Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (138561)	4/15/2001 3:05:31 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Even under the most optimistic forecast. When your population is increasing 10-25%, (such as it is in California) decreasing consumption without increasing supply is not going to allow cheap energy to be available. And it's folly to believe otherwise. Sure, we can take measures to decrease consumption. But let's not kid ourselves, decreasing consumption while the population is booming is not a recipe for success. Finding clean ways of increasing the available supply of energy is. And one of the cleanest energy resources is nuclear power. If we had continued building nuclear power plants, we would have a cleaner environment today, and more inexpensive energy available. It's as simple as that. When nuclear power plants were prevented from being built because of activists like the Sierra club or Greenpeace. Coal simply took its place in many cases. What you seem to think is that if we just decrease demand, our energy problems will evaporate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Denying this reality has gotten us into the mess we're in. And it looks like Democrats are still willing to continue denying reality. Living in a utopian dream world is not the real world. In the real world, people want to use their air-conditioner, pool, and SUV.

To: American Spirit who wrote (138561)	4/15/2001 3:44:57 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Dear Amer, >>>>rather than conservation, cleaner fuels, efficiency and protecting the environment. The only environmentally clean fuil is Uranium. It generates the equivalent of tons of coal and barrel of oil in energy and as part of the process releases Zero pollutents. So Amer you are in favor of Nuclear Power. Conservation, what percent of energy do you think can be saved by conservation. Amer are you committed to only driving if the trip is greater than 5 miles. Amer, what percentage of Americans do you feel have a clue as to what conservation is and more importantly how to do it. As to protecting the environment, recovering fuel from this continent and thus having to move it tens of thousands of less miles clearly is a mind boggling increase in the protection of the Earth's environment. This will go a long way to keeping the dessert sands in the middle east cleaner for eternity. With a thinking watch-dog like thee whining at every little wart of living in a society based on technology, especially with your clueless understanding of how it plays together I'm sure America will survive. Not any cleaner but a little noisier. 1000 plus pics of a beautiful Essay of Mother nature and humans in happy harmony brought to you for you viewing pleasure by the use of technology and a few hours time. watman.com watman.com Pollution or paradise or play is in the eyes of the beholder. Does a finer work of art than this smile exist. watman.com How does one frame one's view of nature. watman.com The colors are even more pretty when we rejoice that the road has curves. watman.com One can only see what in the distance if one takes ones mind to the higher perspective. watman.com And God looked upon what he had created and said, I'm Good and Tom you have a good eye in capturing the intent of my good. watman.com tom watson tosiwmee

To: American Spirit who wrote (138561)	4/15/2001 3:55:34 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769667

Dear Amer, >>>>rather than conservation, cleaner fuels, efficiency and protecting the environment. The only envrinonmentally clean fuil is Uranium. It generaltes the equivalent of tons of coal and barrel of oil in energy and as part of the process releases Zero polutents. So Amer you are in favor of Nuclear Power. Conservation, what percent of engergy do you think can be saved by conservation. Amer are you commited to only driving if the trip is greater than 5 miles. Amer, what percentage of Americans do you feel have a clue as to what conservation is and more importantly how to do it. As to protecting the environment, recovering fuel from this continent and thus having to move it tens of thousands of less miles clearly is a mind boggling increase in the protection of the Earth's environment. This will go a long way to keeping the dessert sands in the middle east cleaner for eternity. With a thinking watch-dog like thee whining at every little wart of living in a society based on technology, especially with your clueless understanding of how it plays together I'm sure America will survive. Not any cleaner but a little noiser. 1000 plus pics of a beautiful boquay of Mother nature and humans in happy harmony brought to you for you viewing pleasure by the use of technolgy and a few hours time. watman.com watman.com Pollution or paradise or play is in the eyes of the beholder. tom watson tosiwmee