what is with leftist liberal pussification of human beings. if you don't like survival of the fittest just kill yourself and let the rest of us move on.

stop being a burden on the human race.

5/3/2008 4:41:34 PM

Quote :

"what is with leftist liberal pussification of human beings."

wat

Quote :

"if you don't like survival of the fittest just kill yourself..."

How is that even applicable to anything?


Sadly, it's beyond obvious that you are incapable to engaging in any sort of reasonable dialogue. Perhaps you should take a page from your own book and stop being a burden on the rest of the human race planet.

5/3/2008 4:49:13 PM

^so you are one of those guys that walks to work everyday i see? you don't really mind the gas yet huh? well one day you're going to get out of that apartment with that roommate of yours and get a gf or a job and have to drive places. you'll enjoy it a lil more with lower gas prices.


thx ppl in alaska for starting to drill moar. plz disregard the left wing nuts posting in this thread

5/3/2008 10:01:05 PM

JACK EM UP

I DON'T WANT PLEBIANS ON THE ROAD

5/3/2008 10:48:05 PM

^^ You presume a hell of a lot. I don't walk to work. I don't mind gas prices anymore ever since I switched to a mode of transportation that gets 60mpg despite having to pay for premium. Yes, one day I will move out of an apartment and from roommates but it will also be with my current long-time girlfriend. I work full time 92 miles from my home even though I don't make that commute everyday. So, as with all of your other notions, you are utterly and completely wrong.

As for drilling in Alaska do you just have selective reading comprehension or do you not believe anything that isn't said by Hannity or Rush? It's already been stated multiple times that drilling wouldn't produce results for 10 years at the earliest and is placed on the world market so it isn't like we will suddenly have $1.00 gas. Plus, they don't even know how much oil is even there. It's all speculation. Not worth punching holes in fragile habitat for something that may or may not be there in unknown quantities.

[Edited on May 3, 2008 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2008 10:55:34 PM

I wonder if anyone else found the humor in Rat's picture of Lando from the previous page in that he was the administrator of a gas mining operation. Oh well. I don't give Rat credit for having the foresight in his posting but rather it is almost hooksaw-esqe in its subtle brilliance.

5/4/2008 1:59:10 AM

^lol

ty, i'm glad somebody got that reference.

5/4/2008 4:09:16 PM

I'm not enough of a Star Wars buff to pick up on that so quickly

5/4/2008 11:19:05 PM

Quote :

"Not worth punching holes in fragile habitat for something that may or may not be there in unknown quantities."

Fuck that fragile habitat. Not sure about you but I plan on being alive in 10 years so if it helps by then, let's do it. There is so much land in Alaska the caribou could move to it is not funny. You should go there sometime. It is like being on another planet.

5/6/2008 2:47:20 AM

Quote :

"Fuck that fragile habitat."

5/6/2008 4:13:53 PM

Quote :

"Fuck that fragile habitat......You should go there sometime. It is like being on another planet."

So since you have seen Alaska in all its glory you no longer care if its drilled and raped? No concern for preservation for future generations, all about the now (or 10 years from now).

5/6/2008 4:21:10 PM

Considering the area affected would be less than a 1/10th of 1% of Alaska I don't have a problem with drilling ANWR.

I've got to fill up after work today, NOT looking forward to this

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 4:57 PM. Reason : haven't filled up in 2 wks]

5/6/2008 4:57:23 PM

I swear, to god, everybody has lost their fucking mind.

To all ye hippys - from your fellow tree loving libertarian -
First, clue in okay? Needlessly destroying habitat = bad. Banning refineries and improvements because of your PETA/ELF nutjobs = bad. If we could build refineries out of 2008 technology, not 1970 technology, we'd be better off - in more ways than just financially. Also - I think you've missed a great big damn point. You're very long term view, others are short term view only - you need to look at both. It took decades to get us into this mess, it will take decades to get us out. Compromise a little. People aren't going to listen to your tree-hugging speeches while they're concerned with making sure they can afford to go to work to feed their kids. The more extreeme you are, the less likely people want to work with you at all. And to whoever said tax gas more- go jump. Off a cliff. Immediately. If our government isn't responsible with $5 what makes you think they'd be responsible with $10? Illogic to an extreeme. Stop having a shit fit about ANWR when there are WAY more harmful and ecologically screwed-up things to go address. Probably within 30 miles of where you live.
(I do admit I made up the 30 miles off the top of my head, but I think it's pretty valid)

To all ye crazy lets go drill all the oil -
Listen to the less radical hippies a bit. The country IS broken, the way we drive and do things here DOESN"T work, and it needs to change. And drilling/refining all the oil in the world is NOT going to change the shitty value of the dollar (long term or directly anywyas), is NOT going to fix a government who spends too much, and is NOT going to fix things permanently. We need to plan our cities better, and start planning now to try and improve things. And get the fucktards out of our local governments (and the national) and put people in who will DO these things. And i'm not talking party lines here, mkay? If the hippies are long view, you are short view only. We get to live in this mess, because it's the only place we've got. We really dont need SUVs with one person in them driving everywhere, we really don't need eleventy billion streetlights on everywhere at night. We really DONT need a lot of things.

And before somebody rails me, yes i'm guilty of a lot myself too, I won't deny that fact. But I swear all i hear on both sides of this argument are total fucking extreemes.
If you ask me we ought to -

Drill ANWR and build new refineries, that are safer and cleaner than what we have now so we can shut down or renovate the older ones.
Rely more on US oil than foreign. (What, like the middle east is more environmentally minded than us? Get fucking real. Moving the problem from here to there doesn't solve it!)
Take some of that extra internal revenue and throw it at finding better energy solutions to our issues.
Kick out all the spend thrifts in the government. and trash a lot of red tape that costs us money. Sure it was to prevent corruption, but things are pretty corrupt anyways. They're just corrupt and expensive now in addition.
Start planning our cities and future around the way things are going to be, not the way things have been, and are starting to fall apart.

But i'm tired and probably crazy and i suspect nobody's going to agree with me anyways. </rant>


[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 11:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2008 11:25:36 PM

^I'd like to add one more: put more money into R&D on how to efficiently (and with minimal impact to the environment) use our coal resources to produce more power. I mean sweet Jesus we have the majority of the world's coal, lest anyone forget.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 1:27 AM. Reason : k]

5/7/2008 1:27:12 AM

Quote :

"Start planning our cities and future around the way things are going to be, not the way things have been, and are starting to fall apart."

And how will things be in the future? I ask, because I simply do not know. Try to think back to an earlier time in history and think what they should have thought the future would be. In 1968 gasoline was absurdly cheap, U.S. oil companies were going bankrupt, and everyone bought two-ton cars with monster V8s. By 1979 everyone, including the President, knew for sure oil was a bygone fuel and basing our economy on it would be stupid. By 1986 all such talk was gone. In 1998 everyone, including the President, knew for sure oil was plentiful and that oil companies should have known better than to flood the market with more fuel than anyone could burn. Now the year is 2008 and you say basing our economy on oil is obviously stupid because there isn't enough to go around. Well, I am not convinced. I know of no way of predicting the future.

Every cycle those that predict "cheap oil" or "peak oil" are made to be fools. The only people that have been proven right consistently are those that say "markets are irrational, the cycle will turn sooner or later and another round of 'futurists' will again be wrong."

5/7/2008 11:13:05 PM

This thread is so 1973.

5/8/2008 1:09:38 AM

^^All city planning is based on the future. I think you are being obtuse on purpose here.

5/8/2008 9:46:02 AM

It is. And because I do not know what the future will be, putting off widenning a highway because of peak oil would be stupid. In ten years when rush-hour on I-40 is not just two hours a day but 12 hours a day I could say I told you so.

5/8/2008 11:29:10 AM

they aren't putting off highway widening. What they are doing is investing more in mass transit. Something we will need in order to continue growing.

5/8/2008 11:44:31 AM

more trains and metros

ftw

5/8/2008 11:49:42 AM

In a city that has already been built around the car, to build otherwise is folly. You would get far more bang for the bucks spent simply expanding the existing over-crowded road network. Your suggestion is akin to what New York did during the 50s and 60s. It halted rail expansions, drove up regulations and restrictions to the point of bankrupting the private rail operators, shut down lines, and then ran the remaining network into the ground when it took them over. Then, through zoning and rent controls the city halted the upward growth of the urban landscape, forcing people to move out of the city and commute to find living space. Meanwhile, it spent untold sums of money building public parking spaces, garages, ripping up sidewalks to widen streets, and eminent domained whole neighborhoods to build highways through and around the city.

That was folly, and by the 1980s New York enjoyed two commute oriented systems, both rail and road, neither of which worked very well.

Well, why does everyone want to do the same in Raleigh? We have a network; our parents have in effect painted us into a corner. Yes, we can rebuild the city of Raleigh from the ground up; but the cost of doing so will provide no benefit whatsoever for many decades, if ever; and until we get there the people of Raleigh would suffer immensely from high taxes, heavy conjestion, and continuous construction.

5/8/2008 2:29:23 PM

You cannot continually expand roads. There is a break along the way. and to somehow suggest that it would be impossible to have a decent public transportation system in Raleigh and can cut down on congestion is complete nonsense.

I know you have a hard-on for oil, but at least be rational.

5/8/2008 2:38:00 PM

I'm sorry you don't have a working understanding of transportation systems. To suggest the only way to increase road capacity is to expand existing roads is just ignorant. I suggest you actually investigate how cities based around the automobile with competent city planners actually operate as they exceed a million in population.

I know you have a hard-on for mass transit, but try not to be blinded by a lack of knowledge.

5/8/2008 4:50:08 PM

As a conservative that doesn't have a hard on for oil, I call for the following to fix gas prices:

1. All new road vehicles must have hybrid engines with approx 40mpg+ efficiency starting 2010
2. Quadruple the number of nuclear power plants in the united states
3. Build railroads or metro equivalents wherever there are highways or interstates in the united states with parking decks at trainstops to keep car traffic at a minimum in cities like Raleigh.

for example.. you want to go to Durham from Garner?... expect to drive to a parking deck near your house, or walk to the nearest station. pay $1 for roundtrip to durham and back. that's less than the gas you would pay for anyways, unless you have a good hybrid. if you want to drive, then drive your old nasty car and pay $8 gas. you should expect to have to walk or have your friend pick you up at the other end of the trip. this will discourage driving hopefully and get people in good shape at the same time. commuter rails ftw.

4. And now my radical idea: I would compensate the hell out of that fag from venezuela and con some oil out of him for the short term from that little shit head. lol. i know. how? easy, offer him some incentives; he opens borders; we move in and get oil and delay payment of goods. be little bitches to him for a while and say he has to tell tehran iran to stop building nukes or we keep taking oil. lol. i know, it's aweful, but it's how the rest of the world plays these days

5/8/2008 5:07:21 PM

I agree with everything Rat said except #1.

Private companies shouldn't be FORCED to change anything. The market given the conditions should be allowed to change naturally. If i want to spend $100/week on gas to fill up my gas guzzling SUV then i should be able to.

5/8/2008 5:19:00 PM

Quote :

"1. All new road vehicles must have hybrid engines with approx 40mpg+ efficiency starting 2010"

Why the emphasis on hybrid engines? If a car gets 40mpg+ (a lot of new diesels do), what difference does it make if it's hybrid or not? Regulation is one thing, mandating that a particular technology be used is another.

5/8/2008 5:19:24 PM

Quote :

"You cannot continually expand roads. "

Why not? The DOT does it all the time. As soon as they finish their 8 year widening project, they come back and start another one when they realize just as soon as they finished the project, its already at capacity again.

5/8/2008 5:35:32 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry you don't have a working understanding of transportation systems. To suggest the only way to increase road capacity is to expand existing roads is just ignorant. I suggest you actually investigate how cities based around the automobile with competent city planners actually operate as they exceed a million in population. I know you have a hard-on for mass transit, but try not to be blinded by a lack of knowledge."

mass transit and automobile based cities are not mutually exclusive. for some reason you discredit any idea that proposes removing people from oil. What the fuck is your deal?

5/8/2008 5:42:50 PM

yeah update to my plan on #1

#1 should read: all new cars must be 40mpg+ coming off the assembly line in 2010. if the car can't get 40+ there's going to be a tax on it like a cigarrette tax.

edit: after further review i see your points

updated #1 = forget about forcing cars to get certain mileages. but there should be tax incentives and tax breaks for those that have 30mpg and even more for 40mpg and so on up the line

but if you are below 30mpg you get a tax, the lower your mpgs, the higher the tax rate.

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/8/2008 5:56:26 PM

Quote :

"1. All new road vehicles must have hybrid engines with approx 40mpg+ efficiency starting 2010"

Your goal of 2010 is laughable at best, plus I agree with HUR as far as not forcing them to do anything. I mean you ARE aware that there are already 2009 model year cars being sold

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 5:57 PM. Reason : k]

5/8/2008 5:56:57 PM

^^ thats more realistic but i'd probably go 30mpg for 2010 and 40 mpg further down. OR we could reward those who purchase cars that have a EPA 40+ mpg with a tax credit to encourage positive behavior instead of punishing those who do not conform.

5/8/2008 5:59:12 PM

Quote :

"1. All new road vehicles must have hybrid engines with approx 40mpg+ efficiency starting 2010"

It has been argued that hybrid engines consume more fuel (not just energy) over the life of the vehicle due to the current mining techniques used to produce the batteries.

The rest of your statements warrant the same complaint: Who is going to pay for it? Who is going to own it? Laying track is not free; for the same money you can build two track lanes or a four lane highway. Your suggestion is akin to suggesting we build the current interstate highway system all over again just for fun.

Quote :

"mass transit and automobile based cities are not mutually exclusive. for some reason you discredit any idea that proposes removing people from oil. What the fuck is your deal?"

Have you ever heard of a network effect? There is a disconnect if your rail network does not go everywhere: those that live near train stations don't work near stations, and those that work near stations do not live near stations.

The complex stuff asside, oil is just another resource. What is your deal that you hate oil so much that you would rather make a city unlivable than maintain oil consuming infrastructure?

If you bothered reading my posts, you would know I have nothing against rail per-se, my objection is with the devastating waste of resources, be it building highways in New York City or building a Metro in Raleigh.

Quote :

"updated #1 = forget about forcing cars to get certain mileages. but there should be tax incentives and tax breaks for those that have 30mpg and even more for 40mpg and so on up the line but if you are below 30mpg you get a tax, the lower your mpgs, the higher the tax rate."

You are taxing individuals which buy a 25mpg vehicle and drive it only on the weekends but not individuals that buy a 30mpg vehicle and drive it 100 miles each way to work. I am sorry, you cannot beat a regular ordinary everyday gas tax of $2 a gallon to curtail long-term consumption.

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 6:14 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/8/2008 6:08:16 PM

Quote :

"Your suggestion is akin to suggesting we build the current interstate highway system all over again just for fun."

that is correct. it would require a massive labour assault. perhaps we could gather up as many illegal aliens or regular americans as possible and offer incentives to help build it.

1. if you help build these rails for a year, you get paid tuition to college, thus getting poor kids out of the ghettos and a job for a year and then some college after they are done working

2. if you are an illegal alien, you can volunteer to work on the rails for free food and lodging for a year, and after your year is done, you are a regular american and you'll be compensated on top of that somehow


in fact i argue to anybody within hearing these words, that it could help every race/culture/nationality on the planet, while at the same time helping mother earth and the US economy while giving us generations of freedom and stability to come.

[no homo]

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/8/2008 6:11:51 PM

Quote :

"f you help build these rails for a year, you get paid tuition to college, thus getting poor kids out of the ghettos and a job for a year and then some college after they are done working"

We already do have something like this. It is called joining the armed forces..........

who am i kidding though it is easier to work hard to become an NBA star; or deal drugs on teh street corner.

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 6:14 PM. Reason : a]

5/8/2008 6:13:47 PM

^some people don't want to have to fight in a war or risk dying. some would be better suited to work on something like a transit system. not everybody knows how to fight a war.

plus unlike the military with the whole don't ask don't tell shit, and all the other political problems it has already, it would be a fresh start. a new system of getting stuff done that could act as a model for the future


in fact the same system could be used for future war cleanups. america could have a rebuilding force that goes in and cleans shit up like after afghanistan and iraq are done. (they will be done fighting one day... i know we can't see the end, but it'll end one day sooner or later, and they'll need to get on their feet again) the system will be set up to help. same goes for israel/palestine, after they have their stupid war to end all wars and the fighting ends, we'll be able to step in a help.. of course for compensation, like resources, or something... idk

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/8/2008 6:16:00 PM

Quote :

"not everybody knows how to fight a war. "

It is called bootcamp.

Yeah though that does sound like a good idea though.

5/8/2008 6:19:40 PM

i just wish we'd have a candidate get dirty in the details of a plan to save the economy. all 3 of them are one and the same IMO on this


same story every day.. blah blah more energy bla bla bla need less dependancy on oil rubish blah blah efficient light bulbs.. etc


just a bunch of horseshit that a 3rd grader could come up with. that's the real reason i want the superdelagates to scare the shit out of obama and hillary, so that they'll be forced to come up with some real plans

5/8/2008 6:21:48 PM

thats politics.

As far as specific plans goes; no matter what you do you are going to piss someone off. Might as well go broad and not rub shoulders.

5/8/2008 6:24:23 PM

Quote :

"i just wish we'd have a candidate get dirty in the details of a plan to save the economy. all 3 of them are one and the same IMO on this"

But we don't need a plan to save the economy. Any such massive plan added to the already long list of massive plans (Ethanol will save us!) will simply make things worse, just as they did during the Great Depression.

5/8/2008 6:30:39 PM

Select Military

Edit..
Copy...
Paste as.... new entity with new objectives.


the money though.. hmm. that's gonna be tough, that's why i say we accept illegals who want citizenship. that would solve the border problem b/c they'd all come to work

the money saved from the economy getting saved would more than pay for any health care plans that presidential candidates are proposing as well.

everybody being in credit card debt and with tons of student loans would be potentially solved too. lots of variables, but this is a rough sketch of an idea i've had for a while... who knows, maybe one day a form of it will come about

5/8/2008 6:32:14 PM

Quote :

"that's why i say we accept illegals who want citizenship. that would solve the border problem b/c they'd all come to work"

I think thats a fucking great idea. If you want to bypass the immigration process then join up and serve for 4 years to EARN your American citizenship. This is what the French Foreign Legion does. Sign up serve your tour of duty honorably and at the end you are given french citizenship.

I believe during teh civil war they pretty much sat at the dock in NYC and while not forcing irish immigrants they did trick a large number to sign up and fight for the union.

Quote :

" everybody being in credit card debt and with tons of student loans would be potentially solved too. "

They actually already offer this. I can not even count the number of phone calls/emails i have received from recruiters highlighting the fact that they repay all my student loan debt if I take a nice vacation to Iraq.

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM. Reason : a]

5/8/2008 6:40:04 PM

Quote :

"I think thats a fucking great idea. If you want to bypass the immigration process then join up and serve for 4 years to EARN your American citizenship."

I think it is seven years if you want citizenship for your family in the old country, but they already do this. Your citizenship is automatic upon signing up for the U.S. military but you must sign on for a minimum tour of duty. Early retirement means no citizenship for your wife, kids, and military prison for you.

5/8/2008 6:48:32 PM

Quote :

"Early retirement means no citizenship for your wife, kids, and military prison for you."

lol. early retirement as in going AWOL???

5/8/2008 6:50:24 PM

Quote :

"f you bothered reading my posts, you would know I have nothing against rail per-se, my objection is with the devastating waste of resources, be it building highways in New York City or building a Metro in Raleigh."

I take it you have never been out of the south. They are called commuter lots, etc. No one is proposing we build a huge subway system like New York. If you pulled your head out of your ass for a second, you'd see that.

5/8/2008 8:53:48 PM

And if you pulled your head out of your ass for a second you would realize that commuter lots only work in cities that have failed to maintain road capacity. Afterall, you are on the highway going 70mph, take the off-ramp, park, pay the fees, and then wait for a train which is going to travel, on average, 25mph. People would engage in this behavior if, and only if, the highway is averaging less than 25mph and only then if they are lucky enough for their employer to be near a station. As such, instead of 100% of us getting to work at 50mph thanks to sufficient road capacity, your rail will leave 95% of the people on the road trapped in traffic averaging 20mph or less because the city decided instead to build a metro and parking lot so 5% of us can get to work at 25mph.

If you were planning to build a massive system as exists in New York then at least your efforts would pay off eventually. But, building a small system is worse: not only did you waste money in the short term, but the system will be a waste in the long term too.

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 9:17 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/8/2008 9:16:09 PM

^my thoughts exactly.

5/9/2008 12:19:04 AM

I swear to god, lonesnark, fixates on one word and assumes that is where the argument ends.

If Raleigh gets to such a point that commuter lots are necessity, no one will be whipping around the interstate at 70 mph. It will be nothing more than a slow crawl. Likewise, the majority of commuter lots are FREE.

There are many facets to integrating mass transportation in a city. Furthermore, Commuter lots and commuter trains are not the end to public transportation. To suggest so is completely asinine and show your bias.

At the end of the day, highway capacity is extremely limited. Infinite expansion does not work, will not work, and is too expensive. Even if the highway has been expanded to all availablity, the cars do not park on the highways, businesses are not on the highways. The amount of highway expansion that is feasible is strictly limited to the surface streets of a city where people work.

[Edited on May 9, 2008 at 9:52 AM. Reason : .]

5/9/2008 9:50:43 AM

bush is gonna meet with the saudi king later this week...thats like the 4th time in the past 3 or 4 months him or cheney has gone....they will probably smile and shake hands and the king will probably tell bush to go fuck himself

5/13/2008 5:53:41 AM

that sounds about right

5/13/2008 6:44:58 AM

^^It's a cultural thing. The Saudis like to conduct business in person when they're handing over that kind of cash.

5/13/2008 7:37:13 AM