Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear? (Read 6644 times)
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #15 - Dec 11th, 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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #16 - 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!
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #17 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 12:40pm
 
deepthought wrote on Dec 11th, 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!
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #18 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 12:44pm
 
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"


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.
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #19 - 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!*

  Cheesy
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #20 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 12:49pm
 
deepthought wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 5:44pm:
Quote:
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?

Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #21 - Dec 12th, 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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #22 - Dec 12th, 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!*

 Cheesy


So the only thing holding Kevvy back from nuclear power generation is the size of our population?  Why is that?
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #23 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 6:31pm
 
deepthought wrote on Dec 12th, 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!
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #24 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 6:34pm
 
deepthought wrote on Dec 12th, 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!*

 Cheesy


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.
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35141
At my desk.
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #25 - Dec 12th, 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.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #26 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 6:43pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 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!

  Shocked
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #27 - 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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #28 - Dec 13th, 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!
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Are the Libs stil pro-Nuclear?
Reply #29 - Dec 13th, 2007 at 5:37pm
 
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 13th, 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?
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print