Ghost Patrol
Incognito Moderatore
- Sep 17, 2019
- 24,288
- 37,838
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #3,351
Maybe Tom Dutton needs a curfew?
I don’t hold a nose, mate
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Maybe Tom Dutton needs a curfew?
Seems a divide between the “fact based” arm of newscorp (report what has happened) vs the “feelings based - ie opinion mongers” arm who are “leave duttons son alone”I saw the story on multiple newscorp mastheads so this is confusing. I don't think newscorp are doing a very good job of keeping the family out of it.
Seems a divide between the “fact based” arm of newscorp (report what has happened) vs the “feelings based - ie opinion mongers” arm who are “leave duttons son alone”
I've always pegged Dutts as a heroin sort of parent, it's the only thing that could totally obliterate the reality of sharing dna with himOf course the Murdoch press are calling reporting on Duttons family grubby.
But then Hunter Biden is fair game to them.
Charming.I've always pegged Dutts as a heroin sort of parent, it's the only thing that could totally obliterate the reality of sharing dna with him
I do agree with the premise, politicians families are not public figures and should not be hounded by the media for their personal issues.Of course the Murdoch press are calling reporting on Duttons family grubby.
But then Hunter Biden is fair game to them.
The hypocrisy is pathetic.I do agree with the premise, politicians families are not public figures and should not be hounded by the media for their personal issues.
However when the reporting is used to point out the hypocrisy of not only the media but the politicians who demonise others for the same actions I can see why it is newsworthy.
The same way as these sites have been ear-marked for other ventures once they close.
Were you under the impression that they would just be left derelict once they finished with coal?
There is a difference between close - decommission - rehabilitate - reuse
And;
Build a nuclear power plant while an existing and highly contaminated coal plant keeps running on the same site.
Are you being deliberately stupid or are you just stupid?
There are over 400 nuclear power sites around the world. I’m sure we will be able to work it out.
Honestly, some of the arguments against are starting to become unhinged, bordering on insane.
Happy to discuss costs, timings etc. they are worthwhile discussions.
This quote gets far too much out-of-context airtime on social media for my liking.Who's stupid, the person (QuietB) who understands the Libs are proposing building nuclear power stations on the site of a coal fired power station WHILE THE COAL FIRED POWER STATION IS APPARENTLY STILL OPERATIONAL ON THE SAME SITE () or the f***-knuckle who doesn't understand the difference?
Targeted individual turnabout is fair play.The hypocrisy is pathetic.
Albanese's son being a member of the Chairmans Lounge is a step too far.
Dutton's son posting bags of white powder on public social media is off limits though.
If politicians children are off limits - then they are all off limits.
Alan Jones and Gillard's father (died of shame) has to be the absolute low point of the glass jawed conservative media.
Do you really think that’s what the proposal is?Who's stupid, the person (QuietB) who understands the Libs are proposing building nuclear power stations on the site of a coal fired power station WHILE THE COAL FIRED POWER STATION IS APPARENTLY STILL OPERATIONAL ON THE SAME SITE () or the f***-knuckle who doesn't understand the difference?
Do you really think that’s what the proposal is?
Surely people can’t be this thick.
Brilliant contribution as always.The Swedish modular reactors come in flatpacks. You can assemble them on site.
There is a number of factors at play:
- a huge part of the membership believe the reason we lose elections is that "we don't stand for things", and advocating for nuclear is "standing for something"
- it's a clear point of difference from the ALP
- I think most in the party believe that there is a lot of misconceptions about the safety of nuclear power (the old "others just aren't informed" trope we see all over the political spectrum)
- it is baseload power with zero emissions
I believe there is more detail on the policy coming. The election isn't next week. But doing this sort of stuff from opposition is historically very difficult electorally
Do you really think that’s what the proposal is?
Surely people can’t be this thick. Well actually they can sadly.
The VIC Govt is currently under a huge big build infrastructure project. Are you expecting them to halt all movement whilst this happens?
Infrastructure programs can operate concurrently you know. In fact they have to or else nothing would get built.
Engineers and blue collar workers come up against these issues every day. I know that’s hard for private school Greens voters to comprehend.
Nobody is advocating a cap. If it’s viable then why would I be against it. Happy for investors to spend whatever they want on it.So are you for or against a cap on the current infrastructure and investments in renewables?
Hitching your decrepit rickety old horse drawn carriage to something not only insanely dangerous, but economically unviable and doomed to be redundant a decade before it exists is little more than a stunt from Dutton.There is a number of factors at play:
- a huge part of the membership believe the reason we lose elections is that "we don't stand for things", and advocating for nuclear is "standing for something"
- it's a clear point of difference from the ALP
- I think most in the party believe that there is a lot of misconceptions about the safety of nuclear power (the old "others just aren't informed" trope we see all over the political spectrum)
- it is baseload power with zero emissions
I believe there is more detail on the policy coming. The election isn't next week. But doing this sort of stuff from opposition is historically very difficult electorally.
Nobody is advocating a cap. If it’s viable then why would I be against it. Happy for investors to spend whatever they want on it.
They want to cap taxpayer money. Nothing about private investment. If renewables stands up then they should have no problem getting private investment.The people who want to use tax payers money to build the most expensive type of power generations, the LNP wants cap renewables and private investment into it.
Coalition to impose ‘cap’ on renewable energy investment, Nationals leader says
David Littleproud claims Australia doesn’t need ‘large-scale industrial wind farms’ like the planned offshore zone south of Sydneywww.theguardian.com
They want to cap taxpayer money. Nothing about private investment. If renewables stands up then they should have no problem getting private investment.
Then I’m not sure of your point. If people want to spend their own money investing in renewables then why would I or anyone be against it. Defies logic.It’s private investment building renewables …
As opposed to the nuclear fairyland proposed by Communist Dutton.
Then I’m not sure of your point. If people want to spend their own money investing in renewables then why would I or anyone be against it. Defies logic.
But he did not say that…Did you not read what the deputy leader of the opposition said?????
They want to stop private investment in renewables…
So you are saying you are against the cap. Good.
But he did not say that…