-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Politics Occupy Wall Street
- Thread starter buddy23
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
rayven
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 26, 2005
- 9,955
- 1,749
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PC racing
Highly relevant.
http://www.dianuke.org/radiation-and-life-cannot-go-together-a-report-from-japan/
People think that nuclear is clean and cheaper, well if there's no fukushima's then it only uses 75% of the carbon coal powered electricity plants do...
the 1% who seek to gain massivly from the resurgence because of gw in nuclear power don't want you to know that...cause of the wealth for them.
This could be put in any number of threads from the nuke ones,to this,to Assange related threads and the GW ones.
maybe this could be an issue for any inquiry into NEWS LTD?
http://www.dianuke.org/radiation-and-life-cannot-go-together-a-report-from-japan/
People think that nuclear is clean and cheaper, well if there's no fukushima's then it only uses 75% of the carbon coal powered electricity plants do...
the 1% who seek to gain massivly from the resurgence because of gw in nuclear power don't want you to know that...cause of the wealth for them.
This could be put in any number of threads from the nuke ones,to this,to Assange related threads and the GW ones.
maybe this could be an issue for any inquiry into NEWS LTD?
- Banned
- #879
a bit of passion in politics - makes aboot look like a two-year-old. Bankers in general are a corrupt lot - capitalism has reached the end - it is unworkable and unsustainable with 7 Billion people on the planet. This whole situation with financial markets will end in a war aimed at reducing the worlds population.
"How's that hopey, changey thing going for you?"
primeytimey
Debutant
- Jul 5, 2011
- 135
- 1
- AFL Club
- GWS
ive been away for a while...anybody know how occupy melbourne is going at the moment? still 500 strong?
- Jul 23, 2010
- 5,806
- 4,239
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Apologies in advance for the derail but what planet are you on? From your incoherent jibberish I'm getting the impression you are disputing the environmental credentials of nuclear power?
An operating nuclear power plant has near-zero carbon emissions (the only outputs are heat and radioactive waste), it's the other steps involved in the provision of nuclear energy that can increase the carbon footprint* and obviously these can be reduced via economies of scale in the future if greater reliance is placed on nuclear power.
*Nuclear plants have to be constructed, uranium has to be mined, processed and transported, waste has to be stored, and eventually the plant has to be decommissioned.
On an environmental level a correctly designed, built and operated nuclear system is a no-brainer.
#really_bad_frat_party
I think boutros boutros ghali is the patron of occupy
J Mascis is the balladeer, see below, without starting the clip
[YOUTUBE]eu9BWlcRwPQ[/YOUTUBE]
I think boutros boutros ghali is the patron of occupy
J Mascis is the balladeer, see below, without starting the clip
[YOUTUBE]eu9BWlcRwPQ[/YOUTUBE]
1% but greedy with the pies @29% bodyfat, thinking Lance Whitnall
#who_ate_all_the_dimmies_with_soy_@_the_local_footy_match
#who_ate_all_the_dimmies_with_soy_@_the_local_footy_match
the lane that Flower Drum is on was chockers with late model german sedans tho, all parked in a non-standing area lolz. 110$ is short priced valet
with a few whispers I could easily cause the nearest car detailers some work, and maybe the bodywork shops need some work eh?
Si Botak
Team Captain
Especially as the industry wizens up and continues adopting Thorium, rather than Uranium.
Until Solar becomes cost-effective and viable through technological advances, quite simply put there needs to be something to provide Base Load. If you don't want that to be Coal, it'll need to be Nuclear. A Nuclear system based on Thorium is indeed a no brainer.
indeed r wise, just vested interests in status quo
rayven
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 26, 2005
- 9,955
- 1,749
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PC racing
From a current economic perspective its a no brainer but all passionate enviorementalist detest nuclear power for very valid and real reasons...
I found from your response you have no idea what your talking about...a bunch of words with bling...a Justin Bieber song if you like...
If you think nuclear is a get out stategy your gonna need that other planet...
http://www.dianuke.org/radiation-and-life-cannot-go-together-a-report-from-japan/
Nuclear is making the 1% money and is a sellable policy in an election, no gst or no carbon pricing was also once a sellable policy in an election but was never gonna happen rationaly.
This is exactly what the 99% are against...continuing to make decisions based on the 1 % who can afford things to phuq up.
Fullejah threads interesting, Tokyo babies are gonna start popiing up soon when they didn't even need the TEPCO"s Fukishima diiatchi plant..
TEPCO's burning so much fossil fuel cleaning up its mess, the alaskans the canadians and the americans are spending so much fossil fuel cleaning up the mess that washed ashore....a mess that forever and ever like thousands of years will need to be maintained...maintaining takes up energy....
You sound like one of those who believe a dozen or so died from Chenyobl, actualy your derbate sounds like you got shares in Ron Walkers company that was set up when John Howard tried reigniting the debate.
Fair to say Howard and Walker are the 1 %....
@ Divideandmultiply
Goverments know they are heading towards a civil war, they know that in the 60's it was narrowly avoided, they think they know how better to deal. But coporate america didn't control these puppets like they did in the 60's where change did happen....Now they can pull the leaders out of any movement as they please...
.
Don't expect change anytime soon and don't expect it peacfully when it does come, it will come though...
[YOUTUBE]23h7sGh6xIw[/YOUTUBE]
- Jul 23, 2010
- 5,806
- 4,239
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Well, that was interesting.
You'll notice in my post I said the prerequisites for a valid nuclear program were that the plants were properly designed, built and operated. That removes from any Chernobyl related hyperbole from the equation (in case you didn't know Chernobyl was caused by some obscure non-sanctioned testing).
The Japanese incident occurred as a result of a freak tsunami (there is probably a reasonable argument that given seismic activity in and around Japan the design and build of the plant were responsible).
The main point I want you to take from this is that it's not as if nuclear disasters are happening every month.
You can also disregard anything from naive, unbalanced and ill-informed anti-nuclear 'enviorementalists' however passionate they may be. However here's an example of the views of some other passionate environmentalists: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4276461.stm.
Nuclear seems to be running efficient in a whole heap of other countries where they are taking >50% of energy requirements from nuclear power sources.
I am also not sure of the relevance of Japans capacity to sustain its energy requirements without Nuclear. How does this negate the efficiency or environmental credentials of nuclear power? It is just evidence of excess capacity, no?
Read up on first world, nuclear reliant countries like France, Belgium and Sweden. Some stats: France's carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of Germany and the UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants. Its emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have been reduced by 70% over 20 years, even though the total power output has tripled in that time.
Beiber is probably more across the issue than you are, check his scientific glasses:
You'll notice in my post I said the prerequisites for a valid nuclear program were that the plants were properly designed, built and operated. That removes from any Chernobyl related hyperbole from the equation (in case you didn't know Chernobyl was caused by some obscure non-sanctioned testing).
The Japanese incident occurred as a result of a freak tsunami (there is probably a reasonable argument that given seismic activity in and around Japan the design and build of the plant were responsible).
The main point I want you to take from this is that it's not as if nuclear disasters are happening every month.
You can also disregard anything from naive, unbalanced and ill-informed anti-nuclear 'enviorementalists' however passionate they may be. However here's an example of the views of some other passionate environmentalists: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4276461.stm.
Nuclear seems to be running efficient in a whole heap of other countries where they are taking >50% of energy requirements from nuclear power sources.
I am also not sure of the relevance of Japans capacity to sustain its energy requirements without Nuclear. How does this negate the efficiency or environmental credentials of nuclear power? It is just evidence of excess capacity, no?
Read up on first world, nuclear reliant countries like France, Belgium and Sweden. Some stats: France's carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of Germany and the UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants. Its emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have been reduced by 70% over 20 years, even though the total power output has tripled in that time.
Beiber is probably more across the issue than you are, check his scientific glasses:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_backlash/index.htm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Occupy Wall Street protesters might say they represent 99% of the nation, but there's a growing number of Americans who are making it clear they are not part of the dissident crowd.
They call themselves the 53%...as in the 53% of Americans who pay federal income taxes. And they are making their voices heard on Tumblr blogs, Twitter and Facebook pages devoted to stories of personal responsibility and work ethic
...
"We don't want to be the 53% who carries the 47% on our shoulders," said Gardner, who thinks more people should pay federal income taxes.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Occupy Wall Street protesters might say they represent 99% of the nation, but there's a growing number of Americans who are making it clear they are not part of the dissident crowd.
They call themselves the 53%...as in the 53% of Americans who pay federal income taxes. And they are making their voices heard on Tumblr blogs, Twitter and Facebook pages devoted to stories of personal responsibility and work ethic
...
"We don't want to be the 53% who carries the 47% on our shoulders," said Gardner, who thinks more people should pay federal income taxes.
- Banned
- #891
So wait all of the Occupy protesters belong to the 47%?
Or the Occupy movements key aim has been the abolishment of income tax?
No, then how is this 53% malarky even relevant?
Meds don't you claim to Libertarian leanings and therefore advocate the drastic decrease or removal of income tax? At least ideologically don't you empathise with those who are gainfully employed but seek to minimise their tax exposure. You know private property and all (not this is directly relevant to the Occupy protests). And what of the large US firms that pay very little or even no, corporate income tax (see I can raise irrelevant points too)? Oh wait, the article isn't aimed at the privileged or serial tax evaders but the unemployed......
Sheeeeeeeeeet CNN really are corporate shills. The counter movement they cite, is being massively overstated in its size and influence.
The argument being presented is patently ridiculous and amounts to "don't complain, just work harder, the government or grossly corrupt financial sector are not to blame for this downturn".
FFS, sure the current account deficit, massive corporate bailouts, predatory loaning, financial corruption, endless wars, rising unemployment and poverty rate are down to whingy people, who just don't work hard enough or pay enough income tax.
In this one article, CNN has given more legitimacy and support to some BS twitter circle jerk, than they ever have to the Occupy movement. Evident where their priorities lie.
Or the Occupy movements key aim has been the abolishment of income tax?
No, then how is this 53% malarky even relevant?
Meds don't you claim to Libertarian leanings and therefore advocate the drastic decrease or removal of income tax? At least ideologically don't you empathise with those who are gainfully employed but seek to minimise their tax exposure. You know private property and all (not this is directly relevant to the Occupy protests). And what of the large US firms that pay very little or even no, corporate income tax (see I can raise irrelevant points too)? Oh wait, the article isn't aimed at the privileged or serial tax evaders but the unemployed......
Sheeeeeeeeeet CNN really are corporate shills. The counter movement they cite, is being massively overstated in its size and influence.
The argument being presented is patently ridiculous and amounts to "don't complain, just work harder, the government or grossly corrupt financial sector are not to blame for this downturn".
FFS, sure the current account deficit, massive corporate bailouts, predatory loaning, financial corruption, endless wars, rising unemployment and poverty rate are down to whingy people, who just don't work hard enough or pay enough income tax.
In this one article, CNN has given more legitimacy and support to some BS twitter circle jerk, than they ever have to the Occupy movement. Evident where their priorities lie.
The 47% arent even paying any income tax.
It is immoral of them to attack those who do and demand they pay even more tax.
No it isnt at all. See the Tea Party for a more coherent explanation than OCW are capable of.
NB see the thread when Swannie decided to guarantee bank debts and see who was against it.
- Banned
- #893
That is presuming they have never paid income tax, or that all of the OCW belong to the 47%, or that the full proportion of that 47% that are unemployed have a choice about being unemployed and their circumstances are solely their own responsibility.
Not all of the suggestions coming from the OCW movement (and there are nearly as many as people) are welfare related.
Get a job and stop blaming the government rhetoric is not a position, it is simply veiled apologetics.
Immoral? A lot of these people simply wouldn't earn enough to pay federal income tax. Many of them would still pay federal taxes for things like social security, medicare, petrol etc. There's also things like property and state taxes. And don't forget millions of people who lost their jobs during the GFC and are still out of work.
Its not immoral to be poor, it is immoral to demand money from others.
Little Big John
All Australian
- Aug 15, 2009
- 713
- 558
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Not so sure that Ridley is actually condoning that at all. Cooperation and collective intelligence is rather distinct from notions of income equality.
Little Big John
All Australian
- Aug 15, 2009
- 713
- 558
- AFL Club
- Carlton
He explicitly writes about lottery winners being either hounded for their money, or ostracised for not giving it up. I'm not saying that he condones this impulse, the book is about neither condoning or condemning, but he certainly goes to great lengths to explain where this impulse comes from and how it is a part of a social moral contract.
When did they demand money from others? They've never really articulated the exact aims of the movement. There's recurring themes such as corporate greed, income inequality and the influence of corporations on US politics but outside of a few isolated nutters I haven't seen any demands for other peoples money.
- Status
