Republican Furs?

[Bando]

You mean like Yucca Mountain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

Yucca Mountain would be great, but the governed of Nevada loves to bitch about it, so that's why I threw in Utah.

 

[RedneckFur]

I consider myself a Liberterian. I have mostly liberal social views, while having very conservative fisical views. I'm also incredibly pro gun, and anti-big goverment. I'm also pro nuclear power, and pro alternative energy, as long as its profitable.

When somone bases their entire polical views on the issue of abortion or marriage, they're making a fool of themselves. There are so many more important issues out there.

 

[Jelly]

When somone bases their entire polical views on the issue of abortion or marriage, they're making a fool of themselves. There are so many more important issues out there.

Like the ones you care the most about, I would hazard a guess?

 

[footfoe]

Like the ones you care the most about, I would hazard a guess?

Nice! yeah, don't insult one issue voters.

and god bless america

 

[Jelly]

Nice! yeah, don't insult one issue voters.

and god bless america

god bless america

 

[RedneckFur]

Like the ones you care the most about, I would hazard a guess?

Nope... there are a great many issues that really matter. And most of them arent social.

Gay marriage and abortion are big ticket issues that appeal to emotion, but in the broad scheme of things, really dont affect much. Far more important are issues of foreign policy, fiance, and economics.

 

[footfoe]

Nope... there are a great many issues that really matter. And most of them arent social.

Gay marriage and abortion are big ticket issues that appeal to emotion, but in the broad scheme of things, really dont affect much. Far more important are issues of foreign policy, fiance, and economics.

Wrong social policies are THE most important! foreign policy affects no one and no one can truly know what's best of the economy.
i don't want to see gay people get married (not me them)
and abortion is murder!
I don't care about these issues. you don't care about these issues, but these are the only positional issues out there.
All the rest are valance issues that most people agree on.

 

[hitokage]

I bet they don't teach you kids about Chernobyl anymore, but you should look that up, too, if you actually want to see what I'm talking about. That plant overloaded and had a meltdown over 20 years ago, killing over thirty people and the land is still uninhabitable where Chernobyl was and for about a 35 mile radius around it. It's also highly suspected that the plant's meltdown was the cause of a rapid spike in cancer in that area of Europe, that continues to this day.

This is actually a place where it's perfectly fair to say: Communism did it.

Which is correct - our design worked when we had an accident here, even though mistakes were made. See the Wikipedia article on the Three Mile Island accident for details if you don't know.

 

[Bando]

Only radiation released at 3 Mile Island was a puff of smoke that was the same as a chest x-Ray -.-

 

[Lobar]

Chernobyl wasn't even a meltdown, it was a steam explosion, IIRC. A nuclear power plant has never gone off like an atomic bomb. And we can clearly build to better safety standards today than the Soviets did 40 years ago.

I'm a Nevada resident and would love to see the Yucca Mountain project go forward. It's really just Harry Reid's NIMBYism that's held it back, and I'd like to see him get tossed out. The Dems do more for his sorry ass than he does for them.

 

[RetroCorn]

I love that him calling me ignorant, stupid, and a dyke is perfectly ok...but if I call him illogical and a Republican, I'm resorting to petty insults. That makes sense. Yeah. It's good that you recognize the calling someone a Republican is an insult, I suppose.

...you do realize that the part you bolded was me quoting Ieatcrackers, right? Please, learn to read.

Also, your ignorance is showing. Nuclear power doesn't always refer to weapons. (Though "I've got weapons because he does!" "Well, I have them because he has them, too!" sounds a lot like childish arguments, and also "So by having nukes we actually discourage their use without actually using them." makes no sense whatsoever.)

Nuclear power as we - or at least, I am, I won't vouch for him - are speaking of isn't in regards to bombs, but about power plants being used to supply energy in place of using fossil fuels. Which all sounds nice and dandy until you realize the many, many drawbacks to using nuclear power. The main drawback is the radioative emmissions that harm the people exposed to it, as well as the plant life surrounding a plant if there's ever a leak. The radioactivity can harm the reproductive systems especially, meaning not only will it harm the person exposed but any children they may have, causing genetic disorders as well as widespread cancer. Then of course, there's nuclear waste which is again, very harmful. What is the plan for disposing of this toxic substance? Burying it. Yeah. Where it can then seep into the ground water, contaminating plant life and water supplies for miles around.

I bet they don't teach you kids about Chernobyl anymore, but you should look that up, too, if you actually want to see what I'm talking about. That plant overloaded and had a meltdown over 20 years ago, killing over thirty people and the land is still uninhabitable where Chernobyl was and for about a 35 mile radius around it. It's also highly suspected that the plant's meltdown was the cause of a rapid spike in cancer in that area of Europe, that continues to this day.


Really, don't get involved in a discussion you obviously know nothing about.

I never saw his post, but I could argue it wasn't directed at you personally. Which it wasn't. Would you listen? Probably not, considering you blew my post out of proportion. Anyway, I'm also going to pretend like you never said a single insulting thing to me since you obviously have anger problems. Possibly resentment? Hmmm... Anyway, it would have helped if you clarified your argument a bit more as to what type of nuclear power you were referring to instead of calling me an idiot right off the bat. Republicans can be just as idiotic as anyone else and I wasn't calling you out specifically. Anyway, how about we just forget that ever happened, shall we?

Chernobyl was a tragedy. I have nothing else to say on that subject except that accidents do happen. Which is what it is regardless of how big of a disaster it was. An accident.

Energy is going to be an issue for a long time. Right now we just have to work with what we've got considering solar and wind power are far too inefficient and costly at the moment. Nuclear energy can be a somewhat safe way to produce energy until we can find a better source. as long as precautions are taken and the waste is disposed of properly I see no problems with nuclear energy.

 

[Sono_hito]

I consider myself a Liberterian. I have mostly liberal social views, while having very conservative fisical views. I'm also incredibly pro gun, and anti-big goverment. I'm also pro nuclear power, and pro alternative energy, as long as its profitable.

When somone bases their entire polical views on the issue of abortion or marriage, they're making a fool of themselves. There are so many more important issues out there.

This

 

[Sono_hito]

Chernobyl wasn't even a meltdown, it was a steam explosion, IIRC. A nuclear power plant has never gone off like an atomic bomb. And we can clearly build to better safety standards today than the Soviets did 40 years ago.

I'm a Nevada resident and would love to see the Yucca Mountain project go forward. It's really just Harry Reid's NIMBYism that's held it back, and I'd like to see him get tossed out. The Dems do more for his sorry ass than he does for them.

Chernobyl was a horrificly designed nuclear reactor with an innate design flaw. You can read about it here: http://www.babeled.com/2009/10/22/nuclear-fission-for-dummies-moderation/

The short of it is, nuclear power today is extremely safe and efficient. The waste left behind is very mangeable. Yucca mountain is a great project and people against it i find are just against the word "nuclear". If the thing was full and you where just outside, you would be getting more radiation form the sunlight than the waste.

 

[RetroCorn]

Chernobyl was a horrificly designed nuclear reactor with an innate design flaw. You can read about it here: http://www.babeled.com/2009/10/22/nuclear-fission-for-dummies-moderation/

The short of it is, nuclear power today is extremely safe and efficient. The waste left behind is very mangeable. Yucca mountain is a great project and people against it i find are just against the word "nuclear". If the thing was full and you where just outside, you would be getting more radiation form the sunlight than the waste.

I don't like Yucca mountain, does that mean I'm against the word nuclear? =(

To be honest I'd rather them blast it into space. It's easier, possibly cheaper and it gets rid of it for good. Meh, whatever works. ^_^

 

[Telnac]

Gets rid of it for good, yes.

Easier? No. It's far more likely to explode on the pad from a booster malfunction & spread the radiation over half of east Florida than it is to have a train derailment, where the waste cars would most likely stay intact even if that happened. (I saw a program about the robust design of those things, yikes.)

And cheaper? HELL NO. At $10,000 per pound just to get it & all the safety equipment protecting it into orbit, not to mention the added cost of giving it an extra boost to send it into the Sun or out of the Solar System entirely... yikes, that'd be expensive in the extreme!

Back on topic, yes there are better issues to debate than social ones. But social issues ARE important, simply because banning everything you find socially repugnant is a very wrong path to take. Sure, we can ban abortion and birth control because the Southern Baptist church and the Catholic Church respectively don't like them. Does that mean we also ban woman exposing their wonderful bodies in public (and by "exposing", I mean anything other than eyes or ankles) just because the conservative Muslims would like to impose part of their moral code in American life? Whose social code will we impose next?

The last time the USA bowed to the will of the Southern Baptist Church (among others) and imposed a draconian law based on someone's moral code was prohibition. I think we all know how well that worked out.

So yes, if you like freedom, social issues ARE important. That's exactly why I break from the Republican party with regard to many of those issues, even ones I sympathize with.

 

[Sono_hito]

I don't like Yucca mountain, does that mean I'm against the word nuclear? =(

To be honest I'd rather them blast it into space. It's easier, possibly cheaper and it gets rid of it for good. Meh, whatever works. ^_^

Sorry, i miss-typed that. To clarify, by "it" i meant nuclear power generation in general.

 

[JoeStrike]

Link

Inb4lolmisesinstitute

The very first sentence in the article your link goes to:

The purpose of government is for those who run it to plunder those who do not.

And corporations that plunder whatever they can get their hands on (Investment banks peddling worthless securities, coal companies strip-mining and polluting entire communities, etc.) are better?

No, the purpose of government is to administer civil society on behalf of its citizens. (And it's the responsibility of those citizens to make sure their government - and the corporations that operate within their society - respect the laws their representatives have established on society's behalf.)

That article reminds of a joke from behind the Iron Curtain I read years and years ago: "Under Capitalism, man exploits man; under Socialism, it's the other way around."

 

[Telnac]

Sorry, i miss-typed that. To clarify, by "it" i meant nuclear power generation in general.

Ah! Well, when we have asteroid mining operations & can get the uranium ore from space, then I could see fission reactors in space being a possibility... at least for the USA. The anti-nuke lobby has a cow when we launch a small amount of plutonium to power deep space probes... and those aren't even full sized reactors! Launching fuel rods for a commercial reactor? I don't see it happening.

That said, Russia or France or some other nations who don't have such a large anti-nuke lobby could probably do it.

 

[Captain Howdy]

Wrong social policies are THE most important! foreign policy affects no one and no one can truly know what's best of the economy.
i don't want to see gay people get married (not me them)
and abortion is murder!
I don't care about these issues. you don't care about these issues, but these are the only positional issues out there.
All the rest are valance issues that most people agree on.

Worst troll ever.

 

[Brace]

And corporations that plunder whatever they can get their hands on (Investment banks peddling worthless securities, coal companies strip-mining and polluting entire communities, etc.) are better?

Yes, because the sense of "plundering" is different in this use. A government takes what it wants and gives what it wants, irrespective of the desires of its citizens, and tries to use the second action as a justification for the first. A company engages in voluntary transactions, which respect the demands of its customers.

A corporation isn't really a market institution, it's essentially a monopoly brought about by the interventions of the state. If you did away with barriers to entry, massive subsidies and things of that nature, many corporations would wither away and die. They wouldn't be able to support themselves on a truly free market. The result would be a larger number of companies occupying the same market niche, lowering prices and offering a wider range of alternatives to the consumer.

Anti-pollution laws are fine and necessary for where we are right now, and the same might be true of other regulations as well. Preventing fraud is a legitimate endeavour. Government goes beyond that at the moment, though, and the result is a thoroughly distorted economy which hurts people more than it needs to.

No, the purpose of government is to administer civil society on behalf of its citizens.

I don't know what that means. It doesn't seem like it ought to conflict with a limited government mindset, depending on what value you grant "civil society". Personally, I consider large scale redistribution of wealth to be distinctly uncivil.

That article reminds of a joke from behind the Iron Curtain I read years and years ago: "Under Capitalism, man exploits man; under Socialism, it's the other way around."

"Politicians are the same all over, they promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers."

 

[Carenath]

...A company engages in voluntary transactions, which respect the demands of its shareholders.

...If you did away with barriers to entry, massive subsidies and things of that nature, small business would wither away and die. They wouldn't be able to support themselves on a truly free market. The result would be one or two companies occupying the same market niche, raising prices and offering a smaller range of alternatives to the consumer.

Fixed it for ya

 

[Brace]

Fixed it for ya

Yes, because the corporate structure is synonymous with all business structure, exactly like I claimed in the post you're quoting. Oh wait.

You don't actually understand the forces which actually lead to cartelization, which is to be expected. Throughout history, every monopoly has been created and sustained by government intervention, whether it's the railroads, the interstate trucking industry, the airlines, or the phone company. The government will periodically step in to break up the monopolies they created in order to make themselves look competent, but really, it's just an act of winding back the clock.

 

[JoeStrike]

Link

Inb4lolmisesinstitute

Yes, because the sense of "plundering" is different in this use. A government takes what it wants and gives what it wants, irrespective of the desires of its citizens, and tries to use the second action as a justification for the first. A company engages in voluntary transactions, which respect the demands of its customers.

A corporation isn't really a market institution, it's essentially a monopoly brought about by the interventions of the state. If you did away with barriers to entry, massive subsidies and things of that nature, many corporations would wither away and die. They wouldn't be able to support themselves on a truly free market.

I agree - let's get rid of ALL the tax breaks and goodies corporations extort out of communities when they're thinking about establishing an office or factory in their towns.

And while we're at it, let's get rid of the fiction that a corporation is the legal equivalent of a human being - that's one reason the Supreme Court elminated corporate spending limits on political campaigns.

The result would be a larger number of companies occupying the same market niche, lowering prices and offering a wider range of alternatives to the consumer.

That's the old 'invisible hand of the free market' story - about as likely to come into existence as a purely communist state where every citizen is truly equal, or an anarchistic/libertarian state where people rule themselves with no or a bare minimum of government.

The dynamic of capitalism is exactly the OPPOSITE: grow or die. If you head up a department in a large corporation and you don't meet the profit goals set for you, you're outta there. How do you think we wound up with Staples, Best Buy, Barnes & Noble and all these other 'big box' 'category killer' stores? Because their imperative is to grow grow grow!

As for competition:
Home Depot/Lowe's
Barnes & Noble/Borders
Staples/Office Depot
Petco/PetSmart, etc.

This is where the term 'economies of scale' comes into play. The way things are set up now, you have one store that dominates its category and a second runner-up that gets a chunk of the market big enough to survive. There are no 3rd or 4th place stores because there's no way they can compete; they wind up going under & being absorbed by the big boys. To get an equal playing field where more companies could compete in the same market...

you'd have to have government regulations limiting how big any one company can get! Somehow I don't think that's what you're in favor of...

I don't know what that [civil society] means. It doesn't seem like it ought to conflict with a limited government mindset, depending on what value you grant "civil society". Personally, I consider large scale redistribution of wealth to be distinctly uncivil.

You know what? If some investment banker gives himself a $150 million dollar bonus at the end of the year while there's people dying because they can't get health insurance...

I got no problem with 'redistributing' some of his wealth into a system of national health insurance. (But I'm sure that's another topic reasonable people can disagree on.)

"Politicians are the same all over, they promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers."

Agreed - that's why it's up to us to get off our asses, educate ourselves & keep them honest!

 

[Carenath]

Yes, because the corporate structure is synonymous with all business structure, exactly like I claimed in the post you're quoting. Oh wait.

You don't actually understand the forces which actually lead to cartelization, which is to be expected. Throughout history, every monopoly has been created and sustained by government intervention, whether it's the railroads, the interstate trucking industry, the airlines, or the phone company. The government will periodically step in to break up the monopolies they created in order to make themselves look competent, but really, it's just an act of winding back the clock.

Yes, and I suppose Microsoft, The Music and Movie industries, are operating in the interest of their customers?

 

[Lobar]

Yes, because the corporate structure is synonymous with all business structure, exactly like I claimed in the post you're quoting. Oh wait.

You don't actually understand the forces which actually lead to cartelization, which is to be expected. Throughout history, every monopoly has been created and sustained by government intervention, whether it's the railroads, the interstate trucking industry, the airlines, or the phone company. The government will periodically step in to break up the monopolies they created in order to make themselves look competent, but really, it's just an act of winding back the clock.

Standard Oil?