|
The person who made that graph must have been laughing their asses off as they did it.
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Couldn't we put the plants in the rear end-end of nowhere though? I mean the US is barely populated. I'm pretty sure the existing plants aren't in densely populated areas at all. People just oppose nuclear power for the same vague reasons they oppose GMOs or vaccinations or fluoride in your water: they don't understand it and therefore jump to the worst possible conclusions.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I don't think that is a fair comparison, after all, plants have had major meltdowns. Whether that implies future danger doesn't matter, because the general population now has a reference point in terms of how safe they are. Basing your understanding of the safety of a nuclear power plant on the Fukushima meltdown (which was caused by an earthquake and tsunami) or... gently caress, I have to wiki the most recent meltdown after that... some poo poo that happened in the 70's is pretty short-sighted, and just as bad as believing vaccines cause autism or fluoridated water causes autism or GMOs do whatever it is their opponents say they do (probably cause autism).
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:There's a bunch of countries with major strife relatively close to Australia. And Australia has signed on to multiple treaties (which many othe rcountries haven't) stating they're willing to accept refugees, even though subsequent governments have tried to make it harder. Aren't some of the nearby island countires literally drowning, losing infrastructure, and (paradoxically) running out of clean water as the sea level rises? On top of the normal problems afflicting developing nations?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Anti-nukeism is almost kind of understandable as nuclear anything elicits terrifying imagery but seriously, by not pursuing nuclear power more we've been reduced to "clean coal" and fracking so the fruits of thy labor of the anti-nuclear power movement aren't inspiring. I dunno how someone who thinks nuclear power is dangerous could turn around and support fracking. Probably they don't know what fracking is or have a poor grasp of it or are in the fracking industry. 
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Those are fairly close to Australia, as compared to other signatories of the relevant refugee treaties which are also places worth escaping to. For example, most of Africa is signatory to most of the treaties, but they aren't countries that you'd escape the problems you're trying to escape in. Funny story, one of my neighbors is actually an Iraqi immigrant who first immigrated to Somalia then got the gently caress out of there after looters/pirates/whatever destroyed his second home. I asked him why he went to Somalia in the first place and he said he had family there, emphasis on had. 
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:I live in Utah. I could vote for a ham sandwich and it wouldn't matter unless said sandwich has an -R after its name, in which case it will be elected. Also here Democrats are third party, after "absolutely loving crazy tea party Republican" aka Mike Lee, and "really right wing but less goddamn crazy Republican" aka Jon Huntsman. I grew up in a solid blue state (MD!) and I always take for granted what it's like to be in a place where your vote/voice isn't entirely meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:But if you are in a solid blue (or anything) state, your vote IS meaningless...? Well, less meaningless because at least your voice is being drowned in a chorus of similar voices, rather than being the lone guy begging for your state to not do ridiculous, right-wing poo poo. fakee: Granted, you end up doing the latter a lot these days regardless of where you live in the states.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Naw, I think it's the same thing. The only real test for whether your voice means something is, if you suddenly reversed your position, would it make a difference? If you're in 46/50 states, it won't, at least for the presidential election. How's it the same thing to have your state enacting policies you support rather than being in a state where you're fighting to even be taken seriously? If I reversed my position on various political issues I'd be a regressive, so I don't think it's a bad thing that my angry voice would then be drowned out.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:There are more things to vote for than a president every 4 years. Yes, and on a state level MD is not some sort of hellish republican-led wasteland. Not as blue as Colorado or Washington, sure, but not near as bad as some of its neighbors. When I say 'blue state' I meant it on levels more than just national elections, though I understand that the term is mainly used for national elections. Samurai Sanders posted:Well, if you chose what state to live in based on your political positions, that would be an important gesture I think. But if you were born in that state (or moved there for unrelated reasons) and its policies just happen to match yours, that's nothing but luck. I dunno what your point is though? It's good to live in a state where its policies matches yours, otherwise you'll end up a lot more miserable. Why is this statement contentious. 
MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 05:24 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:Is Huntsman really less crazy? All I remember from the presidential primaries is that he was exceptionally polite. His policy proposals were more extreme than Romney's, at least in part. That was Huntsman whole charm and why people to this day will still say they'd have voted for him over Obama had Huntsman made it past the primaries. The dude's a total loon, he just has the good graces to cover that poo poo up with an attractive smile and polite tone.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The end result would be future generations focusing on saving their money through their employers and the private sector rather than through government. Well you might be a liberal, but you're the kind of liberal whose blue dog, regressive politics is dragging everything down the right-wing gutter. hth. But you're probably proud of that and think yourself a reasonable, rational human being. You're not, you're just a myopic rear end. MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 19:36 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:Following this: would or hypothetical shrunken government still provide free housing for soldiers? If so, is it because they deserve it or because of institutional inertia? I'd rather they make anything relating to our currently serving military and veteran soldiers to be meritocracy based. Only soldiers who kill other people should be able to qualify for free housing and have the government take care of their college tuition, and only veterans who have actually lost something tangible (like an arm or a leg or something) should get the free healthcare ride. These are the soldiers who actually do/have done things, the rest are a bunch of loving freeloaders.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:I realize you're trying to distinguish between actual veterans of war and violence and "Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers", but you're doing a really lovely job of it. Plenty of soldiers come home with psychological, not physical, wounds and are really hosed up when they get back, and they need care just as much as the guys who lost a leg if they're going to function in society and lead a normal-ish life after the service. On the flip side, some of the more crucial jobs don't involve shooting people (medic for starters). And the reality of today's counter-insurgency warfare means that many "non-combat" roles are still fairly dangerous - the enemy (much less an IED) doesn't care if you're officially designated as a truck driver or as a combat trooper, he's still gonna go at you for wearing the flag. lol that post was a super-joke. I think you're ridiculous for thinking I'd actually advocate for what, as you point out, amounts to turning our troops into bounty hunters. That's freep insane, man.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
I thought real Americans only drank whiskey and/or bourbon. < >
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:May's drink of the month is Casa Noble's Reposado Tequila. It is a blue agave tequila aged in a white oak barrel for between 3 months and 1 year. This gives it a smooth, slightly sweet taste akin to cognac, rather than the usual hard bite tequila has. Runs $45-$60 a bottle. How could you recommend to us a $60-$110 bottle of booze in good faith knowing that the discussion that would take place in the thread would be how poor we are and how much poorer we're going to become???
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 04:17
|
|