·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Barack Obama will win the 2012 election
Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow
I'm putting $25 on that Beiber chick to win.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Crack kills, Peaches.
Democrats will gain seats in the House (though not retake it for at least another cycle) and hold the Senate in a 50/50 split with Biden breaking the ties.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Because if you're too scared to bet $50, you sure as hell won't pay up $1,000.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
If you're to much of a p*ssy to accept then just say so.
Are you willing to pay the escrow fees and put the money up front?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
No
Hahaha... didn't think so. If it makes you feel better, Flea would have never let me bet a grand but it was nice that you blinked first.
Quote:
But I will take the 50$ bet that Obama's a one timer.
Ok, deal.
Quote:
Are you willing to bet 50$ that the GOP doesn't re-take control of the senate this year?
Hell no. I'm not nearly that optimistic about my own fortune-telling in that regard.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Just for extra lulz...
10 for 10, Gbaji!
Edited, Mar 1st 2011 11:33am by Jophiel
gbaji wrote:
Actually, I was right about a lot of my predictions. I just underestimated the degree of gullibility of the US public. For example. I predicted that Obama didn't really intent to build nuclear power plants, despite him suggesting so in order to make himself appear more moderate.
Energy Collective Blog wrote:
On Feb 23 a Missouri House committee endorsed legislation that would allow utilities to charge customers for a portion of the costs of building a new nuclear power station.
On Feb 21 an Indian Senate committee gave a green light to encourage utilities to build new nuclear reactors and to recover some of the costs while the plant is being built.
In Iowa a Senate committee heard testimony from a utility executive that a small modular reactor design might make sense for the next nuclear plant in the state.
These actions come as the Obama Administration introduced a Department of Energy budget for 2012 that calls for an additional $36 billion in federal loan guarantees.
On Feb 21 an Indian Senate committee gave a green light to encourage utilities to build new nuclear reactors and to recover some of the costs while the plant is being built.
In Iowa a Senate committee heard testimony from a utility executive that a small modular reactor design might make sense for the next nuclear plant in the state.
These actions come as the Obama Administration introduced a Department of Energy budget for 2012 that calls for an additional $36 billion in federal loan guarantees.
Bloomberg wrote:
President Barack Obama’s 2012 budget almost triples U.S. loan guarantees for nuclear power-plant construction, funds development of a new breed of smaller reactors and spends more on “breakthrough†energy research.
[...]
A program that guarantees as much as $18.5 billion in loans for construction of nuclear reactors would expand by $36 billion in 2012, to backstop $54.5 billion in lending. An initiative to develop designs for “small modular reactors†would get $67 million. Such reactors would be about a third the size of those now used by U.S. power companies, according to the department.
[...]
A program that guarantees as much as $18.5 billion in loans for construction of nuclear reactors would expand by $36 billion in 2012, to backstop $54.5 billion in lending. An initiative to develop designs for “small modular reactors†would get $67 million. Such reactors would be about a third the size of those now used by U.S. power companies, according to the department.
The Hill wrote:
President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget outlines a plan for reviving the country’s nuclear power industry, calling for $36 billion in government-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors and setting aside more than $800 million for nuclear energy research.
Obama has said that nuclear power is a key component of the country’s energy future. In his State of the Union speech last month, he outlined a plan to generate 80 percent of the country’s electricity from low-carbon sources including nuclear by 2035.
[...]
Republicans, for their part, have put a so-called “nuclear renaissance†in the United States at the top of their agenda, outlining plans to streamline regulatory oversight at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and build a series of scaled-down, “mini-nukes†that would cost less and take less time to build.
Obama’s FY2012 budget request, which was sent to Congress Monday, revives a similar provision in Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget request that would provide $36 billion in additional loan guarantee authority for nuclear power. This would add to the $18 billion in nuclear loan guarantee authority the Department of Energy already has. [...] Obama also laid out plans to conduct research on “mini-nukes". His budget sets aside $853 million for nuclear energy research. A White House fact sheet on the proposal says the research will focus in part on "mini-nukes," known as small modular reactors.
Obama has said that nuclear power is a key component of the country’s energy future. In his State of the Union speech last month, he outlined a plan to generate 80 percent of the country’s electricity from low-carbon sources including nuclear by 2035.
[...]
Republicans, for their part, have put a so-called “nuclear renaissance†in the United States at the top of their agenda, outlining plans to streamline regulatory oversight at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and build a series of scaled-down, “mini-nukes†that would cost less and take less time to build.
Obama’s FY2012 budget request, which was sent to Congress Monday, revives a similar provision in Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget request that would provide $36 billion in additional loan guarantee authority for nuclear power. This would add to the $18 billion in nuclear loan guarantee authority the Department of Energy already has. [...] Obama also laid out plans to conduct research on “mini-nukes". His budget sets aside $853 million for nuclear energy research. A White House fact sheet on the proposal says the research will focus in part on "mini-nukes," known as small modular reactors.
10 for 10, Gbaji!
Edited, Mar 1st 2011 11:33am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Just for extra lulz...
Are the lulz that you actually believe that his carefully worded statements really mean he's for nuclear power, or that you know that they don't, but you'll gladly perpetuate the lie that they are? Seems like I've seen this game before. ;)
Quote:
On Feb 21 an Indian Senate committee gave a green light to encourage utilities to build new nuclear reactors and to recover some of the costs while the plant is being built.
In Iowa a Senate committee heard testimony from a utility executive that a small modular reactor design might make sense for the next nuclear plant in the state.
In Iowa a Senate committee heard testimony from a utility executive that a small modular reactor design might make sense for the next nuclear plant in the state.
Neither of which actually result in nuclear power plants being built. More talk.
Quote:
These actions come as the Obama Administration introduced a Department of Energy budget for 2012 that calls for an additional $36 billion in federal loan guarantees.
Yes. That's wonderful. We've had this discussion before. Loan guarantees don't mean anything if no one cuts through the 500 layers of red tape and actually uses that money to build a nuclear power plant.
Bloomberg wrote:
President Barack Obama’s 2012 budget almost triples U.S. loan guarantees for nuclear power-plant construction, funds development of a new breed of smaller reactors and spends more on “breakthrough†energy research.
First part is the same as the bit I just responded to, funding "development" doesn't get us anywhere unless said development actually results in a final product, and the latter section can mean anything at all.
The Hill wrote:
President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget outlines a plan for reviving the country’s nuclear power industry, calling for $36 billion in government-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors and setting aside more than $800 million for nuclear energy research.
There's the same "loan guarantees" again. What is that? Four repeats of the same thing? What else has he done? Where's the promise to cut through red tape? Where's the promise to build X number of reactors by Y amount of time? He hasn't made such a promise. When politicians use non-committal language, that's code for "I don't really want to do this, but I want to get votes from people who do". Surely you know this by now, right?
Quote:
Obama has said that nuclear power is a key component of the country’s energy future. In his State of the Union speech last month, he outlined a plan to generate 80 percent of the country’s electricity from low-carbon sources including nuclear by 2035.
Except he didn't say that first sentence in the SotU speech. That's editorial from the author of the piece. And the second sentence, once again, includes nuclear in a list of other power sources he wants. Want to guess how much priority nuclear will get? But for the record, here's what he actually said:
Obama, in the state of the union speech wrote:
Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.
Notice the incredibly non-committal language. He doesn't say what he wants, or what he'll pursue. He hides the language by talking about what "some people" want and what "other people" want. Um.... What does he want? What does he intend? Could he be a little more of a fence sitter? All he's really saying in this paragraph is "You guys get together and figure out what will work". He doesn't commit to anything.
Kinda not leading much, is it? And absolutely does not give me any confidence at all that he's pro-nuclear power at all. And it's not shocking why. His strongest and most fervent supporters don't come from the middle. They come from the far and even fringe left. The people who hate nuclear power and hate oil and hate coal. That's his base. Everyone else he has to trick into thinking he's not so far left in order to get them to support him.
He managed to do it in 2008. And if he can trick them again in 2012, he'll win again. And at some level, I suspect you know this, which is why you go along with the vague language. It's in your best interest to pretend that he really does intend to follow an agenda that the middle will like, because you know that he really wont and the best way to get him re-elected so he can pursue the agenda you want is to help him lie.
It's the same thing I said back in 2008. If you're looking for a prediction, you should recall that I said we were facing a Jimmy Carter moment with Obama. And guess what? That's exactly what we got.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Spin baby, spin!
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Hey Joph, if I put up $75 to cover gbaji, Totem and Moe, would that count?
I just want to make sure that this thread comes back with a vengeance. It's worth $75 to me.
I just want to make sure that this thread comes back with a vengeance. It's worth $75 to me.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Spin baby, spin!
No spin at all. Just an awareness of how politicians speak. As a general rule, if a politician uses language that can possibly be interpreted to mean more than one thing, you are foolish to assume that it means any one specific thing. Obama is nearly pathological at using word choice that sounds at first to say one thing, but when you go back and parse what was actually said, could in fact be interpreted multiple ways. And he's been caught doing the whole "what I meant was..." bit.
Anyone recall the whole NAFTA backtrack he did during the primary? Every single person in the audience he spoke to believed he had said that he was absolutely 100% opposed to NAFTA. But then, just mere days later, it turns out that he's not opposed to NAFTA at all. And when asked about that, he said that he hadn't actually said what the audience thought he had. And when you checked the transcripts? Sure enough, he hadn't actually said he was opposed to NAFTA, he just said a bunch of words that made it sound to the audience like he had.
I remember this because Joph was one of the loudest voices attempting to argue both that he hadn't lied or deceived anyone *and* that he said exactly what he said and that anyone who read into his words to mean more than that were dummies. Well. When I apply Joph's same argument to Obama's statements regarding nuclear power, I once again see a bunch of words designed to make people think he's in support of nuclear power, but no firm statements about his own position on the issue.
The funny thing is that if tomorrow Obama announced that he'd never really been in favor of nuclear power at all, Joph would be the first one to insist that anyone who thought he was should have known better because "he didn't actually say he was for nuclear power!". Just like Joph did about NAFTA. So forgive me if I don't buy Joph's arguments here.
Obama has never committed to *anything* in terms of nuclear power. At the end of the day, that's the fact that matters.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
No spin at all
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
No spin at all
If we were talking about a Republican there wouldn't be any question as to said persons position on nuclear power though. Maybe you think it's unfair, but given the default liberal position regarding nuclear power, I'm going to place a slightly higher burden on a Democrat if he wants to convince me that he's actually "for nuclear power". And unless he does, I'm going to assume that he's just playing word games to try to avoid losing votes on the issue.
And I'm right to do that. Just as Joph might be a bit more skeptical of a Republican suggesting that he's for increased social spending while speaking in front of a group of poor people. He would also be foolish not to parse the language to see what was really said and what was really committed to. And if all the Republican did was talk about "investigating ways to help families in need", He'd suspect that was whitewash, right? And if he followed that with a promise to "make American's economic fortunes brighter, for both rich and poor", I somehow doubt that Joph would fail to notice that he doesn't say how much brighter for the poor compared to the rich.
In fact, I'm quite sure that in that case, Joph would be one of the first to make that exact point. But somehow magically, he refuses to see similarly vague language when spoken by a politician he likes. Shocking!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Hahahahah....
Yeah, 10 for 10 when you just ignore everything you that doesn't match what you want to believe :D
Not even going to bother going in circles with you on it. My intent isn't some vain attempt to get you to admit that you're wrong, it's just to show everyone else how wrong you are. Mission accomplished.
Yeah, 10 for 10 when you just ignore everything you that doesn't match what you want to believe :D
Not even going to bother going in circles with you on it. My intent isn't some vain attempt to get you to admit that you're wrong, it's just to show everyone else how wrong you are. Mission accomplished.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
It amazes me how fragile and large gbaji's ego is that he has to construct these elaborate defense mechanisms to remain in denial about how utterly wrong he constantly is. Whereas most people would try to save face or just admit their error, it's as if he compulsively attempts to rationalize away any cognitive dissonance in his favor by whatever means necessary, no matter how logically inconsistent.
You would be an interesting research subject, gbaji. Maybe studying you would help find the cure for, well, being like you.
You would be an interesting research subject, gbaji. Maybe studying you would help find the cure for, well, being like you.
Just for extra fun, here's the only thread where we discuss NAFTA during the campaign. Somehow it's not really how Gbaji says it happened but more like how he wishes to remember it.
Edited, Mar 1st 2011 8:59pm by Jophiel
Edited, Mar 1st 2011 8:59pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Just for extra fun, here's the only thread where we discuss NAFTA during the campaign. Somehow it's not really how Gbaji says it happened but more like how he wishes to remember it.
Edited, Mar 1st 2011 8:59pm by Jophiel
Edited, Mar 1st 2011 8:59pm by Jophiel
Huh, seems like Obama's perfectly clear on what he wanted with NAFTA (we'll renegotiate it using the the threat of opting out as leverage), and it's not what gbaji was saying (he was for it and against it, he flip-flops!). gbaji's citation in the old thread wasn't even a "for it or against it" question; it was a "will we leave it?" question, to which Obama responded as I said before (we'll use the threat of leaving as leverage). Go figure - and this from the guy who rails against polls for not asking the right questions.
Quote:
Spin baby, spin!
This.
Quote:
My intent isn't some vain attempt to get you to admit that you're wrong, it's just to show everyone else how wrong you are. Mission accomplished.
And this.
#73REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 02 2011 at 8:15 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So where are all the new nuclear plants? Has even 1 been started?
varusword75 wrote:
So where are all the new nuclear plants? Has even 1 been started?
Nope. But then the federal government doesn't build nuclear plants. The DoE provides loan guarantees to allow utilities to build power plants and partially mitigate the cost of expensive private financing. What Obama has done, and which is more than any president has done for around the past 30 years, is actually have the DoE award these guarantees so projects can get started.
Wall Street Journal wrote:
WASHINGTON — Touting nuclear energy as a critical component of the effort to confront climate change and meet the U.S.'s energy needs, President Barack Obama announced Tuesday roughly $8 billion in government-loan guarantees for Southern Co. to break ground on a new nuclear-power plant in Georgia.
[...]
The loan guarantee, reported last week by Dow Jones Newswires, would pave the way for the first new nuclear-power plant in the U.S. in almost 30 years.
[...]
Under the loan-guarantee program, the government promises to assume a company's debt obligations if it defaults on debt incurred for the projects. Because new nuclear reactors cost billions of dollars to develop, the loan guarantees can be a key step for energy companies that plan to undertake such projects.
Total cost of Southern Co.'s new units is projected to be around $14 billion. Of that amount, the share of the company's Georgia power subsidiary is to be around $6.1 billion. Remaining ownership of the two reactors is split among Oglethorpe Power Corp., the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, or MEAG Power, and Dalton Utilities.
[...]
The loan guarantee, reported last week by Dow Jones Newswires, would pave the way for the first new nuclear-power plant in the U.S. in almost 30 years.
[...]
Under the loan-guarantee program, the government promises to assume a company's debt obligations if it defaults on debt incurred for the projects. Because new nuclear reactors cost billions of dollars to develop, the loan guarantees can be a key step for energy companies that plan to undertake such projects.
Total cost of Southern Co.'s new units is projected to be around $14 billion. Of that amount, the share of the company's Georgia power subsidiary is to be around $6.1 billion. Remaining ownership of the two reactors is split among Oglethorpe Power Corp., the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, or MEAG Power, and Dalton Utilities.
How many plants were built under Bush? How many under Bush Sr? How many under Reagan? How many loan guarantees did the Bush administration issue to start construction? OMG Republicans all hate nuclear power!!!
Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 8:42am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,
That's all you had to say.
Quote:
Nope
That's all you had to say.
Too many syllables for you if he writes more, right?
Recent Visitors: 293
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (293)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Barack Obama will win the 2012 election
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC