|
What great lines...
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. |
What great lines...
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. Can I hear an "AMEN"? AMEN! -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
"J. Leo" wrote in message ... "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Good Lord Johnny...since the US is the worst offender.... you have to be the ones to turn this around. Everyone else will do their part as time passes. |
What great lines...
On Aug 9, 6:07*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"J. Leo" wrote in message ... "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc...te.html?_r=1&t.... Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Good Lord Johnny...since the US is the worst offender.... you have to be the ones to turn this around. Everyone else will do their part as time passes. There is no evidence for anthropegenic global warming at all. The prophets of global warming mostly have carnon footprints 10x as large as the average american so until they cut back, why pay any attention to them. |
What great lines...
Don White wrote:
"J. Leo" wrote in message ... "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Good Lord Johnny...since the US is the worst offender.... you have to be the ones to turn this around. Everyone else will do their part as time passes. Dummy, Mexico is a haven for companies that have production that doesn't meet US EPA standards. |
What great lines...
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:37:19 -0400, D wrote:
Don White wrote: "J. Leo" wrote in message ... "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Good Lord Johnny...since the US is the worst offender.... you have to be the ones to turn this around. Everyone else will do their part as time passes. Dummy, Mexico is a haven for companies that have production that doesn't meet US EPA standards. Don, it's very hard to believe you are calling someone else a dummy. If we were to lead the way, then we should be building nuclear reactors as fast as we can. Wake up. Get back on the tit. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
"J. Leo" wrote in message ... On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:37:19 -0400, D wrote: Don White wrote: "J. Leo" wrote in message ... "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Good Lord Johnny...since the US is the worst offender.... you have to be the ones to turn this around. Everyone else will do their part as time passes. Dummy, Mexico is a haven for companies that have production that doesn't meet US EPA standards. Don, it's very hard to believe you are calling someone else a dummy. If we were to lead the way, then we should be building nuclear reactors as fast as we can. Wake up. Get back on the tit. -- John H Hee hee...Johnny, Johnny...looks like it's your dis-able seaman Dingy Dan calling the names. Now who's the dummy? |
What great lines...
|
What great lines...
J. Leo wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:37:19 -0400, D wrote: Don White wrote: "J. Leo" wrote in message ... "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Good Lord Johnny...since the US is the worst offender.... you have to be the ones to turn this around. Everyone else will do their part as time passes. Dummy, Mexico is a haven for companies that have production that doesn't meet US EPA standards. Don, it's very hard to believe you are calling someone else a dummy. If we were to lead the way, then we should be building nuclear reactors as fast as we can. Wake up. Get back on the tit. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Donny is stuck on his island and his only information comes from socialist Government run Canuckistani TV And newspapers. Oh I forgot Krausie of course. He's a great source for Donny. |
What great lines...
"it's me, Jim" "j i wrote in message ... J. Leo wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:37:19 -0400, D wrote: Don White wrote: "J. Leo" wrote in message ... "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Good Lord Johnny...since the US is the worst offender.... you have to be the ones to turn this around. Everyone else will do their part as time passes. Dummy, Mexico is a haven for companies that have production that doesn't meet US EPA standards. Don, it's very hard to believe you are calling someone else a dummy. If we were to lead the way, then we should be building nuclear reactors as fast as we can. Wake up. Get back on the tit. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Donny is stuck on his island and his only information comes from socialist Government run Canuckistani TV And newspapers. Oh I forgot Krausie of course. He's a great source for Donny. As if your information was any better during the eight dark years of Dubyas' reign. WMD indeed...~~ snerk ~~ |
What great lines...
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
Just John II wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. |
What great lines...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:36:20 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. Until I hear the liberals have started pushing for the building of nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. |
What great lines...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. |
What great lines...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:39:17 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. Now just convince the liberals in power to get on the bandwagon. It's *really* hard to think they take manmade global warming seriously when they don't give a high priority to the best treatment available. Makes it sound like they just want your money. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
What great lines...
"NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. |
What great lines...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? |
What great lines...
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world?s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww.. What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron. |
What great lines...
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax. How much waste do you think they have to store? |
What great lines...
|
What great lines...
H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote: In article , says... Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww.. What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron. "What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron." A beautifully example of a liberal argument. and they wonder why people have problems with liberal thinking. |
What great lines...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
H the K wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww.. What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron. "What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron." A beautifully example of a liberal argument. and they wonder why people have problems with liberal thinking. It makes no sense to debate uneducated, ill-informed morons like The Freak. |
What great lines...
In article , says...
H the K wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww.. What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron. "What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron." A beautifully example of a liberal argument. and they wonder why people have problems with liberal thinking. You haven't killfiled this idiot yet? Seriously, if everyone completely ignored him he would probably go nuts and eat his widdew capguns. Indeed, the world would be a better place.. -- Wafa free since 2009 |
What great lines...
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... H the K wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww.. What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron. "What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron." A beautifully example of a liberal argument. and they wonder why people have problems with liberal thinking. You haven't killfiled this idiot yet? Seriously, if everyone completely ignored him he would probably go nuts and eat his widdew capguns. Indeed, the world would be a better place.. Moron. |
What great lines...
Just John II wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:39:17 -0400, NotNow wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. Now just convince the liberals in power to get on the bandwagon. It's *really* hard to think they take manmade global warming seriously when they don't give a high priority to the best treatment available. Makes it sound like they just want your money. -- John H And I suppose that the conservative politicians DON'T want my money? |
What great lines...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:18:12 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
If the government had gotten behind a program to extract the energy out of nuclear waste rather than bury it, we would have a clean, reliable, continuously available, energy source with no concern about storing the waste as there would be none. The government? I thought "Free Market" was the Conservative mantra. |
What great lines...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. They NEED to be regulated. |
What great lines...
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world?s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww.. The difference is this. I've based my belief on science. I've studied both sides. I haven't however, based my belief on what one political party says. |
What great lines...
CalifBill wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years?? Halifax. How much waste do you think they have to store? He's dumb. Doesn't understand the concept apparently. He's probably thinking that a nuke plant spits out spent rods like a Wile E. Coyote fireworks factory! |
What great lines...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
H the K wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww.. What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron. "What the foch would you know about global warming or anything else? You're a moron." A beautifully example of a liberal argument. and they wonder why people have problems with liberal thinking. There's the typical ALL liberals think alike speak. Does that mean that ALL conservatives think and act alike also? |
What great lines...
In article ,
says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world?s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww.. The difference is this. I've based my belief on science. I've studied both sides. I haven't however, based my belief on what one political party says. I have based my belief on science too. I guess I am out of this one.. -- Wafa free since 2009 |
What great lines...
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... Just John II wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:18 -0400, NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world?s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent man made global warrming, I will accept it for what it is, politics. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What is politics is the conservatives sticking their collective heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. No, we just trust different scientists than you do. It is insulting when you consider there are as many on our side as yours when you really look at the numbers honestly. So you saying my head is buried is as bad as me suggesting yours is.. Neither are, we both have read up on it, and have simply come to opposing points of view.. Besides insulting me and the folks on my side is why we all have Harry plonked... ewwwwwww.. The difference is this. I've based my belief on science. I've studied both sides. I haven't however, based my belief on what one political party says. I have based my belief on science too. I guess I am out of this one.. Scientology, maybe. Not science. |
What great lines...
thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:18:12 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: If the government had gotten behind a program to extract the energy out of nuclear waste rather than bury it, we would have a clean, reliable, continuously available, energy source with no concern about storing the waste as there would be none. The government? I thought "Free Market" was the Conservative mantra. The program to recover the energy from nuclear waste will require significant expenditure for the research and development. The only organization with that kind of money is the government. With nuclear energy it is basically a simple separation process to get the energy components from nuclear waste. The engineering process will cost. For the billions of dollars and significant effort that the government spent in the last 40 years killing and avoiding nuclear energy, we could have had a recovery process and had no energy problem today. Yet the government is continuing to bury its head in the sand and promoting the gimmicky sources of electricity like windmills, and other fanciful ideas that will not work in the long run. Do you resent the government spending money for cancer research? This is an example of a major research project, that is beyond the scope of private industry. While there have been some progress in this very complex system, it is still not understood today. I don't have to ask I know you are against space research, but this is an example of a government program that has done good. There is not one segment of society, today, that is not using something that came out of that research. My wife and thousands of other people would be blind today if the government had not spent research money developing lasers, and the systems to guide (target) them. |
What great lines...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:31:10 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
For the billions of dollars and significant effort that the government spent in the last 40 years killing and avoiding nuclear energy, we could have had a recovery process and had no energy problem today. Yet the government is continuing to bury its head in the sand and promoting the gimmicky sources of electricity like windmills, and other fanciful ideas that will not work in the long run. Oh please, the government hasn't killed nuclear energy, the economics of nuclear energy killed it. Nuclear energy, if you include the capital costs, is expensive. However, with carbon sequestration and other "clean coal" costs, nuclear energy is becoming cost competitive. You do know, 31 new nuclear plants are in the pipeline, don't you? Doesn't say much for your theory that the government is killing nuclear energy, does it? http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-lice...iles/expected- new-rx-applications.pdf |
What great lines...
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:31:10 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: For the billions of dollars and significant effort that the government spent in the last 40 years killing and avoiding nuclear energy, we could have had a recovery process and had no energy problem today. Yet the government is continuing to bury its head in the sand and promoting the gimmicky sources of electricity like windmills, and other fanciful ideas that will not work in the long run. Oh please, the government hasn't killed nuclear energy, the economics of nuclear energy killed it. Nuclear energy, if you include the capital costs, is expensive. However, with carbon sequestration and other "clean coal" costs, nuclear energy is becoming cost competitive. You do know, 31 new nuclear plants are in the pipeline, don't you? Doesn't say much for your theory that the government is killing nuclear energy, does it? http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-lice...iles/expected- new-rx-applications.pdf The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules. 15-20 years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a license to run the plant. Can not get a license until after construction is finished. One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that is the one). Cumo opposed the license and the rate payers are still paying for a finished nuke plant that never operated. Also a reason rates are inflated with nuclear. |
What great lines...
"NotNow" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Just John II wrote: On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Leo wrote: "But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA? And, suppose no one of consequence follows. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant. Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics. I agree with this post. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe it's really happening???? http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/ There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. ) The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear energy. I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power. Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party. The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant business. The regulations make it so. They NEED to be regulated. Yes, but the regulations prevent building. When there are 1-200 different agencies that have to give approval, and then the enviro lawsuits without merit. These all lead to uneconomical plants. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com