Why are we still using the conventional reactors around the world instead of another application?

ANSWER: Military Industrial Complex can't stockpile weapon-grade plutonium using saner means like saaaay, thorium.Thorium-based nuclear power reactors are not in use because they don't serve the purpose of the planet-destroyers.

The current lame duck president and most-likely the next will back construction of more shit plants, as well as tout these conventional types of reactors for the use in "greening" up the planet.

People need to educate themselves perhaps, then demand that the cunts of the world move somewhere off-planet within the next ten years.

Solution? A few suggestions:

Space Catapult
Eradicate the power-hungry and their bloodlines
Legalize Homicide of Politicians/Mafiosi/Organized crime of any kind

No more blue-fin tuna for me...

Heard in passing the official stance second-hand on NPR (National Promulgation Regurgitatio) from the fake president that Greenwald here refers to and can't stand the lame-duck fuck with renewed gusto.

Fair enough ma'am, and as to my sincerity I consider such assertions to be somewhat subjective in light of association and nearness to your heart......and if my memory serves me incorrectly as to his mission, passion, or prominence I do with all heart and sincerity apologize once again.

Hearsay is in fact, what prompted my accusatory tone, I seem to recall someone having told me he was in fact, working for the Obama campaign in some form or another which in my personal playbook would include pejoratively your man in the ranks of similar eager apologists for the lame-duck's fan-club. I was never a fan of the damaged President, his works have proven his mettle thus far to have been a dire shame to America rather than some savior or healing saint.

You may believe me mint, that I harbor no ill-will whatsoever to your man, or to his sincerity and passion for the healing of this country. I simply consider fans of anyone whose knowledge of the facts consists of promulgated sound-bites and half-truths at face value, self-deceit of the highest order. I do respect his mind and heart, his passion and dedication to ultimate truth and peace.

As to my sanity well, what IS sanity would be my question and who if anyone is qualified to make such a bold assumption as to another person's mind? I maintain that nobody holds the keys to that mysterious kingdom and would offer, that my own dysfunction lies in my inability to use language very well, to express my emotions and angst, my joy and contentment, that all may understand and relate to. We all have our problems and mine are several and constant-Expression of heart comes at a great price for me. I am an angry person, a thoughtful person, a sincerely confused and connected person, and all humans share this with every other, with no exceptions.

If I may be called a shill as well, my fanaticism rests in the camp of understanding who and what I am relative to the rest of the human race.

We're all works-in-progress until we stop sucking air and pumping blood, my hope is to remain incarnate for another 1000 years, at which point I may become an adolescent just passing the age of reason (7 years old in human dog years)!

I hope you come back strong and NetRunner too, in 2014. I welcome what everyone has to share. Sorry I was such a dick in the past-

I won't promise that you will not see it again, keeping oneself in check is a 24/7, 365 chore.

Peace and understanding to all members of this site, and above all, love.

I think the whole notion that Iowa gets invalidated if Paul wins is bogus.

That said, Paul is not a threat at all to Obama in the general. He has too many fringe views on domestic and foreign policy. Even aside from my pet peeve (civil rights), most Americans, despite their lip service otherwise, are for big federal government programs, departments, and institutions that Paul would abolish or severely cut.

It would also be easy to portray Paul as a lame duck president on day one, one that would have problems rallying his own caucus in congress to enact his policies.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^quantumushroom:
taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I would be greatly surprised if any significant number of Obama supporters would be pulling for Ron Paul because they think he'd be an easy opponent.
I feel like Paul and Romney are the only candidates that can pose a threat. Paul has a loyal anti-war following that crosses party lines and Romney is probably far more popular among independents than any of the other Republicans and maybe even Obama. The biggest hurdle for either of these guys is to win over their own party. Actually, I think Huntsman would have a good chance in the general election as well. He just can't seem to get anyone to pay attention to him now.
But the point is, Paul is not the "easy win" for Obama. Bachmann is. Cain probably would have been. Santorum is, too.
I'd vote for Paul next year as well, if he's there. Especially if we get Gary Johnson on the card with him. Normally I don't care that much about the VP, but at Paul's age we need a good backup plan.

Lame ducks need to be *kill ed

>> ^goemon:

@SDGundamX Thanks for the additional background check on the video.
So, do you think the Japanese government is doing all it can to inform and protect their citizens?


I see little evidence of some big cover-up going on, as some have suggested. But there are clearly lots of mistakes being made. I would compare it to Katrina in the U.S. because it seems like the same kinds of difficulties are being faced--slow response times, bureaucratic management issues, lack of a clear plan, etc. The current political situation in Japan (Kan is currently a lame duck Prime Minister who refuses to step down) makes getting anything done extremely hard. Complicating matters even more is the fact that Tokyo Electric is a private company and not government-owned and they apparently aren't coordinating that well with the government in formulating a response, which sometimes results in press conferences where Tokyo Electric says one thing only to be completely contradicted by a Japanese government official in a subsequent press conference.

Certainly Fukushima residents have lots to complain about. For example, in the full version of the meeting, the government officials get asked if the government is taking into account internal radiation exposure (from inhaling or ingesting radioactive materials like Cesium) when determining "safe" radiation exposure levels (currently set at 20 mSv/year for Fukushima residents outside the mandatory evacuation zone). It's a great question. The government's response was along the lines that they are still investigating the issue, but that it is complicated by the fact that there's lots of research on "safe" external exposure levels but not nearly as much on internal exposure levels to the the types of materials (Cesium-137, for instance) that were released in the accident. That makes it difficult to determine a "safe" limit. Clearly that's not an answer that's going to put any Fukushima resident's mind at ease.

EDIT:

Just wanted to add that I give props to the government guys who showed up for this meeting. If you watch the 2.5 hour vid, you'll see they calmly put up with all of the interruptions and try their best to honestly answer the questions posed to them. Many of them show sincere sympathy to the people gathered there and express their understanding of the frustration they are facing. They look like they actually came expecting a dialogue rather than an inquisition. I probably would have walked out after the 1st hour but they remain until the very end of the meeting. The vid posted here makes it seem like they abruptly left but in the full version you can see the person who is chairing/MC'ing the meeting thanks them for coming and concludes the meeting. It was after the conclusion of the meeting that the urine-chasers appeared.

Too funny that amidst everyone saying that he's a Muslim, one guy says that Obama's liberalism is the least-tolerant "religion" of all.

Seriously, they should start holding these focus groups all over America and just gas them. It's cruel, but you have to keep in mind the greater good. Think of George's act of compassion towards Lennie in "Of Mice and Men."

That said, Obama's a lame-duck lackey.

My TV license fee was used to make THAT?? What is THAT??

Normally I'm cool with the shows that the BBC use our license fee to create, from Richard Attenborough documentaries through coverage of F1 motorsport and even the sometimes zany but oft enjoyable Doctor Who, not forgetting of course the always amusing Graham Norton for mocking our celebrities to their faces on his chat show.

Am I just being a lame duck and not getting the funny? I'm fairly sure the "What am I?" "Curious." gag has been done to death throughout the history of the English language so I'm suspecting there may be another gag in the clip that has gone straight over my head...

So here's my take on this whole thing. Basically, Obama is being shortsighted.

During the primary in 2008, Democrats had a choice between a hard-nosed centrist who was an experienced inside the beltway deal maker, and a passionate, idealistic newcomer who had little patience for the kinds of backroom dealings that tend to dominate our political process.

It's true that in terms of specific platforms, Clinton and Obama were almost indistinguishable. The difference was that Clinton presented that moderate, centrist platform as though it was some utopian dream, whereas Obama presented it as just what was possible now, while painting a picture of what more could be possible if we could change the political landscape by electing such an inspiring visionary.

Long story short, that's what we did.

Thing is, that person who had become the inspiring leader of a renewed progressive movement disappeared November 5th, 2008.

After that day, what we got was a not very hard-nosed centrist who was hoping to quickly become an experienced inside the beltway deal maker. He stopped trying to present his inspiring progressive vision to the American people. Instead, he basically spent all his time saying to liberals "no no, conservatives have a valid point of view." Frankly, that's insane for anyone to think anymore, and completely wrong for the leader of the primary political opposition to conservatism to say out loud, much less say in front of cameras.

He has, ever since he was inaugurated, acted like he doesn't need to reach out to the American people at all. What started as a reasonable strategy of ignoring the uglier, crazier things said about him in the media quickly became a refusal to fight for any news cycle. It seemed he had this naive idea that if he ignored politics, and focused on the mundane aspects of governance, the politics would take care of itself.

The problem with that is that the way you acquire the power to govern is by playing and winning the political game. Winning a term of office isn't the end of your political campaign, it's just another chapter. That's doubly true if you're aiming to do big things. By focusing on the inside the beltway deal making, he's ignoring the bigger picture. If he spent more time trying to rally the public to his cause, and making sure the Democratic positions on issues were being clearly expressed to the public, he'd find that when it came time to negotiate legislation, he'd be starting from a much stronger position.

This tax cut thing seems to be the ultimate culmination of this trend. He's not said one damn thing about it for almost 2 years, until the Republicans made a stink about it in the run up to the election, and rather than reiterate his position from 2008, and make that the clear, unambiguous party line that he'd veto anything but his tax plan, he and the rest of the Democrats kinda just ran away from the issue and hid, and then finally said they'd "address" the issue in the lame duck session after the election.

Democrats have a strong position on this: they still have their large majorities in both chambers of Congress, the majority of the people say they prefer Obama's tax plan, and the best part is that if nothing passes, all the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone, so if the Republican block Obama's tax cut, they'll be doubly responsible for the tax increases. Plus, with all the deficit bullshit we've been hearing, it seems like it'd be worth reminding people that the tax cuts are responsible for most of our debt, and that the more we extend them, the worse the budget picture looks.

But instead of having the fight, Obama just goes ahead and says "I'll do anything to just make sure the taxes on the middle class don't go up, what do you want in exchange for a couple votes?" to the Republicans, and they amazingly extract a huge list of concessions from Obama.

Obama justifies this thusly:

I've said before that I felt that the middle class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high end tax cuts. I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.

Yeah, but you kinda fail to understand that there's a larger picture here. Because you've fucked up the politics of this, no one's going to remember that the Republicans took anyone hostage. Mostly they'll just remember that you said you're not going to renew the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and then did it anyways.

The Republicans will learn (as if they didn't know before), that they can always count on you to cave when hostages are taken.

You know the debt limit needs to be raised in March of 2011, right Obama? You know they're gonna hold that hostage, right? You know unemployment benefits? Those will be held hostage again too, and I guarantee we'll need them in a year. How about just budget resolutions? Remember the government shutdown in the 90's? They wanna do that again.

This is a fucking war. Compromise isn't something that happens at the beginning of these things, it's the cease fire agreement that comes after you've unleashed hell on them and tried to defeat them outright. They are out to destroy you, and the Democratic party at all costs. They don't give a fuck about what's good for the country, or anyone but their cadre of corporate interests. All they care about is getting and retaining power, so they can be rewarded by their masters.

You need to come to grips with that, and quickly, or we're all going to wind up paying for your naivete.

>> ^entr0py:

Good to see old Grayson isn't going quietly after the harsh lame ducking he received. If he doesn't have plans to do a useful job, he would make a good pundit.


He already is a very successful trial lawyer and multimillionaire.

Good to see old Grayson isn't going quietly after the harsh lame ducking he received. If he doesn't have plans to do a useful job, he would make a good pundit.

Interesting that the interviewee said that moving these corporate donations out into the open would be a first step into fixing some of the damage since buying elections is still something that we wouldn't do in the public eye -- I doubt that taboo is strong enough to limit things much at all. Hell, Fox News would probably be proud to hold a fundraiser and publicly disclose / brag about how much they raked in for republican / T.P. candidate X.

I'm rather disgusted that this has come to pass. The only way the "lame duck" legislative branch could even make headway towards redeeming itself would be to pass through *far* more drastic campaign finance reforms AND institute single-term limits for both the senate and house. I don't trust anyone being fed massive sums of money by corporations for more than a single term.

Yes, it gets sifted not because he is a meat head. Because its a person smashing a bottle clear into their forehead, and then dramatically talking to the audience. What I posted and what you post are two totally different types of video.

I can somewhat understand the phrase " gets sifted " I have said that before when I had gold in my Que and something I felt was stupid got sifted. I have come to understand the politics and all other aspects that the sift is thick with.

From my end, the scenario I laid out was vary apparent, I wont go on debating the issue but thank you for the clarification.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
My original comment was in jest. People claim that MMA is 'barbaric spectacle' and yet a video of a meathead breaking a glass bottle on his own face gets sifted.

There was no spite in the downvote, I just didn't feel the video offered anything of value.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
who voted against this video
xxovercastxx

Thats just lame. Boo hoo hoo, you watched a wrestling video from over 20 years ago, and equate it to your MMA videos. Your one lame duck. quack your self pity on your own videos.

who voted against this video
xxovercastxx

Thats just lame. Boo hoo hoo, you watched a wrestling video from over 20 years ago, and equate it to your MMA videos. Your one lame duck. quack your self pity on your own videos.

>> ^gwiz665:
Patriotism is a lame duck, it's basically a religion. Pledging allegiance to a power structure designed to empower some over others (the others often being you). People say it's loving your country, but that's just an arbitrary piece of land - it does not do anything you can say you love, it just is. Patriotism is just bending over backwards for the leader do jour, "we love you, god emperor of my country", wrapped in a flag.
All the good things are the lands itself, while all the bad things are the people running it. It's confusing.


Actually, no. Allegiance and patriotism are separate things. True patriotism is more like pure communism. Love of the community, not the leader or country. Many patriots are credited with overthrowing their leadership.

Although... patriotism IS on the other side of a thin line from facism.