The Offical TIF American Elections thread

[Quoi_Tu]

Two things though:

 

1) Just because he listens to the rest of the world doesn't mean he agrees with us. Nuclear energy isn't liked here either, after Chernobyl.

 

2) He's only addressing half the problem in that speech. One major cause of global warming is this: population density. When you have over half of drivers (of which there are many) going around in high polluting cars, global warming won't be solved. There has to be a cultural change towards environmentalism as well, and in a country like America where consumer spending really matters, that's not likely. No mention of Australia, China or India in that speech either, except a "delegation". All countries must work together, those three included with the US.

 

 

 

I definitely agree with the bit about jobs though. He's gonna need money for it, however. I wonder where that'll come from when governments are awkward about borrowing in the current economic climate...

 

 

 

1)I don't understand the dislike and general rejection of nuclear energy. It's a good method of energy producing.

 

2)America has the unfortunate reality of being way too big. We're just made up of acres upon acres of suburbias. If we could condense a bit, we could cut down our car use significantly. Not to mention 1 mile is considered driving distance, not walking distance. :(

 

 

 

If the government needs money, they can just sell bonds. People love government bonds.

[baalboy5]

If he mades nuculear power, can it be in a distant location not near cities/towns, or does it need to be close? Because of the Chonobly thing, if we would to go to war and it got blown up(or it just BLOWS up anyway). Then alot of bad things could happen.

 

Question, can nuclear power plants be underground and conceled?

[Wallettheif]

If he mades nuculear power, can it be in a distant location not near cities/towns, or does it need to be close? Because of the Chonobly thing, if we would to go to war and it got blown up(or it just BLOWS up anyway). Then alot of bad things could happen.

 

Question, can nuclear power plants be underground and conceled?

 

 

 

*Chernobyl. And Chernobyl was run by a communist government and idiots that couldn't stick to the safety code.

[Lenticular_J]

The fact that the USSR was communist didn't have anything to do with Chernobyl. It was just crappy building. It was early nuclear power, whaddaya expect.

[baalboy5]

If he mades nuculear power, can it be in a distant location not near cities/towns, or does it need to be close? Because of the Chonobly thing, if we would to go to war and it got blown up(or it just BLOWS up anyway). Then alot of bad things could happen.

 

Question, can nuclear power plants be underground and conceled?

 

 

 

*Chernobyl. And Chernobyl was run by a communist government and idiots that couldn't stick to the safety code.

 

True, but its enough of a reason to not build them(sadly).

[Lenticular_J]

No it isn't. Do you know how much nuclear power is used in the United States today? A good bit (not as much as places like France, but considering our huge hunger for power, it's quite a significant amount).

 

 

 

Nuclear power's only real downside is the waste, which is really the only plausible reason not to build them.

[baalboy5]

No it isn't. Do you know how much nuclear power is used in the United States today? A good bit (not as much as places like France, but considering our huge hunger for power, it's quite a significant amount).

 

 

 

Nuclear power's only real downside is the waste, which is really the only plausible reason not to build them.

 

What exactly is bad about the waste? why does it produce waste?

[Lenticular_J]

Everything produces some sort of waste - every process that uses or makes energy, that is.

 

 

 

Nuclear waste is used up nuclear materials, I believe. They're still very radioactive though, and nowadays they just give you cancer instead of superpowers.

[BlueLancer]

No it isn't. Do you know how much nuclear power is used in the United States today? A good bit (not as much as places like France, but considering our huge hunger for power, it's quite a significant amount).

 

 

 

Nuclear power's only real downside is the waste, which is really the only plausible reason not to build them.

 

What exactly is bad about the waste? why does it produce waste?

 

 

 

Because of the nuclear fission process. Uranium itself is not *that* radioactive, although it can be lethal and contains thousands of times more radiation than normal building granite, etc. The ore itself is usually converted to hexafluoride gas which undergoes enrichment to increase the uranium-235 content to above 4%. After enrichment the gas gets converted into solid ceramic oxide to be used for reactor fueling elements.

 

 

 

The process leaves a massive amount of unusable, depleted uranium which has no function, so it obviously has to be disposed of. In the US and other countries, most often nuclear waste is stored in large silos which are then further stored in mountains, underground vaults and other locations where the risk of leakage is extremely small.

 

 

 

I'm surprised you don't know what's "bad" about the waste itself, should it be inhaled, be placed near human organs, etc... Radioactive waste is devastating to the human body, egg and sperm cells, babies, and prolonged contact will cause hideous, often disturbing cancers, genetic mutations, tumors, disfunctions and diseases. If you're young, it's probably best if you don't look for pictures, but those exist. Nuclear waste is one of the most dangerous threats to mankind's collective health.

[Deathmath]

Californian votes were wasted :P

 

 

 

I feel wierd, a slightly conservative independent playing runescape. *Hides from the lynchmob when he states that he would have voted for McCain*

[Ginger_Warrior]

In case Obama needed reminding of how important his presidency will be for the next few decades, Global Trends just posted their memo.

[magekillr]

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/11 ... oobama.php

 

 

 

Global reactions to Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri's controversial condemnation of U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama as a "House Slave" (or, alternatively, "House Negro") have begun to pour in -- including via the top jihad web forums used by Al-Qaida to disseminate its propaganda. Though hardcore Al-Qaida supporters have predictably dismissed any criticism of Dr. al-Zawahiri and are fiercely backing his choice of words, there is a rather ironic (if not entirely unfamiliar) twist to this issue. After observing international press reporting on the incident, these same supporters are now bitterly attacking the media for its "unfair" pro-Obama bias and for deliberately "confusing" the meaning of al-Zawahiri's message.

 

 

 

In related news, Zawahiri's audio statement also appears to have created a palpable, tense confrontation between Al-Qaida and a significant cross-section of African-American Muslims. Several U.S.-based Muslim organizations immediately held press conferences or issued statements to strongly criticize al-Zawahiri and his manipulation of the words of the late Malcolm X. Conversely, these conferences and statements of response have not gone over well within the jihadi community, with some Arabic-speaking commentators issuing angry rants about the apparent treachery of American Muslims, including specifically the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). One Al-Qaida supporter cautioned his quarrelsome online colleagues, "Brothers, this does not apply to all American Muslims. Do not forget our brother [Adam] Yehiye Gadahn, a naturalized Muslim and U.S. citizen."

 

 

 

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1068

 

 

 

Experts agree that the release of a new tape by Al Qaedas second in command Ayman al-Zawahri indicates that Al Qaeda feels threatened and is on its heels after Obamas resounding victory. President-elect Obamas diverse background, along with his pledge to reverse many of the policies and approaches of the Bush administration on issues such as detentions at Guantanamo, torture and the war in Iraq has served to dramatically improve Americas image, especially in the Muslim world. Counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke explained, Most of all, by returning to American values the world admires, Obama sets al Qaeda back enormously in the battle of ideas, the ideological struggle which determines whether al Qaeda will continue to have significant support in the Islamic world. Having thrived on the decline in Americas world image, the impact of Obamas victory provides a direct challenge to Al Qaedas negative depiction of the United States. Additionally, Obamas emphasis on shifting US attention from Iraq to Afghanistan represents a direct physical threat to Al Qaedas leadership. Americas improved global image and the new administrations focus on Afghanistan threatens Al Qaeda and has led to what experts see as a confused, racist, and off-kilter response reflective of an organization on the defensive.

 

 

 

Do you believe yet? When Al Qaeda is using the narrative that, "The liberal media is out to get us," (the same talking point that the Republicans used), you know that they're scared [cabbage]less of Obama.

 

 

 

edit: and on the topic of the election, someone mentioned that this was not a "landslide" by popular vote standards. I beg to differ because this was the largest margin of victory by a non-incumbent:

 

 

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/ ... -ever.html

[Saru Inc]

The Kyoto Protocol is highly ineffective, and unnecessary. But you guys won't be swayed, so I won't discuss it further.

[cryztalwing]

So it look's like that on Monday the Supreme Court is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from Berg,Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz who are challenging Obama's legal eligibility to be President.

 

 

 

[hide=]On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

 

 

 

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama's legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

 

 

 

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question - the meaning of the "natural born citizen" clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.

 

 

 

Robert Schulz will briefly discuss Mr. Obama's response to the publication of his Open Letter in the Chicago Tribune on Monday and Wednesday of this week. For the reasons given in the Open Letter, Schulz asked Mr. Obama to: (1) immediately authorize Hawaiian officials to provide a team of forensic scientists access to his original ("vault") birth certificate and (2) arrange for the delivery of other documents needed to conclusively establish Obama's citizenship status. Mr. Schulz will answer questions from the press.

 

 

 

"Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the Office of the President unless he or she is a 'natural born citizen,'" said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the Foundation. "To date, Mr. Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional eligibility."

 

 

 

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama summarizes the evidence against Mr. Obama and the adverse consequences that would befall the Nation should he assume the Office of the President as a usurper.

 

 

 

"Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama's eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution," said Schulz.

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20081204/p ... press_club

 

 

 

http://newsblaze.com/story/200812041223 ... story.html[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=]Donofrio's action against the Secretary of State of New Jersey and as such, has precedent, as Donofrio relates. He originally sought to motivate the Secretary to qualify or disqualify these three candidates on the New Jersey ballot. Donofrio also cites 2000's famous Florida case, Bush v. Gore, as precedent for a state case regarding a presidential election to be brought to the Supreme Court for emergency action

 

 

 

In view of these considerations, being a "natural born Citizen" here requires meeting both of these two criteria: (1) citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one's father's citizenship, and (2) citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution's framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward.

 

 

 

According to Donofrio, Barack H. Obama II is not qualified, because his father, Barack H. Obama I, was a citizen of the United Kingdom as a Kenyan. Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama II's birth in 1961. This citizenship was conferred to Obama II by U.K. law. Further to this case is the apparent fact that Obama II became a citizen of Indonesia, when he lived there as a child with his mother and adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. This would mean Obama's U.S. Citizenship status was revoked, since Indonesia had no dual-citizenship provision with the U.S.A.

 

 

 

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/williams/081205

 

 

 

 

 

Berg talks about his action against Obama

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYgrFexn ... re=related[/hide]

[dangeresque]

So it look's like that on Monday the Supreme Court is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from Berg,Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz who are challenging Obama's legal eligibility to be President.

 

 

 

[hide=]On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

 

 

 

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama's legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

 

 

 

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question - the meaning of the "natural born citizen" clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.

 

 

 

Robert Schulz will briefly discuss Mr. Obama's response to the publication of his Open Letter in the Chicago Tribune on Monday and Wednesday of this week. For the reasons given in the Open Letter, Schulz asked Mr. Obama to: (1) immediately authorize Hawaiian officials to provide a team of forensic scientists access to his original ("vault") birth certificate and (2) arrange for the delivery of other documents needed to conclusively establish Obama's citizenship status. Mr. Schulz will answer questions from the press.

 

 

 

"Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the Office of the President unless he or she is a 'natural born citizen,'" said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the Foundation. "To date, Mr. Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional eligibility."

 

 

 

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama summarizes the evidence against Mr. Obama and the adverse consequences that would befall the Nation should he assume the Office of the President as a usurper.

 

 

 

"Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama's eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution," said Schulz.

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20081204/p ... press_club

 

 

 

http://newsblaze.com/story/200812041223 ... story.html[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=]Donofrio's action against the Secretary of State of New Jersey and as such, has precedent, as Donofrio relates. He originally sought to motivate the Secretary to qualify or disqualify these three candidates on the New Jersey ballot. Donofrio also cites 2000's famous Florida case, Bush v. Gore, as precedent for a state case regarding a presidential election to be brought to the Supreme Court for emergency action

 

 

 

In view of these considerations, being a "natural born Citizen" here requires meeting both of these two criteria: (1) citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one's father's citizenship, and (2) citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution's framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward.

 

 

 

According to Donofrio, Barack H. Obama II is not qualified, because his father, Barack H. Obama I, was a citizen of the United Kingdom as a Kenyan. Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama II's birth in 1961. This citizenship was conferred to Obama II by U.K. law. Further to this case is the apparent fact that Obama II became a citizen of Indonesia, when he lived there as a child with his mother and adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. This would mean Obama's U.S. Citizenship status was revoked, since Indonesia had no dual-citizenship provision with the U.S.A.

 

 

 

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/williams/081205

 

 

 

 

 

Berg talks about his action against Obama

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYgrFexn ... re=related[/hide]

 

 

 

Am I the only one that noticed that? :?

[Lordjake]

lolz he has a funny name (he must be a terrorist supporter)

[dangeresque]

lolz he has a funny name (he must be a terrorist supporter)

 

If that was directed at me I was talking about the piece of bolded text in the quote I was commenting on. ;)

[Lordjake]

lolz he has a funny name (he must be a terrorist supporter)

 

If that was directed at me I was talking about the piece of bolded text in the quote I was commenting on. ;)

 

I know. Orly is a strange first name, and the one thing I learned from this year's election coverage is that you shouldn't trust people with weird names.