That is all I care about....what is the answer?

deathrides - they are still too busy wringing their hands, apologising and being wimps to answer anyone anything about any topic.

Wadda bunch of softies they have melted into now Heroic John is gone.

turnbull is the real leadership material there.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 2:52pm:

deathrides - they are still too busy wringing their hands, apologising and being wimps to answer anyone anything about any topic. Wadda bunch of softies they have melted into now Heroic John is gone. turnbull is the real leadership material there.

Fair enough, but it's funny that no one has the answer to this question.

I simply await the conclusive death of all pro-Nuclear policy positions in Australia!

So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 1:18pm:

That is all I care about....what is the answer?

Yes they are greenies.

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 4:19pm:

So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take

What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 10:49pm:

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 4:19pm: So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile?

I have a feeling that John Howard had set exactly the same targets as Liebor for 2020.

deepthought wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 11:07pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 10:49pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 4:19pm: So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile? I have a feeling that John Howard had set exactly the same targets as Liebor for 2020.

I get the feeling you are wrong!

I can only hope you didn't vote on that issue!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 11:24pm:

deepthought wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:07pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 10:49pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 4:19pm: So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile? I have a feeling that John Howard had set exactly the same targets as Liebor for 2020. I get the feeling you are wrong! I can only hope you didn't vote on that issue!

Oh dear, what are Liebor's targets for 2020 then?  I do hope I'm not wrong.

deepthought wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 11:07pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 10:49pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 4:19pm: So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile? I have a feeling that John Howard had set exactly the same targets as Liebor for 2020.

DT setting AND doing something about them are 2 different things-

Libs tended to telll pple  what they wanted to hear and then completely forgot what they told us.


Rudd acted immediateley on Climate Change -wether or not he agrees to new targets or carries thru what he promised the electorate remains to be seen,.

But at least HE IS doing something.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 10:49pm:

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 4:19pm: So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile?

;) [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

Libs are no longer in power.

The question you should be asking is "will Labor backflip on their 3 mines policy" or "will Labor be a surrogate advocate for nuclear power"

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 9:04am:

Libs are no longer in power. The question you should be asking is "will Labor backflip on their 3 mines policy" or "will Labor be a surrogate advocate for nuclear power"

Liebor continue to support nuclear power - they just have the typical leftard NIMBY position on it.  They know it's good - as long as someone else does it.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 7:20am:

deepthought wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:07pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 10:49pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 4:19pm: So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile? I have a feeling that John Howard had set exactly the same targets as Liebor for 2020. DT setting AND doing something about them are 2 different things- Libs tended to telll pple  what they wanted to hear and then completely forgot what they told us. Rudd acted immediateley on Climate Change -wether or not he agrees to new targets or carries thru what he promised the electorate remains to be seen,. But at least HE IS doing something.

No he's not.  He has declined to set targets.  So what is he doing that is different to a real leader?  

I'll tell you.  He is bulltesticulating.  Johnny was honest about his intentions - Kevvy's are shrouded in fluff.

DT - that is johns strongest point.
He always said what he was all about.

Internationally he was termed the man of steel.

ruddy will be the marshmallow man

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 8:38pm:

DT - that is johns strongest point. He always said what he was all about. Internationally he was termed the man of steel. ruddy will be the marshmallow man

He said what he meant, meant what he said and he stuck with doing the right thing.  

Kevvy's all over the shop already.  Reneged on the ACL pledge to oppose gay marriage after he had got their vote, signed Kyoto but won't back any effort to set targets while barking at everyone else to commit, supports nuclear power generation - in everyone else's backyard but acts like Mr Sheen in his own, reckons he's about an education revolution while cutting thousands of uni places . . . . .

He's got some people fooled - but not those with intelligence.  He's a major fraud.

deepthought wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 6:22am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:24pm: deepthought wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:07pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 10:49pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 4:19pm: So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile? I have a feeling that John Howard had set exactly the same targets as Liebor for 2020. I get the feeling you are wrong! I can only hope you didn't vote on that issue! Oh dear, what are Liebor's targets for 2020 then?  I do hope I'm not wrong.

They have Renewable Energy targets of 20%, specifically excluding Clean Coal!

deepthought wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 8:57pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 8:38pm: DT - that is johns strongest point. He always said what he was all about. Internationally he was termed the man of steel. ruddy will be the marshmallow man He said what he meant, meant what he said and he stuck with doing the right thing.   Kevvy's all over the shop already.  Reneged on the ACL pledge to oppose gay marriage after he had got their vote, signed Kyoto but won't back any effort to set targets while barking at everyone else to commit, supports nuclear power generation - in everyone else's backyard but acts like Mr Sheen in his own, reckons he's about an education revolution while cutting thousands of uni places . . . . . He's got some people fooled - but not those with intelligence.  He's a major fraud.

I don't think you know what the word intelligence means!

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 9:04am:

Libs are no longer in power. The question you should be asking is "will Labor backflip on their 3 mines policy" or "will Labor be a surrogate advocate for nuclear power"

They changed that policy: they recognise that other countries need it as they have problems with much larger populations than ours.

We have oodles of sun and bugger all population.

The world is laughing at us for not using Solar and it is part of the reason John Howard died at the first election after mentioning Nuclear Power to the Australian people.

deepthought wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 5:43pm:

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 9:04am: Libs are no longer in power. The question you should be asking is "will Labor backflip on their 3 mines policy" or "will Labor be a surrogate advocate for nuclear power" Liebor continue to support nuclear power - they just have the typical leftard NIMBY position on it.  They know it's good - as long as someone else does it.

They recognise other countries have populations much larger than ours.

If you are not willing to share a resource of Uranium as large as Australias then you should by all rights prepare for invasion.

Should we give it away for free, perhaps?

*Idiot!*

 :D

deepthought wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 5:44pm:

wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 7:20am: deepthought wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:07pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 10:49pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 4:19pm: So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile? I have a feeling that John Howard had set exactly the same targets as Liebor for 2020. DT setting AND doing something about them are 2 different things- Libs tended to telll pple  what they wanted to hear and then completely forgot what they told us. Rudd acted immediateley on Climate Change -wether or not he agrees to new targets or carries thru what he promised the electorate remains to be seen,. But at least HE IS doing something. No he's not.  He has declined to set targets.  So what is he doing that is different to a real leader?   I'll tell you.  He is bulltesticulating.  Johnny was honest about his intentions - Kevvy's are shrouded in fluff.

Heavy Kevvies Renewable Energy targets don't register in your brain, do they?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 12:39pm:

deepthought wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 6:22am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:24pm: deepthought wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:07pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 10:49pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 4:19pm: So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile? I have a feeling that John Howard had set exactly the same targets as Liebor for 2020. I get the feeling you are wrong! I can only hope you didn't vote on that issue! Oh dear, what are Liebor's targets for 2020 then?  I do hope I'm not wrong. They have Renewable Energy targets of 20%, specifically excluding Clean Coal!

As we were talking about Greenhouse Gas emissions it would be prudent to stick to the topic of greenhouse gases rather than divert it to sources of energy.  What are the targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases?  I have a feeling that Liebor's targets are the same as the coalitions.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 12:47pm:

deepthought wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 5:43pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 9:04am: Libs are no longer in power. The question you should be asking is "will Labor backflip on their 3 mines policy" or "will Labor be a surrogate advocate for nuclear power" Liebor continue to support nuclear power - they just have the typical leftard NIMBY position on it.  They know it's good - as long as someone else does it. They recognise other countries have populations much larger than ours. If you are not willing to share a resource of Uranium as large as Australias then you should by all rights prepare for invasion. Should we give it away for free, perhaps? *Idiot!*  :D

So the only thing holding Kevvy back from nuclear power generation is the size of our population?  Why is that?

deepthought wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 6:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 12:39pm: deepthought wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 6:22am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:24pm: deepthought wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:07pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 10:49pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 4:19pm: So you are pro GHG emissions then- thats a selfish position to take What the...what were Howards targets you imbecile? I have a feeling that John Howard had set exactly the same targets as Liebor for 2020. I get the feeling you are wrong! I can only hope you didn't vote on that issue! Oh dear, what are Liebor's targets for 2020 then?  I do hope I'm not wrong. They have Renewable Energy targets of 20%, specifically excluding Clean Coal! As we were talking about Greenhouse Gas emissions it would be prudent to stick to the topic of greenhouse gases rather than divert it to sources of energy.  What are the targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases?  I have a feeling that Liebor's targets are the same as the coalitions.

How do we find the answer to that, then?

Perhaps a reference is in order!

deepthought wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 6:06pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 12:47pm: deepthought wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 5:43pm: IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 9:04am: Libs are no longer in power. The question you should be asking is "will Labor backflip on their 3 mines policy" or "will Labor be a surrogate advocate for nuclear power" Liebor continue to support nuclear power - they just have the typical leftard NIMBY position on it.  They know it's good - as long as someone else does it. They recognise other countries have populations much larger than ours. If you are not willing to share a resource of Uranium as large as Australias then you should by all rights prepare for invasion. Should we give it away for free, perhaps? *Idiot!*  :D So the only thing holding Kevvy back from nuclear power generation is the size of our population?  Why is that?

We have the desert to set up Solar Power. The small population just means it is a less daunting task than, say, what America would have to set up to go Solar.

Death, please don't start insulting people here, no matter how frustrated you get. The world is not laughing at us over solar because wind is far cheaper and more consistent. Also, ratification of Kyoto sets us a short term target of roughly 0% increase on current levels. The coalition's course of action would have resulted in an estimated increase in GHG emissions of 27% by 2020.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 6:39pm:

Death, please don't start insulting people here, no matter how frustrated you get. The world is not laughing at us over solar because wind is far cheaper and more consistent. Also, ratification of Kyoto sets us a short term target of roughly 0% increase on current levels. The coalition's course of action would have resulted in an estimated increase in GHG emissions of 27% by 2020.

Okay, fair warning.

...nice info!

 :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 6:34pm:

We have the desert to set up Solar Power. The small population just means it is a less daunting task than, say, what America would have to set up to go Solar.

But the small population also means that we don't have the resources to pay for it either.   In any costs benefit analysis it would be swept straight into the bin with a burst of laughter.

See the kind of thinking that brings you to these 'realities' is the kind of thinking that ensures that parties like the Greens remain  on the edge of politics as irrelevant curiosities harping at people like a bunch of old women.  Tolerated as an unfortunate side effect of representative democracy it is no wonder they have picked up the nickname of the Groans.

deepthought wrote on Dec 13^th, 2007 at 5:56am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 6:34pm: We have the desert to set up Solar Power. The small population just means it is a less daunting task than, say, what America would have to set up to go Solar. But the small population also means that we don't have the resources to pay for it either.   In any costs benefit analysis it would be swept straight into the bin with a burst of laughter. See the kind of thinking that brings you to these 'realities' is the kind of thinking that ensures that parties like the Greens remain  on the edge of politics as irrelevant curiosities harping at people like a bunch of old women.  Tolerated as an unfortunate side effect of representative democracy it is no wonder they have picked up the nickname of the Groans.

Seeing that a major party borrowed one of their policies, which basically won them the election mind you, I wouldn't say the Greens are irrelevant.

You are such a Blueblood!

You are irrelevant until you learn that Australia is anti-Nuclear... and that's all she wrote!

Saying we don't have the resources is a joke as, in case you haven't noticed, we are the worlds quarry!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 13^th, 2007 at 9:41am:

deepthought wrote on Dec 13th, 2007 at 5:56am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 6:34pm: We have the desert to set up Solar Power. The small population just means it is a less daunting task than, say, what America would have to set up to go Solar. But the small population also means that we don't have the resources to pay for it either.   In any costs benefit analysis it would be swept straight into the bin with a burst of laughter. See the kind of thinking that brings you to these 'realities' is the kind of thinking that ensures that parties like the Greens remain  on the edge of politics as irrelevant curiosities harping at people like a bunch of old women.  Tolerated as an unfortunate side effect of representative democracy it is no wonder they have picked up the nickname of the Groans. Seeing that a major party borrowed one of their policies, which basically won them the election mind you, I wouldn't say the Greens are irrelevant. You are such a Blueblood! You are irrelevant until you learn that Australia is anti-Nuclear... and that's all she wrote! Saying we don't have the resources is a joke as, in case you haven't noticed, we are the worlds quarry!

Errrr . . .. resources = cash.  What is the cost of electricity generated by these farms of solar panels?