<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Twelve Arrested in Des Moines as Obama Campaign Hinders Press Coverage of Protest</title>
		<description>Comments for Twelve Arrested in Des Moines as Obama Campaign Hinders Press Coverage of Protest at http://atlanticfreepress.com , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments</description>
		<link>http://atlanticfreepress.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:47:36 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Interesting</title>
			<link>http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/3169-twelve-arrested-in-des-moines-as-obama-campaign-hinders-press-coverage-of-protest.html#comment-4062</link>
			<description>I didn't know that he was in such support of the fission energy industry, or that he had such massive support from the fission industry.  This might explain the rumour about Bill Richardson potentially telling his delegates to back Obama should he be deemed not viable in Iowa.  Richardson is in bed with the fission indutry too (and now allowing them to further contaminate New Mexico with radioactive mine waste).

Any forward thinking candidate would by pushing for Fusion based on Helium-3.  The whole world is scrambling to get to the moon first to mine the Helium-3 for clean, safe fusion electricity.  The last thing we need is a President who will put us at a disadvantage in what will be the greatest technical advance in energy since Uggabugga rubbed two sticks together and made the first fire.

It's time to make America first again!  IMHO, Edwards is forward thinking in this area.

Fission is definitely not the answer, even if it is developed.

America puta man on the moon starting with almost nothing, in under ten years.  If we put a focus behind clean fusion based on Helium-3 at the same level of national priority, we can make it happen.

Fusion is the only clean alternative that can supply America's needs without forcing our population to scale back on usage.

We will have between 750,000,000 and 1,250,000,000 Americans by 2100.  The choice we make now determines their standard of living, as well as who has the leadership position in the global energy market of the future.

Let's make it America!
 - EnderW</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:15:56 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>obama's camp has done this before</title>
			<link>http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/3169-twelve-arrested-in-des-moines-as-obama-campaign-hinders-press-coverage-of-protest.html#comment-4060</link>
			<description>the big rally in SC with oprah, there were peaceful protesters holding up signs for anti-nuclear power plants.  you know, cuz obama says they're part of our 'energy mix'  (they're also a huge part of our 'nuclear waste mix' too, but i digress...)

they were asked to stand somewhere else.  the campaign didn't want them outside the rally.

the campaign later said it was for 'public safety'.  hmmm... so let me get this straight....

1.  people standing outside holding signs (no sticks) speaking against new nuclear power plants are a 'public safety' matter.

but

2.  new nuclear power plants hold no public safety issues.  

and

3.  the lack of a solution for disposing of nuclear waste also not a public safety issue.

obama's logic is interesting.  was he really a civil rights attorney???

or does this have to do with the nearly $200,000 he received in campaign money from excelon corp??? - kenshin</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:30:28 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>VCNV is right</title>
			<link>http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/3169-twelve-arrested-in-des-moines-as-obama-campaign-hinders-press-coverage-of-protest.html#comment-4056</link>
			<description>We should withdraw the troops from Iraq as soon as it is logistically feasable, and to withdraw them as the logistics come online during the withdrawl process.

I think VCNV's timetable of 100 days is a bit unreaslistic for a safe withdrawl of 160,000 troops and equipment though, even if their heart is in the right place, and that Edwards's proposal of 10 months is more in line with the realities of military logistics and safety.

We need to focus on the country that attacked us (remember Afghanistan?), and maybe send troops into Pakistan to pursue the Taliban, and capture Usama bin-Laden who was Commander in Chief of all Taliban Armed Militias (a title given to him on 28 AUG 2001) for the attack on the United States on 11 SEP 2001.

Instead of fighting a war against the Terrorists (then again, given bin-Laden's title at the time, the term &quot;Terrorist&quot; is debatable, it was an act of State), Bush started a war to recruit Terrorists and to radicalize them against the United States and thus put America into a dire future situation.  Bush's illegal war against Iraq has radicalized an entire generation of Jihadists, not to mention created a whole generation of Christian Jihadists here in the USA to whom reason and sanity are an alien concept.
 - EnderW</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:02:43 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Witnesses to witlessness</title>
			<link>http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/3169-twelve-arrested-in-des-moines-as-obama-campaign-hinders-press-coverage-of-protest.html#comment-4053</link>
			<description>Obama said before the invasion that it was a dumb thing to do. With everything we've found out about the deception in and the execution of this disaster it should be obvious, even to a presidential candidate, that the Iraq war is dumb and dumber.

Yet, the motivation of these activists is not merely to critique the Senator’s consistency. It is to draw to all of our attentions the death and destruction that this military aggression has wrought. It is humiliating to understand the role we are all playing in the denigration of others’ lives. The real loss of intelligence.
 - Robt. Braam</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:01:52 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

