Obama to spend $50 billion on nuclear plants
February 16, 2010 - 4:26pm
What's bad for Iran is good for the USA...
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Obama moves to back nuclear power
"Our competitors are racing to create jobs and command growing energy industries. And nuclear energy is no exception," he said.
Perhaps he is out to lose all those votes from coal country, Kentucky, Penn., W. Virgiania, etc. What a guy. (and might just, in the process, convince people that there is something legitimate (not rotten) in Iran. He is certainly leading the U.S. forces in trying to bring about a rational view of Iran's nuclear ambitions. (And of course, we will someday be allowed to peek into Iranian bunkers to confirm that).
Oops they're doing it again? If we listen to the smart Americans, nuclear power is not necessary for the states or Canada, or any other rich country for that matter. Nuclear makes sense for Iran and developing countries without waterways for cheapest to produce hydroelectric power. And electrical power is intimately tied to a country's ability to raise its standard of living and quality of life in general. We should all want for Iran to burn less oil and coal for power generation.
We should all have the potential for hydro-electricity that you have conjured up, Fidel. There has to be a potential for falling water. A "head". As for your admission that there are "smart Americans"... what are you trying to do, subvert your carefully constructed view of America as an irredeemable menace to Canuckistan? Really!