Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Good interview
Was he serious about them buying his books? Where can I find information about that?
I am more and more convinced that man is a dangerous creature and that power, whether vested in many or a few, is ever grasping, and like the grave, cries, 'Give, give.'
Abigail Adams
don't necessarily consider it a positive thing; they're probably doing that so they can figure out his positions and where they come from so they can attack him or engage in attacks against the Austrian school.Originally Posted by Legend1104
Ron is closer to my beliefs than any other candidate. He however sounds completely clueless to the aggregious acts of negligence and malfeasance of the Nuclear power industry (i.e companies like Entergy) and the corrupt NRC that is in bed with the operators. I also doubt Ron and his family would ever live near one.
I am pretty ardent Ron Paul supporter since 2007 and donate to CFL. This might be a knee jerk post after watching this interview but in my opinion right now I may reconsider my support for him unless he clarifies his comments on this issue.
It looks like the Republicans are risking the Presidency, regaining the Senate and keeping the House if they continue to be on the minority side of this issue. How politically foolish for Ron Paul, Mitch McConnell and Boehner to make pro-nuclear power comments at this time. Whether you or for against nuclear power opening their mouths now shows they want to $#@!ing lose.
Maybe I am overacting since like I said Ron is closer to many beliefs than any one candidate. I am going to send this video around to my social net whom everyone knows I am big RP supporter to get some feedback. Otherwise I think I might be done here, the issue of nuclear safety is just too important.
Last edited by kahless; 03-21-2011 at 07:33 AM.
And? Nuclear energy is a good source of energy. I see no problem here.
для каждого злодея есть герой
Cars have killed more people than nuclear energy ever has, perhaps we should've banned those.
Sensationalizing of tragedies in order to create legislation only leads to total stupidity. And that's exactly why they're sensationalized in the first place.
Oreilly played his response in his intro memo on the oreilly factor last night. Was suprised to see that.
Im too old to take advice and much too young to give it, so let me live my life as I see fit.
The anchors at Foxnews and Ron Paul are being fooled by the nuclear power propagandists. Despite claims we are safe because of concrete containment, the spent fuel pools are not contained in concrete domes. They are vulnerable and in the case of our plant here next to NYC, leak 25-50 gallons a day for the last 30 years into the ground water and Hudson river. We also had a 600,000 gallon release of radioactive steam across the Hudson Valley last year that they failed to report for 3 days.
If we have an accident we will not only blame Entergy and the NRC, but folks like Bill O'Reilly, Ron Paul, John Boeher and Mitch McConnell for ignoring the reality of negligence and aggregious behavior of these companies in the US.
Last edited by kahless; 03-17-2011 at 09:20 AM.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
Doesn't Reason get a lot of funding from the Koch brothers who are really big into coal?
I like Ron and all, but he isn't the most environmentally aware. It seemed as if he was trying to say that we don't see pictures of damage in the gulf anymore because there isn't any, and that all the pictures before were basically just used as propaganda to pass more regulations.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" - Lao Tzu
"For the love of Aqua Buddha move on." - BamaFanNKy
I caught that to. His comments recently make him sound like he is playing to the Foxnews - Republican establishment talking point news cycle. It is disturbing to hear Limbaugh like talking points coming from him. Maybe his handlers are advising him to do this strategically to gain the support the sheeple, I don't know.
The talking points are working well with the sheep since I keep hearing the average Joe repeat them ad hominen and the Foxnews hosts have been cozying up to Ron for a change. But if this is the route Ron is going down then I am out.
Last edited by kahless; 03-27-2011 at 10:07 AM.
Good luck finding a politician 1/10th as good as him then. So you disagree with him on the feasibility of nuclear energy? Fine. In a free market in the energy, which Ron Paul supports, we could easily see what form(s) of energy succeeded and there wouldn't have to be any animosity about it.
Ron made good points about energy that I had never even considered before.
Gas lines explode all the time, killing people and families and causing all sorts of property damage. Natural gas leaks kill people in their sleep all the time. I know a guy who lost his whole family in the middle of the night while he was out at work. Extracting these volatile chemicals out of the ground poses many risks for the workers and the people who transport them. The very reason you see nuclear accidents on the news is because they are so extremely rare, whereas if there's a natural gas leak, explosion, or mining accident you might only see it on the local news in passing, if at all.
Fossil fuel magnates would like nothing more than to see nuclear energy get bashed. Every time someone trashes nuclear energy, demand for their substitute good increases, and along with it their profit margins.
Nuclear energy is not a free market technology. It requires taxpayer subsidies to build, it is uninsurable so the taxpayers are on the hook for any accident or cleanup and it requires taxpayer funding to maintain the storage infinitely for generations to come.
All other government programs and technologies do not force to the taxpayer to infinitely support it. They can be eliminated at any time. So I disagree with him since the policy would make us all tax slaves to build it, insure it and maintain the storage for generations to come. You can not say this for any other technology. This goes against everything this man has preached and it is immoral to subject generations of people to such policy unwillingly.
Last edited by kahless; 03-27-2011 at 02:26 PM.
Obviously, he thinks nuclear power could survive, maybe even flourish, in free market situation. Maybe he's wrong about that, but if so, and nuclear power failed in a free market, I am sure he would accept it. He would not favor subsidies and special privileges to the nuclear industry or any industry.
'Cept energy is currently in an unfree market, so we can't make any judgements.
для каждого злодея есть герой
Deregulation and a free market would not change a thing. Nuclear power requires the waste to be maintained regardless whether the energy company persists perpetually. Therefore it will always rely on the taxpayer. Deregulation of nuclear power in a free market therefore is not going to change a thing and rather make things worse since the industry refuses to police themselves as it is already.
Almost all of the waste can be recycled. Some can't be, but a nuclear power company would be making enough cash to buy a lot of empty land and bury it in a lead box.
для каждого злодея есть герой
Based on what I wrote above, nuclear power is more expensive than any other technology. Regardless of that belief or whether you are for or against nuclear technology, what happens 10 years from now when something better and cheaper comes along. One where startup cost is negligable, that does not require government funding, that is readily insurable, where there is no or limited waste byproduct and a fraction of the cost to produce compared to nuclear. Clearly if that occurs you could see these nuclear energy industry go under. What then? Who is going to buy and maintain the useless waste from nuclear plants at that point. It will again for generations to come be the taxpayer maintaining it.
I am beginning to believe part of this movement is controlled opposition or is brainwashed by it. You cannot let people have a taste of the liberty message without the movement having an allegiance to a government program that ensures perpetual tax servitude to the government should they ever seize power.
Last edited by kahless; 03-27-2011 at 03:48 PM.
>something better
You mean like a more efficient version of fission? Nuclear power keeps improving over time, you know. Also,
Fusion? That would be pretty good, too.
для каждого злодея есть герой
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us