Nuclear power issue

Dixie said:
That's Chicklet's standard for journalistic integrity! If you read his posts, they are all like that... he trots out some lame ass propagandist talking point memo, and acts like it was some sort of legitimate news story that "proves" his lame ass point! Then he struts around insulting people for a while, acting as if he has "won" some argument with his lame ass propaganda.
Click to expand...

:palm: Try answering the response I put to you instead of nursing your grudge BEFORE you read my responses to others.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Try answering the response I put to you instead of nursing your grudge BEFORE you read my responses to others.
Click to expand...

I'll answer and respond to whatever I feel is worthy of my time to respond. As long as you are being an asswipe liberal idiot, I don't feel compelled to do a goddamn thing you WANT me to do, and I feel a great compulsion to tell you to go fuck yourself.
 
Dixie said:
1.) Actually, I did read Christie's thread, and I have done research... Per capita, accidents and deaths in nuclear energy production are FAR lower than oil and mining industry accidents and deaths. Are the number of cancers attributable to Three Mile Island comparable to the number of Black Lung deaths in America?

Actually, you may want to research the rise in various cancers in areas where there have been nuke accidents, and then into the various lawsuits and delaying tactics used by power companies. See, if the plaintive dies before the suit can be resolved, it's usually dropped...similar things happened with US troops filing suit regarding Agent Orange, or people filing about dioxin poisoning.
Click to expand...

2.) I just wanted clarification you aren't voting for Obama... if you wish to throw your vote away on a 3rd party candidate, that is fine with me! I applaud your integrity!
Click to expand...

I've stated time and again that if Obama turns into another Slick Willy and his good is outweighed by his bad, I won't vote for him. Incidently, as an Independent, I can vote for other offices besides the President and still be satisfied with the outcome. I'm a patient man in many respects.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
1) I suggest you read Christie's thread and due a little research regarding Nuclear plant spills, etc., and the effects on the surrounding environment Oh, and maybe you should look into the alarming rate increase of certain cancers after the Three Mile Island incident.

2) Why the hell would I vote for a return to Shrubism if I decide not to vote for Obama? 3rd party, anyone?
Click to expand...

Mott the Hoople said:
and I would suggest you do the same with coal mining operations, coal burning power plants and petroleum refineries. No one is saying that nuclear energy is completely safe but in the US it has a far better track record than either coal or petroleum. Though to be fair to those industries, nuclear energy does not have their scope or scale of operations.

One thing is for certain. If nuclear energy is to be advanced, given the catastrophic consequences of a mismanaging the technology, it is not something you'd want to place in the hand of a free market ideologue. It would have to be highly regulated to assure safety and security. With those controls in place, I don't see why we wouldn't advance the technology.
Click to expand...

Bottom line: nuclear power is FAR to dangerous to start adopting an attitude of "acceptable" losses, cancers, etc. Private Enterprise vs. Government Control? Holy Jeez, that's a cat & dog fight that I do not want to be around...especially when NEITHER have a history of readily owning up to damages to workers/civilians from technology/industry.
 
I've stated time and again that if Obama turns into another Slick Willy and his good is outweighed by his bad, I won't vote for him.
Click to expand...

Escalation in Iraq War.... CHECK
Renewal of Patriot Act.... CHECK
Renewal of Bush policy on Rendition...CHECK
Renewal of Bush policy on warrantless wiretaps... CHECK
No Support for Gay Marriage....CHECK
Exec Order Banning Fed Funding of Abortion....CHECK
Build Nuke Plants.... CHECK
Drill ANWR.... CHECK
No Public Option.... CHECK

So that is 9 checks against him at current count.... man, Obama is going to have to really work hard to overcome that to get your vote, isn't he? That means, like the next 9 things he does, are going to have to be 100% Liberal Manifesto kind of things, to make up for all the Bush-like policies he has supported so far.... that's a tough order to fill there, Chicklet! I think you may be in the market for a 3rd Party guy... I wonder if Nader is running again?
 
Dixie said:
I'll answer and respond to whatever I feel is worthy of my time to respond. As long as you are being an asswipe liberal idiot, I don't feel compelled to do a goddamn thing you WANT me to do, and I feel a great compulsion to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

Translation: Dixie's nursing a grudge from a logical ass whupping I and others gave him on one of his created threads...so here he is now to spew sour grapes. Let's see how much of a real debate on the issue can he handle, as opposed to the above blathering.
 
I've stated time and again that if Obama turns into another Slick Willy and his good is outweighed by his bad, I won't vote for him.
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
Escalation in Iraq War.... CHECK Clarification: troop reduction plans/goals on table.Renewal of Patriot Act.... CHECK
Renewal of Bush policy on Rendition...CHECK
Renewal of Bush policy on warrantless wiretaps... CHECK Clarification: a limited extension No Support for Gay Marriage....CHECK
Exec Order Banning Fed Funding of Abortion....CHECK Clarification: it was already law, the Exec Order was to assure morons who can't read that the recent healthcare reform bill would NOT do otherwise.
Build Nuke Plants.... CHECK
Drill ANWR.... CHECK Clarification: There has been NO bill, order or motion to do this....the current move was to FUND off shore drilling in SPECIFIC AREAS....of which the GOP is against!
No Public Option.... CHECK Clarification: the current bill does open a door to legislate in that direction within the next 5-10 years.

So that is 9 checks against him at current count.... man, Obama is going to have to really work hard to overcome that to get your vote, isn't he? That means, like the next 9 things he does, are going to have to be 100% Liberal Manifesto kind of things, to make up for all the Bush-like policies he has supported so far.... that's a tough order to fill there, Chicklet! I think you may be in the market for a 3rd Party guy... I wonder if Nader is running again?
Click to expand...

:palm: Once again, you can't argue one issue, so you dodge down another. Essentially, you're just rehashing a moot point...but hey, it's the best you can do. Carry on.
 
Ah... okay, so your shtick is going to be to find excuses and caveats to justify The Obama's actions which didn't conform to the liberal agenda... that's what I figured. You'll vote for him, we all know you'll vote for him, you'd suck his dick if he would let you! You're fucking head over heels in love with Obama, and he can literally do no wrong! Even on this issue of building new nuclear power plants, you will find some way to blame that off on Republicans before all is said and done.

You are what we call, a SHILL... A Liberal Democrat hack who doesn't care what Obama does, as long as Liberals remain in power in Congress. You'll spew bullshit out of both sides of your mouth, telling us how you will not support Obama, and how you vehemently renounce things he is doing, but when it comes down to re-election time, he knows he can count on your vote, because you are a SHILL!
 
Cypress said:
I'm not a nuclear engineer, and have no particular expertise or intimate knowledge of how nuclear waste can be handled, so I'll leave that aspect to experts, or to message board posters who read two paragraphs about it on wikipedia and have decided to weigh in with expertise.

that said....



Not having read the entire thread, I'm sure there's been outrage and alarm raised by rightwingers who routinely remind us that the federal government has no constitutional authority to spend, or use taxpayers to take the risk that private investors themselves should take on. Good luck Taichi dealing with the rightwing outrage on extra-constitutional activities by the Feds. I know buried somewhere in this thread is a wingnut rant about the enumerated powers in the constituion.
Click to expand...
Why don't we ask the Navy what they do with theirs? Every submarine and most of the ships in the US navy runs on nuclear power. It isn't like we haven't had experience with it.

And do you know why subs run on this? Because diesel engine subs kill sailors in fires while the same sailors remain safe on nuclear submarines.
 
:palm:
Dixie said:
Ah... okay, so your shtick is going to be to find excuses and caveats to justify The Obama's actions which didn't conform to the liberal agenda... that's what I figured. :palm: Learn to READ, you dolt! All I did was correct SOME of items you listed with FACTS. If you can factually disprove what I wrote, then do so. If not, then continue to bray like an ass. You'll vote for him, we all know you'll vote for him, you'd suck his dick if he would let you! You're fucking head over heels in love with Obama, and he can literally do no wrong! Ahh, so essentially you've just wasted everyone's time with this charade of debate, because you've already made up your mind...a mind that's disturbingly filled with projecting homo-erotic images on others unprovoked! Even on this issue of building new nuclear power plants, you will find some way to blame that off on Republicans before all is said and done.

Newsflash, mastermind......I haven't made this a partisan issue...since Obama is the one presently at fault, IMHO. Man, you definitely need to learn the difference between your opinion and reality.

You are what we call, a SHILL... A Liberal Democrat hack who doesn't care what Obama does, as long as Liberals remain in power in Congress. You'll spew bullshit out of both sides of your mouth, telling us how you will not support Obama, and how you vehemently renounce things he is doing, but when it comes down to re-election time, he knows he can count on your vote, because you are a SHILL!
Click to expand...

Did your mommy help you out with that little ditty? :palm: Because your opinion about me and metro card will only warrant you a bus ride as far as I'm concerned.

Now, you got anything of worth regarding the information I posted in the debate with others on nuke power plants? Or are you just going to shovel your BS as usual?
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
:palm:

Did your mommy help you out with that little ditty? :palm: Because your opinion about me and metro card will only warrant you a bus ride as far as I'm concerned.

Now, you got anything of worth regarding the information I posted in the debate with others on nuke power plants? Or are you just going to shovel your BS as usual?
Click to expand...

You didn't post "information" ...what you posted was propaganda. I posted information, the fact that nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest energy we have, when comparing accidents and deaths related to other energy production. This one small fact destroys any and all arguments you have against nuclear energy, and you can huff and puff all day long, it won't ever change that fact.

As for the rest of your smart-ass post, I ignore it. You obviously think it lends some credibility to what you say if you can act like a bad ass and bully people with words, but it doesn't phase me one little bit. I'm really glad you do that, because it exposes you for the fraud you are, and tells everyone who is reading, that you are losing the argument badly. See, people who act like you, are trying to compensate for the lack of substance they bring to the discussion. By using harsh phrases and trashing your opponent, you don't win any debate points, but you get a sense of satisfaction through getting something off your chest, and in your mind, you believe this makes your points valid and legit... but it doesn't... it just makes you a goofy buffoon who can't rationally discuss things without using insults and pejoratives every other word.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Bottom line: nuclear power is FAR to dangerous to start adopting an attitude of "acceptable" losses, cancers, etc. Private Enterprise vs. Government Control? Holy Jeez, that's a cat & dog fight that I do not want to be around...especially when NEITHER have a history of readily owning up to damages to workers/civilians from technology/industry.
Click to expand...

You're stance is neither logical, rational or consistent. By your standard we should give up petroleum and coal cause by all objective standards they have killed far more people from accidents and exposure to toxins and pollutants then nuclear energy has.

Why the double standard here?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal


Did your mommy help you out with that little ditty? Because your opinion about me and metro card will only warrant you a bus ride as far as I'm concerned.

Now, you got anything of worth regarding the information I posted in the debate with others on nuke power plants? Or are you just going to shovel your BS as usual?
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
You didn't post "information" ...what you posted was propaganda. I posted information, the fact that nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest energy we have, when comparing accidents and deaths related to other energy production. This one small fact destroys any and all arguments you have against nuclear energy, and you can huff and puff all day long, it won't ever change that fact.

:palm: You posted ONE side of the issue, then blather on with your opinion as if that is also bonafide fact. Bottom line: you make an accusation against my source material BUT YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY DISPROVE IT! In short, you're full of it as usual

As for the rest of your smart-ass post, I ignore it. You obviously think it lends some credibility to what you say if you can act like a bad ass and bully people with words, but it doesn't phase me one little bit. I'm really glad you do that, because it exposes you for the fraud you are, and tells everyone who is reading, that you are losing the argument badly. See, people who act like you, are trying to compensate for the lack of substance they bring to the discussion. By using harsh phrases and trashing your opponent, you don't win any debate points, but you get a sense of satisfaction through getting something off your chest, and in your mind, you believe this makes your points valid and legit... but it doesn't... it just makes you a goofy buffoon who can't rationally discuss things without using insults and pejoratives every other word.
Click to expand...

Jeezus, didn't I just previously tell you that your whinings and sour grapes about me is about worth a fart in the wind?!?! Bottom line, Dixie...when you can't logically or factually defend your position, you go on the personal attack...as you've done here. So continue your prattling....let me know when you've got the brains and the guts to actually have an honest debate on the issue at hand.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Bottom line: nuclear power is FAR to dangerous to start adopting an attitude of "acceptable" losses, cancers, etc. Private Enterprise vs. Government Control? Holy Jeez, that's a cat & dog fight that I do not want to be around...especially when NEITHER have a history of readily owning up to damages to workers/civilians from technology/industry.
Click to expand...

Mott the Hoople said:
You're stance is neither logical, rational or consistent. By your standard we should give up petroleum and coal cause by all objective standards they have killed far more people from accidents and exposure to toxins and pollutants then nuclear energy has.

Why the double standard here?
Click to expand...

Oh, my stance is quite logical...because an oil spill may be detrimental to the local eco-sphere for a period of time, but you sure as hell can't compare that to what it would be if the material were nuclear waste, high or low level. Chernobyl as compared to the Exxon Valdez in terms of diligent clean up.

You're comparing the cumulative deaths contributed to two industries that have been around for at least a century as opposed the the 50 years of nuclear power plants. And the truly heinous thing about nuke power plants is that just because injury and fatalities are not immediate doesn't mean they are not there.

http://www.truthout.org/107091Levine

The game played with poisoning/pollution from nuke plants is similar to the one our gov't played when it came to Agent Orange and "acid rain".
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Coal mining pollution of water and air is one thing....but radioactive contamination is a whole other smoke.
Click to expand...

Mott the Hoople said:
Why? Why is it differant then say the mercury or arsenic generated from the burning of coal? Why is that?
Click to expand...

Because you can clean up mercury and arsenic contamination to a degree, and stop the source via proper filtrations, etc. Serious radioactive contamination does go away that easily after stopping the source of contamination...Chernobyl being the example. And that's not all, as you can add the following to post #75

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9422
 
Taichiliberal said:
Because you can clean up mercury and arsenic contamination to a degree, and stop the source via proper filtrations, etc. Serious radioactive contamination does go away that easily after stopping the source of contamination...Chernobyl being the example. And that's not all, as you can add the following to post #75

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9422
Click to expand...

The design for Chernobyl was abandoned after that accident, and was never used in the US. Three Mile Island is the only US nuclear accident, and it involved very little actual contamination. The cost of environmental cleanup versus the Exxon Valdez, was minuscule in comparison. You have not made a point....I repeat, NO POINT has been made by YOU!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Because you can clean up mercury and arsenic contamination to a degree, and stop the source via proper filtrations, etc. Serious radioactive contamination does go away that easily after stopping the source of contamination...Chernobyl being the example. And that's not all, as you can add the following to post #75

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9422
Click to expand...
I'm enjoying watching Mott kick your ass all over on this thread. So much so that I probably won't kick it myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top