Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:06:18 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:29:32 +0000, R Brickston wrote:

I think Teddy is the unfortunate result of sympathy votes caused by
his brothers assasinations.

Well, yeah. Not my favorite Kennedy, either. So? The latest energy he's
been involved with is canning offshore windmills off of Cape Cod since
they would "spoil" his view. Such an environmentalist.

We could complain about conservatives by continually pointing at Richard
Nixon. Get on with it. If the party in power doesn't improve refinery
capacity, it is not because of environmentalists. It is because someone
doesn't want the refineries built, someone with clout. This is not Ralph
Nader.

The Dems opposed it, AFAIK, it isn't law yet.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:42:01 GMT, Bill Baka
wrote:

william welner wrote:
It is my hope that Al Gore who is a border state native of TN will get the
Democrat Presidential Nomination, and get elected With a majority of
Democrats in both houses, who can push through the necessary reforms.

There is nobody else in my opinion.

He is the only candidate that can speak southern who has served in the army
in Viet Nam, thus is no draft dodger to be attacked by conservatives as a
weakling; he is well versed in global
warming and pollution, which he wrote a book about; and he is knowledgeable
about foreign relations and the military.

He like Tricky Dick Nixon who lost to JFK in 1960, took the loss very
gracefully and not as a sore loser. and came back to win in 1968 to win the
Presidency, Al Gore will also come back to win in 2008.
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
william welner wrote:
Hopefully some people will come to power to make changes in 2008 as FDR
did
in 1932 to deal with the Great Depression by creating the New Deal..
I hope so. It could have happened in 2000, but you know, they stole the
elections.





Someone please explain why military service is so damned important to
get elected? It invokes visions of taking orders from others to go and
storm a hill and get shot because someone of higher 'rank' told you to.
Is this the mark of a leader or a follower?
Many of the brightest among us have a high level college degree like a
Masters or Ph.D. (or 2 or 3) and would have never considered being a
military grunt.
I know the Kennedy's ( the boys who were old enough) were all pushed
into the service by their father Joseph and that is how his pride and
joy, Joe, Jr. got killed on a top secret bombing mission against Germany.
Comments?
Bill Baka

Double Whooosh...

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:05:44 GMT, Bill Baka
wrote:

Roger Houston wrote:
"Bill Baka" wrote in message
...
Someone please explain why military service is so damned important to get
elected? It invokes visions of taking orders from others to go and storm a
hill and get shot because someone of higher 'rank' told you to. Is this
the mark of a leader or a follower?
Many of the brightest among us have a high level college degree like a
Masters or Ph.D. (or 2 or 3) and would have never considered being a
military grunt.

News flash: Enduring years of school doesn't make you bright, either. Enjoy
your privilege, but don't forget why you post in English instead of German,
Japanese or Arabic.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand
ready to do violence on their behalf.



True.
And if Viet Nam had been a real war I would have happily joined,

This doesn't comport with your earlier post: "I tried to
enlist in 1966 at the height (beginning) of the worst part of Viet
Nam. I went from Air Force, to Navy, to National Guard, even to Coast
Guard. All of them told me they had so many applicants to just give up
and join the Army."


but not
for an idealistic clash which made victims out of the people in a far
away land.
Military service is good when a war is to be fought, but not for
political leverage.
Bill Baka

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:17:03 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:37:04 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:12:21 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:18:48 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Bill Funk wrote:

Also there is probably a fair number of other reasons for invading
including having a base of operations in the region and generally
causing instability, which increases prices further. A bombing then calm
for years then a bombing doesn't keep the prices as high as invasion and
instability every day.

Wow. A nice conspiracy, there. And, like most such, it requires no
actual evidence.

What was the actual evidence the reason was WMDs? Oh, GWB said so. and he
_never_ lies, right?

"...I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our
troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens
of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly,
those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts
to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers
are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of
U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is,
unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam
Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international
community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program.
While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can
be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a
lasting solution through diplomatic means. "

snip

Wooptie do da day.... an uncited quote. I've seen it before can't quite
place it... probably from someone on the left side of the single
effective political party.

Just because I'm not on your 'team' doesn't mean I am on that other
'team'. Silly binary thinkers.


Oh, please! Confess, you know exactly who wrote it and under what
circumstances.

I don't remember nor care. I do know it was either a democrat or a
republican, which are in my view essentially the same thing. Just
different in their excuses and pandering.


Just like the adage "I only drink by myself or with someone."

Yet, you accuse Bush alone of the WMD "lies."

I didn't accuse him of anything but being yet another lying holder of
public office. It's the same BS Clinton and the democrats fed us years
earlier.

BTW, it was Nancy Pelosi on December 16, 1998.

Ms. union who's own businesses are non-union. Another shining example of
how there is only one effective political party in the USA.


Well, it seems you play whatever side of the argument is winning.

Unsupported.

My feeling that the US has only one effective political party and a
false choice between two is long standing.

But I see you've been reduced to such trivial snipes.

Brent P wrote:

But I see you've been reduced to such trivial snipes.

DON'T ANY OF YOU MENSAS KNOW HOW TO TRIM YOUR POSTS?!?

tyvm.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

You seem to have overlooked the possibility that Mr. Ed Dolan the Grate
is not an idiot, but merely incorrigible provocateur.

There is another distinctly possible hypothesis: that he is both an
incorrigible provocateur *and* an idiot.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Matthew Russotto" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Kruger wrote:

2. Full buses going relatively short distances ARE fuel efficient. Where
do
we see these conditions? In the densely populated areas of major cities.

Nonsense. You have that right now and transit buses are fuel INefficient.
Why? First, they go loaded into some central point and return empy. Half
load immediately, even if full. Second, they have to run weekend, night and
holidays. In the end transit buses waste fuel. Always will. And they tear
up the roads too, with loadings Worse than a tractor trailer.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...

Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Mike Kruger wrote:

2. Full buses going relatively short distances ARE fuel efficient.
Where do
we see these conditions? In the densely populated areas of major
cities. We
don't see these conditions in exurbia, and are likely never going to
see
them. This likely means that, in the long term, exurbia will not be a
great
place to live. Short term, though, they are building houses like crazy
out
there.

Another vote for packing people like sardines, both at home and in
transit.

And SUVs are for sharks.


A SUV today does about what a transit bus does in the real world.

"Matthew Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Wayne Pein wrote:
Mass transit typically does not save fuel. Surprising, but both private
cars and mass transit require roughly 3500 BTUs/passenger mile.


http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...stics/2003/htm
l/table_04_20.html

Oh, that's a beautiful chart.

The highlight for 2001:

Passenger car : 3557 BTU/passenger mile
Transit motor bus: 3698 BTU/passenger mile

And I doubt that takes into account the fact that taking a car is
almost always more direct than taking a bus.

When you get it there, it rests until you need to take it back. The
transit bus returns empty for a second trip, or empty to a garage. Then it
must return empty to pick up its load in the PM. Then it goes empty back to
the garage. And then it runs mostly empty for the night-time trips, and for
the weekends and Sundays it is there for those who are too selfish to have
cars.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...

Matthew Russotto wrote:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...fcvt_fotw221.h
tml

Which shows rail, covering a wide range. Philadelphia light rail uses
5828 BTU/passenger mile, and heavy rail 4001 BTU/passenger mile.

Save energy: Close SEPTA.


Save energy: ban SUVs. Save more energy: promote bikes.

Remember before the electric trolley car they used mules pulling transit
cars on rails. Urbanites HATE walking and demand transit. That does NOT
include bikes. They hate those too.