Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on April 01, 2010, 06:08:04 AM
-
April 1, 2010
Drill, but Not Everywhere
For years, the debate over offshore drilling for gas and oil has been a war of sound bites between the “drill now, drill everywhere” crowd that dominated the Bush administration and the Republican campaign in 2008, and members of the environmental community who would leave the country’s outer continental shelf untouched.
Neither provided a satisfying answer to the twin demands of reducing this country’s dependence on foreign oil and protecting precious coastal areas. On Wednesday, President Obama struck a sensible middle ground.
He announced a decision to expand oil and gas exploration in selected areas of America’s coastal waters that will satisfy neither extreme but is, on the whole, a careful and useful addition to the steps he has already taken to reduce the nation’s energy dependence.
Mr. Obama noted pointedly and correctly that increased oil and gas drilling cannot possibly address the country’s long-term energy needs. It should be seen as just one element of his broader energy strategy — including fuel efficiency standards to be announced on Thursday, big investments in alternative fuels in the stimulus package and new loan guarantees for nuclear power.
The new strategy — the result of more than a year of work by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar — also confronts an essential political reality: the Senate will insist on offshore drilling as part of a broader bill, expected after Easter, addressing climate change and other energy-related problems. Mr. Obama is trying to anticipate and shape that discussion by identifying areas that he thinks can responsibly be opened for exploration while quarantining others.
Nearly all of America’s coastal waters have been up for grabs since 2008 when President George W. Bush lifted a longstanding presidential moratorium on drilling in the outer continental shelf. A few months later, Congress allowed a parallel Congressional moratorium to expire. Mr. Bush also lifted a separate moratorium on drilling in Alaska’s Bristol Bay that was imposed by his father in 1990 after the Exxon Valdez spill. Bristol Bay is home to America’s richest fishing grounds and is the main driver of a $2.2 billion regional fishing industry.
Under the Obama administration’s plan, Bristol Bay will once again be completely protected, which is wonderful news. Further north in Arctic waters, the plan would allow drilling on existing leases in relatively small areas of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to proceed — which seemed inevitable, given legal and economic obstacles to reversing them. It would, however, postpone any further development pending the outcome of detailed scientific and environmental studies. Alaska’s environmentalists were encouraged, and they should be.
The rest of the plan is as significant for the areas it protects as for those it opens. Exploration will not be allowed on the Pacific Coast or along the Atlantic Coast north of Delaware. Seismic exploration — which in effect means exploratory drilling — will be allowed along the central and southern Atlantic Coast from Delaware to Florida, but, again, no new leases will be granted until the scoping process and the environmental reviews are finished.
The Interior Department’s seismic information is decades old, and one important point of the new plan is to discover what’s out there. The department’s most optimistic present estimate of the resources in the areas covered by the plan, including the Gulf of Mexico, is 63 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil.
That sounds like a lot, but it isn’t, since the United States consumes more than 7 billion barrels each year. As Mr. Obama noted, the basic energy math remains unchanged: a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil, but owns about 2 percent of the world’s known reserves, cannot drill its way to self-sufficiency.
-
Drilling is not a viable long-term solution and is rather pointless.
"a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil, but owns about 2 percent of the world’s known reserves, cannot drill its way to self-sufficiency"
-
Drilling is not a viable long-term solution and is rather pointless.
"a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil, but owns about 2 percent of the world’s known reserves, cannot drill its way to self-sufficiency"
So lets see,no drilling,no nukes[as Obama shut down yukka mountain],no wind because libs dont want it anywhere where they live[Feinstein and Kennedy],ethonol is a waste,no coal,no natural gas.Please give us your liberal solution to the problem.
-
Drilling is not a viable long-term solution and is rather pointless.
"a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil, but owns about 2 percent of the world’s known reserves, cannot drill its way to self-sufficiency"
:D
-
So lets see,no drilling,no nukes[as Obama shut down yukka mountain],no wind because libs dont want it anywhere where they live[Feinstein and Kennedy],ethonol is a waste,no coal,no natural gas.Please give us your liberal solution to the problem.
Obama just allowed money for Nuclear Plants to be built. The First President to do so in 30 years. Nuclear Energy is a wonderful solution and Obama is doing more than any previous president in regards to Nuclear Energy. Hope this helps a bit.
-
http://www.examiner.com/x-37619-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m2d17-Obama-first-president-to-build-nuclear-reactors-in-over-30-years
Obama; first president to build nuclear reactors in over 30 years
February 17, 10:30 PMEnvironmental Policy ExaminerJean Williams
President Obama announced on Tuesday, February 16, that $8.3 billion in guaranteed loans has been appropriated to build two nuclear power plants in Burke, Georgia, and put 3,000-4000 people to work, but he had no clear plan on how the nuclear waste would be stored.
According to Carol Browner, assistant the president on Climate and Energy, Obama will be appointing a “blue-star panel” of bipartisan members to come up with a way to safely store and ultimately dispose of, radioactive nuclear waste.
A task that has eluded lawmakers in the past.
Yucca Mountain in Nevada was expected to become the major repository of U.S nuclear waste, but it was defunded this year and was taken off the table after almost a decade of preparation.
White House spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, said that Yucca Mountain was rejected, “because of the science.”
Therefore, a national repository for nuclear waste does not exist and there are hundreds of nuclear reactors across the United States that have been storing the waste on site.
Currently, nuclear power generates approximately 20% of all the US supply, but many of the power plants are old and out dated.
Recently, the Nuclear Regulatory Council spokesman Neil Sheehan said conservative estimates show that leaks have occurred in at least 27 of the nation’s 104 commercial reactors at 65 different plant sites. He said the list likely does not include every plant where fuel has leaked, due to unreported incidents.
The Hanford Nuclear Reactor site in Washington state just got renewed funding in the 2010 budget, which will allow continued clean up on the worlds most contaminated nuclear site. The reactors were closed down after the cold war, but 53 million tons of uranium nuclear waste remains in 170 underground storage tanks.
The Columbia River still has levels of contamination that is 1500 times the standard of drinking water in many areas. A mass class action law suit by thousands of area residents that spent unknowing years with uranium pollutants in their air, water, and food--is still underway in 2010.
Environmental experts agree with President Obama when he says, “the fact is, changing the ways we produce and use energy requires us to think anew, it requires us to act anew, and it demands of us a willingness to extend our hand across some of the old divides."
But there are differences of opinion on what sources to invest in that will benefit the environment, the economy, and the increasing global population.
Stephen Smith, director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy told CNN that it may be true that nuclear power doesn’t pollute the air, but there are faster, better, safer ways to reduce U.S. carbon out put.
“Increased energy efficiency is one thing that could be done immediately,” said Smith. He feels, as many do, that wind, solar, and geothermal are also sources of energy that could create jobs faster--and reduce greenhouse emissions sooner--than nuclear power. Smith said not having a clear plan to safely dispose of the waste currently sitting in underground storage is bad enough, but building more nuclear plants without a central repository is unwise.
Furthermore, most experts feel that a massive increase in nuclear power plants will be prohibited by the high cost (6-10 billion per reactor), concerns about uranium supplies, shortage of key building materials, huge volumes of water needed amid increasing shortages, and very long construction times,
Tuesday, Carol Browner confirmed the long construction time, when she said the bull dozers were already underway in Georgia and the preparation process would take from 16-18 months. Once the permits are cleared by the Nuclear Regulatory Council, assuming they will be, the construction could take up to 6-8 years.
But the president thinks the rest of the world is passing us by on nuclear power: “There are 56 nuclear reactors under construction around the world: 21 in China alone; six in South Korea and five in India," said Obama.
Has he asked them how they dispose of their waste?
As the popularity of the president erodes more every day, some environmentalists feel that Obama is giving too many concessions to the Republicans in his effort to reach bipartisanship in congress.
“We can’t allow our differences to keep us from making progress,” said Obama, but his efforts seem to fall on stubborn conservative ears.
Republican minority leader, John Boehner grudgingly responded to the president’s nuclear reactor announcement by saying, “it’s a small first step, but much more needs to be done.”
Then Boehner, launched into his usual talking points about big government spending and the lack of jobs, as if eight years of the Bush administration had no responsibility in the current situation.
President Obama will have the distinction of authorizing the building of nuclear reactors for the first time in 30 years, since the Three Mile Island reactor meltdown in 1979.
What concessions will he get from the Republicans? Probably very few.
-
Yep and we need to drill as well.....look TA's gimmick posts exactly like he does.
-
Yep and we need to drill as well.....look TA's gimmick posts exactly like he does.
Jezebelle is my girlfriend genius. Hardly a gimmick.
-
http://www.examiner.com/x-37619-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m2d17-Obama-first-president-to-build-nuclear-reactors-in-over-30-years
Obama; first president to build nuclear reactors in over 30 years
February 17, 10:30 PMEnvironmental Policy ExaminerJean Williams
President Obama announced on Tuesday, February 16, that $8.3 billion in guaranteed loans has been appropriated to build two nuclear power plants in Burke, Georgia, and put 3,000-4000 people to work, but he had no clear plan on how the nuclear waste would be stored.
According to Carol Browner, assistant the president on Climate and Energy, Obama will be appointing a “blue-star panel” of bipartisan members to come up with a way to safely store and ultimately dispose of, radioactive nuclear waste.
A task that has eluded lawmakers in the past.
Yucca Mountain in Nevada was expected to become the major repository of U.S nuclear waste, but it was defunded this year and was taken off the table after almost a decade of preparation.
White House spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, said that Yucca Mountain was rejected, “because of the science.”
Therefore, a national repository for nuclear waste does not exist and there are hundreds of nuclear reactors across the United States that have been storing the waste on site.
Currently, nuclear power generates approximately 20% of all the US supply, but many of the power plants are old and out dated.
Recently, the Nuclear Regulatory Council spokesman Neil Sheehan said conservative estimates show that leaks have occurred in at least 27 of the nation’s 104 commercial reactors at 65 different plant sites. He said the list likely does not include every plant where fuel has leaked, due to unreported incidents.
The Hanford Nuclear Reactor site in Washington state just got renewed funding in the 2010 budget, which will allow continued clean up on the worlds most contaminated nuclear site. The reactors were closed down after the cold war, but 53 million tons of uranium nuclear waste remains in 170 underground storage tanks.
The Columbia River still has levels of contamination that is 1500 times the standard of drinking water in many areas. A mass class action law suit by thousands of area residents that spent unknowing years with uranium pollutants in their air, water, and food--is still underway in 2010.
Environmental experts agree with President Obama when he says, “the fact is, changing the ways we produce and use energy requires us to think anew, it requires us to act anew, and it demands of us a willingness to extend our hand across some of the old divides."
But there are differences of opinion on what sources to invest in that will benefit the environment, the economy, and the increasing global population.
Stephen Smith, director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy told CNN that it may be true that nuclear power doesn’t pollute the air, but there are faster, better, safer ways to reduce U.S. carbon out put.
“Increased energy efficiency is one thing that could be done immediately,” said Smith. He feels, as many do, that wind, solar, and geothermal are also sources of energy that could create jobs faster--and reduce greenhouse emissions sooner--than nuclear power. Smith said not having a clear plan to safely dispose of the waste currently sitting in underground storage is bad enough, but building more nuclear plants without a central repository is unwise.
Furthermore, most experts feel that a massive increase in nuclear power plants will be prohibited by the high cost (6-10 billion per reactor), concerns about uranium supplies, shortage of key building materials, huge volumes of water needed amid increasing shortages, and very long construction times,
Tuesday, Carol Browner confirmed the long construction time, when she said the bull dozers were already underway in Georgia and the preparation process would take from 16-18 months. Once the permits are cleared by the Nuclear Regulatory Council, assuming they will be, the construction could take up to 6-8 years.
But the president thinks the rest of the world is passing us by on nuclear power: “There are 56 nuclear reactors under construction around the world: 21 in China alone; six in South Korea and five in India," said Obama.
Has he asked them how they dispose of their waste?
As the popularity of the president erodes more every day, some environmentalists feel that Obama is giving too many concessions to the Republicans in his effort to reach bipartisanship in congress.
“We can’t allow our differences to keep us from making progress,” said Obama, but his efforts seem to fall on stubborn conservative ears.
Republican minority leader, John Boehner grudgingly responded to the president’s nuclear reactor announcement by saying, “it’s a small first step, but much more needs to be done.”
Then Boehner, launched into his usual talking points about big government spending and the lack of jobs, as if eight years of the Bush administration had no responsibility in the current situation.
President Obama will have the distinction of authorizing the building of nuclear reactors for the first time in 30 years, since the Three Mile Island reactor meltdown in 1979.
What concessions will he get from the Republicans? Probably very few.
He closed yukka mountain at the same time KNOWING there is no place to put the waste.These reactors wil NEVER EVER go online.Its a scam from day one.
-
Jezebelle is my girlfriend genius. Hardly a gimmick.
So ur posting under her account......good job. ::)
-
Jezebelle is my girlfriend genius. Hardly a gimmick.
haha Do you have any idea how stupid this looks? Benny and you were made for each other.
-
He closed yukka mountain at the same time KNOWING there is no place to put the waste.These reactors wil NEVER EVER go online.Its a scam from day one.
Yukka Mountain is useless for the new types of Powerplants that do not require such storage. Refinement of "waste" is what will certainly propel the future of Nuclear Energy, not storage.
-
So what happens when the oil runs out? The irgs become big rust buckets...you know damn well that they will not be disassembled and resused for other purposes. I'm all about energy independence, but I don't see how select drilling will help our problem.
Is this going to be a part of the cap and trade bill? If so, I have already been doing my best to fight it.
-
Great, the point is we need to drill, we need nukes, we need it all. I applaude the assbag in chief for throwing a cracker to the american working man. The far left will never let this stand, they will litigate this into nothing.
-
Great, the point is we need to drill, we need nukes, we need it all. I applaude the assbag in chief for throwing a cracker to the american working man. The far left will never let this stand, they will litigate this into nothing.
I don't think we need it all...I think the time for oil as a fuel source is coming to a close. The technology is there that can be developed into something usable.
My question still stands though. Is this part of the cap and trade bill?
-
Great, the point is we need to drill, we need nukes, we need it all. I applaude the assbag in chief for throwing a cracker to the american working man. The far left will never let this stand, they will litigate this into nothing.
Drilling does not make sense when it is such a minuscule amount to be garnered given our current rate of consumption. It has no projected impact to even matter.
It would make more sense to direct the money towards Nuclear Energy, Tidal, Wind or Solar.
-
Yukka Mountain is useless for the new types of Powerplants that do not require such storage. Refinement of "waste" is what will certainly propel the future of Nuclear Energy, not storage.
These plants will NEVER EVER go online,UNLESS republicans win both houses and the presidency.
-
Sure....what do u fill ur car with, what will u fill ur car with tommorrow...or next year.....yeah. Until we have a massive and viable alternative energy source that both commericial and private vehicles plus all of US industry. Ur wishes and wants won't fuel the American economy.
-
These plants will NEVER EVER go online,UNLESS republicans win both houses and the presidency.
Republicans have a dismal and poor record when it comes to Nuclear Energy.
-
Sure....what do u fill ur car with, what will u fill ur car with tommorrow...or next year.....yeah. Until we have a massive and viable alternative energy source that both commericial and private vehicles plus all of US industry. Ur wishes and wants won't fuel the American economy.
Drilling will have no impact given the projected amounts that are available. What is the point?
-
There are massive reserves in the Gulf and in Alaska...and its ours, thats the point. The Chinese aren't trying to sink rigs off the coast of Cuba because "there's no point"....add petroleum engineer and geologist to ur extensive wiki/cut and paste resume.
-
Yep and we need to drill as well.....look TA's gimmick posts exactly like he does.
actually she seems much smarter and less arrogant as of yet...no pompous attitudes with thoughts coming straight from articles or youtube clips
again as of yet
-
You libs really are too much. When Bush was in office and he talked about drilling:
1. "It wont work"
2. "It will take too long"
3. "He is owned by the big oil companies"
4. "The spotted whale wont like it"
5. "Its dirty"
Now that Barry is doing it, its ok ? ? ? ? You guys really are a pathetic joke to the Nth degree.
-
There are massive reserves in the Gulf and in Alaska...and its ours, thats the point. The Chinese aren't trying to sink rigs off the coast of Cuba because "there's no point"....add petroleum engineer and geologist to ur extensive wiki/cut and paste resume.
Arctic Refuge Oil Is a Distraction, Not a Solution
U.S. Geological Service's estimate of the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- represents less than a year's U.S. supply.
It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks -- in the distant year of 2027 -- the refuge would produce a paltry 3 percent of Americans' daily consumption. The U.S. government's own Energy Information Agency recently reported that drilling in the Arctic would save less than 4 cents per gallon in 20 years. Whatever oil the refuge might produce is simply irrelevant to the larger issue of meeting America's future energy needs.
-
You libs really are too much. When Bush was in office and he talked about drilling:
1. "It wont work"
2. "It will take too long"
3. "He is owned by the big oil companies"
4. "The spotted whale wont like it"
5. "Its dirty"
Now that Barry is doing it, its ok ? ? ? ? You guys really are a pathetic joke to the Nth degree.
I am telling you its not okay and it is pointless. Are you unable to comprehend what I am posting?
-
Why Obama's New Offshore Announcement Doesn't Accomplish Squat
www.businessinsider.com
The Obama administration released new rules yesterday about where oil companies could explore and drill for oil off the coast of the United States.
These new provisions led some to believe there was a brand new Democratic position on the off shore debate.
From The Republican Natural Resource Committee:
.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-heres-the-real-story-of-obamas-oil-drilling-agenda-2010-4#ixzz0jratRdkS
-
Hopefully this will wake Republicans up to realizing there is no substantial oil to be garnered to warrant drilling.
-
Hopefully this will wake Republicans up to realizing there is no substantial oil to be garnered to warrant drilling.
Uh...this is what Obama wants. Don't blame this on another party.
-
Uh...this is what Obama wants. Don't blame this on another party.
I`m not blaming this pointless idea on anyone. I don`t support it plain and simple. The Republicans will surely oppose this, (since they like to oppose anything even if they agree with it) and the only way to oppose it logically is with the evidence and the facts.
I do realize Republicans are usually devoid of logic and blind to facts and they certainly care nothing for evidence, but here is a chance for them to get something right for once and to mount opposition at least based in Science, Reason and Fact.
Who am I kidding though? This is the Republicans we are talking about and the last thing they will ever do is formulate a logical, evidence based argument.
Any party or person who does support this measure does not have a logical reason for doing so given the minuscule amount of oil there is.
-
TA - what does your "maserati" run on and where does it come from?
-
Not a good solution but as an appeasement it had to be done.
-
this shit just spins itself. Let's look at the political implications.
It completely nullifies palin's screaming line "drill baby drill!" - All she can do is say "Well, good move barrack, but I think we should drill more!"
It shows Obama has the balls to both drill AND use nuclear energy - when Bush (who had a repub congress 6 of his years to rubberstamp whatever he wanted) was unwilling to start EITHER. Obama is getting the USA off the Saudi oil nipple - way more than bush did.
So before you call names, look at what he's done politically. He has taken 2 forms of energy further than Bush did. And he's appeasing moderates and even some repubs.
-
this shit just spins itself. Let's look at the political implications.
It completely nullifies palin's screaming line "drill baby drill!" - All she can do is say "Well, good move barrack, but I think we should drill more!"
It shows Obama has the balls to both drill AND use nuclear energy - when Bush (who had a repub congress 6 of his years to rubberstamp whatever he wanted) was unwilling to start EITHER. Obama is getting the USA off the Saudi oil nipple - way more than bush did.
So before you call names, look at what he's done politically. He has taken 2 forms of energy further than Bush did. And he's appeasing moderates and even some repubs.
He made a speech and your kneepadding self equates speeches with actions. No wonder you fall for every bs thing you are fed.
-
this shit just spins itself. Let's look at the political implications.
It completely nullifies palin's screaming line "drill baby drill!" - All she can do is say "Well, good move barrack, but I think we should drill more!"
It shows Obama has the balls to both drill AND use nuclear energy - when Bush (who had a repub congress 6 of his years to rubberstamp whatever he wanted) was unwilling to start EITHER. Obama is getting the USA off the Saudi oil nipple - way more than bush did.
So before you call names, look at what he's done politically. He has taken 2 forms of energy further than Bush did. And he's appeasing moderates and even some repubs.
But 240 that's what stalin and hitler did too. Do you not see that? He's going to use the nuclear stations as camps for tea party protesters once he's become supreme leader of america forever!
-
i haven't seen his speech - I was at Chuck E Cheese all morning.
I asked you to look at the political implications, not attack me as a kneepadder.
How about you quit attacking me, and start addressing the points of the thread? ???
has Obama done more to address nuclear and domestic drilling energy than Bush? YES OR NO?
-
He made a speech and your kneepadding self equates speeches with actions. No wonder you fall for every bs thing you are fed.
The Nuclear Power money is not just a speech. That money has been made available. The First President since Jimmy Carter to help with Nuclear Energy. Republicans have a HORRENDOUS track record when it comes to Nuclear Energy.
-
i haven't seen his speech - I was at Chuck E Cheese all morning.
I asked you to look at the political implications, not attack me as a kneepadder.
How about you quit attacking me, and start addressing the points of the thread? ???
has Obama done more to address nuclear and domestic drilling energy than Bush? YES OR NO?
No. He gave a speech. A speech is not the same as ACTION. WHEN YOU CAN SHOW ME ONE NUKE PLANT OR OIL RIG BEING BUILT THAN i WILL CONCEDE THE POINT.
-
"WHEN YOU CAN SHOW ME ONE NUKE PLANT OR OIL RIG BEING BUILT THAN i WILL CONCEDE THE POINT. "
Did you expect him to make the announcement, and break ground on a nuke plant, on the same day?
-
"WHEN YOU CAN SHOW ME ONE NUKE PLANT OR OIL RIG BEING BUILT THAN i WILL CONCEDE THE POINT. "
Did you expect him to make the announcement, and break ground on a nuke plant, on the same day?
No, but 5 years now, if we are still here, there will still not be one rig or nuke plant being built.
-
"No, but 5 years now, if we are still here, there will still not be one rig or nuke plant being built. "
yes, that would be BS, I agree with you.
My guess is that he'll break ground in late october, to use it politically.
Then it'll go into full operation the summer before he has to debate the Repub candidate.
So, when palin screams "drill baby drill", he can nod his head and say, "yes, we are drilling now. Do you have anythign else to add? Take the time to check your 'palm pilot'..."
-
"No, but 5 years now, if we are still here, there will still not be one rig or nuke plant being built. "
yes, that would be BS, I agree with you.
My guess is that he'll break ground in late october, to use it politically.
Then it'll go into full operation the summer before he has to debate the Repub candidate.
So, when palin screams "drill baby drill", he can nod his head and say, "yes, we are drilling now. Do you have anythign else to add? Take the time to check your 'palm pilot'..."
He will never allow nukes to run.Drilling will never happen.IF YOU READ THE FINE PRINT IT SAYS THEY WILL STUDY IT,THEY WILL SEE IF IT PASSES ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS.ITS A SCAM AS everything THIS MAN DOES IS A SCAM.
Your wrong on Obama saying that,it will be more like this"ummmmmm,hmmmmmm,ahhhhh,hmmmmmm,we ummmmmmmm are hmmmmm,looking,ummmmmm,into ahhhhhh,it".Without a teleprompter he is a stuttering stammering retard.
-
heck, i think nuclear and drilling are both terrible ideas. By the time they are viable enough to solve 1% of our energy needs, solar or nano or some new technology will have overtaken oil.
But for stupid angry repubs who love palin, or stupid moderates who can now justify their vote for obama, it's politically wise to pose with the idea.
-
47% APPROVAL IN GALLOP.iTS NOT WORKING.
-
heck, i think nuclear and drilling are both terrible ideas. By the time they are viable enough to solve 1% of our energy needs, solar or nano or some new technology will have overtaken oil.
But for stupid angry repubs who love palin, or stupid moderates who can now justify their vote for obama, it's politically wise to pose with the idea.
i didnt know nano teach and the sun fuels your vehicle.
-
Your wrong on Obama saying that,it will be more like this"ummmmmm,hmmmmmm,ahhhhh,hmmmmmm,we ummmmmmmm are hmmmmm,looking,ummmmmm,into ahhhhhh,it".Without a teleprompter he is a stuttering stammering retard.
::) *yawn*
President Obama's first press conference - Question segment 1
Fuck off, dipshit.
-
"i didnt know nano teach and the sun fuels your vehicle. "
??? I dont konw what you mean here.
have you researched nanotechnology? A few years ago, I was a nut about it. I honestly think it's 10 years away from being THE next new 'killer ap' for all of us - food, fuel, and other resource production. I only wish I knew which companies were gonna make it, so I could invest :)
-
::) *yawn*
President Obama's first press conference - Question segment 1
Fuck off, dipshit.
FUCK YOU GUTLESS girl!!
-
FUCK YOU GUTLESS ####!!
hahaha
You've yet to figure out the word block here on getbig. ;D You shriveled testicles-having moron.
-