AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Nuclear power and nature
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nuclear power and nature

post #1 of 57
8/9/10 at 8:58am
Thread Starter 
Russia declares state of emergency

Flames are encroaching on nuclear research facility in Russia.

Global warming is blamed for the devastating forest fires that can now turn into a nuclear disaster. Moscow has the hottest summer ever.

Is nuclear power really the way to go if facilities can be threatened by wild fires or other natural disasters? Do we really want to increase this risk?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #2 of 57
8/9/10 at 10:09am
If the facility was properly designed, there's no threat. A simple cleared are of a few dozen yards all around the facility will protect it from forest fires. (also known as a "fire break")
My guess is, that facility is in no danger, but since it's in the area of the fire, this made a good headline.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #3 of 57
8/9/10 at 11:14am
Why focus on just nuclear power plants?

Aren't manmade dams used for hydroelectric power generation just as succeptible to natural or manmade disasters - with the consequences just as dire?

Considering the electricity generated by such facilites has powerd 50+ years of unprecedented technological and scientific advancement, which has greatly enhanced our quality of life, I think it's worth the risk.

And until alternative energy (wind, solar, etc.) can be produced efficiently and cheaply, we don't have many alternatives.

Unless you consider tried and true petroleum-based energy, which is being demonized by the establishment and elitists with the ultimate goal of being able to control how people live their lives down to what kinds of light bulbs they use in their homes.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #4 of 57
8/9/10 at 2:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Global warming is blamed for the devastating forest fires that can now turn into a nuclear disaster. Moscow has the hottest summer ever.

Wait a second! I thought the weather had nothing to do with Climate Change (nee Global Warming)? Or is that the case only when localized weather conditions or trends appear to contradict the Global Warming claims?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #5 of 57
8/9/10 at 3:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

If the facility was properly designed, there's no threat. A simple cleared are of a few dozen yards all around the facility will protect it from forest fires. (also known as a "fire break")
My guess is, that facility is in no danger, but since it's in the area of the fire, this made a good headline.

The article says the Russians were worried enough to haul away all nuclear materials. Just in case.

Mankind needs to get over it's obsession with highly flammable and explosive materials.

It is easy to predict what will happen when a dam breaks and properly protect downstream areas. Dealing with radiation is a bitch.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #6 of 57
8/9/10 at 4:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Mankind needs to get over it's obsession with highly flammable and explosive materials.

Nuclear fuel and waste is neither highly explosive or flammable.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #7 of 57
8/9/10 at 4:44pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Russia declares state of emergency

Flames are encroaching on nuclear research facility in Russia.

Global warming is blamed for the devastating forest fires that can now turn into a nuclear disaster. Moscow has the hottest summer ever.

Is nuclear power really the way to go if facilities can be threatened by wild fires or other natural disasters? Do we really want to increase this risk?

Yes, nuclear power is the way to go. This is where my brethren on the left are ignorant sluts. Those that truly understand the science behind it know that until we can get fusion going, nuclear fission power plants are the safest and most efficient way to get energy out to the masses.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 57
8/9/10 at 6:04pm
That deserves a high-five, BR.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #9 of 57
8/9/10 at 6:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Global warming is blamed for the devastating forest fires that can now turn into a nuclear disaster. Moscow has the hottest summer ever.

Perhaps one way around global warming is a nuclear war then we will have a nuclear winter
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #10 of 57
8/9/10 at 9:24pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

That deserves a high-five, BR.

Also get as much solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal as possible based on geographic location. Just stop fucking burning coal and oil ffs.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #11 of 57
8/10/10 at 8:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yes, nuclear power is the way to go. This is where my brethren on the left are ignorant sluts. Those that truly understand the science behind it know that until we can get fusion going, nuclear fission power plants are the safest and most efficient way to get energy out to the masses.

Here's the rights big error: Infinite growth is impossible.

We can get away with a lot less energy and still maintain or even improve our standard of living.
I am only a few joules away from covering all my own energy needs (4 persons).

What are you guys afraid off????
Clean air?
No wires crossing every inch of the land?
No huge transmissions masts?
No water heating nuke plants? (yeah they heat a lot of water)
no burned out fuel rod depositories ,...
What is it?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #12 of 57
8/10/10 at 8:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Here's the rights big error: Infinite growth is impossible.

We can get away with a lot less energy and still maintain or even improve our standard of living.
I am only a few joules away from covering all my own energy needs (4 persons).

What are you guys afraid off????
Clean air?
No wires crossing every inch of the land?
No huge transmissions masts?
No water heating nuke plants? (yeah they heat a lot of water)
no burned out fuel rod depositories ,...
What is it?

Cost.

If something has to be subsidized by the government just so people will buy it (like the Chevy Volt) it's not a "game changer", and it's not going to be widely adopted.

Most folks like myself who are not independently wealthy (yet) cannot afford to invest in "green" technologies because of the prohibitive costs, and do not want to go into debt for it.

I think things are slowly moving in that direction - my great state of Arizona is the leader in solar energy.

But until I can buy a used hybrid car for the same price as a used "gas guzzler", I'm going for the "gas guzzler" every time.

The car I drive to work is a 1997 Nissan Altima and averages 28 mpg. I bought it in April - paid $1,300 cash for it, and invested another $800 to replace the tires and get some front-end work done on it. It runs great, even with 165K miles on it.

If I could find a used hybrid in working condition for $2,100 I would snap it up in a heartbeat. My only concern would be the cost of replacing and properly disposing of the batteries when they eventually fail.

I can see the benefits of clean air, of being energy independent, of being self-sustainable. But until folks like myself making $55,000 a year can afford it, "green" technology is just not going to be widely adopted.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #13 of 57
8/10/10 at 9:51am
You should adopt that liberal mindset Jazzguru. It isn't your fault you don't drive a hybrid. It is the government's fault for not providing one to you at a $2,100 price point.

See the reason they can't provide it at that price point yet is because they aren't taking enough from Wormhole yet. He might be applauding what he considers to be marginally higher taxes on his income, but obviously we should advocate for much, much more than that. He should be taxed until he is begging for a $2100 hybrid.

Anything less than that wouldn't be fair you know.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 57
8/10/10 at 11:16am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Cost.

If something has to be subsidized by the government just so people will buy it (like the Chevy Volt) it's not a "game changer", and it's not going to be widely adopted.

Most folks like myself who are not independently wealthy (yet) cannot afford to invest in "green" technologies because of the prohibitive costs, and do not want to go into debt for it.

I think things are slowly moving in that direction - my great state of Arizona is the leader in solar energy.

But until I can buy a used hybrid car for the same price as a used "gas guzzler", I'm going for the "gas guzzler" every time.

The car I drive to work is a 1997 Nissan Altima and averages 28 mpg. I bought it in April - paid $1,300 cash for it, and invested another $800 to replace the tires and get some front-end work done on it. It runs great, even with 165K miles on it.

If I could find a used hybrid in working condition for $2,100 I would snap it up in a heartbeat. My only concern would be the cost of replacing and properly disposing of the batteries when they eventually fail.

I can see the benefits of clean air, of being energy independent, of being self-sustainable. But until folks like myself making $55,000 a year can afford it, "green" technology is just not going to be widely adopted.

So you think investing in the Saudis, Hugo Chavez, BP, your local E company every month, week and day is less costly to the US. Yeah rite.
You are a financial genius.



Toyota will take care of your batteries for free for life. One less concern.

OK I admit it I am loaded and I could drive anything I want. I can also influence policy with what I buy.
You can't. Bummer. Better get successful otherwise people like me will run you over in their E cars while you'll be paying 10$/gal.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #15 of 57
8/10/10 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

So you think investing in the Saudis, Hugo Chavez, BP, your local E company every month, week and day is less costly to the US. Yeah rite.
You are a financial genius.



Toyota will take care of your batteries for free for life. One less concern.

OK I admit it I am loaded and I could drive anything I want. I can also influence policy with what I buy.
You can't. Bummer. Better get successful otherwise people like me will run you over in their E cars while you'll be paying 10$/gal.

I'm all for energy independence. Offer me a good alternative at the same price point and I'm all over it.

Right now, I'm looking to get the most value and quality for my money. Currently, it is much more economical to buy a $2,100 used car that gets 28 mpg than it is to buy a used Prius for $10,000+.

Even if gas were $10 a gallon, at the rate I currently drive, it would take nearly 4 years for me to arrive at the $10,000 mark for money spent on gas.

Also take into account the money I save on registration and insurance.

It's really a no-brainer.

Regarding the Prius batteries, they are covered under warranty for 8-10 years or 100,000 miles. If they fail outside of warranty, you have pay $3000 - $4000 to replace them.

As you can see, I'm trying to do my homework, live within my means and lay a good financial foundation for my future.

Someday, I'll probably buy a slightly used hybrid in cash. Right now, it just doesn't make any financial sense for me to do so.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #16 of 57
8/10/10 at 12:12pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm all for energy independence. Offer me a good alternative at the same price point and I'm all over it.

Right now, I'm looking to get the most value and quality for my money. Currently, it is much more economical to buy a $2,100 used car that gets 28 mpg than it is to buy a used Prius for $10,000+.

Even if gas were $10 a gallon, at the rate I currently drive, it would take nearly 4 years for me to arrive at the $10,000 mark for money spent on gas.

Also take into account the money I save on registration and insurance.

It's really a no-brainer.

Regarding the Prius batteries, they are covered under warranty for 8-10 years or 100,000 miles. If they fail outside of warranty, you have pay $3000 - $4000 to replace them.

As you can see, I'm trying to do my homework, live within my means and lay a good financial foundation for my future.

Someday, I'll probably buy a slightly used hybrid in cash. Right now, it just doesn't make any financial sense for me to do so.

You are not considering the cost at all. You really believe your oil consumption is cheap to the world and to mankind itself? Your world is your 4 walls I guess. The Saudis cost a lot. We protect them remember..? We protect the Iraqi wells it costs trillions. Cleaning up your mess is going to cost trillions as well. But it won't cost you since you don't make any $.

Nicely reasoned for Narcistic a .....
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #17 of 57
8/10/10 at 1:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

You are not considering the cost at all. You really believe your oil consumption is cheap to the world and to mankind itself? Your world is your 4 walls I guess. The Saudis cost a lot. We protect them remember..? We protect the Iraqi wells it costs trillions. Cleaning up your mess is going to cost trillions as well. But it won't cost you since you don't make any $.

Nicely reasoned for Narcistic a .....

Apparently this bunch of assholes disagrees with you.

Quote:
Nevertheless, a Canadian study has now looked at the question of hybrid payback in a country whose gasoline is more expensive than ours (roughly $3.70 per gallon this week), with surprising results.

One Out of 16

The British Columbia Automobile Association projected the fuel costs of 16 hybrids over five years against their purchase price and financing fees. In a study released in late July, only a single one of the 16 cost less to buy and run than its gasoline counterpart.

And it may not be the one you think. Is it the 2010 Toyota Prius, that quintessential hybrid, now in its third generation and well past one million units built?

A Big Benz ?!?!?

It's one you may not even have put on your short list: the 2010 Mercedes-Benz S 400 Hybrid, a mild-hybrid version of the large, pricey, prestigious full-size http://www.allcarselectric.com/category/luxury,new luxury sedan.

It cost about $5,000 less over five years than its counterpart with a gasoline engine. (That payback will likely be smaller in the U.S., where gas is cheaper and model pricing may differ as well.)

The hybrids that imposed the smallest cost premium over their gasoline equivalents were three Toyotas -- the Prius, Camry Hybrid, and Highlander Hybrid -- along with the Lexus HS 250h, plus Honda's pair of 2010 hybrids, the Insight and Civic Hybrid.

How does the S 400 Hybrid pay back, pray tell? In the States, it's the least expensive S-Class, and the only one fitted with a V-6 engine rather than a V-8, but it still maintains all of the traditional S-Class luxuries.

It provides decent performance and a remarkable 27 miles per gallon rating. Mercedes-Benz has deliberately priced it as the entry-level S-Class, which we think is smart -- although we're not sure it's profitable, given the cost of its lithium-ion battery pack.

Not About Payback

Even the BCAA recognizes that payback isn't the primary reason for buying a hybrid, though.

BCAAs research shows that cost is not typically the main motivator for someone looking to purchase a hybrid," said Trace Acres, their director of corporate communications and government relations. We believe that many consumers are willing to pay a bit more to go hybrid if it will reduce their carbon footprint.

Payback? It's just not about that.

I'm certain of one thing, this payback's a bitch.

Some people pay more for status, including environmental status. However some of us consider the actual return on investment.

FYI 2002 Ford Escort owner here.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 57
8/10/10 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

You are not considering the cost at all. You really believe your oil consumption is cheap to the world and to mankind itself? Your world is your 4 walls I guess. The Saudis cost a lot. We protect them remember..? We protect the Iraqi wells it costs trillions.

I understand your point Marc. But that's largely a consequence of unrestrained government.
The price of having the U.S. military escort oil tankers doesn't show up at the pumps. It's paid for at tax time.

When the U.S. and state governments were kept in check, lifestyles in the U.S. were a lot more sustainable.
The left pretends not to notice this.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #19 of 57
8/12/10 at 8:23am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I understand your point Marc. But that's largely a consequence of unrestrained government.
The price of having the U.S. military escort oil tankers doesn't show up at the pumps. It's paid for at tax time.

When the U.S. and state governments were kept in check, lifestyles in the U.S. were a lot more sustainable.
The left pretends not to notice this.

You are so right. Of course it has nothing to do with the unwillingness of people to invest into new clean technologies. The government should simply let the oil tankers be kidnapped by Somali pirates and fuck the gas prices, I am totally for that. I'll still be driving around just fine.

I totally agree the gov should not protect oil interests anywhere. Let it dry up. Let them blow up the wells. Bring all troops home. Stop maintaining roads, privatize fire departments and police. Taxes should not be used to protect people. They can hire their own security. If you want energy, make it yourself. FREEDOM.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #20 of 57
8/12/10 at 3:14pm
Of course, personal expense is the ONLY reason one should consider cutting down on emisions...

Even if you don't care about pollution (fuck those ciy dwellers) and think global warming is a sham, at least you should consider that the less oil we consume, the less we depend on foreign oil?

The ultimate goal is to get off oil altogether. That's not going to happen if there's no consumer interest in making that happen.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 57
8/12/10 at 3:17pm
Well how do you generate consumer interest? You produce things that people want to buy at a price point they can afford.

If you have the government force them to buy stuff they don't want, they'll resist.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #22 of 57
8/12/10 at 3:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Well how do you generate consumer interest? You produce things that people want to buy at a price point they can afford.

If you have the government force them to buy stuff they don't want, they'll resist.

This is why China is number 1 in solar power.

It is not possible to produce such goods in the US. Conservatives have shipped everything overseas. Bush Tax breaks for outsourcing, no import tariffs, against closing tax loopholes for OVERSEAS COs just let them take the $, fuck US workers, fuck unions, fuck teachers, fuck the government (ourselves). BP we are so sorry you have to pay for your own mess, please let us lick your anuses!!!

Deregulate everything except what people can do with the genitals, conservative freedom.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #23 of 57
8/12/10 at 3:28pm
Why does the iPhone not need government subsidies to entice mass adoption? Because it's a great product that people want and can afford.

Do the same thing with "green" technology and people will line up to buy it just like the iPhone. No need to bribe people with their own money.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #24 of 57
8/12/10 at 4:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Why does the iPhone not need government subsidies to entice mass adoption? Because it's a great product that people want and can afford.

Do the same thing with "green" technology and people will line up to buy it just like the iPhone. No need to bribe people with their own money.

The iPhone is a Chinese product purchased by Apple US from a Chinese CO called Apple China for the purpose of resale in the US.

If we buy solar from China, they do all the work but then we can make our own energy for decades with the same gear. This is the reason why large industry does not want this. It does not break like your car, it does not need to be replaced for decades, the worst nightmare for any company. You and all your blind friends want to stay addicted. You do not have faith that you can simply quit. You want your kid to get it's dose of diesel fumes from the school bus. Maybe Jesus can help you get off the cavemen fire trip. Ahh a flame, so warm, ahh oil, look my book is 2000 years old, I am so educated.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #25 of 57
8/12/10 at 4:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

...with their own money.

if ONLY people understood that part of it !!!!!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #26 of 57
8/12/10 at 4:37pm
Someday, I'd like to be living in a house like George W. Bush's Crawford ranch house. Talk about being "green"! Except mine would be somewhere up in the White Mountains of eastern Arizona.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

That will take some cash, though. I'm working on it!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #27 of 57
8/12/10 at 5:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Why does the iPhone not need government subsidies to entice mass adoption? Because it's a great product that people want and can afford.

Do the same thing with "green" technology and people will line up to buy it just like the iPhone. No need to bribe people with their own money.

It's OK to borrow money to invade countries and blow up shit but do you dare borrow for energy independence that would only benefit Americans, how terrible.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #28 of 57
8/12/10 at 5:57pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Why focus on just nuclear power plants?

Aren't manmade dams used for hydroelectric power generation just as succeptible to natural or manmade disasters - with the consequences just as dire?

Considering the electricity generated by such facilites has powerd 50+ years of unprecedented technological and scientific advancement, which has greatly enhanced our quality of life, I think it's worth the risk.

And until alternative energy (wind, solar, etc.) can be produced efficiently and cheaply, we don't have many alternatives.

Unless you consider tried and true petroleum-based energy, which is being demonized by the establishment and elitists with the ultimate goal of being able to control how people live their lives down to what kinds of light bulbs they use in their homes.

You guys are really energy socialists. Let's have one source, one tit and everybody gets their juice from a big government controlled company who owns power plants. But getting health care is wrong. Brilliant. You want more drilling by companies who control our government who uses your taxes to shove up these guys asses but don't want to invest into making your own energy. Brilliant. Ahh conservatives they know how be socialists.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #29 of 57
8/12/10 at 7:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course, personal expense is the ONLY reason one should consider cutting down on emisions...

Even if you don't care about pollution (fuck those ciy dwellers) and think global warming is a sham, at least you should consider that the less oil we consume, the less we depend on foreign oil?

The ultimate goal is to get off oil altogether. That's not going to happen if there's no consumer interest in making that happen.

Tonton, are you replying to my post or W-hole's?

Because his point escaped me and yours compounded my confusion.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #30 of 57
8/12/10 at 9:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

It's OK to borrow money to invade countries and blow up shit but do you dare borrow for energy independence that would only benefit Americans, how terrible.

No, it's not okay to police the world and "spread democracy" by force. See my Afghanistan thread.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #31 of 57
8/13/10 at 12:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No, it's not okay to police the world and "spread democracy" by force. See my Afghanistan thread.

War is not the only way taxpayers are paying for spreading democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._for_Democracy

"In the financial year to the end of September 2009 NED had an income of $135.5 million, nearly all of which came from U.S Government agencies."

I honestly didn't think the NED got that much. I'm shocked. $135.5 million can go a long way. Perhaps this is somewhere we can cut some spending.

Actually, however, I do appreciate the idea of the NED, though it tends to support very right-wing style "democracy", being principally a creation of Reaganist ideals.

I'm also an interested party, being an active volunteer member (and prior paid employee) of an NGO that is primarily (~90%) funded by NED. But I still think this part of our budget should be looked at.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 57
8/13/10 at 12:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Tonton, are you replying to my post or W-hole's?

Because his point escaped me and yours compounded my confusion.

I wasn't replying to anyone's post in particular, except the numerous irrelevant posts that were pointing out that owning a hybrid isn't cheaper for the owner than owning a non-hybrid. To them I was simply saying, "So what? That's not the point!"
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 57
8/13/10 at 12:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

When the U.S. and state governments were kept in check, lifestyles in the U.S. were a lot more sustainable.

Please tell me, when exactly this was? Taxes are already lower for the rich now than they were at the end of Reagan's term.

And of course, in the "good old days" we had far higher crime, higher violent crime, we've had numerous periods of higher unemployment, there were more homeless, higher infant mortality, more class segregation...

Yeah, let's go back to the 50's! That's the ticket!

That's the ticket for morons who are too blind to see how much improved we are now compared to back then.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 57
8/13/10 at 12:43am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Please tell me, when exactly this was? Taxes are already lower for the rich now than they were at the end of Reagan's term.

And of course, in the "good old days" we had far higher crime, higher violent crime, we've had numerous periods of higher unemployment, there were more homeless, higher infant mortality, more class segregation...

Yeah, let's go back to the 50's! That's the ticket!

That's the ticket for morons who are too blind to see how much improved we are now compared to back then.

New Rule: If conservochristians want to go back to the 50s, they get the tax rates that went along with that era.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #35 of 57
8/13/10 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Please tell me, when exactly this was? Taxes are already lower for the rich now than they were at the end of Reagan's term.

And of course, in the "good old days" we had far higher crime, higher violent crime, we've had numerous periods of higher unemployment, there were more homeless, higher infant mortality, more class segregation...

Yeah, let's go back to the 50's! That's the ticket!

That's the ticket for morons who are too blind to see how much improved we are now compared to back then.

I wasn't arguing that we've made no social progress since the 40's and 50's.

We were discussing the environment in particular, and one has to admit that our "new urbanist" utopian dreams come largely from that era. Housing settlements were built for walking, not cars. A home's front yard was as social a place as its backyard. A national train system was the large scale mode of transport for individuals and industry. Big boxes were non-existent. Etc. Etc.

Of course there were social problems. But we should have built our progress on top on those good civic features instead of discarding them. Now we're trying to rebuild North America all over again.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #36 of 57
8/13/10 at 4:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I wasn't arguing that we've made no social progress since the 40's and 50's.

We were discussing the environment in particular, and one has to admit that our "new urbanist" utopian dreams come largely from that era. Housing settlements were built for walking, not cars. A home's front yard was as social a place as its backyard. A national train system was the large scale mode of transport for individuals and industry. Big boxes were non-existent. Etc. Etc.

Of course there were social problems. But we should have built our progress on top on those good civic features instead of discarding them. Now we're trying to rebuild North America all over again.

Yes, and we can rebuild it better than it ever was, that's the beauty of it all.
The civic features were discarded by conservatives and corporatists Ford, GM, Honeywell, .. they wanted to sell more stuff that breaks as soon as possible.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #37 of 57
8/13/10 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I wasn't arguing that we've made no social progress since the 40's and 50's.

We were discussing the environment in particular, and one has to admit that our "new urbanist" utopian dreams come largely from that era. Housing settlements were built for walking, not cars. A home's front yard was as social a place as its backyard. A national train system was the large scale mode of transport for individuals and industry. Big boxes were non-existent. Etc. Etc.

Of course there were social problems. But we should have built our progress on top on those good civic features instead of discarding them. Now we're trying to rebuild North America all over again.

Frank, this was your quote:

"When the U.S. and state governments were kept in check, lifestyles in the U.S. were a lot more sustainable."

I asked exactly when you were referring to in that statement.

Lifestyles in the US today were better under Clinton and before 9/11 than they have ever been in American History, whether you credit Clinton for that or not. True or false? If false, then please explain when that time was when lifestyles were better. Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 57
8/13/10 at 9:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Lifestyles in the US today were better under Clinton and before 9/11 than they have ever been in American History, whether you credit Clinton for that or not. True or false? If false, then please explain when that time was when lifestyles were better. Thanks.

How have lifestyles changed significantly in North America since the 90s?

With the exception of the influence of the web, we're largely building the same housing, the same general transit infrastructure. I don't see how you can gauge North American civic progress into such short time periods like " Under Clinton and before 9-11." A modern house can stand for 100 years. What's the point of bringing Clinton into this?

I think we're having two separate conversations, because there's no way anybody on the left or right can argue that we abandoned sane urban planning decades ago, at a time when governments were far less involved in the life of the average person. We abandoned walkable cities for mass housing schemes built on highways, big box shopping and car-based transport.

And Clinton remedied none of that. In fact, he made it worse.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #39 of 57
8/14/10 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Apparently this bunch of assholes disagrees with you.



I'm certain of one thing, this payback's a bitch.

Some people pay more for status, including environmental status. However some of us consider the actual return on investment.

FYI 2002 Ford Escort owner here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Apparently this bunch of assholes disagrees with you.

I'm certain of one thing, this payback's a bitch.

Some people pay more for status, including environmental status. However some of us consider the actual return on investment.

FYI 2002 Ford Escort owner here.

Last April (2009), at the local Earth Day event here, there was a "Smart Car" stand, amongst the usual clutch of electrics and hybrids. As this vehicle is really small and lightweight, I assumed the mpg would be unbeatable, having seen publicized mpg statistics in Europe and the UK of between 60 and 70 miles per gallon. However, the people on the Smart Car display I spoke with quoted me no better than 36mpg for typical city driving... which strikes me as utterly lousy for 'new technology'.... I have a little 18 year old Dodge Colt I use for a runabout and that gets similar gas mileage... around 32 mpg for city driving! (The 1.2 : 1 difference between a US and an "Imperial" gallon doesn't account for these "discrepancies").

It turns out that many high mpg European cars, both hybrids and diesels, are illegal in the US.... (!!!). Different emission standards are often bandied around as a "justification", but it seems 'inconsistent" that, for example, a gas swilling Hummer is OK on US roads, whereas the diesel version of the Mini Cooper, which can get up to 75mpg, is verboten. Anyway, what is the mission behind these "different emission standards", and what is the reasoning cited by lawmakers as to what's permissable and what is not?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #40 of 57
8/14/10 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

How have lifestyles changed significantly in North America since the 90s?

With the exception of the influence of the web, we're largely building the same housing, the same general transit infrastructure. I don't see how you can gauge North American civic progress into such short time periods like " Under Clinton and before 9-11." A modern house can stand for 100 years. What's the point of bringing Clinton into this?

I think we're having two separate conversations, because there's no way anybody on the left or right can argue that we abandoned sane urban planning decades ago, at a time when governments were far less involved in the life of the average person. We abandoned walkable cities for mass housing schemes built on highways, big box shopping and car-based transport.

And Clinton remedied none of that. In fact, he made it worse.

I think we are having two different conversations on this, as your original post used the word lifestyles and it seems your point is so loosely connected to lifestyles that one has to wonder why you chose to use that word in the first place. Civic planning is a minuscule part of overall lifestyle, and other aspects of our lifestyle have increased so significantly that they overwhelm any negative progress in terms of civic planning.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Nuclear power and nature