Reply With Quote
Scary isn't it?
He was trying to shake hands with the moderater and did his cheesy fake acting when they kept going different directions around the table at the end.
Scary isn't it?
Too bad he didn't pick Ron Paul as his VP.
We really need nuclear energy back in this country.
How much uranium does the U.S. produce again? and how would that make us not dependent on foreign sources?
Did you see the handshake with Barack at the end? So fake on his part.
This is seriously the angle you're going to take in regards to why we should avoid nuclear energy? Because this is rather re ed.
nah. It was a good job. Good job. Good Job. GOOOOD JOB!!!111
Hey Manny
“The United States is dependent on Russia for a significant portion of [its] nuclear energy. I don’t think a lot of Americans know that.”
—Robert Ebel, Center for Strategic and International Studies
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705...nd_demand.html
NEVERMIND - this is from a different link, not yours.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...clear-faq.htmlIn the very long term, breeder reactors will be used. These get about 100 times as much energy from a kilogram of uranium as do present reactors. This makes the present stock of uranium go much farther. Indeed all the enriched uranium used in nuclear reactors and all the U-235 used in nuclear weapons has been separated from U-238, and the leftover U-238 is still available. If this U-238 were used to generate energy in breeder reactors and the electricity were sold at present prices, the present American stock of depleted uranium would generate $20 trillion worth of electricity. [Doubtless this number has changed one way or the other since the above was first written. I haven't time to keep updating it.
Surplus highly-enriched uranium (HEU), left over at the end of the Cold War, led the United States and Russia to a 1993 agreement—known as Megatons to Megawatts —to turn their weapons-grade material from warheads into nuclear fuel for use in commercial reactors through 2013. Under the agreement, five hundred tons of Russian HEU, equal to about twenty thousand nuclear warheads, was to be “down blended” in Russia with feedstock uranium or low-enriched uranium into about fifteen thousand tons of nuclear fuel that would be shipped to U.S. utilities through the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a nongovernment en y.
As of 2006, about 275 tons of HEU, equal to about thirteen thousand warheads, has been turned into about eight thousand tons of fuel for which the Russian government received more than $5 billion. According to the World Nuclear Association, the military materials supply about 50 percent of U.S. reactor fuel or 13 percent of the world’s total fuel requirements. “The United States is dependent on Russia for a significant portion of [its] nuclear energy. I don’t think a lot of Americans know that,” said Robert E. Ebel a nuclear analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Next time don't just post the quote, post it in context. WHY are we dependent on Russia? Because it was a use for leftover warhead material and the result of a downsizing of nuclear weapons stocks and an agreement between the US and Russia. NOT because we have to import from them.
Who is the largest producer of high grade Uranium ore boutons? Its in that link you provided.
Here, let me help you
Close to five million tons of naturally occurring uranium is known to be recoverable. Australia leads with more than one million tons (about 24 percent of the world’s known supply), followed by Kazakhstan, with over 800,000 tons or 17 percent of known supplies. Canada’s supplies are slightly less than 10 percent of the world’s total, while the United States and South Africa have about 7 percent each.
In a 2006 background paper (PDF), the German research organization Energy Watch Group notes the overall amount of uranium is less important than the grade of uranium ore. The less uranium in the ore, the higher the overall processing costs will be for the amount obtained. The group contends that worldwide rankings mean little, then, when one considers that only Canada has a significant amount of ore above 1 percent—up to about 20 percent of the country’s total reserves. In Australia, on the other hand, some 90 percent of uranium has a grade of less than 0.06 percent. Much of Kazakhstan’s ore is less than 0.1 percent.
Gee, such an unsafe source for the US.
This is the section of the debate I was talking about earlier. Obama was doing a masterful job of defending himself while throwing out a few nice barbs of his own. But then all of a sudden he turned into Keith Olbermann playing the self woe-is-me card. I thought he could have gotten the exact same message across without trying to score sympathy points by just taking out the bold section.
Obviously those comments at the rallies were totally uncalled for but why even give those stupid comments even more legs? Obama wasn't defending himself or refuting something McCain said. He had successfully tackled the John Lewis drama but decided to milk it just a bit too much for my taste. Instead of sounding presidential, he sounded like some emotional blowhard like Jesse Jackson for a second.
But like I said, that was a personal critique. It won't make a ripple anywhere. Maybe no one else will agree with me, so it's not a big deal. Obama still won the debate and is the overwhelming favorite to win the election. Hopefully this is the last time Obama goes down that woe-is-me road and continues to be the strong leader I think he can be.
I have no idea what people are smoking but McCain destroyed Obama in this debate....destroyed him. One of the most one sided debates I have ever seen.
Libs are going to think Obama won...conservatives are pissed at some of McCain left leaning policies...as a moderate, he was pure gold tonight...every word.
Obama did not say anything substantial...but then he never does and still gets propped unjustly for it.
I predict this debate will show up in the polls.
Honestly...the only reason to vote for Obama is his race. There's nothing else of substance to him and everything he says is naive or clueless.
Obama supporters are wearing shirts that say Palin is a .
son you have to understand that these Obama sheep will NEVER go against their Lord regardless of any situation. He is their heavenly father ... their chosen one ... the almighty Lord Barack Hussein Obama. you have to understand that Lord Barack is worshiped more than any other political figure in U.S. history. these devoted, loyal sheep known as liberal democrats have long been awaiting a Messiah that they can rely on to make them happy ... Lord Barack Hussein Obama has answered their call.
LOL whatever makes you feel better man...this debate was more one sided than any others in this election or any in 2000 or 2004.
The same polls you discredit every chance you get?
You don't seem to have a problem voting for Palin who is at least 10x more clueless...
Do you teach at a Public School? My wife teaches in a Charter School, and her friend that teaches at an inner city Public School told her that her Charter School was getting all of the problem kids from their Schools (read: lazy, uninvolved, often uneducated parents in the Public Schools blamed the Teachers in the Public Schools for their childs failing grades, and believe that a change in Schools, not a change in their lazy ways, is the answer to their childs problems), they're not getting the cream of the crop from the Public Schools, if the kids are doing well in the Public Schools, why should they pull them and send them to a Charter School?
Test scores in the Public Schools were already anemic, and have been for the past 30 or so years, it's not a problem that's just cropped up.
The cut funding is a direct result of a failed education system, much of the blame goes to the Parents, but the teachers share a part of the blame. If their not getting an education, their funding should be cut (funding per pupil has been steadily rising, something around $8,800 per, and the grades don't improve, so more money is not the problem).
There are mega distractions for kids and a formal education can be tedious, put this combination together and you had better have a parent (ideally two), on top of their kids to ensure that they are staying on task, to the children's detriment, this is not happening!Kids aren't inherently resistant to knowledge no matter how poor/otherwise disadvantaged they may be.
Do you have a solution for these parents? If not, you have no viable solution to the education problem.
It's been broke for decades and needs to be totally revamped, but regardless of how qualified the teachers are, or how much money is thrown at the problem, that doesn't solve the major problem, lazy, uninvolved, uncaring parents, that's out of the Governments control.People treat the public school system like they do so many other things -- it suddenly, magically broke and can't be fixed, so it's time to move on to the next option.
My Dad and I were just talking about this.
I actually think McCain won this debate, but my Dad was furious with his showing.
It had nothing to do with his policies. Rather, he felt like McCain had Obama on the ropes several times, but didn't follow through.
My Dad also felt like Scheiffer helped McCain out at times, but McCain didn't capitalize on it.
The same polls I claim are heavily weighted in favor of Obama.
sons the polls don't mean ! anyone who follows them and thinks that they are a guaranteed outcome for Nov 4 is a damn fool! (see elections 2000 and 2004)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
