Jump to content

EU PLANS TO TAKE OVER ENTIRE UK ARMED FORCES.


Phil Perry
 Share

Recommended Posts

 That's the usual line Yenn.  STOP reading the Courier Mail.  It has a monopoly (up there) on CRAP..What's the point of a few jobs for a short time when you throw away your place as somewhere you can and want to live in and the long term "real" jobs are going to disappear when there's no water you can drink or irrigate with, more violent storms,  a disappearing reef with runoff and heat , fires and humidity increasing  repeated damage bills from more violent Cyclones that WE ALL pay for in or premiums.

 

     Victoria  closed the cheapest producing but one of the dirtiest Brown coal fired Power Stations in the world, Hazelwood, because it was the RIGHT thing to do. .THAT should have been applauded and celebrated by any thinking person in Australia.  Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wonder how politicians all over the world appear to care very little about the people they are supposed to represent. We seem to be run by greenies and do gooders who never think anything through.

 

 I am always bemused by the term "do gooder"  What is wrong with doing good?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

substitute tree huggers, the current batch of greenie politicians and people with degrees in humanities, welfare and psychology with no life exterience for the term do-gooder and you might get the point.   It isnt the intelligent, well reasoned do gooding thats the problem its the mindless, knee jerk do gooding thats the problem

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It isnt the intelligent, well reasoned do gooding thats the problem its the mindless, knee jerk do gooding thats the problem

 

I would agree that "doing good" should be evidence based. All too often people confuse their gut feeling with what the evidence suggests.  It is all too easy to cherry pick evidence that supports what we want to believe.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that the definition of a do gooder is determined by the beliefs of person making the judgement.  The term is often used as an alternative to a rational fact based critique.   I give a small monthly donation to .a charity that helps educate people in third poor countries and contributes to projects that help provide clean water etc.  Am I one of those nasty "do gooders"?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DISGUSTING  !! -- on so many fronts.

 

The plans which are already agreed in the EU PLUS some well known British Scumbags, in the event that the UK does NOT achieve a clean break from the EU.

 

https://www.ukcolumn.org/ar...

 

Meanwhile Phil, back on topic. Didn't see anything in his speech that would warrant trying to muzzle him. Maybe they should do like us and have an elected Senate and kick those titled bums out. Lords, my arse. What a bunch of useless drongos.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that the definition of a do gooder is determined by the beliefs of person making the judgement.  The term is often used as an alternative to a rational fact based critique.   I give a small monthly donation to .a charity that helps educate people in third poor countries and contributes to projects that help provide clean water etc.  Am I one of those nasty "do gooders"?

 

I think you'll be ok, Octave. Doesn't sound like any knee jerking there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile Phil, back on topic. Didn't see anything in his speech that would warrant trying to muzzle him. Maybe they should do like us and have an elected Senate and kick those titled bums out. Lords, my arse. What a bunch of useless drongos.

 

Everything the noble lord (!) said, is already out in the public domain Willie. . .but 'Other' noble lords are stating that he is in breach of the OSA and should be visited by the police.    It may well be in the public domain, but none of our media will mention it.   When a serving Deputy Prime Minister ( Nick Clegg ) in the David Cameron cabinet lies to the public by calling the idea of an 'EU Army'  a Dangerous 'FANTASY' when it was actually happening with their knowledge, then who can we believe . .( rhet )

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EU is nothing but a faint hope, and a declaration of aspirations without some means of  maintaining order in it's own right. Trump laughs at an EU with no "marines or RED buttons". No MIGHT NO RIGHTS. . I can't see why the proposal is so "OUTRAGEOUS". NATO used to be IT. and you could fight within NATO or the UN without renouncing the Queen. To me that just seems like a beat up. Completely.

 

  AS far as having members of the Parliament in a House of LORDS when are the Brits going to get over the class system and elect and reward people on MERIT not by right of birth?  Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when are the Brits going to get over the class system and elect and reward people on MERIT not by right of birth? 

 

And you think those elected to our Senate ( = House of Lords) are any better than those hereditary Lords, or those raised to the position at the behest of the Prime Minister in the Commons?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By do gooders I was meaning those who push a barrow without knowing what is in it. For example there are a load of people saying we should eat beans rather than beef. I just wonder how eating beans will reduce the methane or other greenhouse gases. To grow beans you have to plant, them water them, harvest and then transport and mill them. To eat beef, you put cattle out on the dry country where I live, they water themselves in water holes or dams, eat the dry cellulose that grows, then you ship them off to an abbatoir. Much less use of fossil fuels and fertilisers, but I suppoe the downside is that it is less labour intensive.

 

Basicly they are people who believe any sort of bullshit poked out by greenies.

 

Nev. I never read the Courier Mail, otherwise I agree with you wholeheartedly. Hazlewood always appalled me with its pollution, but so did most other power stations. I did spend over a decade working on those places, building chimneys designed to spread the pollution further away, so that it wasn't so obvious.

 

I was talking to someone the other day who reckoned Calcap power station, built in the sixties was a very low producer of carbon dioxide, he installed the gear to collect it. Now of courst it is closed and Callide has taken over the pollution.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By do gooders I was meaning those who push a barrow without knowing what is in it. For example there are a load of people saying we should eat beans rather than beef. I just wonder how eating beans will reduce the methane or other greenhouse gases. To grow beans you have to plant, them water them, harvest and then transport and mill them. To eat beef, you put cattle out on the dry country where I live, they water themselves in water holes or dams, eat the dry cellulose that grows, then you ship them off to an abbatoir. Much less use of fossil fuels and fertilisers, but I suppoe the downside is that it is less labour intensive.

 

Basicly they are people who believe any sort of bullshit poked out by greenies.

 

Nev. I never read the Courier Mail, otherwise I agree with you wholeheartedly. Hazlewood always appalled me with its pollution, but so did most other power stations. I did spend over a decade working on those places, building chimneys designed to spread the pollution further away, so that it wasn't so obvious.

 

I was talking to someone the other day who reckoned Calcap power station, built in the sixties was a very low producer of carbon dioxide, he installed the gear to collect it. Now of courst it is closed and Callide has taken over the pollution.

 

 

 

I am not convinced that is correct re beans and cattle but of course the  only rational way to know is to examine the hard evidence. I am wondering what information you used to come to these conclusions?  By the way I dont give  a toss what others eat. I am  not in a position until later today to check the facts and figures  but I would be willing  bet a reasonable  sum of money that it takes more water to produce  kg of beef compared to a kg of vegetables. But again evidence and data is the only way to know.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re beef,  

 

We should remember that some of the biggest producers use feedlots to feed cattle. This is a huge polluter by growing crops to feed to cattle. About as energy intense and water intense as is possible.

 

I love beef but I needs to be farmed correctly. And no that does not mean cutting forests down for grazing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trees are special. Without them it gets hotter (locally) you get more salt rising and they MAKE OXYGEN and WOOD from Carbon dioxide and lovely critters live in them. All we seem to do is bulldoze them and burn the residue and  we get weeds and erosion.. 2/3rds of our agriculture is exported and we are short of WATER. We are losing arable land fast. We have little topsoil and almost no soil carbon, and still get duststorms because we pulverise the soil.. DUMB and grreedy. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am not convinced that is correct re beans and cattle but of course the  only rational way to know is to examine the hard evidence. I am wondering what information you used to come to these conclusions?  By the way I dont give  a toss what others eat. I am  not in a position until later today to check the facts and figures  but I would be willing  bet a reasonable  sum of money that it takes more water to produce  kg of beef compared to a kg of vegetables. But again evidence and data is the only way to know.

 

It wouldn't be an easy job to break down all the comparative figures. A starting point would be to calculate the tonnage of beans required to replace the tonnage of beef consumed. Then the land required for the beans, plus the fuel, fertilizer, herbicide, insecticide, water , transport, storage, processing and the impact of those inputs.

 

Then there's the beef. For sure grass fed beef would have the lowest impact of bean crops, lot fed beef and grass fed beef. Grass fed beef still needs to be in good condition to economically process into meat. In a good season, grass fed properties of the right type can turn off prime cattle ready for the slaughterhouse. But I think most grass fed properties in Australia turn off store cattle which then go on to feedlots or fattening properties that grow pasture, sometimes with irrigation etc.. So back to square one. I'd hazard a guess and say that the amount of natural grass fed beef in Australia that goes direct from paddock to slaughterhouse would be a lot smaller than the amount coming from feedlots or improved fattening properties.

 

If that's the case, the comparison would basically be between lot fed/ intensively fattened beef and growing bean crops. Bearing in mind also that Yenn was talking the total package of inputs and not just water. One figure I've read is that lot fed beef is 40% of our beef produced. So the other 60% would be split between relatively clean, green grass fed properties that have good enough feed to turn off fat cattle, and those that fatten the cattle by growing crops and/or pasture with or without irrigation. Irrigation or not, they would still have a lot more inputs than a straight grass fed property.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

where I live we can raise grass fed beef using the water that falls on the land and what is collected in dams and creeks. There is no way I could grow a vegetable crop, without having to increase the water supply. I would also have much more carbon emissions from the tilling, harvesting and transportation of the crop, plus where would the labour come from.

 

It may be a different matter on the Darling Downs, or down South, but land here is not suited to growing crops . If the tree huggers have their way cattle would be banned, also sheep. I suppose wild pigs would flourish and hide in the lantana and other weeds that would take over. The tree huggers wouldn't even let us shoot the wild pigs.

 

Notice do gooders have been elevated to tree huggers.

 

Until you try grass fed beef, you are missing out, it is so much better in flavour.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's the way they chew and digest their food isn't it, that produces methane (not from Pharting, but belching) which is about a 20x worse greenhouse gas than CO2?  Nev

 

I think that's right Nev. When they ruminate/chew their cud. I guess you wouldn't know it's happening because as far as I know, methane is colourless and odourless. Natural gas (NG) is usually methane, as opposed to LNG which is usually propane or butane. If you had natural gas powering turbines like in Europe, the end product after use would be a fair bit of CO2 (?), but the cow effect would be like venting the raw gas to atmosphere.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...