Ignatieff gets it right - discuss

[refreshrefillrepeat1]

Ignatieff pro nuclear?

Who for or against nuclear here? does it alter your 2012 election position now that both sides are pro-nuclear?.

[Bonam]

I'll believe it when Canada gets serious about nuclear and starts building new plants. Politicians love to talk about nuclear but when it comes to actually approving and supporting nuclear projects, they are remarkably quiet. Personally, I think nuclear fission should be our primary power source in the near future, until fusion becomes viable.

[refreshrefillrepeat1]

couldn't agree more.

[segnosaur]

Ignatieff pro nuclear?

Who for or against nuclear here? does it alter your 2012 election position now that both sides are pro-nuclear?.

I certainly support the expansion of our Nuclear Power generation capabilities. And while that alone would not be enough to consider supporting Ignatieff, I certainly applaud him for his stance, and if/when I decide who to vote for in future elections it would be a mark in his favor.

[Shady]

I also support an expanded use of nuclear power. Iggy's position is correct.

Unfortunately, it's the waldo-type extremists in his party that he has to worry about.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Shady

[scribblet]

I agree with it, but I thought the next federal election was in 2011 ?

[punked]

Yah that power plant in NB is going so well. It doesn't even work and it cost the tax payers a million dollars a day.

[Topaz]

I agree also and if you remember when McGuinty first elected, the Fed liberals were going to give Ontario money for a new nuclear plant but Harper cancelled it.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yeah sure, like we need another chernobyl. No, make that 5 chernobyls

[Shady]

Yeah sure, like we need another chernobyl. No, make that 5 chernobyls

What an idiotic statement.

[August1991]

A new poster starts a thread to promote Ignatieff, but with confusing content, on a forum in Lethbridge that few English Canadians read.

Either the federal Liberal Party is desperate, or clueless. I'd choose the latter.

Edited September 17, 2010 by August1991

[Shakeyhands]

Either the federal Liberal Party is desperate, or clueless. I'd choose the latter.

The same could be said of the CPC and their inability to gather a majority... The only difference is, the CPC itself has proven they can't.

[Shady]

The same could be said of the CPC and their inability to gather a majority... The only difference is, the CPC itself has proven they can't.

I think voters decide if they want a majority, not the parties.

[charter.rights]

A new poster starts a thread to promote Ignatieff, but with confusing content, on a forum in Lethbridge that few English Canadians read.

Either the federal Liberal Party is desperate, or clueless. I'd choose the latter.

What is really funny is that a discussion forum in Lethbridge where even the CPC can hold a majority of the posters....

[capricorn]

What is really funny is that a discussion forum in Lethbridge where even the CPC can hold a majority of the posters....

Posters as in total number of messages posted or total number of members who are Conservative Party supporters? IMO there is a difference.

[Jack Weber]

Yeah sure, like we need another chernobyl. No, make that 5 chernobyls

Clueless...I work in the power generation industry and the CANDU reactor cannot melt down like the one in Chernobyl...The core is designed to be ejected before a meltdown takes place...

Edited September 17, 2010 by Jack Weber

[segnosaur]

Clueless...I work in the power generation industry and the CANDU reactor cannot melt down like the one in Chernobyl...The core is designed to be ejected before a meltdown taked place...

Actually, there were a lot of problems with Chernobyl... bad reactor design, incompetent personnel, improper oversight. Reactors in the western world are much better designed, and they aren't run by idiots who disable safety systems.

Judging the safety of the CANDU (or any other reactor in Western Europe or North America) according to what happened in Chernobyl is like comparing apples to a dead woodchuck rotting on the pavement.