tigersnake said:OK sorry about the deleted comment poppa x, but read the bloody posts before you go off half cocked, it drives me nuts.
I do read the posts - and I assure you I'm not half cocked. probably double that quantity.
tigersnake said:OK sorry about the deleted comment poppa x, but read the bloody posts before you go off half cocked, it drives me nuts.
poppa x said:I've had enough. You're personal abuse has gone on long enough.
It was perfectly accessible. He wrote all that he needed to in as few and simplest terms possible. I found it quite informative and persuasive, but having said that, I was already leaning towards cleaner power. You should give it a read (if you haven't yet), poppadom.poppa x said:I wasn't saying you don't think, I was saying Razors post didn't seem to make you think. You just ignored it.
I find Razors posts contain far too many words. I am a busy man with a business to run and I will only respond to shortish comments. I don't have all day to read Razors many points of view. Sorry but that's the way things have to be.
Curtis E Bear said:It was perfectly accessible. He wrote all that he needed to in as few and simplest terms possible. I found it quite informative and persuasive, but having said that, I was already leaning towards cleaner power. You should give it a read (if you haven't yet), poppadom.poppa x said:I wasn't saying you don't think, I was saying Razors post didn't seem to make you think. You just ignored it.
I find Razors posts contain far too many words. I am a busy man with a business to run and I will only respond to shortish comments. I don't have all day to read Razors many points of view. Sorry but that's the way things have to be.
Curtis E Bear said:Oh, c'mon, poopa. You could've read it by now. I'm timing your time online. ;D
poppa x said:I restrict my time to those topics/posters who interest me and perhaps agree with me. They know who they are.
Rayzor agrees with you on the tigers (except one special player). His obsession with said special player is 'interesting', wouldn't you say?poppa x said:I restrict my time to those topics/posters who interest me and perhaps agree with me. They know who they are.
RemoteTiger said:Liverpool - that proves that the ALP is no better than what John Howard is doing now - they like him divided the elctorate to suit themselves to conqueor that same electorate at the ballot box.
Is this a flaw in our democracy?
Is it a flaw in two-party system? - where winning or maintaining power is more important than what is good for the nation!
IMO what Australia needs right now is a leader who stands up for the nation first and his/her political party second - unfortunately the machinery of government does not allow this. And Australian political history is littered with leaders who tried to do this but were ousted by their own party - John Gorton (over the nationalising of Banks - he finished up voting himself out because of the divide it caused within the Liberal Party which could have cost it Government) - Simon Crean (Tried to decrease the Labor Party's reliance on Unions - this was seen as turning your back on the grass roots of the party and Beasley's hench men made sure everything Crean tried to introduce as a Labor leader was squashed - they eventually got him and he was replaced by Mark Latham a "fall-guy" for the train wreck of an election that was looming thus leaving a Labor Party Leadership vacuum for big Kim to walk back into. IMO the Australia would have been a better place had Crean been successful - but traditionalists had to put the party/unions first)
We as a people of a nation lose - because for the political parties it is all about power - how to spin it through a bias press to hoodwink the voter to vote for you! Meanwhile the nation continues to struggle through its existence never realising its true abilities.
Little Johnny is just as bad as morgue assistant Paul who was just as bad as flashy Bob who was up to the same tricks as farmer Mal.
Don't we as a people of what should be a great nation deserve better from our leaders - from our Governments - from our political parties?
Anduril said:It was the Liberal govt who gave the Sheik a visa in the first place, allowed him entry into Australia. So all are to blame.
poppa x said:I restrict my time to those topics/posters who interest me and perhaps agree with me. They know who they are.
tigersnake said:Like I said earlier, if it costs roughly $10-20K for enough solar panels to easily power a normal house, how many houses could you power with solar before you reached the cost of a nuclear plant? And even if the nuclear is cheaper, although it seems it isn’t, the cost of pollution would make it worth going solar anyway.
Seems to me the sensible thing would be to phase out dirty coal and move to clean solar. Not move from one dirty fuel to another.
poppa x said:Curtis E Bear said:Oh, c'mon, poopa. You could've read it by now. I'm timing your time online. ;D
I restrict my time to those topics/posters who interest me and perhaps agree with me. They know who they are.
poppa x said:Welcome back livers. Ii's been mighty lonely defending the righteous path of enlightenment over the past week. Your return means I can declare my first innings closed. Return to the bar and tell all my mates how well I played. "Ya shoulda seen the six I smashed off Razor boys. It was huge".
I 'll be back for my second dig in a day or two.
And Rayzor? You are so wrong about nuclear power. It's not perfect (nothing is) but it's sh*tloads cleaner and safer than coal.
poppa x said:I restrict my time to those topics/posters who interest me and perhaps agree with me.
happytige said:Thanks Razor for all the facts and figures relating to nuclear energy. It has certainly helped clarify things for me. Let's hope some common sense prevails in Canberra and Solar, geothermal and possibly hydrogen are embraced as we wean ourselves off cheap but dirty coal.
I'm hoping that nanotechnology will have some of the answers to our dependence on oil for plastics, textiles, chemicals etc.
Does anyone have thoughts on ethanol and other biofuels as replacements for petrol?
I can't believe I learn so much from a Football website....but then again we all barrack for the mighty Tigers.
tigersnake said:Yeah Razor has put up some good stuff. Decent political discussion has had its moments on PRE, but I think I'll give up on it. The right wingers are just way too thinskinned and blinkered. The minute they start losing the argument because of unfair evil nasty lefty tactics like evidence and logic they get all precious and start sooking. I've been called names, 'tool of the week' was the most recent one from memory, but its water off a ducks back. Spirited debate can get a bit heated at times, it should be no big deal.
Poppa's comment above that he'll only read posts he agrees with really sums up the right for me.
If Poppa and Chelsea ever spent christmas at my family they'd go into anopholactic shock.
Liverpool said:But lets be honest....political debating may be heated, may be emotional, may be spirited, as you said...but I think we ALL should have the maturity to show each other a common courtesy, whatever our views are.
Does that sound fair to all?