Does anyone find it ironic the many libs defend Iran having nuclear power yet, they are against new plants?

Question

being built here in the US? More hypocrisy? Isn't ironic that they will go to bat for the "betterment" of a terrorist nation over our own?

For those of you that read more than what is actually written in the question...

I did not call libs terrorists. I stated that it is ironic that they support a terrorist nation above our own. Also, news flash for Bush Invented... In the 1980's Reagan made the appropriate moves for the issues at the time. The world does change... the "small fish" that you may use at one point to fry a larger fish, could one day become the big fish... then you take out the big fish once again. Try to keep up with the current events and the events of the past that actually had a negative impact on our current events.

Ohio... I'm not confused at all... I wrote that "many libs"... not all libs. But those extremist environmentalists are typically far left libs as well.

Lloyd... perhaps you should use your brain rather than drawing conclusions you have no clue about. Try to answer the question on an issue basis. I don't need to babysit everyone with examples of this as you will find it all over this forum and in the news... just simply open your eyes. I see it all the time! The comments of "why can't they be energy dependent and we have it why can't they" are all over the place. It is also no surprise that a state like California has not had a new plant built in decades despite their rapid growth is the doing of lib wacko enviornmentalists extremist. Why is it that it is always a smoke sreen rather than you supporting your beliefs?

Bush Invented... I did answer your nonsensical statement. Can't help it if you can't understand it. The question has nothing to do with terrorists. It has to do with the fact that many libs will support one thing for another country but not our own. If it makes it easier for you to understand replace Iran with England or Spain or Canada... get it yet?

Answer 1

Nuclear power is the cheapest most efficent and cleanest forms of energy but the enviromental leftist cant make money off it. Funny how Algore yes one word is supporting coal burning plants but doesnt want you to drive your SUV or have a regular light bulb. He wants to make you buy carbon credits and whats his new business a carbon offset company hmm whodathunk it

Answer 2

Well I think they would argue that if Iran wants to use an energy source, even if it isn't to their liking, then they should be allowed to do it.

Libs are great calling Americans evil but when it comes to the rest of the world, their voices fall short. I guess its just that America is the problem.

Answer 3

Oh thats a good one to cause some thinking! You get a star!
On the one hand I do believe in the Autonomy of a Soveriegn Nation. And I think there are instances where we need to pull in our horns. But in the interest of protecting ourselves we need to raise big caution flags where nations that have exhibited a preference for violence are concerned. Iran having shown a propensity for terror needs to be limited. And some people will rather not face the thought that their beliefs and concepts don't add up. If the opposing party is for it, BY God they are against it. Backward if you ask me.

Answer 4

I have never actually head anybody make said statement. I am liberal and I am very much in favor of nuclear power as a more officiant means of power generation. Nuclear energy is much cleaner, more officiant and not dependent upon foreign oil.

Answer 5

Very ironic, especially since you posted no link to any liberal defending this. Just because they are against attacking Iran based on not enough information to do so, does not really have anything to do with nuclear power. On the other hand, I think we should have attacked Iran instead of Iraq. I think we had more proof of them being a terrorist nation than Iraq.

Answer 6

I think you will find that the basis for your question is flawed. I am not against the building of new plants here in the US. I think until something better comes along, we need to build newer plants with better technology. The plants we have are antiquated and ripe for problems.

And I think we need to look to Europe, where they reuse the power rods till they are used up and therefore disposal is less of a problem. BTW, I am not a nuclear physicist, so if my science is not correct, please excuse me.

Oh, and have there been any nuclear plant meltdowns or disasters since Chernobyl? I don't think so.

Answer 7

I don't support bombing US nuclear plant operators either. Environmentalists don't like nuclear power. They are not necessarily liberal. I really don't have a problem with nuclear power, but the waste disposal and storage issue has to be settled before we start building new plants.

Answer 8

You are confusing people that are to left on politics with people that are extreme enviromentalists..... Im liberal, but also am realistic, the country needs energy, nuclear has a lot of upside....I am all for more nuclear plants

Answer 9

One, they don't speak for all of us Liberals, and two who is going to take us seriously when you have a nation full of egotistic religious in office spreading their share of hypocrisy. I for one don't defend any other nation with a background of hatred towards any country to be able to hold nuclear power or other matchable capabilities.

Answer 10

Because nuclear energy is not a solution. Why continue to produce the same old s**t when you know there are better options? Oh yea that means change. That means going through growing pains. That means costing you a bit more for awhile. Dig your feet in, take your glasses off, stomp your feet and cry Republicans know best quit changing things. What happened to inovation that used to be the hallmark of America? People like you ARE America's problem as you stand in the way of progress.