The Ron Paul Cult insanity -- "Chernobyl was very bad ... but overblown."

These remarks were made, I believe, after Fukushima. He, like ALL of the other presidential material clods, have no clue about the real world. Aside from the fact that elections are totally rigged and the president has likely already been chosen, a vote for Paul or any of the others is a colossal waste of time and energy. We do not need an advocate for a failed and DANGEROUS energy source. We need someone as a leader who understands that nuclear power is the most dangerous thing facing humanity. That person cannot be the president since the president is simply a figurehead. Now, back to Paul's remarks:

"Chernobyl was very bad ... but overblown...It's the safest form of energy that we can have...I'm scared to death they're going to stop building nuclear power plants."

www.ronpaul.com...

Ron Paul is against energy subsidies and the department of energy.

Since nuclear power plants are not economical to build without government subsidies and insurance guarantees, Ron Paul actually wants to destroy nuclear power in the US.

He just doesn't realize it yet.

If the free market was left to its own devices, we would be using almost all clean coal power with some geothermal and perhaps new types of energy generation that are not around today.

Coal is the most efficient large scale power source, so it would be foolish for any power plant to use anything that is less efficient than coal.

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
These remarks were made, I believe, after Fukushima. He, like ALL of the other presidential material clods, have no clue about the real world. Aside from the fact that elections are totally rigged and the president has likely already been chosen, a vote for Paul or any of the others is a colossal waste of time and energy. We do not need an advocate for a failed and DANGEROUS energy source. We need someone as a leader who understands that nuclear power is the most dangerous thing facing humanity. That person cannot be the president since the president is simply a figurehead. Now, back to Paul's remarks:

"Chernobyl was very bad ... but overblown...It's the safest form of energy that we can have...I'm scared to death they're going to stop building nuclear power plants."

www.ronpaul.com...

edit on 17-8-2011 by Visiting ESB because: edit sentence

Uranium for nuclear power is very dangerous. That's why we need to start building thorium reactors in the U.S., and thousands across the world to break our hold from oil. Thorium reactors are greener and much more stable than uranium, which itself is even better for the environment than oil.

/TOA

"Chernobyl was very bad ... but overblown...It's the safest form of energy that we can have...I'm scared to death they're going to stop building nuclear power plants."

You call 1 million dead ...overblown?

robertlindsay.wordpress.com...

Fukishima Radiation release is estimated to be anywhere from 100 - 1000 times that of chernobyl, The worse case scenario according to Chris Busby is between 10 million and 100 milion dead over the next 50 years.

crisisjones.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
These remarks were made, I believe, after Fukushima. He, like ALL of the other presidential material clods, have no clue about the real world. Aside from the fact that elections are totally rigged and the president has likely already been chosen, a vote for Paul or any of the others is a colossal waste of time and energy. We do not need an advocate for a failed and DANGEROUS energy source. We need someone as a leader who understands that nuclear power is the most dangerous thing facing humanity. That person cannot be the president since the president is simply a figurehead. Now, back to Paul's remarks:

"Chernobyl was very bad ... but overblown...It's the safest form of energy that we can have...I'm scared to death they're going to stop building nuclear power plants."

www.ronpaul.com...

edit on 17-8-2011 by Visiting ESB because: edit sentence

edit on 17-8-2011 by Visiting ESB because: shorten subject line

I suggest you participate in the voting process to make sure it is not rigged. I think we need to refuse to use electronic voting machines. Nuclear power plants are not high on the publics concerns with the 2012 election probably because they are not the most dangerous thing facing humanity. His concerns about our energy consumption and supply is legitimate. There are better answers but no politicians are allowed to talk about them. At least he has got it right with so many other issues like war spending, the federal reserve, and vaccines.

way to take what he says out of context...he doesn't say Chernobyl was overblown..he says the dangers of radiation are overblown.

Originally posted by Ghost375
way to take what he says out of context...he doesn't say Chernobyl was overblown..he says the dangers of radiation are overblown.

I didnt take it out of context, he specificly says chernobyl was overblown, go read it again or maby you cant read.

But no i dont agree that the effects of radiation are overblown. They are if you believe what the nuclear industry funded IAEA tell you, Almost all other independant sources will tell you that the dangers are understated.

The study that found 1 million had died from Chernobyl has been peer reviewed in all major scientific journals. Its is widely accepted to be the most indept and accurate study ever done on the chernobyl fallout. The only people who dispute it are the IAEA, oddly enough.

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by Ghost375
way to take what he says out of context...he doesn't say Chernobyl was overblown..he says the dangers of radiation are overblown.

I didnt take it out of context, he specificly says chernobyl was overblown, go read it again or maby you cant read.

But no i dont agree that the effects of radiation are overblown. They are if you believe what the nuclear industry funded IAEA tell you, Almost all other independant sources will tell you that the dangers are understated.

edit on 17-8-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

Maybe he was going for a pun with the whole "overblown" thing?

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by Ghost375
way to take what he says out of context...he doesn't say Chernobyl was overblown..he says the dangers of radiation are overblown.

I didnt take it out of context, he specificly says chernobyl was overblown, go read it again or maby you cant read.

But no i dont agree that the effects of radiation are overblown. They are if you believe what the nuclear industry funded IAEA tell you, Almost all other independant sources will tell you that the dangers are understated.

edit on 17-8-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

Watch the video...

The sentence in the OP is taken out of context. He's talking about how the 'over-reaction about nuclear energy' is overblown.

reply to post by BeyondPerception


Actually your right sry,my apologies to the OP, Its late at nite and im badly stoned.

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
These remarks were made, I believe, after Fukushima. He, like ALL of the other presidential material clods, have no clue about the real world. Aside from the fact that elections are totally rigged and the president has likely already been chosen, a vote for Paul or any of the others is a colossal waste of time and energy. We do not need an advocate for a failed and DANGEROUS energy source. We need someone as a leader who understands that nuclear power is the most dangerous thing facing humanity. That person cannot be the president since the president is simply a figurehead. Now, back to Paul's remarks:

Chernobyl was overblown, just look at Japan.

I'm pretty sure you're an intelligent person. As an intelligent person you can realize that people don't support Ron Paul because they agree with him 100%, they support him because they know what he represents, and they won't get blind sided by some flip-flopping and incessant lies.

I agree with 80% or better of his views, and I agree with his sense of logic and well thought out responses even more. I don't have to agree with the President. I was a soldier and I didn't agree with Iraq/Afghanistan/Clinton/Bush/Obama.

If you are going to say that he is unelectable because of one view you don't agree with, please tell me your pick for 2012 and I will be glad to find views that the candidate holds which you are opposed to. What will you do then?

reply to post by Visiting ESB


YAAAY! Another marginally active, sleeper cell member jumps in on the bash Ron Paul bandwagon. All right guys, way to go! Unfortunately, those of us who watched the video know you have taken a quote out of context and tried to suit your own purpose with it. Sorry, not prudent. Not at this juncture.