Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Fresno Grizzlies Played This Memorial Day Tribute Video

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, retrofade said:

Sure, things could happen again, but I'm putting their odds at us recreating dinosaurs multiple times.

Those proverbial dinosaurs have come back 3 or 4 times already though. None of the nuclear accidents we've had were supposed to happen.  There were back ups and fail safes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, toonkee said:

@retrofade

Let's have a few more Trump appointees running nuclear regulatory commissions and decreasing regs to save their cronies a few bucks.

I guess you missed this part.

10 minutes ago, retrofade said:

when handled properly

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Those proverbial dinosaurs have come back 3 or 4 times already though. None of the nuclear accidents we've had were supposed to happen.  There were back ups and fail safes.

So, what’s your energy solution? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, retrofade said:

At a level where air travel stops becoming necessary.

I think that's your key right there... they wanted to increase renewable travel to locations to the point where air travel would become minimally necessary. We should also note that the GND draft that was inadvertently released wasn't intended to be a finalized policy proposal either. Further, if their goal was to replace every combustion-engine vehicle, wouldn't it stand to reason that jet engines would be included in that goal? :shrug:

 

You and I both know the GND was not prematurely released.  They had a planned press conference and AOC and one of the Dem senators were all giddy about it. They back tracked after the FAQs that were released were torn apart. Her chief of staff sent those out to the media so don’t give me that premature stuff.  

And I understand her goal is to replace the combustion engine and obviously that would include jet engines. As for building out high speed rail, I don’t think that’s a realistic coast to coast goal.  Nobody is going to take high speed rail from San Francisco to Boston.  That’s a 2-3 day trip still. The country is too spread out for it.  Now high speed rail could work to replace flights like Reno to San Francisco of LA to SF. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Well if 40% of the country weren't dumb as shyt...

That’s generous 

 

and it should say “Well if 40% of the country wasn’t dumb as shyt” :ph34r:

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

That’s generous 

 

and it should say “Well if 40% of the country wasn’t dumb as shyt” :ph34r:

well, I'm in the 40%, so...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mugtang said:

I should’ve said she wants to phase it out not ban it.  Still a completely stupid proposal that has zero basis in reality. 

0742BFFF-7D7E-4CF6-8A0D-0CBF25D88B33.png

We went from a country of nothing but horses to a country of nothing but cars in half a lifetime.  To presume we're incapable of making a bigger change with a LOT more technological innovation today is just short-sighted and naiive.

She's not even talking about "phasing it out."  She's talking about other technologies rendering air travel obsolete.  That's a very different thing than the fox-news chants of "she wants to ban planes and cows!"

Shame on you for spreading that misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, retrofade said:

I doubt that anyone with my specific job said any of those things. Nuclear power shouldn't be this weird crazy boogeyman... when handled properly, it can provide clean* energy for generations while better technologies are perfected.

Yes, indeed, as long as humans never make mistakes........oh wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

Or how about Obama pouring money into his friends solar companies that go bankrupt. 

This is such a bullshit statement, it's hard to know where to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orange said:

We went from a country of nothing but horses to a country of nothing but cars in half a lifetime.  To presume we're incapable of making a bigger change with a LOT more technological innovation today is just short-sighted and naiive.

She's not even talking about "phasing it out."  She's talking about other technologies rendering air travel obsolete.  That's a very different thing than the fox-news chants of "she wants to ban planes and cows!"

Shame on you for spreading that misinformation.

So she doesn’t want to phase out air travel?  She just wants to make it obsolete, which isn’t even a reasonable proposition. Isn't that the same thing? I mean I may be an idiot but phasing out and making something obsolete are the same exact thing in most people’s books. But you keep on doing you. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mugtang said:

So she doesn’t want to phase out air travel?  She just wants to make it obsolete, which isn’t even a reasonable proposition. Isn't that the same thing? I mean I may be an idiot but phasing out and making something obsolete are the same exact thing in most people’s books. But you keep on doing you. 

Making it obsolete means that people don't CHOOSE air travel anymore. Do you get what that means, or am I going to need to lead this horse all the way to the water trough....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orange said:

Making it obsolete means that people don't CHOOSE air travel anymore. Do you get what that means, or am I going to need to lead this horse all the way to the water trough....?

Which isn’t even a reasonable goal.  Nobody is going to choose to sit on a train for several days to cross the country.  As I said earlier it may be reasonable to replace shorter flights with high speed rail but it’s not reasonable to expect that for longer distances. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Which isn’t even a reasonable goal.  Nobody is going to choose to sit on a train for several days to cross the country.  As I said earlier it may be reasonable to replace shorter flights with high speed rail but it’s not reasonable to expect that for longer distances. 

I fell like you're letting perfect be the enemy of good here.  Let's say we eliminate 80% of air travel in the next decades and replace that with high speed mag lev or whatever.  Still miles better than where we are, right?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

Or how about Obama pouring money into his friends solar companies that go bankrupt. 

I'm not worried about the nuke plants going bankrupt.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just trendy to hate AOC.

I really believe that's all this is.  In order to feel "manly" in the red-state sense of the word, y'all need to chuck fireballs at the uppity hispanic girl from New York City.

It's kind of pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

So, what’s your energy solution? 

If you read my posts I said nuclear may be our best option, we just may have to live with the risks and consequences, which maybe the least-worst option.

But I don't know.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, toonkee said:

I fell like you're letting perfect be the enemy of good here.  Let's say we eliminate 80% of air travel in the next decades and replace that with high speed mag lev or whatever.  Still miles better than where we are, right?  

That’s a fair statement. But that’s not what she released in her FAQ that was sent out by her chief of staff. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...