JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/02/kudos-to-obama.html (31 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1266933519-505  perlhaqr at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:58:39 +0000

Yay.  The Big Spender is spending more money we don't have on things that aren't any of his damn business.

I'd be happier if he simply called off the EPA and other orgs, and perhaps issued an executive order blocking frivolous lawsuits designed to stop nuclear construction.

So we've got a federal car company, and now we'll have federal electric companies.  What next?

jsid-1266940162-822  juris_imprudent at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:49:23 +0000 in reply to jsid-1266933519-505

...and perhaps issued an executive order blocking frivolous lawsuits designed to stop nuclear construction.

You are being facetious, right?

jsid-1266934717-210  john at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:18:37 +0000

As far as I can tell, there's no guarantee that after the $8B is spent on constructing the plant(s) that licenses for operation will ever be granted, meaning that more power would be generated by printing the $8B as 1 dollar bills and using it as fuel in a coal-fired plant.

jsid-1266938269-939  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:17:49 +0000

Yep, wrong emphasis.

As usual, The One can only see "federal guarantees" and the like as ways to "move forward". (Much like his  demanded "Jobs Bill" - hey, how about cutting taxes, regulation, and ordering regulatory bodies to declare - in advance - definitions?)

I'm in favor of nuclear power, but I'm not sure this isn't just another giveaway to someone politically connected and not at  all about restarting the nationals nuclear program.

jsid-1266939504-821  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:38:24 +0000

...can only see "federal guarantees"...

I'll reserve judgment on whether this is good, bad or indifferent until I know more. But as far as "federal loan guarantees" goes... how's that working out for the mortgage industry?

jsid-1266939567-334  khbaker at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:39:28 +0000

My only point is that without such Federal guarantees, no nukular plants will be built in the US at all, and Obama is at least making supportive mouth noises.

jsid-1266940260-874  Russell at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:51:01 +0000

I'm cautiously optimistic.

With the Won, all problems can be solved by Government, hence my caution. Be better if he just did what perlhaqr suggested.

But nuclear power plants? Yes, please. And faster.

And it is with great amusement I note that the tune changed with a 'D' in front of a name...

jsid-1266941833-290  theirritablearchitect at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:17:13 +0000


It's still awful that a politician had to get involved to get the nuclear train's inertia moving forward, doncha think?

jsid-1266943294-196  DJ at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:41:34 +0000 in reply to jsid-1266941833-290

It's not surprising, given that politicians stopped that inertia moving forward long ago.

jsid-1266943020-779  M Gallo at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:37:01 +0000

They just extended the public comment period on the closing of Yucca Mountain, didn't they?  I've got a feeling this is misdirection/posturing, the only skill at which our Dear Leader is adept.

jsid-1266944308-333  NMM1AFan at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:59:10 +0000

So did anyone figure out if the Toshiba reactor was real or not?

jsid-1266945989-256  khbaker at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:26:29 +0000 in reply to jsid-1266944308-333

Yup, it's real.  I just haven't found anywhere where any are actually in service.

jsid-1266951619-688  Pandora at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:00:20 +0000

It's another head fake.

Aside from the fed.gummit guarantee, he looks good proposing this knowing the watermelons will keep it from ever coming to fruition.

jsid-1266952570-68  Ed "What the" Heckman at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:16:13 +0000

So what is a "loan guarantee"?

It seems to me that it's a promise that the FedGov will repay the loan if the power company can't. In other words, the FedGov isn't actually laying out any money up front. That doesn't strike me as the same as a promise or even a strong incentive to remove unnecessary regulatory hurdles, given how willing the FedGov is to throw money around.

In fact, what happens if the power company goes ahead, the unnecessary hurdles (otherwise known as B.S., of which the Yucca Mountain shutdown is one) are left in place, and the company defaults as a result? Marxy would probably say that this sounds like paranoia, but wouldn't such a default give the FedGov a legitimate reason to take ownership of the company "to protect their investment"?

jsid-1266961068-936  Russell at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:37:49 +0000 in reply to jsid-1266952570-68

Or if the company is trying to actually make a profit, and the usual suspects start crying about "Price gouging" and then the gov needs to "take over the operations to ensure a fair price"?

jsid-1266960194-201  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:23:14 +0000


Something like that (or worse), yes.

That's why I think this is smoke and mirrors. We'll see.

jsid-1266961486-288  khbaker at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:44:46 +0000

See?  Marxy's right, y'all are just h8rs, bringing logic and experience and stuff to the discussion! Why can't you just trust what he says?!?! :)

jsid-1266965206-417  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:46:46 +0000


Because you reported it, and you consider Michelle Malkin credible - and anything she links to is automatically proven wrong, so by that same extension, anything you post is incorrect, as well.

jsid-1266966322-35  Lyle at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:05:22 +0000

Yeah, I wouldn't celebrate too much over a move toward more, gargantuan public works projects.  Who says the .gov has any legitimate role in the energy business in the first place, any more than it has a legitimate role in the medical, housing or transportation industries?

jsid-1266968482-780  khbaker at Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:41:22 +0000 in reply to jsid-1266966322-35

Well, unlike some people believe, they REGULATE the energy business in part because they make MONOPOLIES of energy companies!

jsid-1266977996-217  Markadelphia at Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:21:04 +0000

I am a wholehearted supporter of this endeavor. In fact, I wish it was a 20B dollar loan guarentee. Nuclear energy means warp factor 9 some day 8-)

Of course, I must sadly point out that he cut funding for manned moon missions which I think gargles my balls.

jsid-1266979088-897  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:41:13 +0000

 which I think gargles my balls.
I'd ask what in the hell you meant, but ... long experience tells me not to bother.

jsid-1266980002-371  Jim at Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:54:06 +0000

Marky claims to have balls?  Who knew?

Chutzpa, now that I'd believe.  But balls?  A freakin' runted chipmunk could likely gargle his balls, and not even mistake 'em for nuts.

Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

jsid-1266987136-813  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:52:17 +0000

This is what hanging out with teenagers does to one's vocabulary.

jsid-1266988024-673  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:07:04 +0000


Do you have evidence it was any better before that started?

jsid-1266992253-407  Russell at Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:17:33 +0000

We can't rule out the possibility that it was worse before.

jsid-1267033175-313  geekwitha45 at Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:39:35 +0000

>> I must sadly point out that he cut funding for manned moon missions

Valid evaluations of Government SpaceCo's post Apollo performance ranges from failure to marginal at best.  In terms of human spaceflight, we just don't have much infrastructure to show for it.  Had they stuck w/ Von Braun's blueprints, we'd be further along.

Let's face it, the model for publicly funded Government Spaceflight was probably never sustainable to begin with, and furthermore, the constitutionality of it is suspect to begin with. The rationale that holds the most water is that spaceflight is a defense related activity, an argument that is profoundly undercut by the fact that NASA's charte mandates peaceful purposes, and delegates weapons & warlike purposes to DoD. 

The rationale that holds the least water is the ritual invocation and abuse of the "general welfare" clause.

Burt Routan & Co are the future, it's time for Congress to get out of the space monopoly biz.

jsid-1267041135-869  Markadelphia at Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:52:15 +0000

You probably right, geek. I threw my foam brick at the TV though when John Kerry said, in 2004, we should forget about going into outer space. It seems that President Obama may be adopting the same philosophy and I think it sucks. He's wrong.

Oh, and I got the gargle my balls thing from the film "Knocked Up." Love Judd Apatow...

Gotta run

jsid-1267046768-408  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:26:08 +0000

Gotta run

Aha. Life calls?

Javier crying?

Pony needs new shoes?

jsid-1267047800-952  DJ at Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:43:21 +0000

"Gotta run"

Monsters still too close, are they?

You are exhibiting, yet again, your Standard Response #10, in which you reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.

You remember your Standard Responses, right?  They can be found at:


You fool no one, deficit boy.

jsid-1267121994-738  GrumpyOldFart at Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:19:54 +0000

Of course, I must sadly point out that he cut funding for manned moon missions which I think gargles my balls.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait..... doesn't that make you a teabagger *DONT_KNOW* ?

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>