To those concerned Obama was anti-nuclear (IntLibber)

[Maui]

In this thread (and the one that preceeded it) there were some claiming Obama was anti-nuclear.

Thought you might be interested in what Obama's pick for energy chief says:

Q. Should fission-based nuclear power plants be made a bigger part of the energy-producing portfolio?

Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early '70s...

(Steven Chu interviewed)

Also:

"Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio"

Nobel winner: Nuke power must be part of the equation

[IntLibber]

In this thread (and the one that preceeded it) there were some claiming Obama was anti-nuclear.

Thought you might be interested in what Obama's pick for energy chief says:

Q. Should fission-based nuclear power plants be made a bigger part of the energy-producing portfolio?

Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early '70s...

(Steven Chu interviewed)

Also:

"Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio"

Nobel winner: Nuke power must be part of the equation

I really hope they are being honest here, however Obama is a past master at this sort of dishonesty. Like his stances on offshore drilling and gun control. When the polls show the public supports a stance he disagrees with, he flips to act like he agreed with the opposing opinion all along but puts in caveats like "sensible" and "reasonable" and "safe limits" and such.

It is just as easy for fission to be "part of the equation" at 1% as it can at 20%. Being "part of the equation" is not a valid answer, it is bureaucratic BS, as much as Obama's ancestors once toiled under the "separate but equal" equation of racial equality in America.

This is not an unsupported position of mine. He did the same thing on gun control when the supreme court issued the Heller decision. After a lifetime of legislating against the 2nd amendment and gun rights at the local, state, and federal level (he has NEVER voted for a bill that supported 2nd amendment rights, he has always voted in favor of even the most restrictive gun ban/gun control legislation), he then says "I have always supported the 2nd Amendment and agree that 'reasonable limits' are constitutional...." The devil is in the details on exactly what he thinks are "reasonable limits" vs what gun owners believe.

Same goes for nuclear power. Being "part of the equation" means you can have a negative value. Having a "seat at the table" means you will be present when they screw you over, without a vote yourself. "Reasonable limits" means they will always have reasons for their tyranny.

I am not a republican either, I distrust them slightly less only because, unlike the democrats, they have never treated me as a threat to national security for being a law abiding gun owning american citizen.

[djolds1]

It is just as easy for fission to be "part of the equation" at 1% as it can at 20%. Being "part of the equation" is not a valid answer, it is bureaucratic BS,

Possibly true. Time will tell. Obama seems to have no problem throwing people or even factions of the Democratic Party "under the bus" when convenient, so we'll see.

as much as Obama's ancestors once toiled under the "separate but equal" equation of racial equality in America.

Obama's ancestors never "toiled" under that system. His mother is Anglo, his father Kenyan.

[IntLibber]

It is just as easy for fission to be "part of the equation" at 1% as it can at 20%. Being "part of the equation" is not a valid answer, it is bureaucratic BS,

Possibly true. Time will tell. Obama seems to have no problem throwing people or even factions of the Democratic Party "under the bus" when convenient, so we'll see.

as much as Obama's ancestors once toiled under the "separate but equal" equation of racial equality in America.

Obama's ancestors never "toiled" under that system. His mother is Anglo, his father Kenyan.

Fair point. But you understand my meaning.

I dont go by rhetoric, I go by voting records, and Obama's is one of the most liberal in congress, and one of the most liberal in Illinois, which is really saying something.

[hanelyp]

When the man campaigned on a politics of envy tax policy, that by itself was enough to convince me I do NOT want him in power. Add in his fingerprints on the mortgage balloon, his association with terrorists (no relation to those of the islamist persuasion, that I know of), and everything else, he can't be discredited and run out of town fast enough for me.

[Soylent]

It's necessary to get behind someone in order to stab them in the back.

This doesn't mean that I distrust Obama or dislike his choice of Steven Chu; it's just a matter of fact that it's much easier for your criticism to be taken seriously if you are percieved as being part of a group of people who are able to speak authoratively on the matter rather than some group of liars and douché bags(e.g. Green peace, club of Rome).

[Roger]

voting records, and Obama's is one of the most liberal in congress, .

Citation please.

[MSimon]

Loved your new sig Roger:

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10120

Except for one thing. I'm going to get a lot more false positives on my Google Alerts.

Oh. Well. I'll at least be apprised of the latest in Democrat politics. Good and bad.

May I suggest a slight change: Polywell Fusion - the future of humanity.

[Roger]

Any congressional scorecard will do, from any non partisan or partisan group from the left or right.

No op eds, or editorial boards allowed.

[Roger]

ALCU 109th congress

Senate
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter? ... gScorecard

Joe Leiberman 75%

Lincon Chaffee 75%

Barack Obama 83%

Chuck Schumer 83%

Hillary Clinton 83%

Richard Durbin 92%

Daniel Akaka 92%

Paul Sarbanes 92%

Joe Biden 92%

Carl Levin 92%

Ron Wyden 92%

Tom Harkin 100%

Jon Corzine 100%

Russ Feingold 100%

Patrick Leahy 100%

House
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter? ... t&lcmd_cf=

Grijalva, Raul 100%

Pastor, Ed 100%

Etc.

Unless of course liberals don't even know a liberal when they see one.

[alexjrgreen]

This is not an unsupported position of mine. He did the same thing on gun control when the supreme court issued the Heller decision. After a lifetime of legislating against the 2nd amendment and gun rights at the local, state, and federal level (he has NEVER voted for a bill that supported 2nd amendment rights, he has always voted in favor of even the most restrictive gun ban/gun control legislation), he then says "I have always supported the 2nd Amendment and agree that 'reasonable limits' are constitutional...." The devil is in the details on exactly what he thinks are "reasonable limits" vs what gun owners believe.

I am not a republican either, I distrust them slightly less only because, unlike the democrats, they have never treated me as a threat to national security for being a law abiding gun owning american citizen.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

1. What is your rank in the Militia?
2. Who is your Commanding Officer?

[IntLibber]

This is not an unsupported position of mine. He did the same thing on gun control when the supreme court issued the Heller decision. After a lifetime of legislating against the 2nd amendment and gun rights at the local, state, and federal level (he has NEVER voted for a bill that supported 2nd amendment rights, he has always voted in favor of even the most restrictive gun ban/gun control legislation), he then says "I have always supported the 2nd Amendment and agree that 'reasonable limits' are constitutional...." The devil is in the details on exactly what he thinks are "reasonable limits" vs what gun owners believe.

I am not a republican either, I distrust them slightly less only because, unlike the democrats, they have never treated me as a threat to national security for being a law abiding gun owning american citizen.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

1. What is your rank in the Militia?
2. Who is your Commanding Officer?

I refer you to Heller vs District of Columbia as well as Title 10 USC Section 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

DC v Heller:

"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals." This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.

The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:

* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century; and
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).

Alex, the last time a Brit thought he could dictate to us Americans about our ability to keep and bear, y'all got sent packing. The right to keep and bear arms was not just a preexisting right under the English Bill of Rights (a document generally nonexistent and unobserved in its native land today), though limited by some racism and religious bigotry, but thats par for the course with English of that day and age.

This is not a debate you have any hope of winning with me.

[alexjrgreen]

Alex, the last time a Brit thought he could dictate to us Americans about our ability to keep and bear, y'all got sent packing. The right to keep and bear arms was not just a preexisting right under the English Bill of Rights (a document generally nonexistent and unobserved in its native land today), though limited by some racism and religious bigotry, but thats par for the course with English of that day and age.

This is not a debate you have any hope of winning with me.

You make assumptions about what I'm debating, and you mistake my intent.

The phrase "(2) the unorganized militia" in § 311 is not consistent with either "A well regulated Militia" in the 2nd Amendment, or "a well-trained citizen militia" in DC v Heller.

[djolds1]

Fair point. But you understand my meaning.

I dont go by rhetoric, I go by voting records, and Obama's is one of the most liberal in congress, and one of the most liberal in Illinois, which is really saying something.

His voting record and personal associations are... indicative... of a Hard Left ideological leaning. Now we see how much reality forces pragmatism.

The crash in oil prices has muffled concerns over energy once again. Those who joke that the US has societal ADHD are not far from the mark.

[IntLibber]

Alex, the last time a Brit thought he could dictate to us Americans about our ability to keep and bear, y'all got sent packing. The right to keep and bear arms was not just a preexisting right under the English Bill of Rights (a document generally nonexistent and unobserved in its native land today), though limited by some racism and religious bigotry, but thats par for the course with English of that day and age.

This is not a debate you have any hope of winning with me.

You make assumptions about what I'm debating, and you mistake my intent.

The phrase "(2) the unorganized militia" in § 311 is not consistent with either "A well regulated Militia" in the 2nd Amendment, or "a well-trained citizen militia" in DC v Heller.

No, it isn't inconsistent at all. The whole point of all of "the people" being able to keep and bear arms was to ensure that the general population was self trained and familliar with use of arms, a cultural habit which has only decreased here with the rise of the unconstitutional standing armies (a standing army is NOT a militia). The other point is to ensure that the people are able to resist the rise of a tyrannical government as they had experienced under King George.

"well regulated" in the legal dictionaries of the time was defined as "trained and skilled", not "subject to statutory limitations".