Nuclear energy rocks

hotdog

hotdog

Victory Shall Be Mine
Nuclear energy is clean. There is an abudence of uranium in the world. A small amount of uranium creates a lot of energy. Nuclear waste can be recycled. Uranium generates a lot of energy.
 
Barack Obama are you a fascist? Are you a socialist, communist, feudalist, mercantilist?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Everyone says that they support both, but liberals fight every nuke plant proposed. Which party do you think they support?
Click to expand...

Republicans tend to support nuclear power while Democrates support renewable energy and electric cars. Republicans and Democrates fail to work together to provide America energy security. Republicans which don't believe in Global Warming will not support bills about alternative energy. Republicans don't see that ending American dependence on foreign oil is essential to America's national security. Democrates fail to realize that its impossible to convince everyone about the enviormental impacts of fossil fuels. Democrates need to argue energy security, resource scarcity. Liberals need to stop opposing nuclear power. The technology all ready exists to make it completely safe. France has never had a problem. Republicans need to support renewable energy/ electric cars. Renewable energy should be more about national security then the envionment.
Terrorist get their money from oil. Once efficient electric cars are created then oil will be useless and terrorists will lose all their funding. If just a fraction of the money used to fight terrorists had gone into research America would all ready be on the path victory. Islamic extremists will lose only if oil becomes worthless. Electric cars could will replace oil powered ones all we need is to research and design good electric cars. Nuclear power is superior to coal and is much better for the environment.
 
Global Warming is a religion, not science. That's why conservatives don't "support" it. Democrats have regulated the domestic oil supply into oblivion, that's why the GOP is cow-tows to OPEC.

Learn. :pke:
 
hotdog said:
Once efficient electric cars are created then oil will be useless and terrorists will lose all their funding. If just a fraction of the money used to fight terrorists had gone into research America would all ready be on the path victory. Islamic extremists will lose only if oil becomes worthless. Electric cars could will replace oil powered ones all we need is to research and design good electric cars.
Click to expand...
Yeah, except oil has a fuck ton of other uses.
 
Stupid Superstition said:
Yeah, except oil has a fuck ton of other uses.
Click to expand...

Oil is used to make a lot of stuff from plastic to cosemtics. America only gets 10% of its oil from the middle east. We get most of are oil from Mexico and Canada. America also has an abundance of its own oil. If America turns away from oil as an energy souce we won't have to get any from the middle east. We could get all of are oil from North and South America and none from the middle east. Some of the many uses for oil can be done by other things. If Saudia Arabia can't sell its oil to America then the rich people will have to make budget cuts, will they give up having more wives, palaces, luxury goods, servants or will they cut terrorist funding.
 
hotdog said:
Nuclear energy is clean. There is an abudence of uranium in the world. A small amount of uranium creates a lot of energy. Nuclear waste can be recycled. Uranium generates a lot of energy.
Click to expand...
Nuclear energy can rock in more ways then one. Particularly if it's done wrong. Then it can bring a sober new meaning to the phrase "rock your world".

Done right there are a lot of advantages to nuclear energy. It's cost affective, renewable and done right it can be safe and clean.

Done wrong and it can have catastrophic consequences that can make one shudder in horror.

For me, there lies the problem. Can you actually tell me you'd feel safe with free market, deregulate everything Republican ideologues making decisions about nuclear policy and safety based on their short term profit laissez faire political ideology?

Point being, there is no room, I repeat this for emphasis "THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM WHAT SO EVER" for this sort of thinking when it comes to Nuclear Energy.

Nuclear Safety is predicated on a high degree of regulation.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Nuclear energy can rock in more ways then one. Particularly if it's done wrong. Then it can bring a sober new meaning to the phrase "rock your world".

Done right there are a lot of advantages to nuclear energy. It's cost affective, renewable and done right it can be safe and clean.

Done wrong and it can have catastrophic consequences that can make one shudder in horror.

For me, there lies the problem. Can you actually tell me you'd feel safe with free market, deregulate everything Republican ideologues making decisions about nuclear policy and safety based on their short term profit laissez faire political ideology?

Point being, there is no room, I repeat this for emphasis "THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM WHAT SO EVER" for this sort of thinking when it comes to Nuclear Energy.

Nuclear Safety is predicated on a high degree of regulation.
Click to expand...

France has never had a problems with nuclear energy. America's only problem was stopped by safty regulation. Only the soviet Union has ever had a problem with nuclear energy. They were communist. Anyway the republicans are socialists their just not as extreme as democrates. Of course nuclear power plants would be regulated. Nuclear power plants are currently regulated by the government. laissez faire capitalism is dead.
 
hotdog said:
France has never had a problems with nuclear energy. America's only problem was stopped by safty regulation. Only the soviet Union has ever had a problem with nuclear energy. They were communist. Anyway the republicans are socialists their just not as extreme as democrates. Of course nuclear power plants would be regulated. Nuclear power plants are currently regulated by the government. laissez faire capitalism is dead.
Click to expand...
France has had problems with Nuclear power. France though, learned from it's mistakes. France's nuclear power plants are also nationalized, as public utilities and under an extraordinary degree of regulations. Blaming the past failures on political mudslinging is about as stupid as it gets. The Chernobyl disaster occurred because the Soviets operating that plant did not have the degree of oversight, regulation and quality assurance required to operate safely. This is the point I am making and this is the lesson the French have learned about nuclear power. Nuclear power must meet three criteria or it is not viable. It must be safe, it must be clean and it must be cost affective. The first two conditions cannot be assured by the free market. The free market does many things well. This is not one of them and considering the huge destructive potential of nuclear power how can you trust those who's position is to elminiate and undermine the institutional controls needed to make nuclear power a viable option.

Let me put it to you like this. Would you want the same people managing nuclear safety policy that were regulating our financial services industry when it collapsed?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
France has had problems with Nuclear power. France though, learned from it's mistakes. France's nuclear power plants are also nationalized, as public utilities and under an extraordinary degree of regulations. Blaming the past failures on political mudslinging is about as stupid as it gets. The Chernobyl disaster occurred because the Soviets operating that plant did not have the degree of oversight, regulation and quality assurance required to operate safely. This is the point I am making and this is the lesson the French have learned about nuclear power. Nuclear power must meet three criteria or it is not viable. It must be safe, it must be clean and it must be cost affective. The first two conditions cannot be assured by the free market. The free market does many things well. This is not one of them and considering the huge destructive potential of nuclear power how can you trust those who's position is to elminiate and undermine the institutional controls needed to make nuclear power a viable option.

Let me put it to you like this. Would you want the same people managing nuclear safety policy that were regulating our financial services industry when it collapsed?
Click to expand...

What free market? The Banks were highly regulated. The financial calapse occured not because their wasn't enough regulations but because regulators didn't see it coming. The government had the power to stop the banks from doing what they did but the government failed to see the consequences of how banks were doing business.
 
Americans must push for renewable/nuclear energy and electric cars to prevent the international bankers from creating carbon taxes and rulling the world. Cap and trade is not the answer renewable/nuclear energy and electric cars is.
 
The government had the power to stop the banks from doing what they did but the government failed to see the consequences of how banks were doing business.
Click to expand...

This is just completely wrong. It was THE GOVERNMENT who stepped in and told the banks to make mandatory loans to people who didn't have sufficient credit, in order to finance homes they couldn't afford.
 
Dixie said:
This is just completely wrong. It was THE GOVERNMENT who stepped in and told the banks to make mandatory loans to people who didn't have sufficient credit, in order to finance homes they couldn't afford.
Click to expand...

Which means that the government was regulating the banks and could have stopped them by just not requiring them to do anything. This only means that there is no capitalism any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top