"John H." wrote in message
...
And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.


It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 10:35:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.


It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Liberals have been saying that for years. Go read up on the new
technology for dealing with nuclear waste.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
Yeah, it came from Fox News, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media
to mention it, would you?


When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

When Florida is inundated because liberals don't want to solve
problems. If they did, we wouldn't have these situations:

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.


--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 10:35:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.
Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.

It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Liberals have been saying that for years. Go read up on the new
technology for dealing with nuclear waste.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
Yeah, it came from Fox News, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media
to mention it, would you?

When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

When Florida is inundated because liberals don't want to solve
problems. If they did, we wouldn't have these situations:

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.


The po folk just love those liberal cities and states. They come from
far and wide to find some teat to suck on.

"John H." wrote in message
news
It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes
years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Liberals have been saying that for years. Go read up on the new
technology for dealing with nuclear waste.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
Yeah, it came from Fox News, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media
to mention it, would you?

Hmmm.... a tool of the Heritage Foundation. No mention of that in the
article. As to the merits of reprocessing, if it can be done safely, I'm all
for it.

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.


Sure is easy for you to morph from nuclear power to city's poor. Another
tactic to distract from the facts?

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.
Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.


It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Every day you delay the building of nuclear plants is another day the
citizens of the USA are sending money overseas for energy or burning
coal and oil.

When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

When are you going to stop talking about the problem and start taking
action.

"BAR" wrote in message
...
It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes
years to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Every day you delay the building of nuclear plants is another day the
citizens of the USA are sending money overseas for energy or burning coal
and oil.

True enough.


When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

When are you going to stop talking about the problem and start taking
action.

The real solution is to stop eating so much meat. That would have an
immediate and positive effect. The other things take years.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:09:08 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:49 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:40:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000 vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts through
the re-manufacturing industry


And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.

Nuclear energy sucks.

It is dirty, dangerous, and expensive. I pay 30% more for the
electricity running through this laptop sitting while I'm sitting on
this couch, than I do at my other home which is served by a coal
plant. Once or twice a year, they remind me that I have to drive by
the melting reactor building to get away, if there ever is a serious
event. That makes my family safe, huh? What the HELL do we do with all
of that spent fuel? It is ACCUMULATING AT THE REACTOR COMPLEXES now,
since no state wants it transported down their roads or stored within
their borders. When will the bill come due and who will pay for the
final disposal of that stuff?

I'd be all for it, if we could overcome the shortcomings, but at this
writing it just sucks.


Better to let Florida sink, huh?

How have the stupid, friggin' French managed to do so well, Gene?
Perhaps you should do a little reading on the new technology available
for dealing with nuclear waste.

I guess improving the atmosphere isn't such a big deal after all, is
it?
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

"John H." wrote in message
...
How have the stupid, friggin' French managed to do so well, Gene?
Perhaps you should do a little reading on the new technology available
for dealing with nuclear waste.


I guess you forgot about the right's deepseated hatred for all things
French. Got any fries?

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 10:36:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
How have the stupid, friggin' French managed to do so well, Gene?
Perhaps you should do a little reading on the new technology available
for dealing with nuclear waste.


I guess you forgot about the right's deepseated hatred for all things
French. Got any fries?

Nope, not all things. I like their sensibility about the use of
nuclear power, and I like many of the works by Michel Delacroix.
Croissants fresh from the campsite owner's oven were a real treat.
Paying over $10 for two cokes at Sacré-Coeur Basilica was hard to
take. But, the kids were thirsty.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:49 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:40:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the
aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000
vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts
through
the re-manufacturing industry


And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere,
small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict
beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of
the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers
were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.

Nuclear energy sucks.

It is dirty, dangerous, and expensive. I pay 30% more for the
electricity running through this laptop sitting while I'm sitting on
this couch, than I do at my other home which is served by a coal
plant. Once or twice a year, they remind me that I have to drive by
the melting reactor building to get away, if there ever is a serious
event. That makes my family safe, huh? What the HELL do we do with all
of that spent fuel? It is ACCUMULATING AT THE REACTOR COMPLEXES now,
since no state wants it transported down their roads or stored within
their borders. When will the bill come due and who will pay for the
final disposal of that stuff?

I'd be all for it, if we could overcome the shortcomings, but at this
writing it just sucks.
--


The Pollyanna twins...Kevin & JohnnyPrepH think nuclear power is as safe as
going to Sunday mass.
Maybe they should sit on one of the spent rods for a bit to see if it can
power up their brains.