On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:55:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:29:26 -0400, KotP-A
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:59:02 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:01:27 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:43:02 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...the-world.html

Who knows? Maybe some day the liberals will see an advantage to
nuclear energy also.

Things change in this world.

I don't get how you see everything in such a
black-white/liberal-conservative way, but let's play it your way....

why are the conservatives so

1) opposed to centralized management,

I'm not at all opposed to centralized management, as long as it's not
the government. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should stay in
business to insure that appropriate safety regulations are enforced.

So...... the government should stay out of it and not have any role in
management, but the (Government) Nuclear Regulatory Commission should
stay in business to manage enforcement of safety regulations (plus
anything else that might be in their charter?)?

Yes.

Right, ok.... I guess that kinda makes sense, sorta, maybe in an odd
way........ or not!


2) opposed to government involvement in major industrial enterprises,

Because *our* government tends to dick things up when it gets control.
The second item in your document was, "...close cooperation among the
key industrial players and the government," The word 'involvement' was
your addition. I've no problem with close cooperation.

Wasn't my word at all... it came straight out of the article: "Such
closely knit cooperation is, of course, much easier in France, which
has a long tradition of government involvement in major industrial
enterprises, ranging from the supersonic Concorde jetliner to the TGV
high-speed train."


3) and opposed to recycling of nuclear waste?

Why would I be opposed to the recycling of nuclear waste? That's a
silly assumption.

You are conservative, conservatives have been all about storage of
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Obama is a liberal, he stopped those
plans and his energy secretary,Chu, has referred to future
reprocessing of waste so it can be recycled. Therefore it follows that
you are against reprocessing, since you are not a liberal.

Right, ok.... I guess that kinda makes sense, sorta, maybe in an odd
way........ or not! Mostly not.


.....since you keep pointing to the French as an example of how it
should be done and those are the three things that make nuclear energy
happen for them......
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/....html?PageNr=2

The French system makes a lot of sense. Why are liberals so against
it?

Well, let's see:

"The French nuclear program is based on three key ideas: centralized
management, close cooperation among the key industrial players and the
government, and the recycling of nuclear waste."

You just said that didn't make any sense, so, by your own logic, you
must be a liberal! And, using your binary logic, I must be a
conservative..... you commie pinko fag.......

I just said 'what' didn't make sense? I agreed with all three of the
key ideas.

I think your little ploy backfired.

Again, The French system makes a lot of sense. Why are liberals so
against it?