Thanks Obama!

abandonconflict said:
Thanks for proving my point. That's the only thing he cares about for the same reason crooks want fewer cops.
Click to expand...

Crooks better not want less police, police give the criminal Rights and must respect them. A Posse will do no such thing...

The smaller admin. gives more work and control for the leader,...why would you not want that ?
 
Has anybody seen the Fusion mystery guy ? I need to explain that you can`t throw a Nuke,....if you don`t have one to throw......
 
He also has 235 (Fissionable) mixed up with 238(LEU) and hasn`t mention 234 yet.

We can prolly blame that on the pot.....
 
OddBall1st said:
He also has 235 (Fissionable) mixed up with 238(LEU) and hasn`t mention 234 yet.

We can prolly blame that on the pot.....
Click to expand...

Laawl, no I didn't. LEU is Uranium that contains U-235 at less than 20% concentration by weight, which is what I said. U-234 is just a decay product.
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/glossacro/dsp_wordpopup.cfm?word_id=292
http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html

Most reactors run on LEU and only need U235 at a 2-5% concentration, which is what Iran is going to be getting. They can't stockpile enough LEU to enrich into HEU. It's really funny that you think otherwise.
 
This thread was about successful Republican infiltration of state legislatures.
The big secret is that they have been very successful in establishing the necessary infrastructures in most of the states because they have somehow managed to establish majorities in these same states.
As I said originally, thanks are due to the Obama administration for assisting this effort!
 
pnwmystery said:
Laawl, no I didn't. LEU is Uranium that contains U-235 at less than 20% concentration by weight, which is what I said. U-234 is just a decay product.
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/glossacro/dsp_wordpopup.cfm?word_id=292
http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html

Most reactors run on LEU and only need U235 at a 2-5% concentration, which is what Iran is going to be getting. They can't stockpile enough LEU to enrich into HEU. It's really funny that you think otherwise.
Click to expand...


Let me leave you with food for thought Before I respond cuz I gotta go.

It takes tons of fuel to run a reactor for a year,...it takes (about a pound) to make a bomb in comparison.
You need ten times more spinny things to run a reactor than to make a bomb.
It`s harder to turn 5% to 90% but not much.

By the time you reduced normal 7.something to 5% you`ve got the machine and done most of the work to make a bomb.

We are still giving them 235 (fissionable) and 238 (not fissionable) If I give you 235, I can expect you to posses 235........over.
 
OddBall1st said:
Let me leave you with food for thought Before I respond cuz I gotta go.

It takes tons of fuel to run a reactor for a year,...it takes (about a pound) to make a bomb in comparison.
You need ten times more spinny things to run a reactor than to make a bomb.
It`s harder to turn 5% to 90% but not much.

By the time you reduced normal 7.something to 5% you`ve got the machine and done most of the work to make a bomb.

We are still giving them 235 (fissionable) and 238 (not fissionable) If I give you 235, I can expect you to posses 235........over.
Click to expand...

When your friends that work in intelligence tell you that the Iran deal is a good thing, I tend to stick with them. Iran is getting what it wants: Nuclear power and reactors. We're getting what we want: A halt to the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The GOP's answer was what? More economic sanctions on Iran which would lead to them putting their brand new anti-ship missiles on the Straight of Hormuz which is detrimental to oil shipping, and then them continuing their nuclear weapons program with aid from North Korea. Or what, invade Iran? Iraq tried that with US backing in the 80s, they didn't get far. Also remember who's backing Hezbollah? The IRGC. If we invaded Iran it would be like running naked at a hornets nest hoping you don't get stung in the junk.

Yeah, you could make a nuclear weapon out of 1lb of U-235**, but it's going to be incredibly inefficient. Little Boy for example had a uranium core of 141lbs, averaging 80% enriched to U-235 (as little as 50% but most at 89%) that yielded 15kt (63TJ) explosion which meant it was only 1.5% efficient.

Also, once again, most reactors only require 3-4% U-235 by weight. So you'd need 4,700lbs of LEU to enrich up to ~80% to get the amount needed for a Little Boy type bomb. With the IAEA monitoring good luck.

**IAEA says the threshold for a weapon is actually 25lbs of 80%+ U-235.
 
Last edited:
If you think the end of what Iran really wants is here,...you are a fool. You never answered my question about what difference does it make if they build a bomb now or 10 years from now to use ?

When the CIA says it`s good deal and the scientists that run the whole ball of wax say, you are in danger, trust the guys that actually know how to manipulate Uranium. Gas spinny things are one of three ways to enrich U238 that I know of.

The about a pound thing is for RIU readers, it actually takes about 50 maybe a bit more to build a guaranteed pop.

When you take a natural 7.*** rod and spin it down to 3 or 5 %, it takes time,...now, here`s the trick, throw the LEU rod in the centrifuge and that time is very short to get 85%. We are giving them LEU rods, they don`t have to make them, it don`t take a whole lot to evaporate or say you burned one up. this is why they have to monitor so close, the things that can be done, are hidden inside where inspectors can`t go, like the military bases.

Iran says they wont do any trickery,...I would too.

The rest, well, Backing down with pride is very un-American. NK wont move nuclear anything out of it`s Country because China has had enough of them and the US and Russia are doing a good job of keeping NK from becoming China`s Crimea.

You have very little faith in our military brass, ....... but a lot of faith in politicians running wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Barry and Kerry backed by Biden and Hillary, wont win anything. Syria wont exist en route to Iran,...You have no idea.

When one guy threatens me with his big stick, and I take my big stick and walk away,...am I labeled what ?

Thanks Obama.......

Stop Iran when they build or receive a nuke. At all costs or the world will pay dearly..........

I`ll ask you what I asked Paddy,...Why are they owning the reactor and not hosting it ? If they need one so bad, having one that is owned and operated by someone else,...works just fine,...unless* ?????

Just answer that first. Please.

 
The only thing this is a symptom of is the fact that neither party represents the interests of the American people.

At some point folks will realize throwing votes at either side is really fucking stupid. Probably too late at this point though.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
The only thing this is a symptom of is the fact that neither party represents the interests of the American people.

At some point folks will realize throwing votes at either side is really fucking stupid. Probably too late at this point though.
Click to expand...
What do you suggest?

Coming up with something better is the problem. I agree both parties are catering to their own best interests, but aside from all out revolution, what can we really do? We have to do this democratically. It has to be done in a way that usurps power but doesn't raise eyebrows. That takes time. Recently I was reading about the Radical Republicans in congress right before the Civil War and their push towards equal rights for all, regardless of skin color. There were two predominant factions within the Republican party at the time; the Revolutionaries and the Evolutionaries. Revolutionaries suggested, you guessed it, revolution. The demand for immediate change at the threat of a gun. "Everyone's equal or we're fighting you to the death to make everyone equal!". Evolutionaries suggested action through government and believed political change required winning hearts and minds. To change policy you must change minds.

You have to consider the ultimate goal. We want politicians to represent the people and not big business interests like they do now. How do we do that? We get money out of politics. We remove the personhood of corporations and overturn Citizens United so that business owners can't legally purchase politicians. We call for a constitutional convention to enact a 28th amendment against money influencing politics. It's slow, it's tough, but it can be done. This is the most important issue we face as Americans today.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
What do you suggest?

Coming up with something better is the problem. I agree both parties are catering to their own best interests, but aside from all out revolution, what can we really do? We have to do this democratically. It has to be done in a way that usurps power but doesn't raise eyebrows. That takes time. Recently I was reading about the Radical Republicans in congress right before the Civil War and their push towards equal rights for all, regardless of skin color. There were two predominant factions within the Republican party at the time; the Revolutionaries and the Evolutionaries. Revolutionaries suggested, you guessed it, revolution. The demand for immediate change at the threat of a gun. "Everyone's equal or we're fighting you to the death to make everyone equal!". Evolutionaries suggested action through government and believed political change required winning hearts and minds. To change policy you must change minds.

You have to consider the ultimate goal. We want politicians to represent the people and not big business interests like they do now. How do we do that? We get money out of politics. We remove the personhood of corporations and overturn Citizens United so that business owners can't legally purchase politicians. We call for a constitutional convention to enact a 28th amendment against money influencing politics. It's slow, it's tough, but it can be done. This is the most important issue we face as Americans today.
Click to expand...

You never mention eliminating the money monopoly so your solutions will always disappoint. You want to take money out of politics but then proceed to not suggest actually doing that, instead suggesting more authoritarianism. Those in power like those solutions a lot because they know as long as they control the entire financial system they are basically untouchable. They built most of the systems in place. They understand how to control them. And they own the media anyway so it's not like it's really going to make a lick of difference (your solution).

Anyway, you are definitively at the point where revolution (and I'd argue non violent is the best course - multi million man marches on capitals can work wonders and no major violence is necessary - imagine thousands descending on every capital with some receiving millions) is your best option if you want to take back your country. Otherwise you have no recourse at all. Your votes began to stop mattering the instant this money monopoly was granted. And they've only meant less and less ever since. Electronic voting machines with next to no security further cemented this. Not that voting is something that requires a machine anyway - in fact machines are almost definitively going to be subject to more outside influence (from whoever designed them) than a boring old pencil and paper with many observers present from all sides.

This non violent revolution will require some physical force - crashing the gates down to arrest the people in office. But not much beyond that. Then they can have every single thing and every single piece of information that the government has collected on them (fittingly) turned around on them. Thanks NSA for serving up all the evidence we need to have swift convictions of all of these criminals. That would be wonderfully ironic.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
You never mention eliminating the money monopoly so your solutions will always disappoint. You want to take money out of politics but then proceed to not suggest actually doing that, instead suggesting more authoritarianism. Those in power like those solutions a lot because they know as long as they control the entire financial system they are basically untouchable. They built most of the systems in place. They understand how to control them. And they own the media anyway so it's not like it's really going to make a lick of difference (your solution).

Anyway, you are definitively at the point where revolution (and I'd argue non violent is the best course - multi million man marches on capitals can work wonders and no major violence is necessary - imagine thousands descending on every capital with some receiving millions) is your best option if you want to take back your country. Otherwise you have no recourse at all. Your votes began to stop mattering the instant this money monopoly was granted. And they've only meant less and less ever since. Electronic voting machines with next to no security further cemented this. Not that voting is something that requires a machine anyway - in fact machines are almost definitively going to be subject to more outside influence (from whoever designed them) than a boring old pencil and paper with many observers present from all sides.

This non violent revolution will require some physical force - crashing the gates down to arrest the people in office. But not much beyond that. Then they can have every single thing and every single piece of information that the government has collected on them (fittingly) turned around on them. Thanks NSA for serving up all the evidence we need to have swift convictions of all of these criminals. That would be wonderfully ironic.
Click to expand...
Politics worked great for the average American after WW2, it wasn't until Buckley v. Valeo that we saw the decline of the middle class.

I believe a fiat money system is fundamentally flawed, capitalism itself is flawed, but that's not the most important issue. That can be addressed after the money in politics and corruption in government issue is sorted out. They somewhat go hand in hand
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Politics worked great for the average American after WW2, it wasn't until Buckley v. Valeo that we saw the decline of the middle class.

I believe a fiat money system is fundamentally flawed, capitalism itself is flawed, but that's not the most important issue. That can be addressed after the money in politics and corruption in government issue is sorted out. They somewhat go hand in hand
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that is a massive distortion. America was one of the few countries left basically untouched outside of a few incidents during WW2. More over because of the nuclear bomb and the size of the American military you made your currency the world reserve, which is a very envious place to be. The world needed rebuilding and as a result we saw a lot of GDP growth.

That's only one court decision of many that led to the current situation and it's impact is really pretty debatable anyway.

You will never solve the problems if you actively ignore the major variables causing them. More over, how did these people get so god damn rich in the first place? The individuals the court ruled could use their own funds to promote themselves. In the case of powerful people, it's almost always through cronyism and sweetheart deals - often gifted by government (especially during times of war when it seems profit margins no longer are a concern and much gouging took place).

Further, the very base mechanisms of the system in place necessitate the flow of wealth to those with the best credit ratings. Receive money first, benefit most. Receive last, benefit least.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...ars-of-income-inequality-in-america-in-graphs

You can take them further and they don't look all that different.

These graphs highlight this effect quite nicely. Although there are many which all demonstrate the same phenomenon. It would be even better if it included all income groups (the extremely wealthy would be laughing at the massive gains they've seen), but it does not.

In reality no one should ever consistently make the correct calls. In practice with the current system those who have the ear of the Reserve have a massive advantage in knowing potential rate swings in advance. Somehow, magically, the old wealth of yesteryear (Rockefeller, Rothschild, Warburg, the Aldrich's et al) who constitute modern wealth today appeared to not suffer even a bit from the first Great Depression (or any other major Recession). And there's good reason - they were out of the market before the Fed pulled the plug on the house of cards they had built. They then deliberately made it worse to further push prices down. A lot of valuable things are bought during these periods for fractions of their actual worth in the long haul.

Centralized banking is a tenant of communism, not capitalism. And considering the money supply is arguably the most important commodity in a modern economy, well, it's very hard to describe the current system as a capitalist one.
 
Herb & Suds said:
Lifelong Republican never voting for
another Republican after the Bush /Cheney debacle




Taking America back to the 1800's
Click to expand...
Slavery? The Republican party was founded and their main man Abraham Lincoln ran to abolish slavery. His speeches are documented and his democratic opponents were against abolishing slavery.
 
OGEvilgenius said:
I'm afraid that is a massive distortion. America was one of the few countries left basically untouched outside of a few incidents during WW2. More over because of the nuclear bomb and the size of the American military you made your currency the world reserve, which is a very envious place to be. The world needed rebuilding and as a result we saw a lot of GDP growth.
Click to expand...
This is a common misconception

"The post–World War II economic expansion, also known as the postwar economic boom, the long boom, and the Golden Age of Capitalism, was a period of economic prosperity in the mid-20th century which occurred, following the end of World War II in 1945, and lasted until the early 1970s. It ended with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the 1973 oil crisis, and the 1973–1974 stock market crash, which led to the 1970s recession. Narrowly defined, the period spanned from 1945 to 1952, with overall growth lasting well until 1971, though there are some debates on dating the period, and booms in individual countries differed, some starting as early as 1945, and overlapping the rise of the East Asian economies into the 1980s or 1990s.

During this time there was high worldwide economic growth; Western European and East Asian countries in particular experienced unusually high and sustained growth, together with full employment. Contrary to early predictions, this high growth also included many countries that had been devastated by the war, such as Greece (Greek economic miracle), West Germany (Wirtschaftswunder), France (Trente Glorieuses), Japan (Japanese post-war economic miracle), and Italy (Italian economic miracle)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion
OGEvilgenius said:
Centralized banking is a tenant of communism, not capitalism. And considering the money supply is arguably the most important commodity in a modern economy, well, it's very hard to describe the current system as a capitalist one.
Click to expand...
All capitalism means is the private ownership of the means of production. There are many different privately held business enterprises, big and small, that operate openly in this country. We have a centralized banking system, so very clearly this has nothing to do with communism.

The problem is the power super wealthy people/corporations/institutions hold over government through political contributions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top