Trillions More

[hyperrreal]

Great ad! Keep on hitting him hard!

[bellaronee]

why don't you look into all three candidates ----

look up tony rezko --- maybe he will help you buy a mansion.

[lorettarosa]

Feed McCain to the pigs

[skids7682]

While we're on the subject of pork, why is nobody taking ol' McCant on over his milquetoast response to KBR and their ilk shafting our troops and pocketing our tax dollars.

Not to even mention the whole military contract fiasco he's gotten himself into. Oops I mentioned it. No wonder he wants to cut a bunch of weapons programs -- they are competition for his own pork.

[darntastic]

I actually support Nuclear energy as a piece of the puzzle in combating global warming. Nuclear technology has come a long way and our fear's are largely unjustified. I'll say this it sure beats building dozen more coal burning energy plants.

[bildoreilly]

Nuclear power is just way too expensive and risky particularly when you factor in all the costs of long term radioactive waste storage.

The taxpayers are going to get stuck holding the bag for a long time after the profits have all been taken.

Natural gas is a good, clean alternative to coal burning power plants for the near future and our long term goal should be to build up solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power generation infrastructure.

And the number of new jobs created would be a plus!

[Advocate1234]

Remove the subsidies and regulations and prove me wrong.

[beardog321]

One important question, Where do we put the nuclear waste?

[Kotszu]

I think the makers of this video are confusing the term "pork barrel spending" with something else.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "... France has the cleanest air in Europe because of Europe. ..."

Er, OK, but they DON'T have Freedom Toast and Freedom Fries!

[bildoreilly]

Nuclear power is teh best.

You just set up a reactor, make some electricity, sell it and rake in the cash, then give away all of the millions of tons of highly radioactive "spent" fuel to the peoples so they can keep it and guard it for 50,000 years.

It's a great way to privatize profits while socializing the costs. What's not to love?

[Advocate1234]

Your poor attempt at sarcasm is absurd. France has the cleanest air in Europe because of Europe. You socialists would just love to have people starve.

[Advocate1234]

Because of *Nuclear

[NickDanger1980]

Ha. It's amusing to see the same right-wingers who refuse to eat "french" fries now holding up France as a role model. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

[Advocate1234]

You are doing essentially the same thing, only in reverse. You say France should be the model, yet reject Nuclear.

I say France's energy should be the model, but reject most of everything else.

[NickDanger1980]

When did I say France should be the model for the U.S. to follow? I haven't said that and won't. Typical right-winger, playing fast and loose with the facts.

[Advocate1234]

Well, then your entire argument is erroneous.

You are essentially arguing that someone cannot make the valid argument that Nuclear is a good idea, citing France as a model, if they disagree with France on most other issues.

Nuclear is the way to go, if you want clean energy and more power.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "Nuclear is the way to go, if you want clean energy and more power."

No, but it's great way to rake in cash while sticking the taxpayers with the long term costs of keeping and guarding all those millions and millions of tons of highly radioactive "spent" fuel.

You see, when they change out the "spent" fuel from the reactors, it's about a million times MORE radioactive than when it went in.

Somebody has to guard that for 50,000 years, long after the profits have been taken.

[Advocate1234]

Solution: Don't have the taxpayers subsidize it. Make the corporations pay for their own cleanup and internalize the costs.

[bildoreilly]

bildoreilly said: "No, but it's great way to rake in cash while sticking the taxpayers with the long term costs of keeping and guarding all those millions and millions of tons of highly radioactive "spent" fuel."

Advocate1234 said: "Solution: Don't have the taxpayers subsidize it. Make the corporations pay for their own cleanup and internalize the costs."

LOL, but then it won't be "profitable" once you factor in the extremely long term radioactive waste storage.

Wind & Solar makes more sense.

[Advocate1234]

Nonsense. Just removed the insane regulations. It certainly would be profitable, because there is demand for energy.

In fact, without subsidies, Solar and Wind are virtually worthless, because they do not as of yet provide enough power.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "Nonsense. Just removed the insane regulations. It certainly would be profitable, because there is demand for energy."

Nonsense. The nuclear industry is already heavily subsdidized.

And once you add up all the costs of decomissioning the radioactive nuclear plants after just a few decades plus storing and guarding all the millions of tons of highly radioactive waste for 50,000 years, the costs are ASTRONOMICAL.

They already plan to hand off all their waste to the taxpayers.

[Advocate1234]

You're just flat-out wrong because in France they can reuse the nuclear waste, which would make it more profitable.

The fact of the matter is that you want socialism no matter the costs.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "You're just flat-out wrong because in France they can reuse the nuclear waste, which would make it more profitable."

Nonsense. You can only do a little bit of that. It's called MOX and it's extremely pollutive, expensive and a major terrorism security issue.

Advocate1234 sez: "The fact of the matter is that you want socialism no matter the costs."

That's silly.

It seems it's YOU who wants nuclear power regardless of the costs, risks and consequenses. Are you a shareholder?

[Advocate1234]

Ah yes, I must be a shareholder to want provable clean energy, that is profitable for corporations without regulations, and does not require subsidies.

There is absolutely no justification to be against Nuclear. None. Unless of course you enjoy misery. We cannot supplement our energy with wind and solar. The technology isn't there yet.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "Ah yes, I must be a shareholder to want provable clean energy, that is profitable for corporations without regulations, and does not require subsidies."

You want nuclear power "without regulations?" Good Lord!

Ever hear of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?

[Advocate1234]

More people have died from vending machines falling on them than nuclear meltdowns.

In fact, not a single person has ever died from Nuclear meltdown on US soil.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "More people have died from vending machines falling on them than nuclear meltdowns."

More people have died from nuclear meltdowns than from solar panel accidents.

But no, you want an "unregulated" nuclear power industry and you want to stick future generations with the astronomical costs of keeping and guarding millions of tons of extremely radioactive nuclear waste for the next 50,000 years.

Windmills & solar panels are cheaper & cleaner.

And they'd create more jobs too.

[Advocate1234]

You argument completely failed. Nuclear power can supply use with power. Solar power can't. Your only argument so far was that it is dangerous, but there is no evidence of this today.

Lastly, your argument on jobs is meaningless when you have subsidies. You could subsidize people running on treadmills to power the Country and it would create 1000X more jobs than solar; it wouldn't make it a good idea.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "You argument completely failed. Nuclear power can supply use with power. Solar power can't. Your only argument so far was that it is dangerous, but there is no evidence of this today."

You have utterly failed to make your case. The nuclear industry is subsidized and couldn't exist on its own.

Plus the nuclear insustry ALREADY plans to stick American taxpayers with all their radioactive waste, once they've sucked out all the profits.

You're a corporate socialist. Admit it.

[Advocate1234]

I'm sorry...at this point we just have to part ways. I made the following arguments, and you disagree, and it appears there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise, even if it is the truth:

1) Nuclear Power is clean - France has proven this;

2) Nuclear Power can replace all our Power - France has proven this;

3) Nuclear Power is safe - France has proven this, and more people have died from vending machines than nuclear power;

4) Solar is more expensive than Nuclear.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "1) Nuclear Power is clean - France has proven this;"

That's absurd.

Advocate1234 sez: "2) Nuclear Power can replace all our Power - France has proven this; 3) Nuclear Power is safe - France has proven this,"

Why don't you move to France then?

Advocate1234 sez: "and more people have died from vending machines than nuclear power;"

Now you're just making stuff up.

Advocate1234 sez: "4) Solar is more expensive than Nuclear."

Pure rubbish.

[Advocate1234]

Well, since you decided to make a new argument, I'm going to add one last point because you decided to make a baseless statement.

The fact that France has a good energy policy has nothing to do with the fact that nothing else there is better than the United States. So, let's take their energy policy, and they can keep the rest.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sed: "The fact that France has a good energy policy has nothing to do with the fact that nothing else there is better than the United States. So, let's take their energy policy, and they can keep the rest."

You'd probably be happier in France, living next to one of their many nuclear power plants.

Au revior!

[Advocate1234]

Nah, you can build it here on American soil right next to my house.

[bildoreilly]

So why not just erect some windmills next your house?

They're clean, they're safe and you'd have a job at least.

[Advocate1234]

Fine, I'm not against yours so long as they aren't subsidized.

[bildoreilly]

Why are you so eager to subsidize nuclear power but you don't want to subsidize solar or wind power?

Compared to solar power or wind power, nuclear power has received about 30x times as much subsidy.

[Advocate1234]

I stated I wanted not subsidies. Do you just respond without reading?

[bildoreilly]

bildoreilly says: "Why are you so eager to subsidize nuclear power but you don't want to subsidize solar or wind power?

Compared to solar power or wind power, nuclear power has received about 30x times as much subsidy."

Advocate1234 sed: "I stated I wanted not subsidies. Do you just respond without reading?"

I read that you accept subsidies for the nuclear power industry but none for solar or wind power generation.

Nuclear power has been HEAVILY subsidized whether or not you acknowledge it.

[Advocate1234]

I know what it has been....I don't support subsidies of any kind.

[bildoreilly]

bildoreilly says: "I read that you accept subsidies for the nuclear power industry but none for solar or wind power generation.

Nuclear power has been HEAVILY subsidized whether or not you acknowledge it.

Advocate1234 says: "I know what it has been....I don't support subsidies of any kind."

But you support nuclear power subsidies. That makes sense.

[Advocate1234]

Any kind: This includes Nuclear.

[bildoreilly]

bildoreilly says: "Nuclear power has been HEAVILY subsidized whether or not you acknowledge it."

Advocate1234 says: "I know what it has been....I don't support subsidies of any kind."

bildoreilly says: "But you support nuclear power subsidies. That makes sense."

Advocate1234 sed: "Any kind: This includes Nuclear."

So what I don't understand is how you can advocate for the nuclear power industry which wouldn't exist without the many billions in subsidies its received.

[Advocate1234]

Because that's just not true. It is especially not true if you remove the regulations.

But, you want to go further and ban it.

[bildoreilly]

bildoreilly says: "So what I don't understand is how you can advocate for the nuclear power industry which wouldn't exist without the many billions in subsidies its received."

Advocate1234 sed: "Because that's just not true."

Then you clearly don't know what you're talking about, or you're fooling yourself.

Advocate1234 said: "It is especially not true if you remove the regulations."

That is absurd! Only a reckless fool would want the nuclear power industry to operate without regulations.

[Advocate1234]

I hate to break it to you, but corporations don't make profit if they have meltdowns:

1) The don't produce power;

2) They get sued.

Regulations are not needed.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "I hate to break it to you, but corporations don't make profit if they have meltdowns:

1) The don't produce power;"

The US Atomic Energy Commission concluded a worst-case US reactor meltdown could cause up to 50,000 fatalities early on.

Advocate1234 sez: "2) They get sued. Regulations are not needed."

No you're wrong again. Under the Price Anderson Act, the nuclear power industry receives tort and liability protection because the "free market" won't fully insure it.

[Advocate1234]

The Price Anderson Act places a cap for individuals. I would be fine for removing the cap.

Also, the worse case scenario is exactly why regulations are not needed because a Company would go bankrupt if just one meltdown occurred.

You make two opposing arguments...you say corporations only care about profits, and then you act as if they wouldn't want to prevent a meltdown.

Lastly, before you respond...how many meltdowns have there ever been in France?

[bildoreilly]

bildoreilly says: "The US Atomic Energy Commission concluded a worst-case US reactor meltdown could cause up to 50,000 fatalities early on."

Advocate1234 sed: "Also, the worse case scenario is exactly why regulations are not needed because a Company would go bankrupt if just one meltdown occurred."

In additional to the 50,000 dead people, profits would suffer!

Advocate1234 sed: "..how many meltdowns have there ever been in France?"

Now you're claiming France's nuclear plants are unregulated?

[Advocate1234]

Look...you just want to thwart all progress in this Country. I have no problem with Wind or Solar, so long as there are no subsidies.

You have a problem with Nuclear even though nobody had ever been harmed from it on American soil, or in France.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "Look...you just want to thwart all progress in this Country."

More nonsense.

Advocate1234 sez: "I have no problem with Wind or Solar, so long as there are no subsidies."

Yet you just said you'd vote for McCain BECAUSE he wants to boost subsidies to the nuclear power industry!

Advocate1234 sez: "You have a problem with Nuclear even though nobody had ever been harmed from it on American soil, or in France."

What will they do with their radioactive waste in the US? Who pays?

[Advocate1234]

I support McCain because he doesn't want to ban Nuclear.

Even assuming arguendo that the taxpayer money was used to hold nuclear waste, the net savings of using Nuclear is in the billions.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sed: "I have no problem with Wind or Solar, so long as there are no subsidies."

bildoreilly says: "Yet you just said you'd vote for McCain BECAUSE he wants to boost subsidies to the nuclear power industry!"

Advocate1234 sed: "Even assuming arguendo that the taxpayer money was used to hold nuclear waste, the net savings of using Nuclear is in the billions."

Great, so they take their profits & stick us taxpayers with millions of tons of highly radioactive waste for 50,000 years!

[Advocate1234]

No I didn't you keep misquoting me. Show me where I said I'd vote for him because he wants to boost subsidies. Your just being dishonest now.

I'm sorry...the cost of gas and food right now makes most of the American people agree with me that Nuclear is the answer. You also assume that our technology to clean up waste will stay static for the next 50,000.

My point is that you stop banning stuff, and subsidizing stuff, and we'll see what people want.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sed: "I don't support subsidies of any kind."

bildoreilly says: "Yet you just said you'd vote for McCain BECAUSE he wants to boost subsidies to the nuclear power industry!"

Advocate1234 sed: "No I didn't you keep misquoting me. Show me where I said I'd vote for him because he wants to boost subsidies. Your just being dishonest now."

You said:

Advocate1234 sed: "If McCain is going to push Nuclear Power, then this video just gave me another reason to vote for him."

Push = $

[Advocate1234]

Push Nuclear power means removing the ban.

[bildoreilly]

Is that what McCain says or is that what you think?

[Advocate1234]

McCain is not going to be pushing subsidies.

I also don't support subsidies, but if you remove the regulations and bans of all kinds on all energy...that is what I want.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "McCain is not going to be pushing subsidies."

That's EXACTLY what McCain is trying to do to the Lieberman-Warner Bill. McCain wants to explicitly insert billions of tax dollars in subsidies specifically for the nuclear power industry!

Advocate1234 sez: "I also don't support subsidies, but if you remove the regulations and bans of all kinds on all energy...that is what I want."

People don't like nuclear power. Subsidize wind and solar like nuclear and see which they choose.

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "In fact, without subsidies, Solar and Wind are virtually worthless, because they do not as of yet provide enough power."

Nonsense. That's because shortsighted idiots think it's better to build nuclear power plants instead of wind and solar power systems.

[Advocate1234]

No, it is because they don't produce enough energy, take up more land, and simply require subsidies to make them cost efficient.

[Advocate1234]

If McCain is going to push Nuclear Power, then this video just gave me another reason to vote for him. Thanks.!!

[bildoreilly]

Advocate1234 sez: "If McCain is going to push Nuclear Power, then... "

John Sydney McCain III is older than Plutonium!

[redboy337]

MCWar is a RIGHT WING FAUD EATING BUSH DOO DOO

[illiteratepoetdotcom]

How can you make such claims about nuclear power? Have the makers of this video even researched the stats on nuclear power compared to other forms in the US. Maybe they should!

[NickDanger1980]

What "claims" are you disputing? The video says McCain wants more pork for nuclear -- that's a fact. The video says nuclear is dangerous -- that's a fact. What's your complaint?

[queenofbabble1]

The facts don't meet his/her personal opinion that nuclear is nice...or something like that.

That would be my guess.

[illiteratepoetdotcom]

How can you make such claims about nuclear power? Have the makers of this video even researched the stats on nuclear power compared to other forms in the US. Maybe they should!

[onehalfpint]

McCain likes to pretend he's such a straight talker--but it's so obvious that he's not. Keep calling him out on this!

[DrewCourtney]

It's absurd that they keep giving McCain this maverick halo when he acts like any other right-wing hack.