What is worse then GM going bankrupt?

[Rebel44]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I used public transportation last night and I'm reminded by most people will continue to not use it.

It took an hour and a half to get home from the airport, something that would have taken twenty minutes by car alone. Not only that but that hour and a half was spent listening to thugs speak colorfully about how many people they had threatened that day with their piece.

I'll stick to my planet-destroying car, thanks.

Mass Transport is pretty efective in EU. I travel each day 40 miles (64Km) to and from work(80miles total). Half of that is during rush hour in city with population over 1M people. It takes 90 minutes by mass transport and 75 by car.
Cost is ~75$$ per month using mass transport (bus, metro) or ~280$$ using car - average salary in this country (Czech Republic) is ~1000$$$ per month after taxes.

 

[Chunkee]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Less exclamation points, less question marks, more spelling "bus" correctly.

Joking aside, who cares what Michael Moore has to say? Seriously?

Yeah, god forbid anyone try to inject reason and practical implementations that other countries are successful at....no, we need to be defiant to the end, greedy til it kills us and destructive til nothing is left.

who gives a shit who pipes up and speaks it, why in the hell would you condemn ideas based on who it came from if they were still logically and practically feasible? If he came up with the cure for cancer, would it still be bullshit then, just because it came from him? Bunch of douches here that rely on party politics, status quo non-progressive bs to validate your copied thoughts....sheeple at best.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Robor
More faux outrage, PJ?

Pretty much this. He rolls the 3 Con 'boogies' together: Moore, GM and 'Green'

And then out roll the strawmen on public transit, HSR and bullet trains.

I'm thinking the whiners here are in that overwhelming majority 75-80% of commuters who drive alone in their cars.

 

[Rainsford]

I think the bigger question here is how environmentalism, conservation and "green" ideas in general became such a ridiculous political football for both sides. Idiots like Moore are the ones who most often pontificate about going green, taking it to such an extreme and proposing such moronic solutions that they do more harm than good. And equally dumb people on the right use backlash against Michael Moore style green solutions as a way to blast the entire idea of anything even remotely green and gain some right-wing street cred in the process.

Politics for its own sake is dumb enough, but in this case the real problem is that there are real issues that can have real solutions...if people like Michael Moore didn't take it to the extreme, and people like PJ didn't characterize the whole idea of being energy efficient or environmentally friendly as some nefarious left-wing plot to destroy America. Do right-wingers deny that cheap gas won't last forever, or that decreasing the amount of shit we put into the air and water is a good idea, or even that there is national security value in not being so reliant on sources of energy from countries stuck in the dark ages? And do lefties agree that wrecking our economy or hugely inconveniencing people in the name of being "green" is cutting off our collective nose to spite our face? I think everyone on both sides intuitively understands the issues and could come to a reasonable agreement, except for some reason the debate is dominated by loud-mouths interested in scoring political points above all else.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I used public transportation last night and I'm reminded by most people will continue to not use it.

It took an hour and a half to get home from the airport, something that would have taken twenty minutes by car alone. Not only that but that hour and a half was spent listening to thugs speak colorfully about how many people they had threatened that day with their piece.

I'll stick to my planet-destroying car, thanks.

Isn't that an argument for improving public transportation, instead of abandoning it? Public transportation in places where they put a lot of effort into making it work, places like big cities in the US, or almost everywhere in other countries, is usually pretty good. But a lot of public transportation is a chicken and egg issue, it sucks because there's no money for it, because nobody uses it, and nobody uses it mostly because it sucks. The very idea of public transportation isn't inherently inferior to the idea of a car, it's just how they tend to be implemented in many places in the US.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This guy is out to lunch. And what is the progressive fascination with going back to a mode of transportation from the 1800s? 17 hours to LA would

A. Be a pipe dream even if we spent the money to build a train
B. Still 11 hours longer than an airplane.

Rural areas need mass transit? lmao.

btw the solar panel industry doesnt have a problem with production capacity. They have a problem with reduced demand due to an economic downturn. So this brainiac would have us flood the market with solar panels nobody can afford.

Why doesnt he propose subsidies for companies to place workers in a home office enviornment. Thus taking them off the road all together?!?!?!?!?!?

2 dollar federal gax tax is the only way some of these alternative fuels look competitive. Makes sense he would support such a measure. Also forces low and middle class people onto his train\bus mass transit utopia. What a fucking idiot.

Depends on what exactly he means by solar panels. The problem right now isn't capacity, it's cost. The technology just isn't cheap enough, but (much) cheaper technologies are being developed that would make them economical to install for almost everyone. Money put into researching that technology would be a HUGE help.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I used public transportation last night and I'm reminded by most people will continue to not use it.

It took an hour and a half to get home from the airport, something that would have taken twenty minutes by car alone. Not only that but that hour and a half was spent listening to thugs speak colorfully about how many people they had threatened that day with their piece.

I'll stick to my planet-destroying car, thanks.

Isn't that an argument for improving public transportation, instead of abandoning it? Public transportation in places where they put a lot of effort into making it work, places like big cities in the US, or almost everywhere in other countries, is usually pretty good. But a lot of public transportation is a chicken and egg issue, it sucks because there's no money for it, because nobody uses it, and nobody uses it mostly because it sucks. The very idea of public transportation isn't inherently inferior to the idea of a car, it's just how they tend to be implemented in many places in the US.

I think one of the biggest problems with mass transit is they use the typical govt blanket policy for a defined problem. For instance in Minneapolis there are defined routes that are problems during rush hour. Instead of building a transit system to address this problem they build one that blankets the entire city at a cost that is beyond the benefit to the citizens of MN. Now we have a fleet of buses that are half empty at best because they hit every spot in the metro area even when there isnt strong demand. And the roads remain a complete mess due to not enough transit on the defined routes and a lack of funding for roads due to funds being diverted to fund the spiderweb of routes nobody uses.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87
This guy is out to lunch. And what is the progressive fascination with going back to a mode of transportation from the 1800s? 17 hours to LA would

A. Be a pipe dream even if we spent the money to build a train
B. Still 11 hours longer than an airplane.

Rural areas need mass transit? lmao.

btw the solar panel industry doesnt have a problem with production capacity. They have a problem with reduced demand due to an economic downturn. So this brainiac would have us flood the market with solar panels nobody can afford.

Why doesnt he propose subsidies for companies to place workers in a home office enviornment. Thus taking them off the road all together?!?!?!?!?!?

2 dollar federal gax tax is the only way some of these alternative fuels look competitive. Makes sense he would support such a measure. Also forces low and middle class people onto his train\bus mass transit utopia. What a fucking idiot.

Depends on what exactly he means by solar panels. The problem right now isn't capacity, it's cost. The technology just isn't cheap enough, but (much) cheaper technologies are being developed that would make them economical to install for almost everyone. Money put into researching that technology would be a HUGE help.

I understand the desire to R&D ourselves into cheap solar panels. But we have already spent billions on this over the past 30 years. Perhaps we are to a point where we have to wait for other energy sources to inflate themselves to make solar cheaper.

Personally I would love to see a technology that looks like a typical roof but is a solar panel. And then have every home in America close to sufficient on energy needs on a Sunny day. But at this point and for the next 50 years I highly doubt the cost of solar panels will be cheap enough for avg America.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I live 5 miles from work, it is a 10 minute drive with traffic. Taking the bus would take me over an hour!! Why the hell am I going to give up my car so I can spend 2 hours a day in a bus??

Each religion has their sins. To the green, it's a modern vehicle. Thou shalt not drive.

That's true...for some people who support green ideas. On the other hand, it seems obvious that "efficiency" is a sin for the other side. The very idea that we should maybe try to live in a more energy efficient, clean, or renewable manner apparently offends a lot of anti-green folks for some reason. "Thou shalt waste" is an equally silly commandment.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87
This guy is out to lunch. And what is the progressive fascination with going back to a mode of transportation from the 1800s? 17 hours to LA would

A. Be a pipe dream even if we spent the money to build a train
B. Still 11 hours longer than an airplane.

Rural areas need mass transit? lmao.

btw the solar panel industry doesnt have a problem with production capacity. They have a problem with reduced demand due to an economic downturn. So this brainiac would have us flood the market with solar panels nobody can afford.

Why doesnt he propose subsidies for companies to place workers in a home office enviornment. Thus taking them off the road all together?!?!?!?!?!?

2 dollar federal gax tax is the only way some of these alternative fuels look competitive. Makes sense he would support such a measure. Also forces low and middle class people onto his train\bus mass transit utopia. What a fucking idiot.

Depends on what exactly he means by solar panels. The problem right now isn't capacity, it's cost. The technology just isn't cheap enough, but (much) cheaper technologies are being developed that would make them economical to install for almost everyone. Money put into researching that technology would be a HUGE help.

I understand the desire to R&D ourselves into cheap solar panels. But we have already spent billions on this over the past 30 years. Perhaps we are to a point where we have to wait for other energy sources to inflate themselves to make solar cheaper.

Personally I would love to see a technology that looks like a typical roof but is a solar panel. And then have every home in America close to sufficient on energy needs on a Sunny day. But at this point and for the next 50 years I highly doubt the cost of solar panels will be cheap enough for avg America.

I'm not sure I get your point. We haven't reached a point yet where solar panels are at their peak of efficiency or as cheap as they could possibly be...nowhere close on both counts. Thin film solar panels are in development, and even existing solar technology has become more efficient over the years. Modern solar panels work fairly well even if it's not a bright, sunny day, and their efficiency is only going up. We clearly haven't reached any sort of peak in solar research, and I think it would pay off to put even more funding into efforts to improve the technology.

The reason I say that is that I think solar energy is going to be one of the biggest factors in clean, cheap, renewable energy in the near term. No other energy really has the potential to replace fossil fuels on any kind of scale, and even if we don't stop using fossil fuels entirely, solar could dramatically reduce our need for them.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Less exclamation points, less question marks, more spelling "bus" correctly.

Joking aside, who cares what Michael Moore has to say? Seriously?

Michael Moore is equivlent to Rush for most people on either side of the fence.

Yep. I don't find him quite as bad, but pretty much both of them should be put on a desert island.

hmm, with hidden cameras and an assortment of weapons.. stream the ensuing battle live on pay per view.. IT'LL MAKE MILLIONS!

Alternatively, give them sex toys and stream it online.. it'll make billions!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Do right-wingers deny that cheap gas won't last forever, or that decreasing the amount of shit we put into the air and water is a good idea, or even that there is national security value in not being so reliant on sources of energy from countries stuck in the dark ages?

i'm almost amazed that the republicans never picked up on green as a national security measure over the last 30 years. it would have tied in very well with the religious idea of god making us custodians of the planet too. boom, the republicans steal major thunder from the democrats and money is kept here rather than being sent to the near and middle east.

Originally posted by: Genx87

Personally I would love to see a technology that looks like a typical roof but is a solar panel. And then have every home in America close to sufficient on energy needs on a Sunny day. But at this point and for the next 50 years I highly doubt the cost of solar panels will be cheap enough for avg America.

i have to wonder why roofs are black asphalt. let's make our roof out of a giant freaking heat anchor so that we have to air condition the house all night because the roof is 120 degrees!

 

[smashp]

hahahahahhahahahahahha

/thread

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Genx87
-snip-
Personally I would love to see a technology that looks like a typical roof but is a solar panel.

It already EXISTS

They can look like typical asphalt shingles, metal roofs or Mediterranian tiles.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Do right-wingers deny that cheap gas won't last forever, or that decreasing the amount of shit we put into the air and water is a good idea, or even that there is national security value in not being so reliant on sources of energy from countries stuck in the dark ages?

i'm almost amazed that the republicans never picked up on green as a national security measure over the last 30 years. it would have tied in very well with the religious idea of god making us custodians of the planet too. boom, the republicans steal major thunder from the democrats and money is kept here rather than being sent to the near and middle east.
...

What really amazes me is that the DEMOCRATS (and the left in general) don't make the national security argument more often. "Support terrorism, buy an SUV" or "Don't worry, Hugo Chavez opposes the gas tax too" might be overly simplistic messages, but I bet they could be effective ones (maybe if they were less bumper sticker like and more intelligently framed). It justifies being "green" for a reason other than taking care of the environment (which a lot of Americans seem to find silly for some reason) and hits Republicans traditional strength on national security issues every time they vote against a law to raise mileage standards or fund alternative energy research. Plus it has the added benefit of actually being right, which isn't something a lot of political arguments have going for them.

I'm joking with the bumper sticker suggestions, because really I think this is something both sides should be supporting. Financially supporting dictators with horrible human rights records at best, and outright supporters of terrorists at worst, seems like a TERRIBLE idea, and a really good reason to cut our dependence on fossil fuels.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: smashp
hahahahahhahahahahahha

/thread

Care to express an opinion here? Anything to contribute?

 

[ElFenix]

anyway, i would hope that the government doesn't outlaw 'gas guzzling' V8s in favor of 'fuel sipping' V6s. the layout and even the displacement of the engine itself is almost a minor factor in fuel efficiency compared to weight and aerodynamics. the LS460 with it's 'gas guzzling' 380 hp V8 gets the same city and 2 mpg better highway than the 'fuel sipping' 300 hp V6 acura RL. and the LS460 weighs more! even adding AWD the big lexus still matches the acura in the city and beats it by 1 on the highway.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: NeoV
Moore has good intentions for the most part, but is far too extreme in the end for just about anyone to take him seriously.

I do not think his intentions are good.

Then what do you think his intentions here are?

I believe he has an agenda to push regardless of the side costs of it. I believe it is no different then any prior agenda he had. To me, he is no different then those he attacks. The end justifies the means in his agenda.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyway, i would hope that the government doesn't outlaw 'gas guzzling' V8s in favor of 'fuel sipping' V6s. the layout and even the displacement of the engine itself is almost a minor factor in fuel efficiency compared to weight and aerodynamics. the LS460 with it's 'gas guzzling' 380 hp V8 gets the same city and 2 mpg better highway than the 'fuel sipping' 300 hp V6 acura RL. and the LS460 weighs more! even adding AWD the big lexus still matches the acura in the city and beats it by 1 on the highway.

What makes you even suggest that this might be the "solution"? So far as I know, every single person suggesting increasing fuel efficiency standards has said it should be based on how many MPG a vehicle gets...end of story.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

What really amazes me is that the DEMOCRATS (and the left in general) don't make the national security argument more often. "Support terrorism, buy an SUV" or "Don't worry, Hugo Chavez opposes the gas tax too" might be overly simplistic messages, but I bet they could be effective ones (maybe if they were less bumper sticker like and more intelligently framed). It justifies being "green" for a reason other than taking care of the environment (which a lot of Americans seem to find silly for some reason) and hits Republicans traditional strength on national security issues every time they vote against a law to raise mileage standards or fund alternative energy research. Plus it has the added benefit of actually being right, which isn't something a lot of political arguments have going for them.

I'm joking with the bumper sticker suggestions, because really I think this is something both sides should be supporting. Financially supporting dictators with horrible human rights records at best, and outright supporters of terrorists at worst, seems like a TERRIBLE idea, and a really good reason to cut our dependence on fossil fuels.

it's in both political parties' interest to actually get off their asses and do something, but it's been 40 years since the first oil crisis and we've still got no coherent energy policy. awesome.

i brought that up to my table at a democratic fund raiser (the houston latino democrats roast of county commissioner sylvia garcia, never seen more white people in my life) about 5 years ago and they just blabbered about nothing

Originally posted by: Rainsford

What makes you even suggest that this might be the "solution"? So far as I know, every single person suggesting increasing fuel efficiency standards has said it should be based on how many MPG a vehicle gets...end of story.

article i skimmed this morning intimated that V8s were dead as long as GM stood for government motors.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Less exclamation points, less question marks, more spelling "bus" correctly.

Joking aside, who cares what Michael Moore has to say? Seriously?

Michael Moore is equivlent to Rush for most people on either side of the fence.

Moore is a dreamer living in lalaland. Rush is a mouthpiece for the most divisive and extreme elements of the party and wields more power over his party than MM could ever dream of. They might be two extremes, but far from equivalent.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I live 5 miles from work, it is a 10 minute drive with traffic. Taking the bus would take me over an hour!! Why the hell am I going to give up my car so I can spend 2 hours a day in a bus??

Each religion has their sins. To the green, it's a modern vehicle. Thou shalt not drive.

That's true...for some people who support green ideas. On the other hand, it seems obvious that "efficiency" is a sin for the other side. The very idea that we should maybe try to live in a more energy efficient, clean, or renewable manner apparently offends a lot of anti-green folks for some reason. "Thou shalt waste" is an equally silly commandment.

You can harp on about efficiency all you want, but who the hell are you to tell people what they can or cannot drive? Who the hell are you to buy up the car companies and tell then what to build, so as to stack the deck in what consumers can purchase?

Better efficiency, if efficient, would already be in our vehicles. Cost savings is a powerful tool in competition. That they cannot obtain a cost savings with it, is likely why they haven?t already done it. That you want to further bankrupt us to shove this agenda down our throats is what we find objectionable.

You cannot distort this as simply a matter of efficiency. To say we oppose that is a strawman and a distraction. It is the rampant abuse of power behind forcing this efficiency that we oppose. That you stand by it and fight for it is a telling sign.

 

[ElFenix]

i can't possibly haul my 2 kids to soccer practice and school without my 5300 lb tahoe!

is there any reason GM couldn't have been building lambdas 10 years ago?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...son/article6301096.ece

 

[Baked]

Not knowing the difference between then and than.

 

[Munky]

What is worse than GM going bankrupt? GM going bankrupt after burning through billions of tax-payers' dollars.