Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Keep telling that to yourself. Maybe you'd sound more believable if you didn't try to defend Bush's bailout and nationalization spree all the time by trying to make it sound like it never happened. It happend, get used to it. And unfortunately Obama is continuing the same policy. If you want to oppose such policies, then be consistent about it. The more you talk, the more you sound like those who backed them under Bush and now oppose them under Obama.
Your a prime example as to whats wrong with liberals. You think you know what everyone else thinks, and when questioned, your response is always, "I just know you said it"..
Obama did not continue Bushs policies, he took them to the next level, if your to ignorant to understand the difference, and to ignorant to listen to people tell you exactly how they were taken to the next level, especially to ignorant to listen from soemone who did not agree with the step that even Bush took, then I dont know what to tell you. You can go through life being ignorant, or you can listen to how others feel and want to discuss it. No one is going to take "your word" for what others said, especially when your accusing that other individual of saying something they didnt say.
Your a prime example as to whats wrong with liberals. You think you know what everyone else thinks, and when questioned, your response is always, "I just know you said it"..
I am not a liberal, and I don't have to say something about you when everyone can read for themselves right on this very thread what you said. You keep downplaying and defending Bush's socialist rampage, and that, my friend, makes you a socialist supporter. But since you clearly did not understand what Bush did to AIG, Fannie, Freddie or a slew of other banks, I can see why you are confused about these things. You might honestly believe what you say, but based on your comments you simply do not have your facts straight. In other words: you've been had.
I am not a liberal, and I don't have to say something about you when everyone can read for themselves right on this very thread what you said. You keep downplaying and defending Bush's socialist rampage, and that, my friend, makes you a socialist supporter. But since you clearly did not understand what Bush did to AIG, Fannie, Freddie or a slew of other banks, I can see why you are confused about these things. You might honestly believe what you say, but based on your comments you simply do not have your facts straight. In other words: you've been had.
And every single person here knows dam well I NEVER supported the government taking over ANYTHING.. PERIOD.
But you just sit here and keep pretending you know what I or any other conservative said a year ago, and keep accusing us of saying something we didnt say and when asked to prove it, you could easily do a search but you refuse to. Your stupid accusation and non stop ranting about what someone didnt say, reminds me of the fact you admitted to being a pedophile and rapist.. I know you said it, I just know you did.. Now you prove you didnt..
The fact that Obama and Bush are both wrong, does not mean that Obama was not more wrong than Bush.. PERIOD. There is a difference between loaning money, and buying up ownership.. PERIOD. Keep responding and ignoring this facts. I'll now let you have the last word because EVERYONE here knows where I've stood on this issue from day one, they just arent as foolish as you to make a blanket statement about a total stranger without any such evidence backing it up.
But you just sit here and keep pretending you know what I or any other conservative said a year ago.
I didn't say YOU had said anything. However, based on the comments you made later I begun to suspect you may have been one of them. Why else would you downplay and defend Bush's socialist agenda while attacking Obama for doing the exact same things? But if you say you didn't support it, then so be it. I do not list posters names here because only an a-hole would embarrass fellow posters by listing their names for something they said last year. I don't blame them. They should be embarrassed, but often times people simply go with the flow and whatever their party says and does is always right. If you don't believe there were such posters, then that's too bad. I listed the names of Republican senators who supported socialism last year, and oppose it now. If you think there were dozens of Republicans/conservatives in senate and a helluva lot more in the house who acted that way, but there are no such people here on the boards, then that is your opinion and so be it.
Keep telling that to yourself. Maybe you'd sound more believable if you didn't try to defend Bush's bailout and nationalization spree all the time by trying to make it sound like it never happened. It happend, get used to it. And unfortunately Obama is continuing the same policy. If you want to oppose such policies, then be consistent about it. The more you talk, the more you sound like those who backed them under Bush and now oppose them under Obama.
I'm one of those (conservative leaning middle of the road) that was originally in favor of what they were doing. In the begining after listening to 'em it seemed logical but as time went on and more info became available I went from "we have to do this" to "oh my god, what have we done and this can't continue".
Obama AND Bush were together in this, Obama's finance crisis team was in place and working in early November with the outgoing admin, (remember the 2 presidents at one time conversations?). Information shapes opinions and the more one learns in this particular subject the more likely one could have several changes of opinion. This doesn't make them a hypocrite or a liar or anything other than someone who after getting more info realizes they need to adjust their conclusions.
Isn't that what's supposed to happen?
I'm one of those (conservative leaning middle of the road) that was originally in favor of what they were doing. In the begining after listening to 'em it seemed logical but as time went on and more info became available I went from "we have to do this" to "oh my god, what have we done and this can't continue".
Obama AND Bush were together in this, Obama's finance crisis team was in place and working in early November with the outgoing admin, (remember the 2 presidents at one time conversations?). Information shapes opinions and the more one learns in this particular subject the more likely one could have several changes of opinion. This doesn't make them a hypocrite or a liar or anything other than someone who after getting more info realizes they need to adjust their conclusions.
Isn't that what's supposed to happen?
No, it doesn't make them hypocrites and liers. Everyone has a right to change their minds. The truth is that the "sky is falling" propaganda back then was so thick that most people did indeed think that everything that was being done was necessary.
It in an ancient trick of the Fed to send their man to Congress to deliver such sky-is-falling scenario. This time, however, they sensed the weakest link was not the Congress but the White House, so the Fed struck there. Paulson was in the game and soon Bush was too, and with him McCain and many other Republicans gathered around the table to "save the economy". You don't have to twist the Dems arms to get them on board, so that was an automatic. So, it was done and Fed member banks got what they wanted, while others were seized. AIG, fannie and freddie are now government property. Nothing new under the sun. This has been done dozens and dozens of times in the past, only now the figures are much bigger.
History repeats itself:
Ecclesiastes 1:9: What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
However, like Pghquest points out, and I have also been 'preaching' on other threads the situation is dire, but not as dire as many think. Most of the money was indeed 'lent' and not 'spent' and there is a world of a difference between the two. When money is 'lent' it is designed to come back. When money is 'spent' like it will be in so called shovel ready projects, it will not come back. Over 90% of the money requested by Bush/Obama duo was indeed 'lent' and not 'spent', so it should come back and hopefully eliminated by the Fed.
Though it is painful to those who depend on the automobile industry for their livelihood, it will be more painful if we continue to subsidize it.
Things we know or expect to happen:
[A] Fossil fuels will cease being cheap and / or plentiful.
[b] Energy derived from non-fossil fuel sources is still more expensive. But that may change as [A] gets worse. But at least sustainable sources of energy won't suddenly run out.
[C] The most viable sustainable form of energy is electricity - derived from solar, wind, water, and so on.
[D] The most energy efficient form of land transport is steel wheel on steel rail (low coefficient of rolling resistance).
Internal combustion engines, on average, only use 25% of the energy of their fuel to move. The remainder is lost as waste heat. (Yipes!). Even vaunted hybrid electric vehicles are still energy wasters. To compound matters, stop - and - go travel wastes energy via braking (heat) and acceleration.
Won't the 35.5 MPH goal save us?
NO
We know there are six principles for efficient surface transport:
a) reduce the frontal area per person;
b) reduce the vehicle’s weight per person;
c) when traveling, go at a steady speed and avoid using brakes;
d) travel more slowly;
e) travel less; and
f) make the energy chain more efficient.
An electric powered train / tram / streetcar meets a, b, c (*regenerative braking recovers energy), and f. And we'd rather be able to ignore d and e.
An electric traction motor efficiency is between 85 - 95% (depending on configuration, etc), in contrast with Internal combustion engines (roughly from 25% otto cycle to 50% diesel cycle). In addition, electric powered vehicles do not need to carry their fuel, saving on weight.
On average, rail has a 20:1 efficiency advantage in energy consumption per passenger / mile. That means our finite supply of energy, from whatever source, will provide 20 times as much benefit if we use it for railways.
In short, we need to acknowledge that electric rail is our only viable alternative to deal with the demise of the Age of Oil.
Let's get America back on track - GO RAIL!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let gm die!
