VisorCentral.com - Who did you vote for?

Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Who did you vote for? (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=14825)

Posted by BobbyMike on 05-12-2001 03:34 AM:

Toby wrote:
"How is it any worse than oil waste? They haven't come up with a safe way to do _that_ yet. They just shuffle it off to some backwater town with a name that Ed Bradley can't pronounce correctly, and hope that no one notices."

I didn't say it was worse, I just don't think it's better. Three bad things are not better than two. I would love to see it work out from the stand point of no emissions are produced into the atmosphere (just steam right?).

RGMOOSE wrote:
"Except that Mom then drives around all day shopping or another 10 miles to work in a 14 mpg versus a 28 mpg Honda Accord."

C'mon, talk about stereotyping! You are sadly mistaken if you believe Moms drive around shopping all day. Blaming even part of society's problems on someone else, anyone else, is an easy way to duck out of your own complicity in the problem. We here in America built a society based on wide open spaces. Until someone develops an engine that can drive a wide variety of vehicles (people in this country deserve the responsibility of choices) then we're stuck with internal combustion (just like our present political parties). It's just the most efficient way to move lots of separate vehicles the average distance Americans drive. If you truly believe internal combustion is evil and can't develop an alternate engine for everyone to use you could still always scrap your car, buy a bike, horse, llama, donkey, etc.(Don't fool yourself into thinking an electric car car is better- I don't think it's possible to make or run one of those without involving I.C. engines of some type, somewhere in the process). Eat only food that you grow yourself (cuts out trucking in food) or local produce. Etc. etc. etc.
Ok, ok, I know that's a little extreme for most people. I also think that for most people higher gas prices won't necessarily be a bad thing. People will drive less, saving their gas for important trips, maybe even spending less money on luxuries like cable, imported ice cream, and alcohol.

RGMOOSE also wrote:
"God I love this country, at least we can still talk about stuff like this and not worry about the KGB or some other secret police force knocking down our doors."

I agree totally. Couldn't have said it better!

Toby:
Me, quote:
[...] And worse of all it pits the two groups against each other.

You, quote:
Well, usually more than two, but yeah.

I usually have seen it boiled down to us vs. them, but I guess there is always going to be divisions even in those two groups. (I guess I have seen the worth of quotes, eh?)

Michael

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 05-12-2001 06:40 AM:

Let me make this perfectly clear.

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike
Toby wrote:

RGMOOSE wrote:
"Except that Mom then drives around all day shopping or another 10 miles to work in a 14 mpg versus a 28 mpg Honda Accord."

C'mon, talk about stereotyping! You are sadly mistaken if you believe Moms drive around shopping all day. Blaming even part of society's problems on someone else, anyone else, is an easy way to duck out of your own complicity in the problem. We here in America built a society based on wide open spaces. Until someone develops an engine that can drive a wide variety of vehicles (people in this country deserve the responsibility of choices) then we're stuck with internal combustion (just like our present political parties). It's just the most efficient way to move lots of separate vehicles the average distance Americans drive. If you truly believe internal combustion is evil and can't develop an alternate engine for everyone to use you could still always scrap your car, buy a bike, horse, llama, donkey, etc.(Don't fool yourself into thinking an electric car car is better- I don't think it's possible to make or run one of those without involving I.C. engines of some type, somewhere in the process). Eat only food that you grow yourself (cuts out trucking in food) or local produce. Etc. etc. etc.
Ok, ok, I know that's a little extreme for most people. I also think that for most people higher gas prices won't necessarily be a bad thing. People will drive less, saving their gas for important trips, maybe even spending less money on luxuries like cable, imported ice cream, and alcohol.
Michael

Didn't mean to impart any specific sterotype. However, you must agree that a 6,000lb SUV is the least efficient way to transport 4 (still the average size family) people to and from either school or other non-SUV essential tasks. A recent newspaper article talked about the fact that California now has a vehicle registration of 50% SUV's and 40% of those are driven by women. Whom in the same article agreed that the purpose of the SUV is almost never fully utilized and whose main purpose in choosing such a vehicle was to "feel" better about sitting high in traffic and above the danger.

Californians need SUV's sit above the traffic for 56 hours a year in stop and go driving. L.A., S.F. S.D. and Sacramento all placed in the top 15 of the worst traffic cities in the country in the most recent results. Those 4 cities account for 70% of the population. I can keep going on but I think you get my point.

We are too dependent upon being mobile. I don't have anything against SUV's per se as long as you are packing 5+ people in them during at least 50% of the mileage accrued. Then they are efficient.

Electric is definitely not the way to go because they are still too inefficient. Hybrid will come next such as those out by Honda and Toyota. GM tested a fuel cell car during the Olympics in Australia that effecively got 120 miles to the gallon when benchmarked against a regular gasoline car.

The bottom line is: change will not be implemented to internal combustion engines towards a replacement until the consumer forces the issue and complains about the cost of gasoline being too high. Then Detroit will respond to both the consumer pressure and the governmental pressure.

This will occur when we go into another energy based recession as we felt in the mid-70's. That energy crisis got Detroit off of the @sses and we got cars that have 210 horsepower and get 28 miles to the gallon on the road and 22 in the city. The next generation should be able to provide about the same amount of horsepower and will have ceramic components in the engine and get about 40+ miles to the gallon and will be based upon a 42volt system that will eliminate most of the mechanical subsystems in favor of electric subsystems.

After that we can expect Fuel Cell vehicles in the next decade and that Ford Exploder will get 100+ miles to the gallon and have about 190 horsepower and the only thing that will come out of it's tail pipe will be H2O and CO2 and then after that will be some form of nearly true electric car that might still use a small fuel cell to charge the batteries.

I'm sorry to vent so much but my Kings just lost to the Lakers for the 3rd time and ......

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by homer on 05-12-2001 02:52 PM:

BobbyMike said:

quote:
Don't fool yourself into thinking an electric car car is better- I don't think it's possible to make or run one of those without involving I.C. engines of some type, somewhere in the process

For now, you are correct. But they already are better in terms of efficiency. The Honda Insight is a hybrid car that gets 70mpg. Toyota has their hybrid car out too.

Is it any surprise that the first mass-produced electric cars are NOT from American auto companies

RSGMoose said:

quote:
The bottom line is: change will not be implemented to internal combustion engines towards a replacement until the consumer forces the issue and complains about the cost of gasoline being too high. Then Detroit will respond to both the consumer pressure and the governmental pressure.

EXACTLY! The big wave of public interest in alternative energies happened in the oil crisis of the 70s. People actually started to embrace small cars, good gas mileage, and things like solar and wind power.

Then what happened? Gas got cheap again...and since we're lazy Americans and we just went back to our old habits.

Just think where we'd be today if we would have kept the same pace in exploring alternative energies and higher efficiency transportation as we did in the 70s.

Recently, Amtrak FINALLY came out with their bullet train on the NE corridor. I believe Tommy Thompson was the one who announced the amazing new train that could hit speeds of something like 100 mph.

It must feel good to have transportation technology as advanced as Europe circa 1970.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 05-12-2001 05:21 PM:

Yea

One other thing, albeit a small item, most of the Detroit designed engines now are more efficient then the Japanese. We have done a good job in figuring out how to get the most out of our engines because we are so dependent upon cars and gasoline.

The average price of a Japanese car in the 70's was 9,000 and the average domestic vehicle was about 12,000.

That has now reversed and the average domestic vehicle is about 17,000 with the average Japanese being about 21,000. This because the Japanese saw what was happening to the lazy American's and decided to put out the Acura, Lexus and Infiniti brands which we were hungry to accept.

Now more bad news, the cost of gas is going up again and the first people to the market are the Japanese with the high mileage hybrid vehicles.

Detroit might yet again be behind the curve, as they were in the 70's. Yet, they didn't learn from History. How sad!

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by jeffbeerman2 on 05-14-2001 07:35 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by broache
If you look at the voting map, it sure looks like Bush won by a TON. I know that it is really a representation of land area votes, but Bush won the heartland of America, which I truly feel represents what most people think.

Gawwwwwdd!!! Billy Broache Jim Bob, you are really off your rocker. No doubt you voted for whoever had the best powerpoint presentation. Hmmmm, red color more, red win. I live in the "why even vote bible-belt" about 250 as-the-crow-flies miles from Kansas City. There are two cities of about 10,000 people between wichita and KC. the rest of that land is cows. Just cows. Repeating to you once again, JUST COWS. How many people live in the same space between Washington DC and New York City? Yes, I guess George Bush won the cow vote, but what is the point in that?

Posted by Toby on 05-14-2001 07:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jeffbeerman2
[...] Yes, I guess George Bush won the cow vote, but what is the point in that?

Because the President of the United States is elected by _the_States_ in the same proportion as their representation in Congress. The aggregate number of votes across the country for a particular candidate means _diddly_squat_. You can dislike it if you want, but debating the reality of the vote process is ludicrous. Fact of the matter is that Bush had more electoral votes (unless the votes of dead people who were channeling pregnant chads through Madam Cleo are counted), so deal with it.

Posted by septimus on 05-14-2001 08:07 PM:

The thing that I find most interesting in this whole debacle is how clear it is that we can never escape our points of view. I'm a liberal, and despite believing intellectually that there was no conspiracy involved in the election--it was just close and Bush won the tactics game--I still feel cheated. And I fully believe that I shouldn't feel cheated. And on the other side, conservatives can't help but feel self-righteous about the whole thing...

...thing is, if the situation had been reversed, we'd be saying the exact same things, only the people saying them would be flipped. As much as this election illuminates politics and the electoral system, it shines the brightest and most interesting light on us.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by homer on 05-14-2001 09:22 PM:

dietrichbohn:

Well put.

We'd all be better off if we listened to each other more and actually accepted the idea that our minds COULD be changed.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by Toby on 05-14-2001 10:08 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
The thing that I find most interesting in this whole debacle is how clear it is that we can never escape our points of view. I'm a liberal, and despite believing intellectually that there was no conspiracy involved in the election--it was just close and Bush won the tactics game--

Nah...Bush just had the better conspirators. Gore's vote stealer just wasn't good enough.

quote:
I still feel cheated. And I fully believe that I shouldn't feel cheated. And on the other side, conservatives can't help but feel self-righteous about the whole thing...

Similar to the reverse in '92? I do believe someone else already pointed out, though, that the 'conservative' side has already gone through this when Clinton won back in '92. He only won 43% of the popular vote then, and I don't recall hearing peep one about the electoral college.

quote:
...thing is, if the situation had been reversed, we'd be saying the exact same things, only the people saying them would be flipped. [...]

Except what about those of us that didn't want either of them in the White House?

Posted by Thunderbird291 on 08-09-2001 08:39 PM:

I just want to spark a little life into this thread. My opinion? The only good thing that came out of the election was the show "That's my Bush!" But...it's going to be cancelled soon, so....

Posted by ernieba1 on 08-10-2001 02:09 AM:

I thought they closed this thread. Hmmm. What do you all think of this new Stem Cell decision?

__________________
-Bernie

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.
-Dan Quayle

Posted by chuckster on 08-17-2001 01:26 PM:

I thought that the decision that Bush made was right on. I am pro-life, and I am against the destruction of embrios (sp?) for research purposes. By allowing reasearch on the lines of stem cells that have already been extracted, he is in no way compromising his beliefs. As he stated, the Life and death decision has already been made, so we should use the information to our benefit. It is just like the Nazi's medical testing in WWII. Although it was sick and wrong, I feel as though it would be an insult to those who died not to use that research to benefit society. I do not agree with the decision to kill for medical testing, but if the killing has already occured, we should make the best of a bad thing, and allow it to benefit society. I feel as though Bush made the perfect decision.

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-17-2001 03:35 PM:

I agree with chuckster.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 08-22-2001 01:49 AM:

Agreement

I agree with Chuckser and Dick-Richardson on this issue.

Cloning of entire human beings though is something I can not endorse but since the stems cells were already in existence then research should proceed.

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 PM.

Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page