1 This is what happens when you let people with little real world experience run for office.

The RNC for what it's worth, needs to get this video out on the airwaves.

Immediately after The Messiah defeats Shrillary...

2 IF this is real--and it certainly appears to be real--BO comes across as a suicidal moonbat leader. Slow down weapon systems? External review board to save money? Halting "failed" missile defense systems?

did this moonbat study ANY history at all?

3 I don't recall, but isn't fissile material required for nuclear power plants?

4 OK... gonna get flamed for this, and I am NOT an Obama supporter... (Personally ALL of the candidates this year stink to high heaven) But Unfortunately, from experience, he makes a LOT of good points.

#1) Getting rid of Missle Defense: This has been an up and down subject for years... we had it in the 50's, we got rid of it in the late 60's, we brought it back to life in the 70'/80's, and killed it in the 90's... every ten years or so we try another shake at an ABM weapon... ends up being a money pit.

2) Killing Future Weapons Development: All I have to say is the V-22 Osprey, the F-22 Raptor or whatever its called and then a slew of other 'high speed high cost' projects that really suck... Take the Stryker for instance. The crews generally hate them (from those I speak to in Kuwait and Iraq) and the concept of a rubber tired war-truck in this day and age? Never mind that they seem to be made out of kevlar dipped in gasoline (trust me... every one that ever came to Arifjan from up North is a flame gutted wreck) C'mon... The Stryker would never had made it out of the box if Shinseki didn't have a job waiting for him with the company that makes it... Heck: (see no swearing this time Bob!) The Marines just cancelled the MTV according to foxnews;

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333154,00.html

as its overweight and not what the grunts in the field want. Not a bad idea.

#3) Nukes: I know they are needed as a preventative measure, but what are we going to do otherwise? Nanoweapons?

Just MHO\
Flame Away.

5 Will all the money saved be put into a new free government cheese program?

6 BC,
No flames but maybe a contrary opinion on the stryker (and second had at that . According to Michael Yon (www.michaelyon-online.com), the Stryker's are excellent machines that afford their brigades much more flexibility...it's not really the 'greatness' of the machine but the tactics employed along with it, if my memory serves. If you haven't read his info, I'd suggest it.

That said, you've got some first-hand experience that I don't so I will have to try to reconcile what you've said with what others I trust have said.

SouthernRoots: Yes, nuclear fission plants need fissile material - generally U-238 enriched to around 5-10% of rather specific isotopes. Nuclear weapons must be enriched much more. (Off topic - that's why Iran's enrichment program is questionable. They now have enough operating centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for weapons.)

7 How about putting all that saved money into a government initiative to rebuild our infrastructure? A new take on the old New Deal CCC? I'm tired of hearing about bridges falling down and regional blackouts.
Or if all else fails, how about paying off some of the soon to be $10 trillion US debt?
Either way, more Americans are employed and there's a lot less need for government cheese.

8 Mark - You basically got it right. You want about 5% U-235 with the rest as U-238 for a power plant. Subs and carriers used much higher enrichment. What's really funny is that fissile uranium and other elements are found NATURALLY. We don't make the stuff, except for the transuranic elements like plutonium. It's like trying to ban lead from the world.

I suppose he plans to supply carbon-free power via hope and change.