slowly, slowly sinking into the Hudson) and moving back to the big city. i couldn't be happier

 

[GhaleonEB]

Also, Cindy "Trollup" McCain is going after Michelle now for not being patriotic.

Surely this will help her favorability ratings.

 

[DopeyFish]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...we_see_Obama_theres_a_shootonsight_order.html

yikes... just.... yikes....

 

[AniHawk]

Isn't there some hole the GOP can crawl into and die?

 

[Hitokage]

Isn't there some hole the GOP can crawl into and die?

Let's avoid this line of thought, please.

 

[Karish]

Can someone please explain the arguments for and against off shore drilling for me please?

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...we_see_Obama_theres_a_shootonsight_order.html

yikes... just.... yikes....

:facepalm

Way to keep it civil. Wow.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Elizabeth Hasselbeck on Hannity

What an asshole she is. Totally throwing Michelle Obama under a bus and doubting her sincerity because of rev wright.

Michelle was flawless and dignified this morning on The View and the Hasselbeck threw nothing controversial her way, she apparently saved up all her spew to unload on Hannity.

Why didn't she say that shit to Michelle's face this morning?!

Is there a video of this?

 

[Mandark]

What's with conservatives and their hard-on for nuclear power as a solution to our energy problems?

I guess they go for it intuitively, since we know it can create tons of energy, while the clean renewables haven't done that in the past, and right wingers are apt to generally distrust anything that smacks of hippie environmentalism.

 

[Hitokage]

What's with conservatives and their hard-on for nuclear power as a solution to our energy problems?

I guess they go for it intuitively, since we know it can create tons of energy, while the clean renewables haven't done that in the past, and right wingers are apt to generally distrust anything that smacks of hippie environmentalism.

One of the great triumphs of modern science seen beaten to submission by hippies and elitists is a great rallying cry for reactionaries.

 

[KRS7]

What's with conservatives and their hard-on for nuclear power as a solution to our energy problems?

I guess they go for it intuitively, since we know it can create tons of energy, while the clean renewables haven't done that in the past, and right wingers are apt to generally distrust anything that smacks of hippie environmentalism.

Not only conservatives my friend. Nuclear is a viable alternative to fossil fuels and has been embraced by the vast majority of developed world. Canada, Japan, France, England, and Germany just to name a few.

Solar, Wind, Geothermal, etc are great but have both geographic and technical limitations. I am sure these technologies will mature to eventually provide the vast majority of electrical power, but for now they are economically impractical when compared to nuclear. If the choice is between nuclear and solar go with solar, but if it is between nuclear or fossil fuels then go with nuclear.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Not only conservatives my friend. Nuclear is a viable alternative to fossil fuels and has been embraced by the vast majority of developed world. Canada, Japan, France, England, and Germany just to name a few.

Solar, Wind, Geothermal, etc are great but have both geographic and technical limitations. I am sure these technologies will mature to eventually provide the vast majority of electrical power, but for now they are economically impractical when compared to nuclear. If the choice is between nuclear and solar go with solar, but if it is between nuclear or fossil fuels then go with nuclear.

Pretty much... I really don't get democrats when it comes to energy policy.

No one here has given me one good reason not to go nuclear. I am starting to think some of you are just blindly supporting your party, instead of developing your own opinion on the issue.

 

[masud]

Pretty much... I really don't get democrats when it comes to energy policy.

No one here has given me one good reason not to go nuclear. I am starting to think some of you are just blindly supporting your party, instead of developing your own opinion on the issue.

Thankfully Obama is open to Nuclear energy.

 

[thefit]

Nuclear power? Really? This as reactionary as this new GOP talking point of drilling ourselves out of oil dependency. Yes, lets not spew anymore CO2 into the atmosphere and instead build plants that at the earliest will take at least 10 years before they can hook up hook up to a power grid but hey at least we'll save the atmosphere and don't worry about the waste we'll just hide it in the Nevada desert somewhere. Got a problem with that? Well lets just fucking bury it in you backyard then. Don't like that either? Ok, well stick it in every empty oil well we dig up in our national forests after we lift "the ban".

 

[KRS7]

Pretty much... I really don't get democrats when it comes to energy policy.

I don't get republicans either. If you listen to them you would think we had trillions of barrels of oil that the EPA and congress are keeping off limits. Based on most of my research even if we drilled offshore and completely opened up ANWR we would only recover enough oil to last a few years at most. The United States has a ridiculous demand for oil and we have used up most of our reserves. Prudhoe Bay, by far the largest oil field ever discovered in the United States has only 2 billion barrels of recoverable oil remaining. The US uses around 25 million barrels a day, so that will last us 80 days if it supplied all our oil. As much as the republicans would like you to believe we have a lot and it is just being kept off limit, that is blatantly untrue. We have nothing compared to many other countries, and our demand it so high that drilling in ANWR and off the coast probably wont make a dent in the market or oil prices. There needs to be a national effort to move off of oil. Unfortunately both sides are too busy peddling their ideological bullshit to move realistically towards that goal.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Nuclear power? Really? This as reactionary as this new GOP talking point of drilling ourselves out of oil dependency. Yes, lets not spew anymore CO2 into the atmosphere and instead build plants that at the earliest will take at least 10 years before they can hook up hook up to a power grid but hey at least we'll save the atmosphere and don't worry about the waste we'll just hide it in the Nevada desert somewhere. Got a problem with that? Well lets just fucking bury it in you backyard then. Don't like that either? Ok, well stick it in every empty oil well we dig up in our national forests after we lift "the ban".

Let's not build nuclear plants and continue using oil as our main source of energy. That makes a lot more sense.

Had we been more aware of the growing energy crisis ten years ago, we would be like France right now and be running 75% of our power off of it.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I don't get republicans either. If you listen to them you would think we had trillions of barrels of oil that the EPA and congress are keeping off limits. Based on most of my research even if we drilled offshore and completely opened up ANWR we would only recover enough oil to last a few years at most. The United States has a ridiculous demand for oil and we have used up most of our reserves. Prudhoe Bay, by far the largest oil field ever discovered in the United States has only 2 billion barrels of recoverable oil remaining. The US uses around 25 million barrels a day, so that will last us 80 days if it supplied all our oil. As much as the republicans would like you to believe we have a lot and it is just being kept off limit, that is blatantly untrue. We have nothing compared to many other countries, and our demand it so high that drilling in ANWR and off the coast probably wont make a dent in the market or oil prices. There needs to be a national effort to move off of oil. Unfortunately both sides are too busy peddling their ideological bullshit to move realistically towards that goal.

Yeah, I agree completely... but I think their more aggressive support for nuclear, gets points from me atleast.

 

[thefit]

Let's not build nuclear plants and continue using oil as our main source of energy. That makes a lot more sense.

Had we been more aware of the growing energy crisis ten years ago, we would be like France right now and be running 75% of our power off of it.

Why do either? Has this country really become so technologically tone def that its either oil, cole, or nuclear only? There already alternatives and your wrong about us not knowing this crsis was coming hell Jimmy Carter, despite what many here think of him, had as one of his main objectives as a president to have us move of of fossil fuels and into alternative energies and this was the friggen 70's hell he even installed solar panels on the white house and guess who tore them down.

 

[my name is ed]

I dont really know much about the points arguing for and against nuclear energy. Can anybody do a small breakdown of each side?

 

[thefit]

We didn't see this coming?

Jimmy Carter 1979.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html

"The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important. Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation.

The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day."

 

[Mandark]

Obama's take on nuclear power was basically the same as the other two big Dem candidates, with a shift on emphasis. They were all "No nuclear plants until the waste problem is solved!" and he was all "We should have nuclear plants! But let's solve the waste problem first."



So is nuclear power really the bees knees? I'm skeptical on this, cause of these two posts by Daniel Davies, whom I'm inclined to take seriously.

His point that nuclear projects are apt to problems, delays, and cost overruns seems plausible to me (see here), as is the idea that people in the nuclear industry shouldn't be trusted (see here).

I'm sure some environmentalists make bad arguments against nuclear power sometimes, but it seems like something that hasn't been wholly embraced by private markets. France is the only major country I know that relies on nuclear for most of its electricity and that's with heavy government subsidy and involvement.

 

[KRS7]

I dont really know much about the points arguing for and against nuclear energy. Can anybody do a small breakdown of each side?

Quick and dirty:

Pros:
Absolutely no emissions (unless you count steam)
Very large generating capacity compared to other technologies

Cons:
Meltdowns (No longer realistically plausible on newer reactor designs)
Where to store spent fuel (The US hasn't reprocessed nuclear fuel since the 70's although that might be changing. Currently we have no national policy and store spent fuel on site)

 

[Hitokage]

We didn't see this coming?

Pfft. Hippie alarmism! We were fine in 2000 even without his solar bank!

Absolutely no emissions (unless you count steam and thermal pollution in its adjacent body of water)

Ahem.

France is the only major country I know that relies on nuclear for most of its electricity and that's with heavy government subsidy and involvement.

France is full of elitist commie eurotrash who aren't deserving of being mentioned on our fried potatoes, but they're our role models in energy use!

 

[thefit]

Pfft. Hippie alarmism! We were fine in 2000 even without his solar bank!

Ahem.

:lol and just liken that, poof, they pull the wool over our eyes 'till again its too late.

 

[KRS7]

Ahem.

Thermal pollution isn't exactly an "emission" but point well taken. However thermal pollution occurs in many methods of electrcity generation and is not unique to nuclear power.

France even exports a large percentage of it's electricity to other countries. Canada is quite experienced with the CANDU reactor. I wonder why they don't install a line of them at the border and just export cheap power to the US.

 

[scorcho]

Thermal pollution isn't exactly an "emission" but point well taken. However thermal pollution occurs in many methods of electrcity generation and is not unique to nuclear power.

France even exports a large percentage of it's electricity to other countries. Canada is quite experienced with the CANDU reactor. I wonder why they don't install a line of them at the border and just export cheap power to the US.

ignorant as i am of nuclear energy policy, i just wanted to state how much i love the way CANDU sounds.

 

[SRG01]

Where to store spent fuel (The US hasn't reprocessed nuclear fuel since the 70's although that might be changing. Currently we have no national policy and store spent fuel on site)

Shifting storage to reprocessing may or may not be viable in the long run, depending on how much the US invests in it. France has lots of experience with reprocessing, so they may be a natural partner in any future nuclear plans.

Nearly all of the spent fuel rod can be recycled into new fuel rods or medical isotopes.

 

[The Crimson Kid]

Can someone please explain the arguments for and against off shore drilling for me please?

For:
-We need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, drilling off our own shores will help.
-More oil available = lower prices
-Americans need relief NAO
-The Dems have blocked this legislation for years, and we might not be in the mess we are in now if they had let it happen earlier. So lets do it now to avoid later snafus.

Against:
-It would take around 10 years to get offshore drilling operations up and running to capacity.
-Lots of coastal pollution from offshore pollution
-Not enough oil off our shores to make a dent in our energy prices
-We should be moving away from oil, not digging ourselves deeper into our oil addiction.
-Alternative, cleaner sources of energy could be widespread in about 10 years, so why not pick the longer-lasting, cleaner option?

 

[Hitokage]

However thermal pollution occurs in many methods of electrcity generation and is not unique to nuclear power.

Not at all, and it's not nearly as invasive ecologically as hydroelectric, but it's something.

 

[Mumei]

Don't recall seeing this posted earlier, but feel free to disregard if it was.

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat. ...

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Now can someone tell me what this means?