What would the founding fathers think about this.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

I have better things to do than respond to that bunch of nonsense. Have a nice day.

LOL!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
After all, the economy is rocking, we won the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are well ahead of any timetable for establishing the new democracies in those countries

Sorry, I just cannot resist this any longer.

Economy is rocking? We WON the wars?

You've GOT TO BE KIDDING!!

I must be listening to the wrong radio stations, seeing the wrong tv stations, and reading the wrong newspapers.

So you want documentation about the democrats "smear" campaign? How about documenting your rather imaginative statements?!

Let me guess: You listen to Air America and NPR, you watch CNN/CBS/Bill Moyers/Chris Mathews, and you read New York Times/Washington Post/LA Times/or any Knight-Ridder/Tribune media owned papers. Geez, if I was as immersed in that culture of negativity I'd be as despondent as you.

Economic growth - 3.4%
U.S. productivity - 4.1%
Unemployment - under 5.0%

Given the hits from oil prices and the Hurricanes, it is remarkable that the Bush Administration has kept this economy on course. You may hate Bush, you may even be one of these self-debasing "Hate America First" types, but if you want any credibility you have to admit that Bush has done the job.

Of course, it's always possible that folks like you will somehow manage to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, should you all regain power in 2006. It shouldn't suprise anyone that the terrorists (you know, those sub-humans that you call "insurgents") are reading and listening to the same media that you read and listen to, because after a hard day of performing the acts of a dead-ender, they can always get themselves re-energized by accessing the mainstream US media.

It's no wonder soldiers come back from Iraq shocked at what they see and hear in the US media. For you see, from their perspective, the work they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a great success, as they work to rebuild those nations while taking potshots from your "insurgent" buddies. It's too bad people like you continue to stab them in the back by undermining their accomplishments.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Well I had a fun day visiting a couple of model railroads and a hobby store, then went out for pizza and a few rounds of darts at Big Girl's sisters house. I told you I had better things to do. I see you are right where I left you.

I didn't think you neocons smoked that stuff.

Out of curiosity, where did you get those rose colored glasses, and do they come in perscription?

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
As I recall from about eight pages of ranting ago, the question was what would the founding fathers think of HSR. I've read three biographies of Washington in the past year or so and been to his home. I learned that a young George Washington was a surveyor who went to the west to work. There, he saw the future in westward expansion. George was quite an astute economist without portfolio. He saw that the Virginia plantation system was a terrible economic model because the planter transported his crops by ship to England, sold them at wholesale and had his agent buy for him his necessities at retail and have them shipped back to America, again paying shipping. Many of the tidewater planters only kept their estates until their debts were called in and the estates sold at auction.
If you go to Mount Vernon, you'll be taken by the docent into the formal dining room. She'll ask you about the three paintings on the wall of the Ohio River. The answer is that they are there to establish a dialogue with his endless stream of visitors on the merits of the west and the possibilities of shipping by river, which at that time represented the fastest and most cost effective means of transportation. Even as a young man, Washington had a shrewd grasp on what the American colonies could do if they were not the lacky of England, which saw its colonies as a cash cow.
As commander in chief of the colonial army, Washington had an incredible view of the states' lack of funding for the army and said in his letters to all that the new nation needed more power for its central government if they were to accomplish anything as a country.
After the war was won, Washington saw the Potomac River as the basis for a river transportation system with the interior of the country. He and his Virginia friends realized the need to get and give cooperation with other states in order to make the plan work. So they organized a get together of delegates from the affected states. That meeting evolved into the First Continental Congress. So if George Washington and the other leaders of our new nation had not realized the importance of good transportation, we might have never made it as a country.
As a young colonial officer in the service of the British army, Washington met with mainly failure. Despite that, he was given command of the Amerian army. There, he tried to use Briti***actics and our army lost battle after battle. Then he realized we needed to do things differently; he learned not to put all our eggs in one basket, a plan B, if you will. That might turn into having more than one form of public transportation, the airplane. Whether HSR would be his second choice, I don't know. But I do think that, given the facts and the history of passenger rail transportation, he'd vote for governmental ownership.
Personally, I'd rather have that incredible amount of money for dedicated passenger lines spent on upgrading all potential passenger rail lines to 79 or 89 mph. This would improve freight movements and make the freight railroads, which hate passenger rail more than the highway lobby, take a different look at passenger trains.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[Anonymous]

Jock,

A very interesting viewpoint. I think maybe the founders would have gone for government funding, considering it as a public transportation idea, but certainly not government control; even the freeways and roads are kept up by the state. As Thomas Jefferson said.
If we were directed from Washington when to sow and reap, we should soon want bread."

Dave,

I was talking to a friend of mine about your idea of using the freeway medians as a ROW. He thought this was a splendid idea, if it had been done when the freeways were being built. So you aren’t crazy (well maybe).[swg]

[daveklepper]

Again, a reminder that evacuation is a transportation matter and that Mineta did nothing until after the flood. Each of you does have one congressman and two senators.

[Modelcar]

....And I'm one who has been in contact with my two Senators. It would be a lost cause to do the same with my Representative.

[Anonymous]

Hey, I am going to have to stand up for Amtrak hear, it ain't Mineta’s fault. An Amtrak train was to be moved north just before the hurricane hit, Amtrak wanted to pack people on that train. But somebody wouldn't let them, who do you suppose could be that incompetent, here's a hint it wasn’t Mineta.






The Mayor of New Orleans, Mr. Ray Nagin.
As for the trains, the Times Picayune reported that Amtrak called the mayor on Friday and offered to evacuate passengers on their Saturday trains hauling equipment to safety. The last train was to leave Saturday night. Nagin declined the offer.
Quoted from: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005417.php

Knowing the truth I am calling my representatives to tell them, to tell Mineta to keep up the good work. This issue is not one of left and right, but one of the truth, if Mineta hadn’t done anything I too would complain, but he did. Mr. Nagin did absolutely nothing, but sit down and cry for the federal government to rescue him.

Since you might like a more reliable source. This is from the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001529_4.html

In fact, while the last regularly scheduled train out of town had left a few hours earlier, Amtrak had decided to run a “dead-head” train that evening to move equipment out of the city. It was headed for high ground in Macomb, Miss., and it had room for several hundred passengers. “We offered the city the opportunity to take evacuees out of harm’s way,” said Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black. “The city declined.”
So the ghost train left New Orleans at 8:30 p.m., with no passengers on board.
So why are we blaming Mineta again?

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098
IF THIS IS BAD YOU ARE A BIG, NO HUGE, NO GIANTIC, NO ENOUROUS, PESITMIST.

er, ah, was that English you were using?

Perhaps when you grow up you will understand things a bit clearer; if not, you will just join the ranks of the followers, believing everything the press tells you, and you will continue to watch Fox for the latest "unbiased" news.

[Anonymous]

Hmm, I did miss a comma. I research everything, I do not simply following anything I hear from anywhere. I occasionally break grammar rules to make a point, I maintain we don't speak English anyways; we speak the much improved version, American.

I maintain it is you who are the sheep, you have no facts, and you simply call me names. You are just copying what you heard on Communist News Network, Communist BS, and Absolute Bull Crud, for those of you in Rio Linda that’s (CNN, CBS, and ABC).

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
[Let me guess: You listen to Air America and NPR, you watch CNN/CBS/Bill Moyers/Chris Mathews, and you read New York Times/Washington Post/LA Times/or any Knight-Ridder/Tribune media owned papers. Geez, if I was as immersed in that culture of negativity I'd be as despondent as you.

Economic growth - 3.4%
U.S. productivity - 4.1%
Unemployment - under 5.0%

Given the hits from oil prices and the Hurricanes, it is remarkable that the Bush Administration has kept this economy on course. You may hate Bush, you may even be one of these self-debasing "Hate America First" types, but if you want any credibility you have to admit that Bush has done the job.

Of course, it's always possible that folks like you will somehow manage to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, should you all regain power in 2006. It shouldn't suprise anyone that the terrorists (you know, those sub-humans that you call "insurgents") are reading and listening to the same media that you read and listen to, because after a hard day of performing the acts of a dead-ender, they can always get themselves re-energized by accessing the mainstream US media.

It's no wonder soldiers come back from Iraq shocked at what they see and hear in the US media. For you see, from their perspective, the work they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a great success, as they work to rebuild those nations while taking potshots from your "insurgent" buddies. It's too bad people like you continue to stab them in the back by undermining their accomplishments.

Actually, I have listened to/read some of the media you mentioned; I also have listened to Fox, ABC, NBC, Reuters, Ap, and others. I, unlike certain others, try to get a variety of viewpoints, in order that I can make my OWN decisions and judgements.

Sure, the economy is great (if you want to make minimun wage at Wal-mart).

Bush has done the job? Which job is that? Subsidies to the oil companies while they reap record profits? Haliburton? Let's not forget the chartered plane supplied by Bush for the evacuation of the Bin Laden family members that were still in the US when 9/11 happened!!!!!! (it was the ONLY plane allowed to be in the air). Or was it how Bush has cut so many benefits from the servicemen/women? Or was it how Bush went AWOL from the cushy military commitment he made to avoid actually having to serve?

My nephew just returned from Iraq; what he is so shocked about is how the media is portraying the conflict. HIS assessment (he was actually serving under fire) is that we are NOT "winning"; and the troops are just trying to stay alive until they are released.

"Defeat from the mouth of victory" Is this in any way similar to dubya on the aircraft carrier announcing "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" (that was about 1500 American deaths ago).

Oh, did i mention that exxon received $2.6 BILLION in SUBSIDIES from the bush administration?
In other words: we as taxpayers gave exxon $2.6 BILLION so that they could go on to have record earnings and record profits.
These subsidies were a part of the energy bill that the oil industry helped write, along with *** cheney(who, surprise surprise, is the former ceo of halliburton, an energy company).

The bush ideology is so f*cking transparent: take money away from people and give it to corporations. tax the poor and subsidize rich corporations.
All of this other right-wing nonsense is just a smokescreen. the bush administration has one goal: funnel taxpayers money to the energy and defense industries.


How about the military records of our elected officials:
Democrats:

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

Republicans -- and these are the guys sending people to war:

* *** Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non- combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit,Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem, " although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Right-Wing Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)

Need I say more?

[Anonymous]

Well you could list the Republican that did serve. You could get some proof for George Bush going AWOL, other than what Dan Rather printed off of Microsoft Word. Maybe we wouldn't need to subsidize the oil companied if we gave them the freedom to drill for oil; I know novel concept. I'll be back.

P.S. I can do more than cut and paste off of Democrat Websites.

[Anonymous]

Why don’t we ask our soldiers in Iraq?
Who do you trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief of the military: George W. Bush or John Kerry? George W. Bush: 69%, or John Kerry: 24%
Or this one:
Do you think John Kerry has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so? Has a clear plan: 16%, Does not have a clear plan: 74%

[zardoz]

I'm confident that most republicans did serve, as well as that there are Democrats that did not serve. My point is that those that are now in power, and are sending our people to die, have never faced hostile fire, and they talk of war like a game. When Bush enlists his alcoholic daughters to serve under fire, I'll back off a bit.

[Anonymous]

Did you serve? Are your children serving? Are any Democrats children serving?

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

I'll be back.

Is that your best Schwartzenegger impression?

Don't do us any favors.

If you cant dazzel em with brilliance, baffel em with bullsh it. You da man James.

Slam dunk Zardos!!!!![^]

[zardoz]

Bush / Kerry. Same difference. I am not a Kerry fan either. I am not even a Democrat. To claim a label can limit the degree of one's ability to contemplate alternate ideas.

And I did ask a soldier from Iraq. If you read my post, you will have noted that my source was a serviceman that has recently returned from Iraq. And you ought to know better than to trust surveys. Especially since you claim you can do more than cut-and-paste.

Freedom to drill for oil? Yea, screw the the wildlife refuges, to hell with the environment. And anyway, what does that have to do with the record profits of the oil companies? You seem to have forgotten that little tidbit.

How about an even more novel concept? Take some of that subsidy money and put it towards developing "alternative" sources of energy, so we can tell the whole middle-east what they can do with their oil! But that is likely too forward-thinking for some; they would prefer to continue the madness.

I certainly do not have any answers. I'm just a nobody that's going nowhere. And I'm not too smart, either. I just know enough to realize that I know next to nothing.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Did you serve? Are your children serving? Are any Democrats children serving?

Avoid the question by asking another. My kids used to try that on me, too.

However, no, I did not serve. I was fortunate that when I turned 18, the draft had be changed to a 'birthday lottery' type system. I was drafted to be in the second of three groups to go to Viet Nam, but thankfully the war was winding down at that time, and I just barely avoided having to go.

And two other of my nephews are almost at draft age. So yes, I do have a personal reason to see the madness end. By the way, have you signed up yet???

And you totally missed my point. I agree that there are Democrats that invoked their position of power so their children do not have to serve. That does not make it any more correct for the Republicans. I repeat: I am not a democrat or republican. I just want the truth. You do not have; I do not have it. I just wish someone did.

[Big_Boy_4005]

James, the job of Commander in Chief goes with the office of President. Unfortunately there are no special skills required for either job.

I pity the military under Bush. He has sent more than 2000 soldiers to their deaths (so far) for NOTHING!!!! And don't give me that crap about freeing the Iraqi people, or weapons of mass distruction. The taxpayers have poured more money into this fight for oil, than they have into relief for the hurricaine victims, or the 9/11 victims combined.

Grow up, wake up!

Oh by the way, the debt he's running up is on YOU young man.[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Did you serve? Are your children serving? Are any Democrats children serving?

Avoid the question by asking another. My kids used to try that on me, too.

However, no, I did not serve. I was fortunate that when I turned 18, the draft had be changed to a 'birthday lottery' type system. I was drafted to be in the second of three groups to go to Viet Nam, but thankfully the war was winding down at that time, and I just barely avoided having to go.

And two other of my nephews are almost at draft age. So yes, I do have a personal reason to see the madness end. By the way, have you signed up yet???

And you totally missed my point. I agree that there are Democrats that invoked their position of power so their children do not have to serve. That does not make it any more correct for the Republicans. I repeat: I am not a democrat or republican. I just want the truth. You do not have; I do not have it. I just wish someone did.

You bet your boots I will!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

James, the job of Commander in Chief goes with the office of President. Unfortunately there are no special skills required for either job.

I pity the military under Bush. He has sent more than 2000 soldiers to their deaths (so far) for NOTHING!!!! And don't give me that crap about freeing the Iraqi people, or weapons of mass distruction. The taxpayers have poured more money into this fight for oil, than they have into relief for the hurricaine victims, or the 9/11 victims combined.

Grow up, wake up!

Oh by the way, the debt he's running up is on YOU young man.[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

I for one like to see my money going to save the lives of the people Saddam was killing, you cannot deny it, he was murdering people; it is sorrow full to see greed blind you like that. Economically putting more oil on the market lowers the price of oil meaning oil companies make less, so don't give me any crap about a war for oil.[:D]

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

James, the job of Commander in Chief goes with the office of President. Unfortunately there are no special skills required for either job.

I pity the military under Bush. He has sent more than 2000 soldiers to their deaths (so far) for NOTHING!!!! And don't give me that crap about freeing the Iraqi people, or weapons of mass distruction. The taxpayers have poured more money into this fight for oil, than they have into relief for the hurricaine victims, or the 9/11 victims combined.

Grow up, wake up!

Oh by the way, the debt he's running up is on YOU young man.[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

I for one like to see my money going to save the lives of the people Saddam was killing, you cannot deny it, he was murdering people; it is sorrow full to see greed blind you like that. Economically putting more oil on the market lowers the price of oil meaning oil companies make less, so don't give me any crap about a war for oil.[:D]

James, I will be the first to admit that Saddam was not a nice guy, but as an American taxpayer, I don't care what he did to his people. I care more about Americans dying in a foreign land.

He had his own form of law and order which worked. We invaded a soverign nation under the misguided intent of searching for WMD, and made a bad situation worse.

The Iraqi people don't need freedom western style. What they need is law and order without armed foreigners roaming their streets. We have become a terrorist magnet in Iraq. When we leave, the bombings will stop.

Would you like it if the Chineese army landed in your town, and said they were there to protect you? My guess is you would be among the resistors.

This is a war for oil. The uncertainty that the chaos creates, drives up the price on world markets, and ultimately oil company profits. It is as simple as 1+1=2. Now don't you wish you were in the oil business?

[Anonymous]

No, nobody wants to Americans to die. However if all the terrorist are in Iraq, they aren’t here. It is the military’s job to die for our nation, the are protecting the civilians back here. This is the greatest honor, in the world, so one day I hope to join the ranks of those great men. Ask the soldiers what they are fighting for. To say, “Saddam is not a nice guy”, is akin to saying “cyanide will make you sick,” a huge understatement. He ran people through plastic shredders, killed any one who resisted; he ran the country in way Stalin would be proud of. Of course if we were doing anything similar to your analogy to the Chinese. We wouldn’t see reports like this, our soldiers were greeted like when we liberated France in the Second World War.
Look at what this soldier said, as our troop rolled into a village, releasing from the terror of Saddam. It is an outrage, and a dishonor to say the troops there are fighting for oil, it is an abomination of everything America stands for 'I was not expecting this at all. Seeing the civilians right on the other side of the border was not what I expected,' said Second Lieutenant Julia MacRory. 'But we are here to look out for the population. We are actually here to liberate Iraq.'
Or this report. Ricky Fisher, 18, is the youngest soldier in the British force. As he drove his vehicle further into Iraq he was calm, but slightly bemused. 'I am nervous but we have to keep our task in hand. We have to focus on what we are doing,' he said. 'I was expecting some sort of violence but so far it's good to see people waving.'

[Anonymous]

Big Boy and zardoz - all that can be said of your posts here is that you both are beyond hope. You continue to ignore facts, prefering instead to replace fact with obfuscation. As if Wal-Mart represents the average US wage! Perhaps in your little world that is a *fact*, but it is so far out of the mainsteam of reality that one has to wonder what you both are really smoking. The Bush Administration does not, indeed cannot "subsidize" any industry, what so-called "Big Oil" is getting is by the directive of Congress, with the purpose of aiding in new exploration, drilling, refining, and distributing fuel to the economy. If anything, these aid programs are nothing more than mitigation for all the artificial cost increases foisted upon our industrial sector by you environmental extremists.

Oh, and will you admit that your precious environmental movement IS directly subsidized by statute? Every time an environmental group files one of their myriad of frivolous lawsuits (usually to stop some form of economic development, to the detriment of US producers and to the benefit of foriegn producers), the taxpayers are FORCED to pay the legal fees of the eco-attorneys. Nice little scam you all got going there. AND FOR WHAT? Not one single environmental lawsuit has ever resulted in an improved environment. Usually what happens is that the US producer loses the business to a foreign producers, where environmental standards (de facto and de jure)are much lower, worker/capital productivity are much less, and the result is much more pollution et al per unit of production than could have ever happened if that production was taking place in the USA. Yeah, you all are really saving the planet. (insert sarcastic smilie here)

BTW, the energy bill doesn't just aid so-called "Big Oil" in increasing the nation's energy portfolio, it also aids "Big Coal", "Big Utility", "Big Gas Pipeline", "Big Renewable", "Big Hydropower", "Big Solar", "Big Wind", and every other "Big" energy related entity you can think of. But most importantly, all this aid to "Big Energy" will obviously find its way into the coffers of "BIG RAIL."

And since when does someone have to have served in the Military in order to be Commander in Chief or to serve in Congressional military panels? What a load of rubbish.

Yes, we've lost over 2000 of our military personelle in Iraq and Afghanistan, that prospect was made clear to all when this action was started. All but a few Democrats signed on to this action, having had the exact same access to the exact same intel. I find it appalling that these exact same people who voted for the war are now claiming that they opposed it all along. I also find it disgraceful that all you leftist *Americans* who also gave at least tacit approval for the war are now trying to weasal out of that commitment, based on the psychotic notion that you all actually believe the lies and slander you are directing toward Bush. "Tell a lie long enough, and it becomes the truth" is your new motto, and it is telling that you would borrow that motto from Adolf Hitler and the ***. It is also telling that everytime there is a military death in Iraq, it adds fuel to your cause. Your side gains by the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, so in that vein you have another common interest with the terrorists besides a hatred of Bush.

But here is the stupidist statement I have ever seen. Quothe Big Boy "When we leave, the bombings will stop." If we pull out now, the bombings will only increase, because the terrorists mentality draws it's strengths from our actions of weakness. That is why Al Qaeda gained strength during the reign of Clinton, he would just lob a few cruise missles into the desert, and then convince the American people that all was hunky-dory. What he was telling Al Qaeda was that America would not commit ground troops to stop them, and that emboldeded them all the more.

One thing is undeniably true: If Clinton had dealt forcefully with the terror threat instead of trying to appease them, 9-11 never happens. This is why this nation can never again make the mistake of electing a spineless modern day Democrat or a so-called "moderate" Republican to the nation's highest office.

[Anonymous]

Slam dunk futre modal. I would like to add to this.

QUOTE: Freedom to drill for oil? Yea, screw the the wildlife refuges, to hell with the environment. And anyway, what does that have to do with the record profits of the oil companies? You seem to have forgotten that little tidbit.

You seem, to have picked up a stutter.

Let’s take a look at a map of Alaska; it is almost three times bigger than the state of Texas. The proposed drilling area would be like the size of a small town. Now, take look at your map the drilling area is smaller than you can mark with a pencil. You can’t convince me all of the Caribou in Alaska collect at one little point. So how would drilling in Alaska hurt the wildlife? I have seen subdivisions going up like crazy out here, and nobody complains. The deer adapt and move on.

QUOTE: How about an even more novel concept? Take some of that subsidy money and put it towards developing "alternative" sources of energy, so we can tell the whole middle-east what they can do with their oil! But that is likely too forward-thinking for some; they would prefer to continue the madness.

Of course the environmentalist weenies won’t let you do that either, we have discovered a fuel source that is very efficient and does not hurt the environment. Nuclear power. Why should the government pay for the research? Thomas Edison didn’t get government funding to invent the light bulb. If some one discovers something, it is in their best interest to develop it, to make money on their invention.

How about an even more novel concept. Give the money back to the people.


P.S. I don’t like bu***oo much either, he tends to wimp out too much; but he is a whole hell of a lot better than anybody else.

[zardoz]

futuremodal and lotus98;

Congratulations. You have bested me with your lengthy diatribes. I give up.

As a very intelligent person recently told me, ""Son, talking to some people is like talking to a tree, you can talk all you want, doesn't mean the tree will hear you".

So my fellow Pine and Oaks, I relinqui***he floor to you.

signed, the Aspen.

p.s. Is a 'shrub' anything like a tree?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098
IF THIS IS BAD YOU ARE A BIG, NO HUGE, NO GIANTIC, NO ENOUROUS, PESITMIST.

er, ah, was that English you were using?

Perhaps when you grow up you will understand things a bit clearer; if not, you will just join the ranks of the followers, believing everything the press tells you, and you will continue to watch Fox for the latest "unbiased" news.

haha that was a good one [(-D]

[Anonymous]

I thought I was more like Ribbon Magohnoy(sp)

[rvos1979]

I think I'd better run to the Diner and grab something. I'll be right back.....

Randy

[ouengr]

This post appeared to start out asking the whether or not our founding fathers would have supported the confiscations or private resources by the government (a.k.a. taxes) to provide funding for high-speed rail. This debate is one that I wish we could actually have during the election season. What is the fundamental role of government?

I personally am split on a high-speed rail system. I am in complete support of allowing the private sector to capitalize and construct such a system for a profit. I am however completely opposed to constructing the system with taxpayers’ money. Any effort to make the system public will result in yet another Amtrak or other failed quasi-government corporation.

I wi***hat we had a decent PRIVATE passenger system in this country but I believe that passenger rail is as antiquated as old stagecoach routes. Would anyone actually support a national stagecoach line? No, of course not.

Passenger rail systems are successful for local and commuter systems. The nationwide system simply does not have the ridership necessary to support the long distance system. High-speed rail may be able to provide a transportation alternative for regional travel but the additional time needed for long distance travel will make it an impractical option compared to air travel.

It seems to me that long distance Amtrak trains have become a form of taxpayer-subsidized vacation. If Amtrak was completely privatized and was able to support long distance trains with their fares, then I would completely support their operation. However, since their operation requires money from my pocket, I do not.

Many supporters of Amtrak point to the “federal” subsidies to airports or interstate highways as a rational reason to support Amtrak. Currently the biggest cost in a gallon a fuel is taxes. These taxes are supposed to be spent to construct and maintain their respective transportation systems. It is not a federal subsidy; it is the expenditure of a collected user fee.

If we want to debate the role of government in national transportation systems, then let have that debate without the venom and anger.

I also want to comment about the ongoing war, which I believe will be viewed in history as WWIII. I am a disabled veteran of the United States Navy and was on active duty from 2000 until 2002. I was on duty on September 11, 2001 and remember the expressions on the faces of the men and women with whom I served. These are the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen who are risking their lives for us know. If you had asked us on 9/10 if we wanted to go to war, the answer was no, but we will if it is necessary to protect the United States. By midday 9/11 we knew that we did not have a choice. We are in a war for the survival of our nation and our way of life. Although we may not agree with why we are here, we cannot change that fact and we need to do what is necessary to win the war.

We cannot turn our backs on our soldiers and give up. If we do we will be doing a great disservice to our men and women who put their lives on the line for us. We must stop radical islam before our nation faces attacks that will dwarf 9/11. We have already lost thousands of our citizens on 9/11 and far to many since then. We must never forget the events that have led to this war. 9/11 was not a single isolated event. We need to win the war and then allow history to judge the merits of our actions. No we did not go to “war for oil.” The war came to us a number of time through the 1990’s and finally in a way that we could not ignore on 9/11. Iraq is a battle in this war. With the recent events in England, Jordan, and France we may be facing new battles in the not too distant future. We must support the war and do what is necessary to win. If we do not then we will face the situation that is currently out of control in France.

There have been comments that “Bush Lied” or that President Bush could have prevented 9/11. Intelligence is not perfect and it is possible that it was completely wrong. However the intelligence that we had leading to the current battle in Iraq was supported but the intelligence of a number of nations for more than 10-years. To this point we have not found a single stockpile with all of saddam’s WMD. The total quantity would fill a small warehouse in an area larger than California. We have found small quantities of WMD in Iraq, but not yet a significant stockpile. There have been a number or reports in the major media of convoys removing material from the WMD sites shortly before the way. We have no way of knowing if this is true. It may turn out that the intelligence that led to the current battle was wrong. It this is true then we must find out what happened and what to do in the future to ensure that it does not happen again.

Personally I do not care for President Bush and I supported another candidate in the 2000 Republican primary. We are free to disagree with him on policy matters and matter of national defense. If we are to disagree then please keep it civil. I can criticize Bush on many issues starting with not securing our southern border but I will not stoop to name calling or other childish antics. If we want to have a debate about policy then let at least be civil.