McCain's trend

[loki]

i believe "photovoltaic chemistry" has pushed efficiencies too about 40% (in the lab, not mass produeced yet)...using some rare metals and such... unless you mean the 50% realistic ceiling idea.

rotor design, as in wind power? yeah, mostly. i did see an article about putting "whale bumps" on an edge, better low wind power and better high wind managing.

reactor...that's mostly regulation causing, right? lets go thorium!

i know there is a N.E. firm looking at putting turbines in the mississippi around my area, probably putting out enough power to displace a coal plant about 40 miles south, but would take near 2-3 years just to start on it.

higher taxes, would that include gas? guessing you wouldn't do that to renewable diesel and such, right?

[Drew Dowdell]

i believe "photovoltaic chemistry" has pushed efficiencies too about 40% (in the lab, not mass produeced yet)...using some rare metals and such... unless you mean the 50% realistic ceiling idea.

rotor design, as in wind power? yeah, mostly. i did see an article about putting "whale bumps" on an edge, better low wind power and better high wind managing.

reactor...that's mostly regulation causing, right? lets go thorium!

i know there is a N.E. firm looking at putting turbines in the mississippi around my area, probably putting out enough power to displace a coal plant about 40 miles south, but would take near 2-3 years just to start on it.

higher taxes, would that include gas? guessing you wouldn't do that to renewable diesel and such, right?

Did you read the links I included?

[Drew Dowdell]

I would do that do non-renewable based gasoline/diesel.

Algae based ethanol and bio-diesel is the way to go.

[David]

Uhh for the record most mainstream people believe in some sort of God. I thought it was a good interview and enjoyed it alot. Sarah Palin is a public servant to the core. Starting out in the PTA and working her way up because she thought she could help her people. What a concept, serving the public because you want to serve. The media is the tank for Obama, and Charlie Gibson twisted and cut out portions of it anyways. I will tell you this the more the media tears her down the more votes for McCain. This woman is classy and Obama-Biden are each $h!ting there points. Hell Biden said Clinton would have been a better choice than him. Funny, but true. I didn't always agree with Hillary and could have considered voting for her because of the person not the polices. When Obama was picked I knew a far left liberal from Chicago with a record of voting present wouldn't have my vote.

GM4LIFE, you do realize that she has NEVER been a public servant to the citizens. This woman is all about Power, her views pushed onto others and only her life and the vision everyone should see is what matters. If it did not, then she would have taken care of the roads, needed sewage treatment plant and many other needed society improvements. Instead she created 22 million of unneeded debt, higher tax's for the poor and middle class, a 7 year ongoing law suite over a barely used sports complex and 3 remodels of her office while mayor of Wasila. Now after 2 years as govenor, instead of spending the tax's from taxing the oil companies to update the terrible roads, sewage treatmant plant in Anchorage and many other needs, she give a refund to the citizens of the state and takes out 30-40 years bonds to do the repairs / improvements to the state, sadling them with more debt and raising the property tax's to pay for it.

This is a Woman we DO NOT NEED in the whitehouse. She only cares about power, her position or percieved position. This woman know s how to spend with no balanced budget or really taking care of the state population. This woman is an idiot just like my current govenor here in Washington state.

Edited September 16, 2008 by dfelt

[loki]

no i missed the links lol sorry.

what about renewable diesel?

[Drew Dowdell]

no i missed the links lol sorry.

what about renewable diesel?

renewable is the keyword. It would be exempt from the gas/diesel tax that I would propose. I'm not saying algae is the only way... just my favorite. I'd make the corn lobby go stand in the corner however.

[siegen]

I've read a few articles about economics between the two candidates, and I have to say, Barack's "plan" is far more appealing to me. And not just because I'm not in that upper bracket that will see increases, but because his plan will generate revenue for the government, as opposed to creating more losses. McCain claims he can offset the tax cut losses by reducing spending, but I simply don't see how that's possible. All I see is our government digging itself farther into the hole by borrowing and spending more of what it doesn't have.

[A Horse With No Name]

Algae based ethanol and bio-diesel is the way to go.

IIRC we were making major progress back during the Carter years until craphead Reagan cut the funds.

+1

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

I've read a few articles about economics between the two candidates, and I have to say, Barack's "plan" is far more appealing to me. And not just because I'm not in that upper bracket that will see increases, but because his plan will generate revenue for the government, as opposed to creating more losses. McCain claims he can offset the tax cut losses by reducing spending, but I simply don't see how that's possible. All I see is our government digging itself farther into the hole by borrowing and spending more of what it doesn't have.

Considering NONE of the Republicans in my lifetime (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush SR, Bush Jr) have cut actual government spending, this is just another pure bull$h! lie from McCain.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

I never said I liked that ad. McCain can take Barack on issues.

What issues? There is NO category whatsoever that he can take Obama on.

Chris

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Olds, many of the people in the lower tax brackets, after filing their tax returns receive money back. In the end they are not exactly paying all that much in income taxes.

All Obamas program does is creates another layer of welfare where the government writes these people a check ESPECIALLY in that lowest bracket.

besides, poor people dont create businesses usually do they? And when people dont create businesses, they dont create jobs.

That being said, i still think when whoever gets into office, they will just end up raising taxes anyways to start paying off the debt, they could do a Clinton style tax increase with an accompanying increase in money printed up... its tricky, but its possible to do it without making inflation worse.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

Again, incorrect. If they are getting a check from the IRS after they do their taxes, all that means is they filled out their W-4 wrong. A simple adjustment in the HR department will fix that. However it doesn't change their tax bracket, it just causes their tax withholding to reflect their true tax bracket. The numbers in that chart are Adjusted Gross Income numbers... in other words, AFTER all the deductions.

My goal every year is to neither owe the IRS nor have them owe me. I have no desire to provide Uncle Sam an interest free loan all year. Quicken and Turbotax can help you determine what your W-4 should look like based on your previous year's taxes. If you're getting a $1,200 refund from the IRS every year, that's $100 more per month you could have in your pocket 12 months prior.

[Drew Dowdell]

besides, poor people dont create businesses usually do they? And when people dont create businesses, they dont create jobs.

"Poor" people spend money when they get a bit extra. Rich people save it. I'm not sure I'd call $35k - $111k poor though. There are LOTS of small business owners who fall into that category...... probably most of them.

It's not like Harry Hedgefund is going to spend the extra money right now... in fact he's even MORE likely to sock it away due to the terrible market conditions.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

"Poor" people spend money when they get a bit extra. Rich people save it. I'm not sure I'd call $35k - $111k poor though. There are LOTS of small business owners who fall into that category...... probably most of them.

It's not like Harry Hedgefund is going to spend the extra money right now... in fact he's even MORE likely to sock it away due to the terrible market conditions.

And rich people save their money in banks do they not? That provides banks with the ability to make LOANS to poor/middle class people which allows them to BUY more.

besides in poor economic situations, the cheapo stores like Wal*Mart 99cent stores etc tend to rise in value.

And no, Obamas tax plan is nothing more than a disguised welfare plan for the lowest classes, courtesy of the upper classes.

[Drew Dowdell]

And rich people save their money in banks do they not? That provides banks with the ability to make LOANS to poor/middle class people which allows them to BUY more.

That is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

That is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place.

Yes it is. We had poor oversight/regulations over it.

But that still doesn't make the principle behind it wrong.

[Drew Dowdell]

Yes it is. We had poor oversight/regulations over it.

But that still doesn't make the principle behind it wrong.

It may work in theory, but we have 80 years of history of it NOT working. Only JFK's tax cut for the rich did anything and because that bracket was at an absurd +90% rate.

The crisis we're in right now is one of solvency. Rich people are solvent, poor and middle class people are not. Cutting making sure Paris Hilton's taxes stay low is not going to help the economy in any way.

edit: And I have to say thank you... how refreshing it is to debate someone one this in a rational and thought out manner.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

It may work in theory, but we have 80 years of history of it NOT working. Only JFK's tax cut for the rich did anything and because that bracket was at an absurd +90% rate.

The crisis we're in right now is one of solvency. Rich people are solvent, poor and middle class people are not. Cutting making sure Paris Hilton's taxes stay low is not going to help the economy in any way.

edit: And I have to say thank you... how refreshing it is to debate someone one this in a rational and thought out manner.

Well since were heading in a recession anyways, we might as well just raise the taxes and eliminate our debt. The economy will eventually rebound on its own so might as well make it as strong a rebound as possible. As the dust in Iraq begins to settle and we see the Iraqis themselves taking over, our expenditures will likely begin to fall sharply, plus we are selling them a sizable amount of arms, which is some welcome revenue. I'm sure some of our oil companies will be able to negotiate to drill in Iraq which should also bring in a bit more revenue. While raising taxes here at home will likely be very unpopular, it is probably in the best interest of our country and its economy to repay our debts and then drop taxes afterwords.

The biggest problem i have with Obama's tax plan is that he intends to increase corporate taxes. And, as i think we all well know, corporations are very good at passing costs on to their customers. This will also put somewhat more strain on the wages they decide to pay their employees. It may also discourage people to start businesses, unless S-Corps are excluded from his corporate tax hikes. Or it may discourage smaller businesses from incorporating and growing.

To further compound matters, Obama is in favor of raising the federal minimum wage if i do recall. During a very slow/recessed economy this will probably do a lot more harm than good. Not that it ever does any good anyways (other than contribute to inflation and encourage farmers to use illegal labor).

Edited September 16, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[gm4life]

Barack Obama isn't the man he claims to be and has a record of a true liberal. He would do anything to get in that white house. Obama has never went against his party, and he is scared $h!-less with Palin and the new energy in GOP scares him. Obama has become a mainstream politican and John McCain has never been a traditional politican he is a true maverick, and only John McCain could be doing so well in a year the dems are suppose to win. I see another 2004 coming again. If you ask me whom I would rather have run a buisness, have a BBQ or ask there advice it would be John McCain over Obama no question. That will says alot about a person.

Edited September 16, 2008 by gm4life

[Drew Dowdell]

[Drew Dowdell]

Well since were heading in a recession anyways, we might as well just raise the taxes and eliminate our debt. The economy will eventually rebound on its own so might as well make it as strong a rebound as possible. As the dust in Iraq begins to settle and we see the Iraqis themselves taking over, our expenditures will likely begin to fall sharply, plus we are selling them a sizable amount of arms, which is some welcome revenue. I'm sure some of our oil companies will be able to negotiate to drill in Iraq which should also bring in a bit more revenue. While raising taxes here at home will likely be very unpopular, it is probably in the best interest of our country and its economy to repay our debts and then drop taxes afterwords.

The biggest problem i have with Obama's tax plan is that he intends to increase corporate taxes. And, as i think we all well know, corporations are very good at passing costs on to their customers. This will also put somewhat more strain on the wages they decide to pay their employees. It may also discourage people to start businesses, unless S-Corps are excluded from his corporate tax hikes. Or it may discourage smaller businesses from incorporating and growing.

To further compound matters, Obama is in favor of raising the federal minimum wage if i do recall. During a very slow/recessed economy this will probably do a lot more harm than good. Not that it ever does any good anyways (other than contribute to inflation and encourage farmers to use illegal labor).

Many of the largest companies, especially those in finance, won't be paying taxes for some time regardless of if Obama raises the corporate tax.

[Drew Dowdell]

Barack Obama isn't the man he claims to be and has a record of a true liberal. He would do anything to get in that white house. Obama has never went against his party, and he is scared $h!-less with Palin and the new energy in GOP scares him. Obama has become a mainstream politican and John McCain has never been a traditional politican he is a true maverick, and only John McCain could be doing so well in a year the dems are suppose to win. I see another 2004 coming again. If you ask me whom I would rather have run a buisness, have a BBQ or ask there advice it would be John McCain over Obama no question. That will says alot about a person.

John McCain is running against a black man with a middle eastern sounding name and it's still a struggle for him. What does that say about McCain?

John Kerry came close to unseating a popular, wartime President. 2004 wasn't the miracle for Bush you think it was.

John McCain used to be known for his straight talk... no bs. Now he has resorted to massive, blatant lying... doing anything he can, saying anything he can, to get the Whitehouse.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

You know, if Obama had pledged to install constructionist judges on the supreme court (even if they were liberal ones) i would be more comfortable if he won. But since he is not, and will likely install judges who judge based on "fairness" instead of what the constitution actually states (cause if you listen to a democrat it damn near sounds like abortion is a constitutional right). Such behavior is totally unamerican and only panders to the uneducated masses looking for whatever they can get from the government. Essentially it is discarding the constitution in my opinion.

Remember the old saying "Ask not what your government can do for you, but what YOU can do for your government"

It is not the governments job to save its own citizens who make bad decisions, its to provide a field so that people can make their own decisions, and if they make good ones then good for them. If they make bad ones they should learn from them. But in todays "oh its someone elses fault" mentality, such self-responsibility is diminishing quicker than a puddle of water on a scorching hot sunny day.

[Satty]

John McCain invented the Blackberry!

[Drew Dowdell]

You know, if Obama had pledged to install constructionist judges on the supreme court (even if they were liberal ones) i would be more comfortable if he won. But since he is not, and will likely install judges who judge based on "fairness" instead of what the constitution actually states (cause if you listen to a democrat it damn near sounds like abortion is a constitutional right). Such behavior is totally unamerican and only panders to the uneducated masses looking for whatever they can get from the government. Essentially it is discarding the constitution in my opinion.

Remember the old saying "Ask not what your government can do for you, but what YOU can do for your government"

It is not the governments job to save its own citizens who make bad decisions, its to provide a field so that people can make their own decisions, and if they make good ones then good for them. If they make bad ones they should learn from them. But in todays "oh its someone elses fault" mentality, such self-responsibility is diminishing quicker than a puddle of water on a scorching hot sunny day.

If the judges stuck to what the constitution states, we'd still have slavery.

I'm not going to get into an abortion debate, but it's unlikely that Obama could change the over all make up of the court. The next justices to retire are the liberal ones anyway.

[Northstar]

John McCain is running against a black man with a middle eastern sounding name and it's still a struggle for him. What does that say about McCain?

The man is obviously pretty popular if he has been nominated for president. On the flip side, everyone wants to do away with Republicans in the White House, yet Obama is trailing in most polls...

John Kerry came close to unseating a popular, wartime President. 2004 wasn't the miracle for Bush you think it was.

Please don't tell me you just said that... Bush had the lowest approval rating of any re-elected President since 1948, 49%, which is 10 to 20 points lower than any other re-elected President in history.

John McCain used to be known for his straight talk... no bs. Now he has resorted to massive, blatant lying... doing anything he can, saying anything he can, to get the Whitehouse.

I'm pretty sure it's happening both ways...

-----------------------------------------

I don't mind political threads, except when people blatantly choose one side and bash the other side, as it seems pretty much everyone is doing in this thread. It's really rather childish and stupid...

[Satty]

Just about every poll I've seen has either been a blowout for one candidate or the other, or a statistical tie. It doesn't matter if McCain wins Texas by 500 votes or 5,000,000 because he'll get the same number of electoral votes.

National polls are inherently flawed, I dont put much stock into them.

[gm4life]

Keep in my mind this was a dems year and look Obama is losing in most national and state to state polls. I could care less that he (Obama) is black I disagree with him on domestic oil production, right to life, economic views, taxes, and his general values. Barack Obama is a dangerous extremist and McCain is much more of a moderate than him. Sad thing the dems should have had this one in the bag with a 10 point lead yet they choose an ultra-liberal find me a conservative dem and I would vote for one. You know like JFk whom actually cut taxes, the people whom create the jobs again will get stuck eating more of the bill hurting our economy. I am not going to go into drilling for oil but Obama can tell people to fill up there tires and get a tune up, and how is that looking out for the folks? Or feeling the common persons pain? Honestly if you think Obama is a mainstream dem he isn't. He voted against 4 times a verison of the born alive bill that isn't even close to mainstream. Try to tell me he represents what the common man wants, and he doesn't support domestic drilling while most American's do and want to lower fuel prices and reduced are dependancy on forigen oil.

Edited September 16, 2008 by gm4life

[loki]

National polls are inherently flawed, I dont put much stock into them.

F* you Frank!!! lol

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

If the judges stuck to what the constitution states, we'd still have slavery.

I'm not going to get into an abortion debate, but it's unlikely that Obama could change the over all make up of the court. The next justices to retire are the liberal ones anyway.

not quite, the constitution provides wording to support that slaves are in fact free men born equally (as its a matter of interpretation). The founding fathers wanted a united state, so they couldnt go and alienate the south. So they left wording in there to clarify at a later time, but they didnt want to settle the matter at the beginning.

So, you could argue that a constructionist would have voted slavery unconstitutional.

[mustang84]

This is probably the best criticism of McCain's recent about-face I have read.

"The Ugly New McCain"

Following his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain did something extraordinary: He confessed to lying about how he felt about the Confederate battle flag, which he actually abhorred. "I broke my promise to always tell the truth," McCain said. Now he has broken that promise so completely that the John McCain of old is unrecognizable. He has become the sort of politician he once despised.

The precise moment of McCain's abasement came, would you believe, not at some news conference or on one of the Sunday shows but on "The View," the daytime TV show created by Barbara Walters. Last week, one of the co-hosts, Joy Behar, took McCain to task for some of the ads his campaign has been running. One deliberately mischaracterized what Barack Obama had said about putting lipstick on a pig -- an Americanism that McCain himself has used. The other asserted that Obama supported teaching sex education to kindergarteners.

"We know that those two ads are untrue," Behar said. "They are lies."

Freeze. Close in on McCain. This was the moment. He has largely been avoiding the press. The Straight Talk Express is now just a brand, an ad slogan like "Home Cooking" or "We Will Not Be Undersold." Until then, it was possible for McCain to say that he had not really known about the ads, that the formulation "I approve this message" was just boilerplate. But he didn't.

"Actually, they are not lies," he said.

Actually, they are.

McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: They lie. He tells the truth. He internalizes the code of the McCains -- his grandfather, his father: both admirals of the shining sea. He serves his country differently, that's all -- but just as honorably. No more, though.

I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician's lap.

Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.

McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.

At a forum last week at Columbia University, McCain said, "But right now we have to restore trust and confidence in government." This was always the promise of John McCain, the single best reason to vote for him. America has been cheated on too many times -- the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and Iraq. So many lies. Who believes that in Afghanistan last month, only five civilians were killed by the American military in an airstrike, instead of the approximately 90 claimed by the Afghan government? Not me. I first gave up on the military during Vietnam and then again when it covered up the death of Pat Tillman, the Army Ranger and former NFL player who was killed in 2004 by friendly fire.

McCain was going to fix all that. He was going to look the American people in the eyes and say, not me. I will not lie to you. I am John McCain, son and grandson of admirals. I tell the truth.

But Joy Behar knew better. And so McCain lied about his lying and maybe thinks that if he wins the election, he can -- as he did in South Carolina -- renounce who he was and what he did and resume his old persona. It won't work. Karl Marx got one thing right -- what he said about history repeating itself. Once is tragedy, a second time is farce. John McCain is both.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

[Intrepidation]

This is probably the best criticism of McCain's recent about-face I have read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

Excellent read. Thanks for posting this.

[Robert Hall]

Excellent read. Thanks for posting this.

+1. Excellent article.

[gm4life]

The article isn't that excellent, and this article leaves out many other things about Senator McCain. By God try to find a mainstream media that would write something about Barack like that.

Edited September 17, 2008 by gm4life

[gm4life]

Barack Obama would also sell himself out to the highest bidder if he thought it would further his politcal career. He has been promoting himself since 2004 and that man would do anything to win. McCain would rather loose the election than the war and I believe it. Honestly if you guys keep this up, some of you should look into Mr. Obama's less than stellar history... Voting four times against the born alive bill is not mainstream.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Why are we even arguing? i mean there are like 10-15 people who participate in these "arguments" and i would say every one of them has made up, or is near to making up their mind.

its rather pointless other than for the entertainment value.

[Robert Hall]

The article isn't that excellent, and this article leaves out many other things about Senator McCain. By God try to find a mainstream media that would right something about Barack like that.

I know more than enough about McCain, after all, I live in his state.

[Robert Hall]

Why are we even arguing? i mean there are like 10-15 people who participate in these "arguments" and i would say every one of them has made up, or is near to making up their mind.

its rather pointless other than for the entertainment value.

True enough...The mods should probably should delete or lock the thread..it's gone on and on, round and round. We are polarized, nothing going to change people's minds.

[Croc]

The article isn't that excellent, and this article leaves out many other things about Senator McCain.

Cool. Such as...?

By God try to find a mainstream media that would right something about Barack like that.

That would be difficult since Obama hasn't completely reversed his principles, or lied so consistently blatantly throughout his campaign.

Seriously, what are some substantive, policy, and/or fact-based (i.e. NOT subjective) criticisms of Obama? And link to articles that back up your proof. Can you please do that for me?

[Croc]

True enough...The mods should probably should delete or lock the thread..it's gone on and on, round and round. We are polarized, nothing going to change people's minds.

On the one hand, I see your points, but on the other...I've learned some new things from this thread that I've been able to take away and discuss with other, less decided people offline. I'd like to see this stay open, especially since there will be some new things appearing between now and November.

[mustang84]

As long as it stays civilized, I see no reason to lock a thread even if it gets redundant. If there is no longer interest it will fall to the bottom of the board on its own. I've enjoyed the viewpoints so far and hope this one stays open.

[siegen]

McCain would rather loose the election than the war and I believe it.

That's almost as bad as Hillary's one liner............. almost.

[Drew Dowdell]

Barack Obama would also sell himself out to the highest bidder if he thought it would further his politcal career. He has been promoting himself since 2004 and that man would do anything to win. McCain would rather loose the election than the war and I believe it. Honestly if you guys keep this up, some of you should look into Mr. Obama's less than stellar history... Voting four times against the born alive bill is not mainstream.

Where do you sign up for the RNC talking points email distribution? I can just have it autopost here and save you the time.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

So as i casually peruse the US constitution, i found a few interesting things.

Article I (powers of the legislative branch) Section 8:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congres

So the legislative branch is responsible for the militia (what is now the National Guard). This is established in our Constitution.

Article II (presidential powers) Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

The president, as commander in chief, obviously can call upon these people (once again national guard) OR in times of war during a draft, he can call upon the great unorganized militia (aka draft).

And finally, the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, since the creating of the militias is defined by the Constitution itself the second Amendment would seem rather repetitive and thus useless to your typical anti-gun person.

However, since it IS defined in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment DOES exist, one could only logically conclude that they were referring to individuals rights to bear arms. As such, the first half of the sentance can basically be ignored since that part is already covered in the Constitution.

Therefore the only logical way to read the 2nd Amendment in this context is to believe that the government cannot infringe upon their right to either keep firearms (which Heller v. DC provides for), but also to bear them which suggests open carry and concealed carry rights.

Of course this is all within reason, a convicted felon or other convicted criminal is stripped of their rights upon being found guilty (as they have breached the social contract) as such, by my interpretation of it, it is fully constitutional for these people to have their right to keep and bear arms deprived.

However, to deprive law abiding citizens of this right is unconstitutional by this reading of the Amendment.

There is no good reason for me to post it, but I'm interested in how good my argumentative skills are when it comes to things like this. So feel free to harshly criticize me if you want

Edited September 17, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

Ricer, if you've the the centrifuge, I have the uranium! :thumbsup:

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Ricer, if you've the the centrifuge, I have the uranium! :thumbsup:

speaking of uranium, we need to go over to France and buy/copy/steal their nuclear fuel recycling abilities. Those guys recycle 90% of their nuclear fuel! Thats a hell of a lot better than what we do with our waste (which is essentially non recycled and just buried). I dont know if its related to the fact that they have more advanced reactors or what, but that's something we seriously need to invest in as we switch from fossil fuels to alternative energy. And for the record, if someone comes up with a very potent alternative energy (such as 99% efficiency Solar panels) then i would be 100% behind eliminating nuclear power.

Ive read that given current known supplies at current consumption levels, we have enough fuel for 100 years. They believe there is about 2x what is currently known that exists. With 90% recycling of the materials that dramatically increases the longevity of this fuel source. Additionally, Thorium is even more abundant than Uranium and can be used to create viable reactor fuel, although at this time it is rather cost prohibitive but it adds to the fuel reserves we have for this technology as we establish other sources of power.

Of course, waste management is definitely the hallmark problem of this energy source, which is why im all for eliminating it once other energies are able to completely satisfy our needs.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

speaking of uranium, we need to go over to France and buy/copy/steal their nuclear fuel recycling abilities. Those guys recycle 90% of their nuclear fuel! Thats a hell of a lot better than what we do with our waste (which is essentially non recycled and just buried). I dont know if its related to the fact that they have more advanced reactors or what, but that's something we seriously need to invest in as we switch from fossil fuels to alternative energy. And for the record, if someone comes up with a very potent alternative energy (such as 99% efficiency Solar panels) then i would be 100% behind eliminating nuclear power.

Ive read that given current known supplies at current consumption levels, we have enough fuel for 100 years. They believe there is about 2x what is currently known that exists. With 90% recycling of the materials that dramatically increases the longevity of this fuel source. Additionally, Thorium is even more abundant than Uranium and can be used to create viable reactor fuel, although at this time it is rather cost prohibitive but it adds to the fuel reserves we have for this technology as we establish other sources of power.

Of course, waste management is definitely the hallmark problem of this energy source, which is why im all for eliminating it once other energies are able to completely satisfy our needs.

We don't need to steal their nuclear fuel recycling abilities.... who do you think came up with it in the first place?

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

We don't need to steal their nuclear fuel recycling abilities.... who do you think came up with it in the first place?

Then why am i always reading about the US not recycling its nuclear fuels? Did we seriously invent it, and then ignore it and sell the technology off to France?

[Drew Dowdell]

Then why am i always reading about the US not recycling its nuclear fuels? Did we seriously invent it, and then ignore it and sell the technology off to France?

Not only did we not ignore it, we passed a law to make it illegal. We were scared of terrorists getting fissionable material.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the process was developed by Westinghouse.

[Croc]

Gun control and anti-gun are two very different things. I believe Americans have the right to own a gun...but I also favor strict regulation of that for safety purposes.