McCain chooses Vp

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Ferret, Aug 31, 2008.

  1. kehl

    kehl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    This is why I hate politics. It should be based on nothing but policy. Not manipulating the American people...

    "Rabble rabble, she's Christian? Got mah vote thar. Hot too. h00t dawg".

    McCain's move is so transparent it hurts. He accuses Obama of being a celebrity and then chooses a VP to help his image?

    Screw politics. Hardly anyone wants to be president to make a change, or impact, it's a big scam, and we fall for it.
     
  2. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    Sadly true :(. Half the kids in my college can't even keep up a political arguement.

    This is a correct description of Blackwater, though I wouldn't call them unjustly accused for the Baghdad shootings. This is the definition of a Private Military Security Contractor (Which just to reaffirm, is not the same thing as a mercenary). They also aren't paid half before and half after. They are paid upfront through contracts and then given monthly/yearly fees depending on their agreement with the US government and according to their performance in meeting perscribed goals. They are paid as a security force not a military force. That means they don't participate in military actions but rather, in police actions.
     
  3. Banzai

    Banzai One-time Mod, but on the road to recovery Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,834
    Likes Received:
    151
    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Well Russia is spoiling for a fight anyway. And to be honest, simply pulling out of Iraq isn't so much of an option. When the US invaded, they made a commitment to see it through to the end. Whether the general public and the politicians regret that now is immaterial. The majority supported it at the beginning. If American troops go, then other countries will have to take over. Else the whole thing will collapse, and destabilise the whole region. That will be bad. Someone else (Iran, or Russia is where my money is) will move in, and then youy have an whole other pile of consequences.
     
  4. Aurora_Black

    Aurora_Black New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    10
    Of course we've driven the topic way off of Sarah Palin, I seriously have to take this time to applaud you on a well thought out debate.
     
  5. Aurora_Black

    Aurora_Black New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    10
    I don't like the hanging threat of nuclear anihilation when it comes to the U.S and Russia. It unnerves me.
     
  6. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    Indeed well played :cool:.
     
  7. NaCl

    NaCl Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    63
    Democracy has one great flaw. Its success depends on an educated and participating public. When cynicism and social apathy leads to lack of public participation, then "democracy" defaults to gridlock or oligarchy. Neither condition serves the interests of the governed.

    Regarding Sarah Palin: I'd rather be governed by ANY housewife in America than ANY stinking career politician in Washington. Lack of "experience in international affairs" is a BS argument when you look at how screwed up our "experienced" politicians have made things.

    Regarding global warming: Yes, I believe we are in a cycle of global warming but there is no hard proof that it is caused by man. Geological history shows countless swings between world wide tropical climates and ice ages.

    Regarding drilling for oil in Alaska or offshore: Simple. Do it carefully. There's no reason we can't have both oil and a clean environment. Nuclear energy is another thing altogether. The French rely on a system of breeder reactors that actually produce about 2 1/2 times as much fissile material as they consume in a core cycle. To the uninformed, that sounds like a panacea . . . make more energy energy than is consumed. The terrible downside to the short-sighted French choice is that they are creating tons and tons of radioactive waste with half lives measured in centuries. Also, some of the radioactive waste products are chemically identical to important elements needed by the human body. For example, Iodine 121 (radioactive) is released, it will concentrate in our thyroids. Strontium 90 is chemically similar to calcium and seeks bones when ingested. Food chain concentration through milk can intensify the radioactive levels in end food chain consumers - humans. This position on nuclear energy of McCain bothers me. That's why I am happy about the choice of his running mate. Drill for oil, NOT uranium!

    Last: I share the appreciation expressed by Aurora Black about the respectful manner in which members of this forum exchanged opinions on sensitive subjects. You guys are great! (I'll bet Cog's forearm is getting tired with his finger hovering for all these hours just above the "locked" button! LOL)
     
  8. mammamaia

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,150
    Likes Received:
    1,034
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    she may be pretty, but she's merely a good ol' boy in barbie's clothing...

    she wantonly kills poor, defenseless fellow animals for sport

    she tyrannically wants to tell other women what they can and can't do with their own bodies

    she stupidly wants to drill for oil in alaska, despite all the downsides

    and...

    she's a former 'beauty queen' which is an awful role model for the majority of girls who don't fit men's porn-like ideal of what women should look like

    to echo paul begala, " Is McCain out of his mind?"
     
  9. Aurora_Black

    Aurora_Black New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    10
    Thank you :D

    Usually a thread like this would be swarmed by fanatical flamers and such, but we have a community of a better calibur here. Where you can post your political views and beliefs and not be destroyed :eek:

    Of course it was probably fun for members watching me duking it out with lordofhats :p

    A war well fought....verbally. :)
     
  10. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    I'm all for nuclear energy myself. People demand to get off fossil power, well right now Nuclear is the only option. Hydro energy is too limited by location and has ecological effects when you build a damn that can't be easily predicted. Geothermal is again, limited by location and won't provide clean energy for many Americans. Solar power is a waste, as it takes more energy to produce one energy cell than that cell will ever give back (They burn out after two-three years and it'll be twenty years before the solar energy deficit can be overcome.). Wind power, though useful, requires a lot of maintainence and is once again restricted by location and weather patterns.

    It is nice to see a good friendly arguement of sensitive subjects end as friendly as they began :D.
     
  11. Banzai

    Banzai One-time Mod, but on the road to recovery Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,834
    Likes Received:
    151
    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I agree with what you, but must cry generalisation to this part.
     
  12. Aurora_Black

    Aurora_Black New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    10
    I second that opinion.
     
  13. Shadow Dragon

    Shadow Dragon Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,483
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    In the land of the gods
    I third it. Not all beauty queens are mindless bimbos. Though I do agree that this woman is just a good ol'boy that looks like a barbie. There were many other people that have done more than just lead a state that has more deer than people.
     
  14. Banzai

    Banzai One-time Mod, but on the road to recovery Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,834
    Likes Received:
    151
    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Actually, my objection was to the fact that all men think women should be blonde, stick thin, with huge breasts... But that's a fair point shadow dragon.
     
  15. Shadow Dragon

    Shadow Dragon Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,483
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    In the land of the gods
    Ah, ok. I miss interpreted your objection. Though I agree with you on that one. Personally, I don't really like girls that look like that.
     
  16. NaCl

    NaCl Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    63
    In 1967, I started college near Boston as a physics major with an emphasis on nuclear energy and subatomic particle theory. At the time, US nuclear energy used "light water" reactors fueled by enriched uranium (U-235). The world's known reserves of Uranium ore (mostly non-radioactive U-238) would produce only enough U-235 for existing reactors (worldwide) for 90 years, assuming no increased demand from building new reactors. In other words, nuclear power promised "cheap" energy but was obviously NOT a long term solution to energy needs.

    Several years later, I studied the French Super Phenix LMFBR (Liquid Metal-cooled Fast Breeder Reactor). This reactor actually "breeds" MORE fissionable material than it consumes during the lifetime of a reactor core. Sounded like a panacea! The way it works is simple. Wrap a "blanket" of plentiful Uranium 238 around the reactor core. While the core is producing immense heat and running turbines, its neutron flux is also changing non-radioactive U-238 into highly radioactive Plutonium 239. According to theory at the time, the blanket can be "reprocessed" to extract and concentrate the Pu 239, yielding enough new fissile material to fuel 1.4 new reactor cores. It was supposed to produce MORE fissile material than it consumed. There is a lot of U-238 ore in the world, so "breeding" promised to expand cheap energy for thousands of years. This technology would be a tremendous benefit for underdeveloped nations and I was thrilled at the prospects . . . until I studied ALL the facts.

    In the early 70's the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), split off into the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and ERDA (Energy Research and Development Administration). The predecessor agency and both spin-off agencies had done extensive studies of the existing nuclear industry and numerous economic models already existed to reasonably project costs associated with the development of a new breeder-based energy program. I analyzed all the information for an undergraduate thesis. Here is a summary of the issues:

    1. Facility cost: Documents I obtained from the AEC and the NRC for completion of existing nuclear power plants typically showed 225% cost overruns above original projected construction costs.

    2. Reprocessing plants: These plants would extract the Plutonium from the "blanket" around the breeder reactor core. The government operates such a reprocessing plant for production of nuclear reactor fissile material for warship reactors and weapons but no successful commercial-level plant has YET been constructed in this country. This entire reprocessing infrastructure is essential for a breeder-based nuclear energy program. The technology is not yet refined for high volume and the necessary facilities have not even been built yet.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D61139F931A25751C1A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/nuke-s21.shtml

    3. Spent fuel storage: Where do we store radioactive byproducts of a nuclear industry for as long as 50,000 years, the half life of many radioactive by-products? Remember, the entire written history of mankind is less than 5,000 years old! We're talking about storage of lethal materials for ten times as long as mankind has been recording our existence. Do you have that much confidence in the infallibility of people or governments?

    4. Fire fighting: The LMFBR is liquid-metal cooled. That means, instead of hot water or steam running through pipes in the reactor, sodium in molten form is used instead. So what? Pure sodium and water explode when mixed. So, if a reactor pipe ruptures or the liquid-metal valves fail, you're going to have a very serious spillage that cannot be cooled with water. And, what if a reactor core gets out of control (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island), you can't cool a reactor meltdown with water is sodium is present. How do you deal with a liquid sodium fire? BTW - the reliability of liquid sodium valves and hardware have not yet been proven on a large scale.

    5. Transportation: One railroad car contains large amounts of radioactive byproducts such as Iodine 131 (concentrates in the thyroid), Strontium 90 (replaces calcium in bones), Cesium 137 accumulates in soft tissue (this was the single most destructive radioactive contaminant released at Chernobyl). If this rail tank car is involved in a severe accident, release of these radioactive chemicals will be subject to "food chain concentration", ultimately reaching humans in more lethal levels. Can we guarantee 100% accident/terrorist free transportation of this deadly cargo?

    http://www.remm.nlm.gov/nuclearaccident.htm

    6. Security: A breeder-based nuclear industry requires weapons-grade concentration of fissile material to be used in the controlled fission within a reactor core. Home-made atomic bombs ARE not difficult to build, especially if terrorists are not concerned about their own lives after being exposed to deadly radiation. The only hard part is getting hold of a critical mass amount the weapons-grade material. With plutonium, that amount is a mere 22 pounds. Have you ever seen the "security" guards at a typical nuclear power plant? What a joke! It would be simple for a few dedicated extremists to penetrate such security and take possession of nuclear fuel. The worst case would be that their improvised device succeeded in a full critical mass explosion (this depends primarily on how fast sub-critical mass components are brought together . . . if they reach critical mass in the microsecond before "delayed neutrons" are released then, big bang.) The best case would be that the assailants fail to bring the sub-critical mass components to full critical mass fast enough. In this instance, the interface between sub-critical components would cause a device destroying explosion with only "local" impact. That is typically what is feared by a so-called dirty bomb . . . it doesn't really give the big bang, it just spreads highly radioactive material over the land and potentially into a water system (like a reservoir). Ultimately, a breeder-based nuclear industry will require a big improvement in security.

    In summary, private industry is not stupid. They have not pushed for "nuclear power" during the past 20 years simply because it is NOT profitable! The historic cost overruns are well known to the industry and they realize they can't amortize their costs and make a reasonable profit in the typical usable lifetime of such a plant. Unless, of course, the US government subsidizes all those expensive infrastructure start up costs . . . can you say MORE taxes? Nuclear energy is NOT the answer.
     
  17. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    Very interesting. I'm gonna have to read more on nuclear power.
     
  18. TWErvin2

    TWErvin2 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    1,629
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    It would appear that she has taken on the good ol' boys for the benifit of her state.

    Hunting? It depends on what you do with the animal after it is shot. There is nothing inherently evil or wrong with hunting.

    It depends on when you define when life begins. One couuld use adjectives like tyranical for those who willingly support infanticide. It is a debate that will not be settled on this forum for sure. She has, however, walked the walk and not just talked.

    Drilling in Alaska. One has to weigh the benefits vs. the costs. Wind power ain't gonna cut it. Besides nobody seems to want that in their backyard either.

    I guess you could imply that pagents are porn-based. I don't go in for them, but I think that is a bit off target.

    Paul Begala would not be the first person who I would choose to quote on much, but everyone has their supporters I suppose.

    I guess that we don't agree on much on this issue, Mammamaia, but I understand and respect that you stand up and voice your opinion. In the end that is what the ballot box is all about.

    Terry
     
  19. NaCl

    NaCl Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    63
    If it was economically viable and I thought humans could manage the peripheral problems for thousands of years to come, I would be a strong supporter of the nuclear approach.

    I'm waiting for the commercial development of controlled fusion. This would be a truly long term energy solution.
     
  20. Aurora_Black

    Aurora_Black New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    10
    Forgive me if my brain disintigrated at the sight of the term "Liquid Metal-Cooled Fast Breeder Reactor" NaCl, but if it really is that bad, I agree with you on not using it ><!
     
  21. NaCl

    NaCl Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,853
    Likes Received:
    63
    lordofhats,

    Here is just ONE example of my concerns about breeder reactor proliferation. This article at Princeton University may be a few years old (Sep 2001), but the situation has not changed appreciably since then:

    http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/Sciencev293n5539.pdf

    This is an interesting excerpt:

    "Portability of separated plutonium. The canister held by this worker in Russia's commercial reprocessing complex near Chelyabinsk contains 2.5 kg of plutonium dioxide
    powder. The material in three of these easily portable containers would suffice to make a
    nuclear explosive. The complex's warehouses contain over 13,000 such containers."
     
  22. lordofhats

    lordofhats New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,022
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    The Hat Cave
    Ah thank you I'll make sure to read it.

    Yikes :eek:.
     
  23. Chickidy

    Chickidy New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    I despise politics, they depress me and make my head feel small and my heart hurt. But I enjoy the debate, and believe if you have no interest to learn about politics at all, you don't deserve to complain about anything. I was on the edge about contributing to this thread, seeing as my inherent dislike and overall ignorance of most subjects in the political field basically make any opinion I have a poorly thought out and weakly backed one, but this comment pushed me over the edge of that mental fence.

    Mainly it was that hunting comment. I am a hunter. I kill pheasants, I kill deer, I kill ducks and geese and all of those things you'd expect a hunter to kill. You call them defenseless? From experience I can tell you that that is a misguided lie! It makes me angry that the key argument against hunting is that the animals have no fair chance. Perhaps some of my fellow hunters (If you can call them that) like to participate in effortless kills, equivalent to shooting fish in a barrel, but I certainly do not and am appalled at the generalization of my sport portrayed above!

    It is difficult to successfully outmatch nature. She is not as fragile as many environmentalists believe. Deer hunting is an incredibly hard thing to do properly, especially if you build your own stand. Many who do deer hunt go out for their entire lives and never even see a deer. It takes patience, it takes discipline and it takes skill.

    I as a hunter respect my quarry. I seek to preserve my worthy adversary for future generations to enjoy and admire. It's not like hunters are just a bunch of hicks with guns who blow up everything green, Ducks Unlimited anyone?

    But now I must apologize, for I have put words in your mouth. I am reading too much into what you said, a sentence, and have made assumptions without anything to base them on beyond one sentence. Therefore I shall halt my argument on the subject of hunting. I'll come back with more opinions when I have more than a childish amount of information to back it up.
     
  24. inkslinger

    inkslinger Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    16
    I don't like her. Don't like McCain.

    Voting for Obama and Biden.
     
  25. Aurora_Black

    Aurora_Black New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    10
    That was very abrupt, but it was short and to the point. :)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice