PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama makes you drive a clown car, approves new Nuc Plant for United Arab Emirates


HonestChieffan
05-24-2009, 06:52 AM
Obama Okays Dubai/UAE Nuclear Deal
From a delighted Agence France-Presse:


Obama approves UAE civil nuclear deal
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President Barack Obama on Thursday approved a civilian nuclear deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which some observers see as striking a contrast with Iran’s defiant nuclear drive.

Obama sent the deal, negotiated by the previous Bush administration to Congress, which must now decide within 90 days whether to block the pact, which provides for US-UAE cooperation on peaceful uses of nuclear energy…

The deal — which comes even as the United States is spearheading a campaign against Iran’s nuclear drive — involves the exchange of nuclear materials and components for civilian use.

It is the first such deal between the United States and a Middle Eastern nation.

One wonders how much this is in the interest of the US since many articles, such as this one from Islam Online reports:

US President, Barack Obama has approved plans to help the UAE become the first Arab nation with a nuclear power industry, to help it cope with its growing electricity demands. The UAE will begin selecting construction companies this autumn for reactor work, with firms from Japan, France, Russia expected to bid.

Perhaps it was a requirement for Mr. Obama that the US not gain from this noble effort.

Too bad we can’t try this at home, huh?

Dave Lane
05-24-2009, 07:25 AM
the deal, negotiated by the previous Bush administration

banyon
05-24-2009, 08:13 AM
I didn't realize Obama had a bill specifically targeted at you to make you drive a car that would identify you and warn others you were approaching.

Pitt Gorilla
05-24-2009, 08:49 AM
I didn't realize Obama had a bill specifically targeted at you to make you drive a car that would identify you and warn others you were approaching.Eh, Obama already put him in a clown suit, so the car just completes the ensemble.

mlyonsd
05-24-2009, 08:53 AM
I think the irony is we can sell our nuclear technology for energy purposes but are too afraid to use it ourselves.

HonestChieffan
05-24-2009, 09:04 AM
I think the irony is we can sell our nuclear technology for energy purposes but are too afraid to use it ourselves.

Well it took a while but finally someone actually got the point.....But you will be forced to buy cars that are not what you want in a few years.

wild1
05-24-2009, 09:13 AM
I think the irony is we can sell our nuclear technology for energy purposes but are too afraid to use it ourselves.

the state legislature actually banned the use of nuclear energy here. combine that with all the immigration and i wouldn't be surprised if there were brownouts on the horizon.

but maybe we can avoid it by - i know! making taxes on energy so artificially high that people ration it themselves! sort of like the diane sawyer thread.

this is the left's strategy on energy i guess - make you pay more but get less.

mlyonsd
05-24-2009, 09:23 AM
Well it took a while but finally someone actually got the point.....But you will be forced to buy cars that are not what you want in a few years.

I'm with you on the nuclear thing. If we're serious about reducing emissions nuclear is by far the best way to go. From an economic POV at least.

I disagree a bit about the cars though. IMO it is our best interest to get off the dependency for foreign oil and I think raising MPG numbers is an important part of that.

Where the left fails though is to admit that for us to become entirely independent we will need to produce more of our own oil. We'll never make that goal if we don't.

Unless of course the public turns completely away from gas burning autos, which brings us back full circle to how important it is to generate electricty most efficiently, i.e nuclear.

HonestChieffan
05-24-2009, 09:38 AM
I have no opposition to conservation and I firmly believe the market would have forced all car makers to develop greater economy in most lines. The opposition I have is people who know zero about cars, car manufacturing, and the like just mandating some number...we have been here before and when it gets to crunch time...they will get a bye.

HonestChieffan
05-24-2009, 09:40 AM
Im still waiting for the air up your tires mandate that Obo floated way back when...and Id sure think a 55 mph speed limit is needed as well. But the people wont support any conservation effort that really involves them. Its sad.

chiefforlife
05-24-2009, 10:07 AM
Im still waiting for the air up your tires mandate that Obo floated way back when...and Id sure think a 55 mph speed limit is needed as well. But the people wont support any conservation effort that really involves them. Its sad.

It wasnt a MANDATE, it was a suggestion on how we could immediately improve our own consumption. Which happens to be true.

I dont like the idea of helping the UAE do this or the fact that no US companies are going to bid on the project. We just keep doing things that are NOT in our best interest...

Dave Lane
05-24-2009, 11:14 AM
I disagree a bit about the cars though. IMO it is our best interest to get off the dependency for foreign oil and I think raising MPG numbers is an important part of that.


AGREE TOTALLY


Where the left fails though is to admit that for us to become entirely independent we will need to produce more of our own oil. We'll never make that goal if we don't.

Wrong this is a VERY short term and stop gap measure. Solar and Wind generating electricity is the long term key to energy independence. All our oil reserves including ANWAR is only 13 years of our current consumption. Breaking away from oil is important and nuclear is wonderful but a Chernobyl type accident would make 911 look like a bicycle accident.

Dave Lane
05-24-2009, 11:17 AM
I have no opposition to conservation and I firmly believe the market would have forced all car makers to develop greater economy in most lines. The opposition I have is people who know zero about cars, car manufacturing, and the like just mandating some number...we have been here before and when it gets to crunch time...they will get a bye.

So the panel which was put together with all the auto executives the unions, state governors and environmental groups know less about this than you do? Brilliant!

HonestChieffan
05-24-2009, 11:29 AM
So the panel which was put together with all the auto executives the unions, state governors and environmental groups know less about this than you do? Brilliant!

You will be the first on your block to drive one of the clown cars im sure. Unions....come on, and governors? Hell did Blago have input? Or crazy Sebeliuswhohatesenergyplants? I bet the Naturepeople are really tuned up on cars too...

Do you dream these things?

Oh...your anti drill here position is absurd.

Dave Lane
05-24-2009, 12:55 PM
Oh...your anti drill here position is absurd.

Explain the logic underlying this conclusion.

Will the oil evaporate if we don't drill today? Will the Chinese "drink our milkshake?" is there a hurry? Maybe in 2025 when oil reserves are totally tapped and we still haven't weaned ourselves off oil we can get $800 a barrel for it.

I see it as a strategic reserve stored in the ground. We can get it whenever we really need it.

mlyonsd
05-24-2009, 01:54 PM
Wrong this is a VERY short term and stop gap measure. Solar and Wind generating electricity is the long term key to energy independence. All our oil reserves including ANWAR is only 13 years of our current consumption. Breaking away from oil is important and nuclear is wonderful but a Chernobyl type accident would make 911 look like a bicycle accident.

I was talking about two entirely different issues, oil energy for cars, and nuclear generation for electricity.

The more fuel efficient our cars become added to the more oil we produce ourselves automatically reduces our dependence for foreign oil. We'll never get truly independent if we don't start producing more of our own. I do think our oil use will someday be almost nothing, but not in mine or my kid's lifetime.

Solar and wind will never replace the amount of electricty generated by fossil fuels. Sure it has some merit but if you're truly interested in replacing burning coal and natural gas nuclear has to be used to fill the gap.

There are currently more than a 100 nuclear generating plants in the US and you don't hear a peep out of them. Spewing rhetoric about a Chernobyl style accident either means you're fear mongering or watch too much Homer Simpson.

Dave Lane
05-24-2009, 02:48 PM
I was talking about two entirely different issues, oil energy for cars, and nuclear generation for electricity.

The more fuel efficient our cars become added to the more oil we produce ourselves automatically reduces our dependence for foreign oil. We'll never get truly independent if we don't start producing more of our own. I do think our oil use will someday be almost nothing, but not in mine or my kid's lifetime.

Solar and wind will never replace the amount of electricty generated by fossil fuels. Sure it has some merit but if you're truly interested in replacing burning coal and natural gas nuclear has to be used to fill the gap.

There are currently more than a 100 nuclear generating plants in the US and you don't hear a peep out of them. Spewing rhetoric about a Chernobyl style accident either means you're fear mongering or watch too much Homer Simpson.

The effects of an accident are way too horrifying to even consider but the even slightest chance gives me great pause. If they put them all in Montana or Wyoming and connect them to the grid then I love the idea. We already have one near KC now so that's enough for me. I LOVE the idea of nuclear its outstanding but potentially very very dangerous.

Solar is really the shit if we can get good quality photovoltaic cells. Unlimited free energy everyday. Geo thermal and wind have good possibilities too.

StcChief
05-24-2009, 07:39 PM
Obama Okays Dubai/UAE Nuclear Deal
From a delighted Agence France-Presse:


Obama approves UAE civil nuclear deal
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President Barack Obama on Thursday approved a civilian nuclear deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which some observers see as striking a contrast with Iran’s defiant nuclear drive.

Obama sent the deal, negotiated by the previous Bush administration to Congress, which must now decide within 90 days whether to block the pact, which provides for US-UAE cooperation on peaceful uses of nuclear energy…

The deal — which comes even as the United States is spearheading a campaign against Iran’s nuclear drive — involves the exchange of nuclear materials and components for civilian use.

It is the first such deal between the United States and a Middle Eastern nation.

One wonders how much this is in the interest of the US since many articles, such as this one from Islam Online reports:

US President, Barack Obama has approved plans to help the UAE become the first Arab nation with a nuclear power industry, to help it cope with its growing electricity demands. The UAE will begin selecting construction companies this autumn for reactor work, with firms from Japan, France, Russia expected to bid.

Perhaps it was a requirement for Mr. Obama that the US not gain from this noble effort.

Too bad we can’t try this at home, huh? at least the nuclear plant will be closer for the terrorists to attack.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-24-2009, 10:15 PM
We just keep doing things that are NOT in our best interest...

Welcome to the enemy of America, Globalism.

KC Dan
05-25-2009, 11:23 AM
The effects of an accident are way too horrifying to even consider but the even slightest chance gives me great pause. If they put them all in Montana or Wyoming and connect them to the grid then I love the idea. We already have one near KC now so that's enough for me. I LOVE the idea of nuclear its outstanding but potentially very very dangerous.
NIMBY, unbelievable...

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 11:31 AM
The effects of an accident are way too horrifying to even consider but the even slightest chance gives me great pause. If they put them all in Montana or Wyoming and connect them to the grid then I love the idea. We already have one near KC now so that's enough for me. I LOVE the idea of nuclear its outstanding but potentially very very dangerous.



Thats what they told the Wright Brothers....Let me get you a shovel so you can get your head buried really well in the sand.

wild1
05-25-2009, 11:46 AM
The effects of an accident are way too horrifying to even consider but the even slightest chance gives me great pause. If they put them all in Montana or Wyoming and connect them to the grid then I love the idea. We already have one near KC now so that's enough for me. I LOVE the idea of nuclear its outstanding but potentially very very dangerous

It's good to see that 1950s paranoia still rules the day on nuclear energy