President Obama Re-Elected - Page 331

On August 24 2012 05:40 Signet wrote:

Haven't heard this claim before - what passage are you referring to?

On August 23 2012 20:43 AllSalesFinal wrote:


Your first point I really do not see a problem with that, Utilize the resources that are available, and frankly I'm not an environmentalist and really don't care about it =/.

Your second point about shifting powers to the states... You do realize that is how the government is supposed to operate right? The states are supposed to be able to govern on their own. The federal government is just supposed to make sure individual states don't secede from the union.

On August 24 2012 05:40 Signet wrote:

Haven't heard this claim before - what passage are you referring to?

On August 24 2012 05:54 screamingpalm wrote:


Environmental concerns on the first point, but this also ties in with his stance on renewable sources. If he would at least put forth some effort there, and if it is then determined we still need increased offshore drilling, then I would be more open to the idea.

I see energy policy as a nation-wide concern and not a local one. Just because I don't live in WV, doesn't mean I don't care if they get overzealous with mountain top removal. People who live in Maryland and Pennsylvania should have a right to be concerned about offshore drilling in VA and NC. And since I used to live in VA, I know how eager they are to rape and pillage the land of resources and over develop everything lol.

On August 24 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:

I don't know what he's referring to, but I'm guessing that it's something that's taken out of context. Hell, one of Catholicism's most celebrated events is the Immaculate Conception.

On August 24 2012 05:57 HunterX11 wrote:


Energy is one issue where both sides really do eschew practical measures for political reasons in that we really need to get behind nuclear energy yesterday if we want to mitigate the impact on our lifestyles when cheap energy becomes scarce.

On August 24 2012 06:12 BlueBird. wrote:
I don't mind a doctor(not polititian)wanting a ultrasound too determine whatever. The issue is forcing the girl/woman to look at her ultrasound. They can easily block her view

On August 24 2012 06:14 screamingpalm wrote:
I don't think nuclear power is the answer either, we need to look at sustainability and renewable sources. I think it is pretty clear that this is the future and the GOP's stale and stagnant policy will leave us trailing way behind nations who contiue to develop. Hell, even the Democrats' plans aren't aggressive enough in my opinion.

On August 24 2012 06:20 xDaunt wrote:

What exactly do you want the government to do? The billions of dollars that Obama invested into renewable energy development has been a horrific waste of money.

On August 24 2012 06:14 screamingpalm wrote:
I don't think nuclear power is the answer either, we need to look at sustainability and renewable sources. I think it is pretty clear that this is the future and the GOP's stale and stagnant policy will leave us trailing way behind nations who contiue to develop. Hell, even the Democrats' plans aren't aggressive enough in my opinion.

On August 24 2012 05:34 Souma wrote:


For me it's neither religion nor science. It's the mere fact that once the egg is fertilized, it's going to inevitably (with the exception of complications) become a human being. While it may not be considered 'human life,' it eventually will be. Now while most pro-choice advocates would be satisfied with the knowledge that it is not actual human life, my conscience will always remind me otherwise. It will always remind me that it could have been an individual, standing on its own two feet, and affecting the world in ways that will never be known.

On August 24 2012 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Nuclear power is extremely sustainable and is the cleanest energy we have. Nuclear reactors have come to be much more efficient, safe, and renewable. Modern reactors can have their waste turned into usable fuel. I agree that fossil fuels are really silly, as they pollute much more than any other alternative, but modern nuclear reactors are extremely good.

Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?

For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:
Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. See also here .
Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.

Definition of sustainability - what is sustainable?

«Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.»

This is probably the most broadly accepted definition of sustainability developed in 1987, by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). Instead of sustainability, often terms like sustainable development, sustainable prosperity or sustainable genuine progress are used. They more or less all mean the same as defined above. Details can be found e.g. in Wikipedia .


The Natural Step Framework's definition of sustainability includes four system conditions (scientific principles) that lead to a sustainable society. These conditions, that must be met in order to have a sustainable society, are as listed below.

In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;
concentrations of substances produced by society;
degradation by physical means and, in that society
the ability for humans to meet their needs is not systematically undermined.

On August 24 2012 06:35 DetriusXii wrote:


So do you get teary eyed for all the potential universes that were destroyed because of the choices you made and because the choices your parents made? I stayed in my office rather than going outside for lunch today. Should I now have to consider the circumstances of the lives that were destroyed because I didn't go outside for lunch today?

Here's an analogy to hard drives that could work fairly well. We don't generally mourn over the loss of an empty hard drive for the potential it could have had in holding information. We mourn over the loss of a hard drive that has current information though, like family photos, credit card information, and applications we install. Would you fret over an empty hard drive based on the fact that it could have had information of value to you on it or like most people, do you take it back to the retailer and ask for a refund?

On August 24 2012 06:03 xDaunt wrote:
What is this "both sides" business? While I'm sure there are some exceptions, republicans are for pretty much every kind of energy, including nuclear energy. The only thing that republicans aren't interested in is subsidizing the development of green energy sources. The democrats are clearly the only ones who are obstructing the development of fossil fuel and nuclear power.