|
|
United States42689 Posts
On October 26 2012 04:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 04:33 BoX wrote:On October 26 2012 04:22 KwarK wrote:
BoX is one of your complaints about Obama really that he didn't do enough to defile Osama's corpse before dumping it in the ocean? Seriously? No, I didn't want them to pee on his body. The part that annoys me is that they were all apologetic about it. Did they say they did it out of respect because they wanted to avoid retaliation from angry extremists? Was it just an act of good faith? I dunno, but if they did it because they wanted to avoid offending anyone, that seems weak. If they did it to be nice, that seems disrespectful towards those who osama hurt. Or I just fail to see the big picture on this altogether. He's dead man, and our culture isn't one that is big on tossing around corpses as trophies for the masses to ogle.
Also if you get some more pissed off Osama sympathisers and they commit another atrocity killing more Americans and then more places get bombed and more young men get sent off to die and the shitty cycle continues. I mean obviously there's a point where appeasement must stop and you draw a line and say "we demand our right to do this, do what you feel you have to but we'll fight you for our right to do it" but is that really at desecrating corpses? How many lives is the freedom to desecrate a corpse worth?
If Obama was banning freedom of speech to appease the Islamic world that would be one thing and you could take a stand against him on that, simply choosing not to desecrate a dead body in order to avoid inciting terrorist responses that would cost American lives is quite another.
|
Ok, I thought I'd just let it pass in the name of ease and simplicity, but this continued oversimplification that labels the economic policies of the Democrats as "conservative" and those of the Republicans as "liberal" is absolute nonsense that ignores the fluid, temporal definition of political alignment, especially as it applies itself to the United States. In theory, the economic policies of the Republicans could be considered "classic liberalism" in that they seek to strip away government influence and emphasize the autonomy of the individual in the marketplace, a la Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. That being said, this frame of reference as it pertains to contemporary politics is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways.
First off, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are tied to the time and place in which they are invoked. Let's address conservatism. The very notion of a conservative viewpoint requires a backwards glance at history, a glance that necessarily changes depending on the frame of reference. For example, Hamiltonian government involvement in the marketplace was an idea born during a time in which the business climate of the US was fledgling, splintered, and totally new, at least as far as national autonomy was concerned. The creation of a national bank and the broad interpretation of "necessary and proper" as it pertains to implied federal powers are neither truly liberal nor conservative (though as being part of the fledgling US government, a token liberal identity is applied); they do not privilege the individual nor do they attempt to conserve. One constantly hears those of "libertarian" leaning make references to Thomas Jefferson; this is fine and dandy, as long as they do not use the words or policies of Jefferson as a means of defining contemporary word usage or meaning. In terms of efficacious political dialogue as it pertains to ideological labels, historical justifications that reach this far back are fraught with terminological difficulty and are almost never worth the effort; there are better means with which to frame the liberal/conservative debate.
Now, moving on to liberalism, there is a huge international discrepancy. Within the US, "liberal" almost always actually means "social liberal" and almost never "classic liberal" and the difference is essential. One of the reasons FDR regularly rates as one of the greatest presidents of all time has to do with how he successfully conflated the notions of individualism and collective social responsibility. Through rhetoric and policy implementation, FDR made it clear to the people of the US that the individual and their respective society work in tandem; an overemphasis of either leads to the detriment of the other, hence the treatment of the Great Depression via government work programs, Social Security, and US involvement in WW2 after Pearl Harbor. Now I realize the specifics of FDR's success as it relates to the US emergence from the Great Depression are up for debate, but insofar as political ideological terminology is concerned, these are the foundations for contemporary US liberalism. So, while the term liberal might refer to decidedly libertarian ideas in Europe and Asia, it means something very different here in the States. Furthermore, any assumption that pits liberalism's "big government" as necessarily opposing the rights and abilities of the individual ignores political history and the words of those who took part in it circa 1930 and on. I guess my conclusion is that any attempt at boiling down the platforms of Republicans or Democrats into convenient notions of what is "liberal" or "conservative" is not the best way to go about understanding these things.
Edit: I now realize how meandering this reads; I'd be glad to answer any questions given birth by my exhaustive verbosity.
|
Fair enough, I guess. Matter of perspective. Thanks for the responses. Believe it or not, I'm actually reasonable and enjoyed this ;D
Although I want to make it clear - I didn't want to see osama's body desecrated. Nothing about how they handled his body means anything to me. I don't care at all. What bothered me was how apologetic they were about the whole thing. It's as though they were saying, "PLEASE don't get mad about this!!"
Or they were just taking the high road and being the better man.
I dunno. But I feel like I'm being petty now and detracting from a great thread.
|
On October 26 2012 03:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 03:04 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 02:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
Today Team Liquid learns that the only viable "green energy" is nuclear power. It's only "viable" with government subsidy, loan guarnatees, limited liability and government run insurance. It would not exist in a free market. Nuclear power is the one that is viable without subsidies. What is making the market for it so bad that new nuclear plants are not being constructed is the weight of government regulation. Beyond safety, beyond public knowledge of its features, beyond even drafting messages to educate the public on the great steps taken towards safety ... these are just anti-nuclear muck from the special interests opposed to it. So, with a removal of man-made obstructions, the market for thorium or uranium nuclear reactors will take off. It's more a matter of government getting out of the way than anything else.
The nuclear power industry tells you that it is safe, but it tells Congress something very different; it says that it needs limited liability. The Price-Anderson act was lobbied for by energy companies in the 1950s. It was originally passed with the understanding that it would be a temporary measure to give the nuclear power industry, which did not exist at the time, a chance to start up. Do you know what happens whenever Price-Anderson comes close to expiration? The nuclear power industry lobbies congress and gets it extended.
why? because nuclear power, as safe as the industry tells you it is, as safe as it may actually be, is completely and utterly uninsurable sans government intervention
|
On October 26 2012 04:14 BoX wrote:
Ya armada[sb], I guess it's stupid that I made statements. Every now and then I forget that forums aren't worth posting in, thank you for reminding me.
I shouldn't bother, but I must destroy you because you played the self-victimization card.
On October 26 2012 04:14 BoX wrote:Vote for the career politician who made all of his money via politics... Whose campaign is based upon intangible ideas like Change and Hope (Barack) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_ObamaVote for the career businessman who made all of his money in business... Whose campaign is based upon tangible ideas like business and the ass-whooping reform of idiot America (Romney) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney
There is nothing tangible about Romney's 'ideas'. His positions on foreign policy, and tax reform and social welfare has changed multiple times in the past two years -- even as recently in the past two weeks. His 'principles' for tax reform have been disproven as being impossible to implement without dramatically raising the deficit or raising taxes on the middle class. Not just the Tax Policy Center, that did a very comprehensive analysis, but almost every credible economist agrees.
The 'studies' that Romney cites are either inconclusive, internal white papers or blog posts that criticize the Tax Policy Center's study, but they do NOT prove that Romney plan is actually tangible, let alone feasible.
Let's use the Mortgage Deduction 'loophole' as an example. Even if Romney were to cut certain loopholes, like the Mortgage Deduction it would a) not enough to cover the cost of tax cuts b) crush the housing market, making it even worse for construction, real estate, banks and homeowners c) run completely counter to Romney's insistence that he is going to somehow, through 'leadership' strengten the middle class.
On October 26 2012 04:14 BoX wrote:
It's kind of blatantly obvious that Obama is charismatic and extremely politically powerful - he's a born and raised politician. His greatest talent is making people like him. -- This is an opinion of course, but I'm fairly confident that it's an accurate one.
It's true that Obama is cooler than all of us, particularly you. But he was not raised a politician. He was raised in Hawaii, than South East Asia, than Hawaii again, by his absentee single mother and his grandparents. He went to college on student loans. He was not born and raised a politician. He was born, and he raised himself, and did a pretty good job.
On October 26 2012 04:14 BoX wrote:
Romney is a businessman. His natural talent is making money and building shit//making shit happen. -- Another opinion which I am confident is accurate.
Romney is a leveraged buyout specialist. He specialized in purchasing companies and loading them with debt (including paying Bain Capital's management fees). Sometimes this resulted in the company succeeding and growing. Sometimes this meant liquidating a companies assets, outsourcing it's manufacturing, or just letting it go to shit.
Unless you plan on outsourcing 'America' or loading it with more debt, I'm not sure how his business experience translates into actual governance. You should talk about his record as governor as his primary qualification.
On October 26 2012 04:14 BoX wrote:I realize I'm stating things very bluntly and am open for debate, but that's my position. I LOL at people who go on touting that BS that the Obama admin tries to LIE TO YOU about Romney only paying 15% in his taxes -- he's already paid 35% on his money, now he's paying an additional 15% on his ROI income (that's a total of 50% taxation fellas, not 15% - LOL!) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney#Private_equity -- His company is an investment company. Investing with money that has already been taxed. The Obama campaign likes to talk about the fact that he paid 14.1% on the income he made last year. This is a very controversial idea, because regular dudes like us pay 25%'ish on our meager earnings. They don't tell you that he's only paying 15% because it follows a different tax level, because it's an investment not a regular salary type income. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/21/mitt_romney_s_effective_tax_rate_is_very_low_most_economists_think_it_should_be_.html
We have no idea how much in taxes Romney has paid, with the exception of the past two years. We have no idea how much money he has been sheltering off-shore, which may have been subjected to capital gains.
There is no dispute that Romney is the least transparent candidate since the 1970's, in regards to personal finances. Unless you count weird third party candidates like Ross Perot. Almost every presidential and vice presidential candidate in the past thirty years has four to 12 years of tax returns on public record.
There were at least 10 attempted and successful attacks on US consulates and embassies during the eight years of the Bush administration. And oh yeah, there was those two plane crashes that killed more than 3000 people.
Newflash: Evil people do evil things. Sometimes they succeed.
On October 26 2012 04:14 BoX wrote:
But I make sure to praise the people who LOL and celebrate American civilian's torture, 'cuz we wanna be super nice to those dudes <3 -- He didn't do it DIRECTLY, but he has praised the very same people who are shown on video celebrating after the US Embassy attacks. So yeah that one was a little BS'ish.
What the are you blathering about? The Obama administration has been pretty clear on defending free speech domestically and across the world, while admonishing needless violence (much to the chagrin of people actually familiar with the circumstances of the Benghazi incident).
Are you against Free Speech?
On October 26 2012 04:14 BoX wrote:
BRB dumping osama's body over water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Handling_of_the_body) 'cuz it's offensive to keep his body - don't wanna offend those guys, they're super cool dudes. definitely gotta show respect to osama's body 'cuz whatevs no big deal he's not a bad dude <3
The intent was to prevent Osama's final resting place from becoming a pilgrammage site for terrorists. But if it makes you feel better, there's actually no proof that Osama was given a burial at sea. It's may just be a polite way of saying to the world, "Osama is dead, but you're never going to get the body so don't bother looking."
Osama's brain is probably in a jar somewhere underneath the Pentagon.
|
On October 26 2012 04:33 BoX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 04:22 KwarK wrote:
BoX is one of your complaints about Obama really that he didn't do enough to defile Osama's corpse before dumping it in the ocean? Seriously? No, I didn't want them to pee on his body. I don't care that they dumped it over the ocean. I didn't even care about the fact they they killed him. The part that annoys me is that they were all apologetic about it. Did they say they did it out of respect because they wanted to avoid retaliation from angry extremists? Was it just an act of good faith? I dunno, but if they did it because they wanted to avoid offending anyone, that seems weak. If they did it to be nice, that seems disrespectful towards those who osama hurt. Or I just fail to see the big picture on this altogether.
In the newspapers in Norway I am almost certain I read that it was so they would not have something to "pray to". Just think if neo-nazis could do that with Hitler..
|
On October 26 2012 05:10 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2012 03:04 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 02:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
Today Team Liquid learns that the only viable "green energy" is nuclear power. It's only "viable" with government subsidy, loan guarnatees, limited liability and government run insurance. It would not exist in a free market. Nuclear power is the one that is viable without subsidies. What is making the market for it so bad that new nuclear plants are not being constructed is the weight of government regulation. Beyond safety, beyond public knowledge of its features, beyond even drafting messages to educate the public on the great steps taken towards safety ... these are just anti-nuclear muck from the special interests opposed to it. So, with a removal of man-made obstructions, the market for thorium or uranium nuclear reactors will take off. It's more a matter of government getting out of the way than anything else. The nuclear power industry tells you that it is safe, but it tells Congress something very different; it says that it needs limited liability. The Price-Anderson act was lobbied for by energy companies in the 1950s. It was originally passed with the understanding that it would be a temporary measure to give the nuclear power industry, which did not exist at the time, a chance to start up. Do you know what happens whenever Price-Anderson comes close to expiration? The nuclear power industry lobbies congress and gets it extended. why? because nuclear power, as safe as the industry tells you it is, as safe as it may actually be, is completely and utterly uninsurable sans government intervention
First off, I'm speaking of technologies for extracting nuclear power from reactions that have been developed in the last 20 years. These, mind you, are not monolithic industrial researches but pure scientific efforts to find something that works after all the coal, oil, and natural gas is gone. Economically, when these resources become scarce, their price will rise and high-energy alternatives rise rapidly. I don't care what kind of subsidies exist on the books today, I don't care about what the situation was in the 1950s. Take them all away, take the anti-nuclear lobbies regulations away (discussed earlier), and the technology will stand on its own two feet. It will be the clear winner ahead of every other green tech bandied about, so much so that te others would appear crippled beside it. The misinformation present today may well cause insurers to stay clear. Put them in front of scientists attached to clean, green energy and not nuclear per-se, and that will be solved. I already presented one perspective of what it involves. You are literally more at risk of life and environmental disaster using natural gas and coal for energy than new nuclear reactors such as MSR's. China's on board using US designs, and future energy policy of presidents will go that way if they're at all same about energy demand.
So every time I hear the criticism of Romney and his more open-drilling on federal lands, it is a reminder that there is an uninformed rejection of the alternative that sparks the great need for power while everybody comes around as utility costs increase in the long term. Doomsday (10x 100x) costs, Stone Age style conservation, or nuclear. And no, aside from the oil drilling debate, this is not a point of contention on Obama-Romney because in today's political climate, you lip service the green technology handbag.
Also, thank you farvacola for the exact analysis of what a modern liberal or conservative believes in and how that came to be. It is a little tricky because of the mainstream definition of liberal aims and conservative aims such like you'd find in a dictionary.
|
On October 26 2012 04:46 farvacola wrote:
Ok, I thought I'd just let it pass in the name of ease and simplicity, but this continued oversimplification that labels the economic policies of the Democrats as "conservative" and those of the Republicans as "liberal" is absolute nonsense that ignores the fluid, temporal definition of political alignment, especially as it applies itself to the United States. In theory, the economic policies of the Republicans could be considered "classic liberalism" in that they seek to strip away government influence and emphasize the autonomy of the individual in the marketplace, a la Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. That being said, this frame of reference as it pertains to contemporary politics is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways.
First off, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are tied to the time and place in which they are invoked. Let's address conservatism. The very notion of a conservative viewpoint requires a backwards glance at history, a glance that necessarily changes depending on the frame of reference. For example, Hamiltonian government involvement in the marketplace was an idea born during a time in which the business climate of the US was fledgling, splintered, and totally new, at least as far as national autonomy was concerned. The creation of a national bank and the broad interpretation of "necessary and proper" as it pertains to implied federal powers are neither truly liberal nor conservative (though as being part of the fledgling US government, a token liberal identity is applied); they do not privilege the individual nor do they attempt to conserve. One constantly hears those of "libertarian" leaning make references to Thomas Jefferson; this is fine and dandy, as long as they do not use the words or policies of Jefferson as a means of defining contemporary word usage or meaning. In terms of efficacious political dialogue as it pertains to ideological labels, historical justifications that reach this far back are fraught with terminological difficulty and are almost never worth the effort; there are better means with which to frame the liberal/conservative debate.
Now, moving on to liberalism, there is a huge international discrepancy. Within the US, "liberal" almost always actually means "social liberal" and almost never "classic liberal" and the difference is essential. One of the reasons FDR regularly rates as one of the greatest presidents of all time has to do with how he successfully conflated the notions of individualism and collective social responsibility. Through rhetoric and policy implementation, FDR made it clear to the people of the US that the individual and their respective society work in tandem; an overemphasis of either leads to the detriment of the other, hence the treatment of the Great Depression via government work programs, Social Security, and US involvement in WW2 after Pearl Harbor. Now I realize the specifics of FDR's success as it relates to the US emergence from the Great Depression are up for debate, but insofar as political ideological terminology is concerned, these are the foundations for contemporary US liberalism. So, while the term liberal might refer to decidedly libertarian ideas in Europe and Asia, it means something very different here in the States. Furthermore, any assumption that pits liberalism's "big government" as necessarily opposing the rights and abilities of the individual ignores political history and the words of those who took part in it circa 1930 and on. I guess my conclusion is that any attempt at boiling down the platforms of Republicans or Democrats into convenient notions of what is "liberal" or "conservative" is not the best way to go about understanding these things.
Edit: I now realize how meandering this reads; I'd be glad to answer any questions given birth by my exhaustive verbosity.
This is very true. I think the true problem when foreigners have when understanding American Political Parties is the whole Federalism issue.
Our political parties revolve around this issue. Our first political parties were called the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. While this has changed over time, it's still the 'defining' issue. You need to understand that states are essentially their own countries. They were at one point in time, and still are very much like that. Republicans are the Anti-Federalists of today -- they want to keep as much of the police power with the state as possible. Democrats are the Federalists of today -- they want the federal government to rule over more facets of life.
Because of this, you have some different ideologies. Democrats are more "socialistic" while Republicans are very "individualist". Democrats want more federal control, Republicans want more state control. Different groups that would make up possibly 10 different parties fall into a two party system, and they generally align with whichever party they believe is better for them. So with Republicans you have the anti-government, individualist, get-the-government-out-of-my-business groups, where Democrats tend to attract the "let's use our government power to make a social utopia" type of people. Now you probably won't agree with every stance of a particular party, but the parties themselves are coalitions in the USA.
I think this is an important point for our non-American political people. The "religious right" is less than 20% of our electorate, and not even half of the Republican Party. Same goes for the Tea Party and the Libertarians. Same with the Socialists in the Democratic Party, the environmentalists on that side.
|
Thanks for taking the time to write up that huge response filled with your opinions, Defacer. You're a classy guy! You should read the source-links I posted.
What's the word for that feeling you get when you feel embarrassed for someone else's idiocy? I'm feeling that for you ;(
User was temp banned for this post.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 00:49 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 26 2012 00:21 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 15:17 Souma wrote:On October 25 2012 15:16 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 15:14 Souma wrote:On October 25 2012 15:09 BluePanther wrote:On October 25 2012 15:00 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 14:58 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 14:42 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
The rest of the world hates Republicans because they're further right than most of their right-wing extremist parties. You can tell yourself this all you want, but it simply isn't true. It's true. It's not at all true. I'm a Republican, but I think most people would consider me a liberal if they talked policy with me. It's true. Once again people needa stop throwing out minority examples in an attempt to discredit a larger trend. Where is your proof? Now you're gonna make me go through my posts to find a graph I posted a long time ago... sigh. I'm still waiting... Your statement was incredibly ridiculous, Suoma, and it shows just how polarized the left has become, that they have resorted to calling anyone who disagrees with them "neo-Nazis" and equates opposition to abortion with an "ethnic cleansing." Edit: I just read your other post, in which you said you were no longer even going to try to back up your statement. Uh, he didn't use the words "neo-Nazis" or "ethnic cleansing" in his post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you quoted them. Unless you're saying the current far-right extremist parties worldwide are all neo-Nazis in favor of ethnic cleansing? Even then quotes are inappropriate. I suggest you re-read what he posted. He said that the "American Republicans are further right than European/"global" extremist parties," so I asked him to clarify and he said he was referring to parties such as the BNP, National Front (France), and the NDP (Germany). These parties are effectively neo-Nazi parties, and according to him, "the Republican Party is just as, if not more, extreme as them."
Whoops, I didn't realize you guys were talking extremist extremist parties and not the significant conservative parties such as the U.K. Conservative Party or the German CDU (you know, parties that actually matter).
Yeah, Republicans are not crazier than the extremely extreme parties, but no, I don't believe most people would think you're "liberal" if they talked policy with you, but then that's an assumption going off how you tout guns and call Romney a liberal.
|
On October 26 2012 05:40 BoX wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to write up that huge response filled with your opinions, Defacer. You're a classy guy! You should read the source-links I posted.
What's the word for that feeling you get when you feel embarrassed for someone else's idiocy? I'm feeling that for you ;(
Explain yourself or you're just uselessly running your mouth again. He took the time to write well-thought out responses, even after you cited your source as WIKIPEDIA. He deserves a proper response, or maybe in your opinion none at all, but just being a twat is worse than saying nothing.
Edit: That's how educated discourse works. You say something, he responds, you respond to his response, until you find the root of your disagreement. Sometimes it's an ideological disagreement, sometimes someone changes their views. Shitting up the thread accomplishes none of this.
|
On October 26 2012 04:46 farvacola wrote:
Now, moving on to liberalism, there is a huge international discrepancy. Within the US, "liberal" almost always actually means "social liberal" and almost never "classic liberal" and the difference is essential. One of the reasons FDR regularly rates as one of the greatest presidents of all time has to do with how he successfully conflated the notions of individualism and collective social responsibility. Through rhetoric and policy implementation, FDR made it clear to the people of the US that the individual and their respective society work in tandem; an overemphasis of either leads to the detriment of the other, hence the treatment of the Great Depression via government work programs, Social Security, and US involvement in WW2 after Pearl Harbor. Now I realize the specifics of FDR's success as it relates to the US emergence from the Great Depression are up for debate, but insofar as political ideological terminology is concerned, these are the foundations for contemporary US liberalism. So, while the term liberal might refer to decidedly libertarian ideas in Europe and Asia, it means something very different here in the States. Furthermore, any assumption that pits liberalism's "big government" as necessarily opposing the rights and abilities of the individual ignores political history and the words of those who took part in it circa 1930 and on. I guess my conclusion is that any attempt at boiling down the platforms of Republicans or Democrats into convenient notions of what is "liberal" or "conservative" is not the best way to go about understanding these things.
Edit: I now realize how meandering this reads; I'd be glad to answer any questions given birth by my exhaustive verbosity.
FDR is a fine starting point, but as to why the word 'liberal' is specifically used for these policies, I would say it stems from the liberalizing intent (freedom from inequality) behind the pursuit of civil rights. These civil rights programs require massive government organization to administrate. Hence the inescapable association with 'big government'. And then there is the use of the term 'liberal' as an epithet, which suggests that liberals are free and easy (or at least passively ineffectual) on matters relating to the general erosion of traditional morality.
|
On October 26 2012 05:40 BoX wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to write up that huge response filled with your opinions, Defacer. You're a classy guy! You should read the source-links I posted.
What's the word for that feeling you get when you feel embarrassed for someone else's idiocy? I'm feeling that for you ;(
What's the word for that feeling you get when you feel sad that you're about to lose a non-contributing participant to the discussion?
|
On October 26 2012 05:10 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2012 03:04 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 02:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
Today Team Liquid learns that the only viable "green energy" is nuclear power. It's only "viable" with government subsidy, loan guarnatees, limited liability and government run insurance. It would not exist in a free market. Nuclear power is the one that is viable without subsidies. What is making the market for it so bad that new nuclear plants are not being constructed is the weight of government regulation. Beyond safety, beyond public knowledge of its features, beyond even drafting messages to educate the public on the great steps taken towards safety ... these are just anti-nuclear muck from the special interests opposed to it. So, with a removal of man-made obstructions, the market for thorium or uranium nuclear reactors will take off. It's more a matter of government getting out of the way than anything else. The nuclear power industry tells you that it is safe, but it tells Congress something very different; it says that it needs limited liability. The Price-Anderson act was lobbied for by energy companies in the 1950s. It was originally passed with the understanding that it would be a temporary measure to give the nuclear power industry, which did not exist at the time, a chance to start up. Do you know what happens whenever Price-Anderson comes close to expiration? The nuclear power industry lobbies congress and gets it extended. why? because nuclear power, as safe as the industry tells you it is, as safe as it may actually be, is completely and utterly uninsurable sans government intervention
How many nuclear catastrophes we had since nuclear reactor introduction? 3 in total? for hundreds of reactors over half century?
And i happen to live 100km away, in a city with 3 mil population, from the baddest, Chernobyl, that killed, oh and ah, 40 people.
Nuclear power is very safe. That, is simple statistic.
|
On October 26 2012 06:12 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 05:10 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2012 03:04 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 02:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
Today Team Liquid learns that the only viable "green energy" is nuclear power. It's only "viable" with government subsidy, loan guarnatees, limited liability and government run insurance. It would not exist in a free market. Nuclear power is the one that is viable without subsidies. What is making the market for it so bad that new nuclear plants are not being constructed is the weight of government regulation. Beyond safety, beyond public knowledge of its features, beyond even drafting messages to educate the public on the great steps taken towards safety ... these are just anti-nuclear muck from the special interests opposed to it. So, with a removal of man-made obstructions, the market for thorium or uranium nuclear reactors will take off. It's more a matter of government getting out of the way than anything else. The nuclear power industry tells you that it is safe, but it tells Congress something very different; it says that it needs limited liability. The Price-Anderson act was lobbied for by energy companies in the 1950s. It was originally passed with the understanding that it would be a temporary measure to give the nuclear power industry, which did not exist at the time, a chance to start up. Do you know what happens whenever Price-Anderson comes close to expiration? The nuclear power industry lobbies congress and gets it extended. why? because nuclear power, as safe as the industry tells you it is, as safe as it may actually be, is completely and utterly uninsurable sans government intervention How many nuclear catastrophes we had since nuclear reactor introduction? 3 in total? for hundreds of reactors over half century? And i happen to live 100km away, in a city with 3 mil population, from the baddest, Chernobyl, that killed, oh and ah, 40 people. Nuclear power is very safe. That, is simple statistic.
40 dead is what you are going with? The range from official sources are more like 4.000 to 985.000 people dead as a result of the accident, with the lowest being very narrowly defined radiaton related and 985.000 is probably an overestimation of the effect.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/uk-nuclear-chernobyl-facts-idUSTRE72E69R20110315
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects
The nature has also been affected and some of the effects of the radiation is still there 2065...
Nuclear power is generally very safe I agree, but the catastrophys are pretty severe for any living organism in the area, 100 years from the time of the release. Nuclear waste is another problem in the long term, with todays technology. Some of the future technologies are very exciting, but they are all many years in the future. Maybe the new nuclear power plants will be relatively clean in 2060, but that is still quite a few years away.
|
On October 26 2012 06:40 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 06:12 naastyOne wrote:On October 26 2012 05:10 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2012 03:04 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 02:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
Today Team Liquid learns that the only viable "green energy" is nuclear power. It's only "viable" with government subsidy, loan guarnatees, limited liability and government run insurance. It would not exist in a free market. Nuclear power is the one that is viable without subsidies. What is making the market for it so bad that new nuclear plants are not being constructed is the weight of government regulation. Beyond safety, beyond public knowledge of its features, beyond even drafting messages to educate the public on the great steps taken towards safety ... these are just anti-nuclear muck from the special interests opposed to it. So, with a removal of man-made obstructions, the market for thorium or uranium nuclear reactors will take off. It's more a matter of government getting out of the way than anything else. The nuclear power industry tells you that it is safe, but it tells Congress something very different; it says that it needs limited liability. The Price-Anderson act was lobbied for by energy companies in the 1950s. It was originally passed with the understanding that it would be a temporary measure to give the nuclear power industry, which did not exist at the time, a chance to start up. Do you know what happens whenever Price-Anderson comes close to expiration? The nuclear power industry lobbies congress and gets it extended. why? because nuclear power, as safe as the industry tells you it is, as safe as it may actually be, is completely and utterly uninsurable sans government intervention How many nuclear catastrophes we had since nuclear reactor introduction? 3 in total? for hundreds of reactors over half century? And i happen to live 100km away, in a city with 3 mil population, from the baddest, Chernobyl, that killed, oh and ah, 40 people. Nuclear power is very safe. That, is simple statistic. 40 dead is what you are going with? The range from official sources are more like 4.000 to 985.000 people dead as a result of the accident, with the lowest being very narrowly defined radiaton related and 985.000 is probably an overestimation of the effect. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/uk-nuclear-chernobyl-facts-idUSTRE72E69R20110315http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effectsThe nature has also been affected and some of the effects of the radiation is still there 2065... Nuclear power is generally very safe I agree, but the catastrophys are pretty severe for any living organism in the area, 100 years from the time of the release. Nuclear waste is another problem in the long term, with todays technology. Some of the future technologies are very exciting, but they are all many years in the future. Maybe the new nuclear power plants will be relatively clean in 2060, but that is still quite a few years away.
Thorium reactors aren't remotely dangerous in terms of a meltdown, though they still produce toxic byproducts. Chernobyl or any such catastrophe need never happen again. The thorium fuel cycle will come to a halt if left on its own, so it's far better than Uranium in that sense. They're currently in use. Nuclear fission is actually really good, it's probably not as good as efficient solar though, and it isn't the holy grail that cold fusion is.
On October 26 2012 06:12 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 05:10 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2012 03:04 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 02:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
Today Team Liquid learns that the only viable "green energy" is nuclear power. It's only "viable" with government subsidy, loan guarnatees, limited liability and government run insurance. It would not exist in a free market. Nuclear power is the one that is viable without subsidies. What is making the market for it so bad that new nuclear plants are not being constructed is the weight of government regulation. Beyond safety, beyond public knowledge of its features, beyond even drafting messages to educate the public on the great steps taken towards safety ... these are just anti-nuclear muck from the special interests opposed to it. So, with a removal of man-made obstructions, the market for thorium or uranium nuclear reactors will take off. It's more a matter of government getting out of the way than anything else. The nuclear power industry tells you that it is safe, but it tells Congress something very different; it says that it needs limited liability. The Price-Anderson act was lobbied for by energy companies in the 1950s. It was originally passed with the understanding that it would be a temporary measure to give the nuclear power industry, which did not exist at the time, a chance to start up. Do you know what happens whenever Price-Anderson comes close to expiration? The nuclear power industry lobbies congress and gets it extended. why? because nuclear power, as safe as the industry tells you it is, as safe as it may actually be, is completely and utterly uninsurable sans government intervention How many nuclear catastrophes we had since nuclear reactor introduction? 3 in total? for hundreds of reactors over half century? And i happen to live 100km away, in a city with 3 mil population, from the baddest, Chernobyl, that killed, oh and ah, 40 people. Nuclear power is very safe. That, is simple statistic.
Uranium reactors aren't all that safe. Japan's meltdown was from a combined plutonium-uranium reactor. I wouldn't want a reactor like that operating anywhere near a populated area.
|
On October 26 2012 06:12 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 05:10 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2012 03:04 Mindcrime wrote:On October 26 2012 02:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
Today Team Liquid learns that the only viable "green energy" is nuclear power. It's only "viable" with government subsidy, loan guarnatees, limited liability and government run insurance. It would not exist in a free market. Nuclear power is the one that is viable without subsidies. What is making the market for it so bad that new nuclear plants are not being constructed is the weight of government regulation. Beyond safety, beyond public knowledge of its features, beyond even drafting messages to educate the public on the great steps taken towards safety ... these are just anti-nuclear muck from the special interests opposed to it. So, with a removal of man-made obstructions, the market for thorium or uranium nuclear reactors will take off. It's more a matter of government getting out of the way than anything else. The nuclear power industry tells you that it is safe, but it tells Congress something very different; it says that it needs limited liability. The Price-Anderson act was lobbied for by energy companies in the 1950s. It was originally passed with the understanding that it would be a temporary measure to give the nuclear power industry, which did not exist at the time, a chance to start up. Do you know what happens whenever Price-Anderson comes close to expiration? The nuclear power industry lobbies congress and gets it extended. why? because nuclear power, as safe as the industry tells you it is, as safe as it may actually be, is completely and utterly uninsurable sans government intervention How many nuclear catastrophes we had since nuclear reactor introduction? 3 in total? for hundreds of reactors over half century? And i happen to live 100km away, in a city with 3 mil population, from the baddest, Chernobyl, that killed, oh and ah, 40 people.Nuclear power is very safe. That, is simple statistic.
You sure you don't want to check on those numbers? Like, you know, how many people were REALLY affected...
Also on the discussion that went along those lines " European right wing parties are more/less extreme than Conservatives/Republicans in America" - First of all I don't think that you can make a comparison since the majority voting system in the States(and everywhere else for that matter) tends to allow only 2 dominating parties. Very racist/"backward" elements or real lefties/"cryptocommies" tend to also find a place, albeit a small one, in either party - under the Republican and Democratic tent.
In Europe parties can be more diverse since you (usually) have the traditional conservative and social democratic party, which are(though of course there are shifts for example if there are special interior events or extraordinary events like the GFC etc.) center right/left and other extreme ones on either side of the political spectrum. What's more is that with proportionate representation on the national level, you get more parties and the "slice of pie" for each party gets smaller, so Coalitions have to be made to at least achieve a simple majority in parliament and have a government that can act on its own and not get >cockblocked< all the time by the Opposition.
To cut a long story short - you can't compare the Freedom Party and the Republican Party very well, and I also do not think that they are very much alike in general. But I am 100% sure that you can find people within the Republican Party that think pretty similarly on various issues. ( Also the BZOE will most likely NOT be in the the national assembly after the next election, since there is a huge likelihood a very rich and funny old man, who is rather "republican" on many issues, will get a lot of votes from them  )
|
On October 26 2012 05:40 BoX wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to write up that huge response filled with your opinions, Defacer. You're a classy guy! You should read the source-links I posted.
What's the word for that feeling you get when you feel embarrassed for someone else's idiocy? I'm feeling that for you ;(
User was temp banned for this post.
Note to other posters -- just because you have random links to 'sources' doesn't mean your opinion or interpretation of your sources is intelligent or makes a lick of fucking sense.
And no, I don't think we need to provide links to common knowledge that can be easily verified by a google search.
|
On October 26 2012 06:10 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 05:40 BoX wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to write up that huge response filled with your opinions, Defacer. You're a classy guy! You should read the source-links I posted.
What's the word for that feeling you get when you feel embarrassed for someone else's idiocy? I'm feeling that for you ;( What's the word for that feeling you get when you feel sad that you're about to lose a non-contributing participant to the discussion?
Poetic justice
|
The vast majoirty of the national polls show Romney with a small, but steady 2-3 point lead and have been for the last few weeks. The internals of those polls are also really damning for Obama and point to a loss for him.
However, the state by state polls, where the electoral college is ultimately decided, still show Obama holding on to a few super close wins in enough battle ground states to pull out the win.
It's an odd situation to say the least, and why both sides are legit confident they will win. I don't think it's politician bluster, I think both campaigns think they've got it won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
