Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
StaunchLibertarian
Participant[quote=jpinpb]
This is major and the public has a right to see this captured scum dead or alive. I don’t think people’s skepticism about this makes them nut jobs. I find all of this just too suspicious and can’t help but question it. I’ve talked about this w/about 5 people so far. Four of them are skeptical about it. Three actually don’t believe it. And they were a mix of Dems and Reps so not just one party’s opinion.[/quote]If Bin Laden is alive don’t you think that he will show himself soon enough?
They got him. Obama did in just a little over two years what the neocons couldn’t do in 6 years.
I think Obama handled it perfectly. He didn’t bomb the house when he first found out about it because he wanted proof of Osama’s death. As soon as he got proof of Osama’s death, he buried the evidence at sea. If Bush had bumbled his way into finding and killing Osama, he probably would have had his head cut off and displayed it on national TV — thus spawning thousands of new terrorists.
On a related note, it doesn’t surprise me that the neocons are already trying to take credit for Obama’s skillful execution of the fight against terrorists.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/02/should-bush-get-credit-for-bin-laden-killing/
StaunchLibertarian
Participant[quote=jpinpb]
This is major and the public has a right to see this captured scum dead or alive. I don’t think people’s skepticism about this makes them nut jobs. I find all of this just too suspicious and can’t help but question it. I’ve talked about this w/about 5 people so far. Four of them are skeptical about it. Three actually don’t believe it. And they were a mix of Dems and Reps so not just one party’s opinion.[/quote]If Bin Laden is alive don’t you think that he will show himself soon enough?
They got him. Obama did in just a little over two years what the neocons couldn’t do in 6 years.
I think Obama handled it perfectly. He didn’t bomb the house when he first found out about it because he wanted proof of Osama’s death. As soon as he got proof of Osama’s death, he buried the evidence at sea. If Bush had bumbled his way into finding and killing Osama, he probably would have had his head cut off and displayed it on national TV — thus spawning thousands of new terrorists.
On a related note, it doesn’t surprise me that the neocons are already trying to take credit for Obama’s skillful execution of the fight against terrorists.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/02/should-bush-get-credit-for-bin-laden-killing/
StaunchLibertarian
Participant[quote=jpinpb]
This is major and the public has a right to see this captured scum dead or alive. I don’t think people’s skepticism about this makes them nut jobs. I find all of this just too suspicious and can’t help but question it. I’ve talked about this w/about 5 people so far. Four of them are skeptical about it. Three actually don’t believe it. And they were a mix of Dems and Reps so not just one party’s opinion.[/quote]If Bin Laden is alive don’t you think that he will show himself soon enough?
They got him. Obama did in just a little over two years what the neocons couldn’t do in 6 years.
I think Obama handled it perfectly. He didn’t bomb the house when he first found out about it because he wanted proof of Osama’s death. As soon as he got proof of Osama’s death, he buried the evidence at sea. If Bush had bumbled his way into finding and killing Osama, he probably would have had his head cut off and displayed it on national TV — thus spawning thousands of new terrorists.
On a related note, it doesn’t surprise me that the neocons are already trying to take credit for Obama’s skillful execution of the fight against terrorists.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/02/should-bush-get-credit-for-bin-laden-killing/
StaunchLibertarian
Participant[quote=jpinpb]
This is major and the public has a right to see this captured scum dead or alive. I don’t think people’s skepticism about this makes them nut jobs. I find all of this just too suspicious and can’t help but question it. I’ve talked about this w/about 5 people so far. Four of them are skeptical about it. Three actually don’t believe it. And they were a mix of Dems and Reps so not just one party’s opinion.[/quote]If Bin Laden is alive don’t you think that he will show himself soon enough?
They got him. Obama did in just a little over two years what the neocons couldn’t do in 6 years.
I think Obama handled it perfectly. He didn’t bomb the house when he first found out about it because he wanted proof of Osama’s death. As soon as he got proof of Osama’s death, he buried the evidence at sea. If Bush had bumbled his way into finding and killing Osama, he probably would have had his head cut off and displayed it on national TV — thus spawning thousands of new terrorists.
On a related note, it doesn’t surprise me that the neocons are already trying to take credit for Obama’s skillful execution of the fight against terrorists.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/02/should-bush-get-credit-for-bin-laden-killing/
April 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM in reply to: OT : Dagny Taggarts Nuclear Reactor, Tepco CEO goes Galt #688059StaunchLibertarian
ParticipantAnyone who believes in free-market principles should be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would not be built without federally-guaranteed loans. Private investors realize the risk is greater than the reward and will not provide financing without the government guaranteeing that the loan will be paid back.
In fact, nuclear power is so uneconomical that if the government were to purchase power on the open market and give it away for free it would be cheaper than subsidizing nuclear power plants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-tale-of-nuclear-disas_b_844635.html
Additionally, there is no safe, economical way to store the spent fuel. Fukushima has 26x as much nuclear fuel on site as Chernobyl simply because all of the fuel ever used there is still stored there in the spent fuel pools.
This is clearly not safe. One of the explosions blew portions of the spent fuel up to a mile away from the plant.
The U.S. has 23 nuclear plants that are just like Fukushima. They store all of the spent fuel on-site above the reactors and are ticking time bombs.
Further, decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is hugely expensive. It’s a process that can last up to 50 years and cost tens of billions of dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
Why would anyone be in favor of nuclear power? Many environmentalists are against nuclear power for obvious reasons (although some support them because they believe that they won’t contribute to global warming).
However, anyone who believes in free market principles should also be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would never be built in a truly free market with no federally-guaranteed loans.
April 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM in reply to: OT : Dagny Taggarts Nuclear Reactor, Tepco CEO goes Galt #688550StaunchLibertarian
ParticipantAnyone who believes in free-market principles should be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would not be built without federally-guaranteed loans. Private investors realize the risk is greater than the reward and will not provide financing without the government guaranteeing that the loan will be paid back.
In fact, nuclear power is so uneconomical that if the government were to purchase power on the open market and give it away for free it would be cheaper than subsidizing nuclear power plants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-tale-of-nuclear-disas_b_844635.html
Additionally, there is no safe, economical way to store the spent fuel. Fukushima has 26x as much nuclear fuel on site as Chernobyl simply because all of the fuel ever used there is still stored there in the spent fuel pools.
This is clearly not safe. One of the explosions blew portions of the spent fuel up to a mile away from the plant.
The U.S. has 23 nuclear plants that are just like Fukushima. They store all of the spent fuel on-site above the reactors and are ticking time bombs.
Further, decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is hugely expensive. It’s a process that can last up to 50 years and cost tens of billions of dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
Why would anyone be in favor of nuclear power? Many environmentalists are against nuclear power for obvious reasons (although some support them because they believe that they won’t contribute to global warming).
However, anyone who believes in free market principles should also be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would never be built in a truly free market with no federally-guaranteed loans.
April 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM in reply to: OT : Dagny Taggarts Nuclear Reactor, Tepco CEO goes Galt #688200StaunchLibertarian
ParticipantAnyone who believes in free-market principles should be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would not be built without federally-guaranteed loans. Private investors realize the risk is greater than the reward and will not provide financing without the government guaranteeing that the loan will be paid back.
In fact, nuclear power is so uneconomical that if the government were to purchase power on the open market and give it away for free it would be cheaper than subsidizing nuclear power plants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-tale-of-nuclear-disas_b_844635.html
Additionally, there is no safe, economical way to store the spent fuel. Fukushima has 26x as much nuclear fuel on site as Chernobyl simply because all of the fuel ever used there is still stored there in the spent fuel pools.
This is clearly not safe. One of the explosions blew portions of the spent fuel up to a mile away from the plant.
The U.S. has 23 nuclear plants that are just like Fukushima. They store all of the spent fuel on-site above the reactors and are ticking time bombs.
Further, decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is hugely expensive. It’s a process that can last up to 50 years and cost tens of billions of dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
Why would anyone be in favor of nuclear power? Many environmentalists are against nuclear power for obvious reasons (although some support them because they believe that they won’t contribute to global warming).
However, anyone who believes in free market principles should also be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would never be built in a truly free market with no federally-guaranteed loans.
April 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM in reply to: OT : Dagny Taggarts Nuclear Reactor, Tepco CEO goes Galt #687441StaunchLibertarian
ParticipantAnyone who believes in free-market principles should be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would not be built without federally-guaranteed loans. Private investors realize the risk is greater than the reward and will not provide financing without the government guaranteeing that the loan will be paid back.
In fact, nuclear power is so uneconomical that if the government were to purchase power on the open market and give it away for free it would be cheaper than subsidizing nuclear power plants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-tale-of-nuclear-disas_b_844635.html
Additionally, there is no safe, economical way to store the spent fuel. Fukushima has 26x as much nuclear fuel on site as Chernobyl simply because all of the fuel ever used there is still stored there in the spent fuel pools.
This is clearly not safe. One of the explosions blew portions of the spent fuel up to a mile away from the plant.
The U.S. has 23 nuclear plants that are just like Fukushima. They store all of the spent fuel on-site above the reactors and are ticking time bombs.
Further, decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is hugely expensive. It’s a process that can last up to 50 years and cost tens of billions of dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
Why would anyone be in favor of nuclear power? Many environmentalists are against nuclear power for obvious reasons (although some support them because they believe that they won’t contribute to global warming).
However, anyone who believes in free market principles should also be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would never be built in a truly free market with no federally-guaranteed loans.
April 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM in reply to: OT : Dagny Taggarts Nuclear Reactor, Tepco CEO goes Galt #687384StaunchLibertarian
ParticipantAnyone who believes in free-market principles should be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would not be built without federally-guaranteed loans. Private investors realize the risk is greater than the reward and will not provide financing without the government guaranteeing that the loan will be paid back.
In fact, nuclear power is so uneconomical that if the government were to purchase power on the open market and give it away for free it would be cheaper than subsidizing nuclear power plants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-tale-of-nuclear-disas_b_844635.html
Additionally, there is no safe, economical way to store the spent fuel. Fukushima has 26x as much nuclear fuel on site as Chernobyl simply because all of the fuel ever used there is still stored there in the spent fuel pools.
This is clearly not safe. One of the explosions blew portions of the spent fuel up to a mile away from the plant.
The U.S. has 23 nuclear plants that are just like Fukushima. They store all of the spent fuel on-site above the reactors and are ticking time bombs.
Further, decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is hugely expensive. It’s a process that can last up to 50 years and cost tens of billions of dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
Why would anyone be in favor of nuclear power? Many environmentalists are against nuclear power for obvious reasons (although some support them because they believe that they won’t contribute to global warming).
However, anyone who believes in free market principles should also be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would never be built in a truly free market with no federally-guaranteed loans.
StaunchLibertarian
Participant[quote=paramount]Yah, let’s prevent the same people who had to pay for bank bailouts from owning a house.
The rules stated in the article are far to stringent.
The following basic guidelines make sense (although each situation should be treated uniquely):
Credit Score: 650 and above
Down Payment: Anything below 20% pays PMI
Income Ratio: 36% Gross Income to Loan Amount[/quote]Down payments below 20% make one a glorified renter, not an owner. If a would-be owner can really afford a house on the typical 30-year mortgage, then a 20% down payment should only take 6 years to save up for.
That means that if you start saving at about the time you plan to have kids, you can rent for 6 years while saving up for a home, and then actually buy and move into that home when the kid starts school. 20% down payments are perfectly reasonable.
All these government subsidies and lowering of down payments is just causing house prices to go up. Requiring at least 20% down payments from everyone means you won’t be competing against speculators who ‘buy’ with 0% down and then dump their houses a couple of years later if they don’t go up in value.
StaunchLibertarian
Participant[quote=paramount]Yah, let’s prevent the same people who had to pay for bank bailouts from owning a house.
The rules stated in the article are far to stringent.
The following basic guidelines make sense (although each situation should be treated uniquely):
Credit Score: 650 and above
Down Payment: Anything below 20% pays PMI
Income Ratio: 36% Gross Income to Loan Amount[/quote]Down payments below 20% make one a glorified renter, not an owner. If a would-be owner can really afford a house on the typical 30-year mortgage, then a 20% down payment should only take 6 years to save up for.
That means that if you start saving at about the time you plan to have kids, you can rent for 6 years while saving up for a home, and then actually buy and move into that home when the kid starts school. 20% down payments are perfectly reasonable.
All these government subsidies and lowering of down payments is just causing house prices to go up. Requiring at least 20% down payments from everyone means you won’t be competing against speculators who ‘buy’ with 0% down and then dump their houses a couple of years later if they don’t go up in value.
StaunchLibertarian
Participant[quote=paramount]Yah, let’s prevent the same people who had to pay for bank bailouts from owning a house.
The rules stated in the article are far to stringent.
The following basic guidelines make sense (although each situation should be treated uniquely):
Credit Score: 650 and above
Down Payment: Anything below 20% pays PMI
Income Ratio: 36% Gross Income to Loan Amount[/quote]Down payments below 20% make one a glorified renter, not an owner. If a would-be owner can really afford a house on the typical 30-year mortgage, then a 20% down payment should only take 6 years to save up for.
That means that if you start saving at about the time you plan to have kids, you can rent for 6 years while saving up for a home, and then actually buy and move into that home when the kid starts school. 20% down payments are perfectly reasonable.
All these government subsidies and lowering of down payments is just causing house prices to go up. Requiring at least 20% down payments from everyone means you won’t be competing against speculators who ‘buy’ with 0% down and then dump their houses a couple of years later if they don’t go up in value.
StaunchLibertarian
Participant[quote=paramount]Yah, let’s prevent the same people who had to pay for bank bailouts from owning a house.
The rules stated in the article are far to stringent.
The following basic guidelines make sense (although each situation should be treated uniquely):
Credit Score: 650 and above
Down Payment: Anything below 20% pays PMI
Income Ratio: 36% Gross Income to Loan Amount[/quote]Down payments below 20% make one a glorified renter, not an owner. If a would-be owner can really afford a house on the typical 30-year mortgage, then a 20% down payment should only take 6 years to save up for.
That means that if you start saving at about the time you plan to have kids, you can rent for 6 years while saving up for a home, and then actually buy and move into that home when the kid starts school. 20% down payments are perfectly reasonable.
All these government subsidies and lowering of down payments is just causing house prices to go up. Requiring at least 20% down payments from everyone means you won’t be competing against speculators who ‘buy’ with 0% down and then dump their houses a couple of years later if they don’t go up in value.
StaunchLibertarian
Participant[quote=paramount]Yah, let’s prevent the same people who had to pay for bank bailouts from owning a house.
The rules stated in the article are far to stringent.
The following basic guidelines make sense (although each situation should be treated uniquely):
Credit Score: 650 and above
Down Payment: Anything below 20% pays PMI
Income Ratio: 36% Gross Income to Loan Amount[/quote]Down payments below 20% make one a glorified renter, not an owner. If a would-be owner can really afford a house on the typical 30-year mortgage, then a 20% down payment should only take 6 years to save up for.
That means that if you start saving at about the time you plan to have kids, you can rent for 6 years while saving up for a home, and then actually buy and move into that home when the kid starts school. 20% down payments are perfectly reasonable.
All these government subsidies and lowering of down payments is just causing house prices to go up. Requiring at least 20% down payments from everyone means you won’t be competing against speculators who ‘buy’ with 0% down and then dump their houses a couple of years later if they don’t go up in value.
-
AuthorPosts