Was the Georgia Secretary of State's decision "Greased" (elections, elect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only for those who tend to ascribe conspiracies to well found legal precedent.
Georgia has long experience in providing nuclear energy. There application was made in 2008 for two new reactors at existing sites.
By the way Vogtle 3 and 4 were slated to be the first in a wave of new projects after the Bush administration set aside $17.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear projects.
Nearly 4 years of study before they get the OK? Somehow that makes the two days involved here seem a bit more fishy. Oh well, you are trying to blame Bush, aren't you?
So now five states have agreed with Georgia, without getting nuclear power plants. So Roy... tell us about this "greasing" again?
How many of your favorite states had requests in for nuclear energy? Surely all of them according to what you as the chief deflector on this thread are saying.
I wonder about this since in Chicago "greased"means working with those in power in the government and some very funny things happened within two days of that decision. The decision, of course, was the one about whether Obama's name could be on their ballots. The strange happening within two days was that Georgia was given two permits to construct nuclear generating plants. So soon when none had been offered in nearly 40 years. There is just a hint of political stink involved here. I really do wonder about it.
Nope. Obama knows he has no chance of winning Georgia, why bother greasing this decision? It was the Georgia Secretary of State who stood to look bad and Obama would've looked like a martyr if they actually kept Obama off the ballot. It's supposed to be a republic, yaknow...
By the way Vogtle 3 and 4 were slated to be the first in a wave of new projects after the Bush administration set aside $17.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear projects.
Nearly 4 years of study before they get the OK? Somehow that makes the two days involved here seem a bit more fishy. Oh well, you are trying to blame Bush, aren't you?
Why would you be upset with blaming Bush for a good thing?
How many of your favorite states had requests in for nuclear energy? Surely all of them according to what you as the chief deflector on this thread are saying.
Nope. Obama knows he has no chance of winning Georgia, why bother greasing this decision?
A very important point!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
