Page 5 of 5
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:20 pm
by awesome guy
HokieFanDC wrote:awesome guy wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:awesome guy wrote:TheH2 wrote:awesome guy wrote:
Fine, but it wasn't 20% of reserves, that's an indisputable fact. Please, by all means, resort to insults but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, again. Or, form your opinions on your alternative facts and assume you're right.
If it's $hit came out, then I suppose that it's $hit went in.
You're fake facts
And that's the surrender flag.
Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough for today?
LOL. Keep sticking with the 20% of reserves claim. Please, say it again. It's funnier the more you say things that are completely wrong.
Uh huh
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:25 pm
by RiverguyVT
TheH2 wrote:RiverguyVT wrote:Fingers in ears...nah! nah! nah! .... Hillary!'s foundation took no money (because the amount reported is wrong)
Uranium is swapped around just like corn.
Uh, yeah. ....No.
Fact, Uranium is a commodity that is traded, there is even a traded price. Mined uranium is not going to blow anyone up. Hell, it can't even be used in nuclear reactors. It is not suitable for nuclear weapons until it is enriched to 90%, maybe 96/97% (google to verify). It's really difficult to get that last few percent. Iran had likely not yet achieved it prior to the nuclear deal.
Never said Hillary took no money, but carry on with not valid points to make your point.
So, you're saying Hillary!'s foundation did in fact take money for this deal?
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:41 pm
by TheH2
RiverguyVT wrote:TheH2 wrote:RiverguyVT wrote:Fingers in ears...nah! nah! nah! .... Hillary!'s foundation took no money (because the amount reported is wrong)
Uranium is swapped around just like corn.
Uh, yeah. ....No.
Fact, Uranium is a commodity that is traded, there is even a traded price. Mined uranium is not going to blow anyone up. Hell, it can't even be used in nuclear reactors. It is not suitable for nuclear weapons until it is enriched to 90%, maybe 96/97% (google to verify). It's really difficult to get that last few percent. Iran had likely not yet achieved it prior to the nuclear deal.
Never said Hillary took no money, but carry on with not valid points to make your point.
So, you're saying Hillary!'s foundation did in fact take money for this deal?
I'm not disputing the fact that the Clinton foundation took money from people. I don't know that it has anything to do with the deal.
I'm suspicious for a few reasons:
The "facts" cited to make the case were wrong. See ag's 20%. That should call this into question. Let the facts speak for themselves, when discredited, don't continue to run with them.
I don't see why IEA or any other agency wouldn't approve the deal. This isn't a national security threat.
Boy who cried wolf.
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:42 pm
by TheH2
The last word, by ag.
awesome guy wrote:Uh huh
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:43 pm
by ip_law-hokie
TheH2 wrote:The last word, by ag.
awesome guy wrote:Uh huh
Danville.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:43 pm
by awesome guy
TheH2 wrote:The last word, by ag.
awesome guy wrote:Uh huh
I had the first and best ones too
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:51 pm
by HokieFanDC
ip_law-hokie wrote:TheH2 wrote:The last word, by ag.
awesome guy wrote:Uh huh
Danville.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's not fair. Tunstall Sr. High has produced some terrific graduates. There's a lot of good in Danville.
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:05 pm
by ip_law-hokie
HokieFanDC wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote:TheH2 wrote:The last word, by ag.
awesome guy wrote:Uh huh
Danville.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's not fair. Tunstall Sr. High has produced some terrific graduates. There's a lot of good in Danville.
Uh huh
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:42 pm
by HokieJoe
HokieFanDC wrote:TheH2 wrote:awesome guy wrote:The US may be legally denied access to it's uranium during war. It's 20% of the reserve and not trivial as you falsely assert.
It's not 20% of reserves. It was estimated at 20% of
licensed capacity, which is far different from reserves. Again, please use actual facts, not AG facts. In 2015 it was less than 5% of U.S. production, a trivial amount.
The "20% of the reserve" claim is the flashing neon sign that screams "I'm a LIV".
No, questioning why it's a strategic asset whose use should be strictly controlled is what screams LIV.
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:45 pm
by HokieFanDC
HokieJoe wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:TheH2 wrote:awesome guy wrote:The US may be legally denied access to it's uranium during war. It's 20% of the reserve and not trivial as you falsely assert.
It's not 20% of reserves. It was estimated at 20% of
licensed capacity, which is far different from reserves. Again, please use actual facts, not AG facts. In 2015 it was less than 5% of U.S. production, a trivial amount.
The "20% of the reserve" claim is the flashing neon sign that screams "I'm a LIV".
No, questioning why it's a strategic asset whose use should be strictly controlled is what screams LIV.
I didn't question that goofball.
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:49 pm
by TheH2
HokieJoe wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:TheH2 wrote:awesome guy wrote:The US may be legally denied access to it's uranium during war. It's 20% of the reserve and not trivial as you falsely assert.
It's not 20% of reserves. It was estimated at 20% of
licensed capacity, which is far different from reserves. Again, please use actual facts, not AG facts. In 2015 it was less than 5% of U.S. production, a trivial amount.
The "20% of the reserve" claim is the flashing neon sign that screams "I'm a LIV".
No, questioning why it's a strategic asset whose use should be strictly controlled is what screams LIV.
Questioning something doesn't make someone LIV, seems like the opposite would be true. I've provided some information that questions whether it is really a strategic asset. It seems your response, if it's so obvious, should be a little more than because because because because because.......
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:14 pm
by HokieJoe
HokieFanDC wrote:HokieJoe wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:TheH2 wrote:awesome guy wrote:The US may be legally denied access to it's uranium during war. It's 20% of the reserve and not trivial as you falsely assert.
It's not 20% of reserves. It was estimated at 20% of
licensed capacity, which is far different from reserves. Again, please use actual facts, not AG facts. In 2015 it was less than 5% of U.S. production, a trivial amount.
The "20% of the reserve" claim is the flashing neon sign that screams "I'm a LIV".
No, questioning why it's a strategic asset whose use should be strictly controlled is what screams LIV.
I didn't question that goofball.
Sorry, that wasn't directed at you.
Re: You mean uranium one is BS
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:36 pm
by HokieFanDC
HokieJoe wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:HokieJoe wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:TheH2 wrote:awesome guy wrote:The US may be legally denied access to it's uranium during war. It's 20% of the reserve and not trivial as you falsely assert.
It's not 20% of reserves. It was estimated at 20% of
licensed capacity, which is far different from reserves. Again, please use actual facts, not AG facts. In 2015 it was less than 5% of U.S. production, a trivial amount.
The "20% of the reserve" claim is the flashing neon sign that screams "I'm a LIV".
No, questioning why it's a strategic asset whose use should be strictly controlled is what screams LIV.
I didn't question that goofball.
Sorry, that wasn't directed at you.
A Ok.