I think he meant nucular
 

A variety of them. See this for more. And this.

Just watch this 3 hour video and tell me it's not true
 

What do you do with otherwise normal people who insist that 9/11 was a vast conspiracy involving controlled demolition charges placed in the towers, remote-controlled planes (or maybe a missile in the case of the Pentagon) and the continuing silence of the thousands of people who must have been in on it? Or are the words "otherwise normal" inapplicable here?

I think he meant nucular
 

Is our relationship as precarious with Canada as it is with any middle eastern country (or Venezuela)?

Just watch this 3 hour video and tell me it's not true
 

I used to work with a secretary who seemed like a nice, capable person. Then I found out that she was a Scientologist, and thereafter tried to avoid making eye contact.

I think he meant nucular
 

Some of that strikes me as the same sort of hopeful expectations that lead me to believe that I would be driving a flying car and vacationing on the moons of Jupiter. Implementation will require Federal and State tax policy changes, State utility regulation changes and a level of non-obstruction from utility companies which I don't expect to happen for at least the mid-term period.

Certainly, there are many situations where co-gen plants are a great solution (e.g. college campuses, smaller cities with municipal buildings in reasonable proximity, certain industrial operations) and the fact that Wal-Mart is exploring green buildings is also a boon, but these things are never as simple as government and academic researches like to present it.

If the two articles had been produced by researchers on the payroll of Exelon and Duke Energy, then I's be more inclinded to believe it's a near term possibility.

Just watch this 3 hour video and tell me it's not true
 

Is she cute? Otherwise, I'm not sure why you'd even listen.

If she is, try discussing whether there were FBI on the grassy knoll.

I think he meant nucular
 

It's still a (somewhat) global market and the price spikes have been driven by shortages occassioned largely by the increased use of GFTs for electrical production. Given that China would build a LNG terminal immediately (and the US would have years of litigation standing in the way) if their need for NG required it, and Canada would gladly ship all of their NG to China if that's where the market is, then it's still a problem.

Just watch this 3 hour video and tell me it's not true
 

If you are a Democrat, you count them in your voter base.

Just watch this 3 hour video and tell me it's not true
 

Tell them that they shouldn't share with you because you think that the NSA is listening to your conversations. Then offer them a foil hat.

I think he meant nucular
 

I was under the impression that one of the problems with the California electricity market was that no one wanted to build large plants because everyone sees this transition coming, leading to short-term supply problems.

I think he meant nucular
 

And I had thought that the problem with building large scale plants for California was that the environmental regs made it prohibitively difficult and expensive. Perhaps the coming change in CA is driven by a combination of switching over because it's a good idea and because the alternative of large plants is not available. Interesting stuff about the what's and where's of current and proposed plants in CA here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/index.html

Here east of the Mississippi, Exelon has been accumulating Nukes (while disposing of it's other generation facilities) and others have begun exploring building more. Not a solution in earthquake country.

What purpose does it serve?
 

Can some one explain to me how this resolution will help the country?

Gates: Iraq Resolution 'Emboldens' Enemy

Jan 26 3:04 PM US/Eastern


By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Roberts Gates said Friday that a congressional resolution opposing President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq amounts to undercutting U.S. commanders in a way that "emboldens the enemy."
At his first Pentagon news conference since taking office, Gates was asked his reaction to the debate in Congress over the effect of such a nonbinding resolution. "It's pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn't have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries," he said.

Gates talked to reporters as Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill prepared for the start debate next week on the resolution of opposition to President Bush's decision to send an additional 21,500 U.S. forces into battle in wartorn Iraq. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said Friday that a quick test vote would likely be taken if Republicans try to delay or block the move.

Gates was referring to Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who was confirmed by the full Senate on Friday to replace Gen. George Casey as the top American commander in Iraq. Petraeus has said he needs all 21,500 extra troops that Bush has ordered to Iraq in order to quell the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad.

"I think it's hard to measure that with any precision, but it seems pretty straightforward that any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks," Gates said, referring to the anti-government forces in Baghdad. He added that he was certain this was not the intent of those who support the congressional resolution.

"But that's the effect," he said.

What purpose does it serve?
 

I can't because it doesn't. But it is a result of having a POTUS who is the lamest of lame ducks, who hasn't lead the country in this (I believe initially misguided) conflict and who has shown no capacity for adapting to changed circumstances. But this resolution is pure CYA for the '08 election.

I know you realize this and yours was merely a rhetorical question, but c'mon spank.

What purpose does it serve?
 

People who oppose the president's strategy are trying to increase the pressure on him to change course. This resolution is a step in that process. They believe that any incremental "encouragement" of "anti-government forces" in Iraq is far outweighed by the potential benefits of better policy.

If you ask me, Gates' comments are near bullshit on their face, but are a way of trying to push back, politically. Iraq has a civil war going on between Sunnis and Shi'ites. The issues are now more profound than whether we leave or not. The "anti-government" forces are more upset by the Shi'ite death squads operating under Interior Ministry cover than anything the U.S. Senate does or doesn't say.

What purpose does it serve?
 

do you realize your every thought is colored by the blogs you read to get this "information?" At least i know I'm ignorant.