Election Day 2012

[Woeler]

I never they did have nukes, all I'm saying is I'd be MORE worried about them nuking America...

Look at the geographical location of Iran, then come back to me...

[DGFone]

1. Why would Iran be making nuclear reactor for 'energy purposes' when we all know it doesn't need that extra energy. And WE DO KNOW THAT IT'S CREATING THEM. As for no nukes: No nukes YET. Look up IR-40.

2. Why the hell is Iran perusing Enriched Uranium (which IS a fact), when there is only one use for that stuff: nuclear weaponry. There is another name for enriched Uranium: weapons-grade. Guess why.

3. I don't have a source, but I do have relatives in Israel. I think I would know better what that nation is doing now than you. Such as the fact that Israel is preparing to EMP Iran if Iran won't go to the talking table.

4. Your neighbor just told you that you don't have a right to exist. That neighbor is creating a nuclear weapon. What are you going to do?

[Nukascar1]

I never they did have nukes, all I'm saying is I'd be MORE worried about them nuking America...

I don't think they'd be that stupid the only reason North Korea and Iran haven't bothered nuking the US is because the US has far more just like the cold war. But then again a lot of countries have nukes even the UK does sleep easy.

[Woeler]

I would have given you a point if you had relatives in Iran. Point four is irrelevant since Iran is not making nukes. And last but not least the uranium being used in the newest two reactors is non-weaponsgrade uranium. You may know well what Israel is doing, what you don't know is what Iran does. Neither do I. The only things we can base our views on are the reseach done. Which points out that iran has no nukes, is not making nukes and that the new reactors use nonweaponsgrade uranium.

No need to exaggerate things, and as you say, you have no sources.

[DGFone]

And I want to see your source that says that Iran is not making any nukes. Go on, I dare you. Because the dots connect to either nukes already in development, or an ambition to start making one very soon.

So do tell me how Iran is not even wanting to make a nuke. Show me.

[Woeler]

Here: http://fcnl.org/issues/iran/us_israeli_ ... r_weapons/

Iran has not said anything about making them in the future, but right now there is nothing, not a single thing.

"Reuters put it another way: "The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead."

[DGFone]

1. That's only 1 source. I want another one that agrees with you.

2. If Israel agrees that Iran is not creating a nuke, why did it assassinate Iran's leading nuclear scientist?

Some sources that tell otherwise to your story:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/inte ... index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/world ... earprogram
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/ ... RP20111118

[Woeler]

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/16/pane ... r-weapons/

Please is the magic word. Happy now or are you gonna keep asking?

Assassinating a nuclear scientist does not mean they have nukes. Remember the source? Israel agrees. As we would say here in the Netherlands: you have no legs to stand on

[DGFone]

Note my sources, and look at yours. Your first source is from a religious group, and the second one is from antiwar.com.

I have to doubt your sources, Woeler. They don't look very reliable. The second one is particularly concerning about bias.

And let me edit the question I asked about Israel and Iran:

Your neighbor told you that you have no right to exist. It might or might not be developing a nuke. What do you do.

And for this, Woeler, I DO want an answer. I want to see what you will do if you were Israel.

[Regulus]

AND YES, GLOBAL WARMING 'SCIENCE' is complete [cencored]. The whole "the planet will get hotter and we will all die" is not only complete nonsense, it's been disproven so many times, it's now a joke among most scientific fields.

So before you tell me that "global warming had been proven..." Stop. Everything you read or heard about about global warming is WRONG. Scientifically PROVEN to be wrong. For example: This year, Antarctica is having an Ice Maximum. According to global warming, there should always be an ice minimum, as the ice melts and goes into the ocean. We don't know what the climate change is doing, we are only beginning to make guesses, and we basically don't know anything yet.

To say that science proved otherwise, it means that you heard pseudoscience. And by the way: I already had a lecture on why global warming is false, using physics to disprove everything that was said about it, but 1. I don't remember most of it, and 2. Non of you will understand it. Definitely not you, Woeler, who will almost certainly tell me that I'm wrong, when you aren't even qualified to do so. I'm not either, but my proof came from those who are.

Wow. That's all I can say. Between this post, and what you were saying last night about cheating the electoral college system, you've lost a lot of cool points from me.

It's okay that you don't like Obama. You have every right to vote for Romney, and that's totally fine. But to say that one candidate should win regardless of who gets the majority vote really blew my mind, especially coming from someone who seems to significantly appreciate how great democracy in America is. I thought it was a joke, hence my sarcastic "pwn'd" response.

I sincerely hope that was a joke. We don't need another 2000 election. I know the electoral college is far from perfect, and I hate it too, but at least most of the time the candidate who wins usually gets the popular vote anyway, so it does work.

But to say that the EPA is full of crap is... well... full of crap. What's next, are you going to try to argue that the world is flat?

Seriously. I cannot even believe this...

I'm sure my 'eliminate the states' argument was quite ridiculous, but I was more or less just playing the devil's advocate there.