Lucky...

Works for me

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes. Longer if you take into account the legal battles that will have to be fought to get it done. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3225build_6000_nukes.html There are about 30 units now in construction in the world, with construction times of five to six years, so we are now building about 6 units per year. Not sure where you're getting your data, could you post? Further supported by: http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/12/westinghouse_wi.html The company's Web site says the AP1000 plants take about three years to build in addition to two years of engineering and procurement after the first few units are built. The company wants these units up and running by 2013. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yep and it looks promising. Now How do we Charge the Batteries once it gets here? We already have rolling brown outs during peak demand because we cant generate enough electricity. Build more nuclear reactors, use solar panels on people's houses, etc.... BTW, it takes 5-6 years to build a nuclear reactor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>No argument from me on that one. What we can do Right now to get started: Start Building new Power Generation Plants immediately. We will Need them once the electric car becomes viable. Building the cars without building the means to charge the Batteries is pointless. It's not as if 3,000,000 electric cars are going to hit the road tomorrow. Let's keep moving in that direction at once on all fronts and quit trying use timelines as a mode to get Obama unelected.

Yes indeed. Reagan created Voodoo Economics, the idea that you spend what you want and just keep borrowing to pay for it. He racked up the largest debt increase in the history in the process, while pursuading everyone they were better off. Bush (43) is just a copycat. Yep, and GHWB paid for Reagan's misdeeds. If GHWB had been alone in his presidency, rather than riding Reagan's coat tail, I think he would have been considered a great president. With his tax increase he started the recesion recovery that Clinton was credited for. It was Reagan's mess, but GHWB got the blame. It was Clnton's recovery, yet GHWB helped him start it off. And he was the only military guy worth talking about for the last 20-30 years, Reagan was a USO slut, GWB a VN coward, Clinton a draft dodger, so GWB was the only militarily honorable man we've had for some time, yet he is lost in Reagan's mess. Shit, the wall fell 4 months into GWB's term and he gets no credit, just crappy-drawers.

WHat is this golden parachute I keep hearing about, what are the advantages over zero-P and where can I get one?

Also nuclear plants are very expensive. the cost i heard is about 10 billion each. with the lawsuites and protesters the $ amount and delays can bankrupt a company. the idea i heard the other day was for the government to build the plant then privatise it, that way a company would not have the issues that could bankrupt them. alot of the same people that protest oil drilling are the same that protest nuclear. they want everything but will not sacrifice for what is needed. every power source is protested and held up in courts, that is why we are in the position we have now. hydri power floods land above the damn and changes the ecology of the area. nuclear has disposal and possible dissaster implications. oil and natural gass have drilling and carbon emmission issues. enviromentalist need to decide what they want, a broken economy with foriegn dependance or sacrifice a little property for disposal and aplication of the energy we need to keep moving. 10 billion, so that's 1 reactor for every week in Iraq..... hmmm. Does that put into perspective the cost of your guy's hobby? >>>>>>>>>>>>enviromentalist need to decide what they want, a broken economy with foriegn dependance or sacrifice a little property for disposal and aplication of the energy we need to keep moving. So now it's all the fault of the enviromentalists? Yea, ok. It's American overconsumption at its finest.

I think it's doable. We need to downsize our vehicles like the Euros and advance battery technology. We could have battery stations instead of gas stations where we swap out batteries that are charged. We will have to create battery disposal processes so as not to pollute, but I think 10 years is real doable. first we need to drill here, make money and jobs, and use that to switch to alternatives. 700 billion going over seas would be a great start to pay for the switch. people don't want to see that we are arming foriegn militaries with the oil money. we are going bankrupt on foriegn oil. we need to drill know and convert along the way. this crap about we only have 3% of the oil in the world is misleading, we may only have 3% of the oil but we do have a large % of natural gas, and these 2 are enough to get us through the swicth to alt energy. Didn't you hear 6-pack Sarah? She said tehy are building a 40B pipeline from Alaska to mainland USA for natural gas. I say we do all things positive, perhpas use the funds that go to Haliburton, er, I mean to the valiant Iraq War to fund this effort.

Nuclear generators take 10 years to build? ReallY? >>>>>>>>>>>>>If we realistically plan on having viable electric cars as the norm with-in 10 years. gm'S ALREADY STARTED: http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>Enoviro Whacko`s What will all the people calling scientists warning of greenhouse, whacko's call them if / when it becomes a problem? Will they be like Bush voters, hard to find people willing to admit they used that language? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If we do not start building new power generation plants immediately and the viable electric car comes with-in the next 10 years, We will not have a way to charge those cars. And I bet you think those horrible dems are stupid for setting an Iraq deadline. Let's just get started on renewable energy and quit demanding a timeline.

I think it's doable. We need to downsize our vehicles like the Euros and advance battery technology. We could have battery stations instead of gas stations where we swap out batteries that are charged. We will have to create battery disposal processes so as not to pollute, but I think 10 years is real doable.

It's panic in action. Referring to Saddam as in he has a correlation to Obama, using beer drunks as in 6-pack Joe's, this Maverick idiocy and the very appointment of Sarah 6-pack are just attempts to find a niche that works.....none have. But you have to give teh R's props for trying something, if they would have run a vanilla ice cream contest they would lose, so they had to be outrageous. Kinda like in a football game when ur down by 2 touchdowns with 4 minutes to go, you alienate your normal gameplan, it would be suicide to stick with it.

Not sure why ur addressing this to me. I can't really argue that, I just think Fascist Ronnie started the mess, so he's the worst of that group, perhaps the worst of all times. Would Bush have been pres and been as bad w/o FR? Maybe, but as history shows, Reagan started it all. But I agree with you and angry McSame is following in the 3 stooges footsteps. I vote McSame for the old guy who keeps those pesky kids off the lawn.

Carter? Was? He still is alive?

Right. Of course, if someone gets all their understanding of politics from Mary Matalin, they'll probably think that a partisan impeachment is the same thing as a criminal conviction Clinton was impeached (meaning they have a reason to pursue a conviction) by a partisan vote in the House (the Republicans voted in a straight-line partisan vote to impeach), but even the Republican-controlled House couldn't get the 2/3 necessary to convict. In both the House and Senate, not one Democrat voted for impeachment, nor conviction, a few Republicans also voted against it in the Senate. Party politics, nothing more. That's what I wrote. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.....but even the Republican-controlled House couldn't get the 2/3 necessary to convict. OOPS, you mean the senate. But yep, partisan politics, which is why no Bush impeachment early on. And to get one now would make the Dems look petty and ruin their chance to run the table in Nov. The R's would love an impeachment bid now.

http://news.aol.com/elections/debates/article/mccain-obama-clash-in-second-debate/188495 Fair sample size

Fox had Biden the winner the other night too: 57/43.

Also, will you explain how Bush did nothing to even as much as address airport security for 7 months, 3 weeks from inauguration to 9/11?

Kinda like Scooter Libby can be criminally convicted of the same and get a free ride by the guy he was vicariuously protecting. Clean your windows so you can take better shots. BTW, check history and learn about the impeachment process, Clinton was impeached by the House on 2 of 4 counts, just not convicted by the Senate.

I'm not sure who I would be pulling for. Perhaps a simultaneous death.

Not to diminish the accomplishment, but generally speaking, when you talk about politics, taking it in the ass isn't far behind. This time we will be giving it up the ass

They're funding their campaign that way http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=120315219579&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=002

Socialism rules

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn’t see a clear winner, just one that I tended to agree with more than the other. The polls have Obama as a clear winner, but yea, they were vanilla ice cream. The most memorable moment so far, per the pundits, was when McCain refered to Obama as, "that one." Really angy and impersonal and parpalyed with McCain running off w/o shaking Obama's hand.

Yea, but American politics are decided on things like crusty Reagan saying: There you go again. He obviously said that to Carter in the 80 debates. Elections are won on statements like that, so welcome to ridiculousness.

Right, keep letting the corps take care of us, they have our best interests in mind. Beautiful, healthcare in the US is a luxury. As for gaff, some heer take it personally with the asthma comment, they shouldn't. If you have asthma and don't have healthcare, you use the ER as your doctor - real simple folks. EDITED: to add a spelling error for Amazon

Are you talking about, "that one?"

I have obviously not seen the debate, but that's how i read the OPs quote. Anti Obamans will read into what he says to better suit their current judgment of him, same is true of McCainians. it saves then from thinking critically and helps self validation for their own choices Bingo