 |
search this site: search the web: |
Rate this ballot.
Vote on the ballot listed to the left, and rate the ballot below.
Submitted by : larrynelmira Submitted on : Apr 28,2005 6:31:59 am ballot title: What is The Presidents energy poilcy?ballot number:72418
by larrynelmira on Thu Apr 28, 05 9:32am
[+]
Examining his words and contrasting them with his actions, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that he is either ignorant, hypocritic, or lying. Actions speak louder than words. What is the US doing in regards to energy? Can you say "holding hands with Saudi prince, Iraq, Iran"? That's the real energy policy.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Thu Apr 28, 05 9:59am
[+]
When he talks of being less dependent on foreign oil and cutting back on fossil fuel, what he means is we should step up nuclear energy. Replacing a bad situation with a worse one. As a Canadian I would say that his energy policy should be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, he proposes a new modern electrical grid system for the whole country, that's like saying we're going to mars in three years! It's non-sense. Mojo: france gets about 70% of their energy from nuclear power. Is france covered with radioactive goo? Are the people sprouting multiple limbs? Have they had a number of nuclear explosions that threaten to end all life on earth? No, nothing bad has come of it, except that they get cheap, clean (compared to other forms) energy, without such a great reliance on foriegn powers. Yes ladies and gentlemen, I herzog come before you today to praise the french. Take a picture, I doubt it will happen again. But they did manage to get this *one* thing right. No one knows how long it takes for barrels containing nuclear waste to corrode and leak. If there is an alternative, clean form of energy, I'll go with that, thanks very much. Also, accidents at these plants are catastrophic. Remember Chernobyl? The whole town became a poisoned wasteland where no one can ever live. The Bush you see on TV and the Bush making shady deals behind closed doors are two different people.
by _Beelzebubba on Thu Apr 28, 05 11:30am
[+]
LOL @ herzog
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Thu Apr 28, 05 2:25pm
[+]
'If there is an alternative, clean form of energy, I'll go with that, thanks very much.' Excellent, me too. Unfortunately there isn't. Unless you think windmills and solar powered cars will save us all, which they won't. 'Also, accidents at these plants are catastrophic. Remember Chernobyl? The whole town became a poisoned wasteland where no one can ever live.' Yep, ever seen strip mining for a coal power plant? How about all the damage done by oil production? Even with that catastrophic one time event, nuclear power is better than the others. Besides which, it only happened because the russians were trying to catch up with us and cut a number of corners. Chernobyl would not have happened in the US, our plants are designed with so many failsafes it borders on being ridiculous. So yes, giving a russian engineer a bottle of vodka and some uranium then sending him off to the wood shed to build a nuclear reactor can be dangerous, but the same doesn't hold true with sober american engineers under stringent safety guidelines. Hers, The French got two things right: they stayed out of Iraq. I wouldn't say they stayed out of iraq, they sent quite a few of their weapons there illegally during the 90s. So they did help to arm saddam and the terrorists, but did nothing to remove saddam or the terrorists. If that's your definition of noninvolvment then yes, france has stayed out of iraq. Nuclear power IS a lot safer than the days of TMI and Chernobyl, mojo, but the stigma is what the world will forever fear. I know a lot of people in the Navy who work in nuclear power systems, and they're top-flight talent. When they get into the private sector, the industry will blossom, I'm certain of it.
by Truthseeker013 on Thu Apr 28, 05 5:31pm
[+]
GWB's energy policy is a cosmetic attempt to convince us he is concerned with our over-reliance on oil for energy. Note carefully: all of his "solutions" are well off into the future when he will be out of office, but would convey immediate tax write-offs to many industrialists. He is trying to create a tax loophole large enough to drive an industry through. There is nothing in the pipe for immediate relief of fuel prices. Most troubling about the Bush folks is their obfuscation, shameless distortion, and doublespeak on just about everything. Bills introduced in the legislature are named in ways that indicate the opposite of their probable effect (case in point: GWB's "Clear Skies" Act. If passed, it will achieve just about the opposite of clear skies of clean air. It will rollback the emissions standards for coal-burning utilities to pre-1960's levels, and the skies will become something worse than "clear."
by griffon007 on Thu Apr 28, 05 10:46pm
[+]
The architecture of this site hates me, I think. I wasn't finished above. The actual intent of the President's speech tonight was to convice us he is trying to bring fuel prices down (which may happen in some deal with the oil devils), and to get us to support all these tax loopholes for his pals. Good ballot. Thanks.
by griffon007 on Thu Apr 28, 05 10:49pm
[+]
I gues king Saud didn't give him a reach around.
by AtrumAnimus on Mon Apr 24, 06 2:03pm
[+]
|