Obama to announce new car efficiency standards

If people are still driving gas-powered cars by 2025, we're in big trouble.

The standard should be vehicles that run without gas.

BUT MY FREEEEEDUMB!!!!

WE WANT ARE COUNTRY BACK !!

hehehe

God Damn, this Obama guy is good.

Say it like a TeaPublican FrankH.

"We Wants R Country is back!!" - TeaPublican

You seem not to have noticed Jimbo that you are in very, very big trouble.

"If people are still driving gas-powered cars by 2025, we're in big trouble." - Jimbo

Let see. Gasoline has about *the highest* energy density of any fuel. It is the highest energy per total mass (including transducer ~ power plant) ratio commonly available. It is a limited resource and *will be used* eventually. I hope all my competitors buys in to the sunlight pixie dust, and unicorn fart wind power dream.

The Peter Principle doesn't always apply.

"I hope all my competitors buys in to the sunlight pixie dust" - Nianomind

At freeway speeds, the principle expenditure of energy in transportation is the heating of air by the car. At city driving speeds, it is the heating of the engine and the exhaust by the engine.

Solution. Freeway speeds of 40 Mph and electric drive for very low mass single and double occupancy vehicles.

Yeah, sometimes they become president.

The principal benefit of the speed is the radius of action, thus choice. Economy ~ FreeChoice*Person 40 mph? Let's limit it to walking distance. wow....

Err... NanoMind......

Walking speed is 4 Mph.

Have you been a Tard all of your life? Or is it due to brain injury? Car accident perhaps?

Stupid is as gubmint sez i to do... wah?
See. that walking distance comment was to contrast the radius of action of a person walking (most all of human history) and that of a person capable of 70 mph. All those goods being transported aren't by horse and buggy. I was wrong, larger the radius of interaction the exponentially larger possible economies. 1000 characters are likely insufficient exposition for everyone. sorry.

You guys are funny today or maybe its something i drank. In any case sucking in clean air and spewing out poisonous emissions to provide locomotion will one day be seen as a crime against humanity.

Then Humanity can sue me. I think it is the koolaid you drank. Let me help you with that. I will hold the pitcher for you and your friends. Even buy you some if your government is broke.

There is good cause to trust larger numbers of people with larger choice pools will create more technology and solutions. If what you say is a "real" problem, it'll get solved. Or legislate us with slow cars and mud huts into a new "greener" dark age.

Mud huts? You'll be lucky. Its back to the cave man.

Hay... That's TeaPubican talk...

"Stupid is as gubmint sez i to do... wah?" - Nanomind

"There is good cause to trust larger numbers of people with larger choice pools will create more technology and solutions." - NanoMind

By your own logic then the best group to trust would be the government since it is elected by a majority to serve the electorate.

The government has just decided that increased fuel efficiency is in your best interest.

Scientists agree.

"See. that walking distance comment was to contrast the radius of action of a person walking." - NanoMind

Your English language skills are so poor that your posts are almost incomprehensible.

It is self evident that your thinking skills are no better.

They should ditch CAFE standards entirely. Yeah, pipe dream, I know... especially with this administration.

Also, not to derail this thread entirely, but just so you know, there's a lot of research being done (mainly outside of USA) regarding petroleum NOT being a "fossil fuel", i.e. it having an ongoing abiogenic natural origin. (Kindly don't resort to Wikipedia if you value your sanity.)

Even if abiogenic theory is not true (of course, I'm betting it is, but let's role with conventional wisdom for a moment), the whole "peak oil" scam is out of control. Our "shortages" are government-caused (which, although I believe is true, I mainly just threw in for FrankHerbert - enjoy!), and I'm not talking in a conspiratorial manner, I'm simply saying it is a matter of bad eco^2 (ecological/economic) policies.

Vendicar, you seem to hate America... Don't you like it that we're not only stuck in a ditch, but also going the wrong direction at the same time? That takes real effort!

In any case sucking in clean air and spewing out poisonous emissions to provide locomotion will one day be seen as a crime against humanity.

Not only are you wrong, but you should fear being right, i.e. careful with that thing we call "breathing", bluehigh.

At the current rate of inflation oil may hit $300 a barrel and the unemployment rate could be 50% by 2025 so only a few will have the new super car and most will be walking. The high gasoiline prices are a direct result of printing too much money and setting standards like this only serves to sidestep the real issues that need to be addressed.

Good. This will keep the engineers busy to come up with better engines. As the last decades has shown, building engines that use less fuel does not mean less powerful engines. But, as always, there are resistance from auto's and oil industries' loyal dupes who will fight to the death for the right to force everyone to keep paying through the nose for yesterdays' tech and copious amounts of fuel. Do they own stocks in those companies? Who knows.

wow its funny to see how insecure vendicar is. Always lashing out. Atack me next please.

I wonder how long until people realize the most expensive part of car ownership is not the purchase price.

"Atack me next please."

For your spelling?

When gasoline prices rise, people buy smaller, lighter, more economical cars and leave out the luxuries that guzzle up the gas, so manufacturers make them - fleet average rises automatically without artifical five year plans. This has been accomplished by taxing the fuel everywhere else in the world.

The issue here is, that the industries want to keep their cheap gasoline, but the pesky consumers are using too much of it and the price is going up, so why not make it a law that the regular people (cars and light trucks) can't have the big lavish cars that use up so much gasoline, so there's more left over for the corporations?

Brilliant! Let's run the economy like 1965 Soviet Russia!

An editorial note:

In metric countries it's more common to use litres per 100 km rather than kilometers per litre.

That's because it gives a clearer picture of the actual savings - how much you consume. Then it's easier to calculate how much money you spend per kilometer, so you can estimate how much money you need to e.g. go to work.

For instance, going from 15 km/l to 20 km/l sounds like a big improvement. That's 33% more! But consumption wise that's going from 6.7 L/100km to 5 L/100km, so in reality you use just 15% less.

Besides, when you are not letting the market decide the price of gasoline and the mileage of cars by supply and demand, you open up all sorts of loopholes and unforeseen consequences.

What about other things that use gasoline, that you are not regulating? Heavy trucks, lawnmowers, boats, portable generators, chainsaws, leafblowers, construction equipment, you name it.

People have no incentive in inventing alternative ways to power them, or make them more efficient because gasoline is still artifically cheap.

The government can stick their standards where the sun doesn't shine. When I buy my next vehicle, I'll look at its (1) safety, (2) comfort, (3) utility, (4) performance, (5) price. Mileage will not be a consideration. On the other hand, by the time I get down to it, we'll probably have a new president anyway, and the "standards" will be converted to "recommendations", wherupon life will return to normal.

What I don't understand is why this thread is missing marjon, dogbert, ryggesogn2, kevinrts, freethinking and our other favorite government/regulation haters.

Perhaps they're out for tea right now?

I guess shelgyr, gustav, and Eikka are stepping in for this conversation?

@Gustav, if your car got 5 miles to the gallon, gas mileage would be a pretty big concern even to you.
@Eikka, name one private or public sector project that is immune to unforseen consequences. It's call life. The unforseen consequence of burning coal back in the day was terrible pollution. the government stepped in with some regulations and cleaned it up so that the primary 'pollution' emitted from coal plants is CO2.

That_guy, we work for a living, we don't live in our mothers basement or get supported by the government.

Obama mandates, progressives love it. Too bad his mandates will affect everyone except the elite. I'm sure Al Gore and friends will have an excuse and will drive SUV's and fly private jets, while us commoners cant afford to buy these super cars, or heat our homes, or buy food.

5 years into the progressive era, change is all many of us have left.

Gustav, I will also look at who made the vehicle. It use to be I would only buy American, now it would be who didn't take government money.

name one private or public sector project that is immune to unforseen consequences

Indeed.

But the irony is, that these kinds of policies make more "socialist" places on earth have more freedom than the US has.

For example, in Sweden you can buy any kind of impractically uneconomical car you want. You just have to pay more for the priviliege. Here, Obama would want to deny you the option completely by mandating that such cars cannot be sold.

Same patronizing attitude as with the lighbulbs. They don't trust the people to choose what they find, all things considered, the better option. Instead they make people make the compromize for something they want.

In the 1980's, I owned a Chevy Chevette that got 38 mpg highway. The technology has been there all along, but so have the oil conglomerates. It's pure paranoia to believe the government is going to dictate what kind of car you drive, it will just be a more efficient behemoth if that's what you'd like. But while we're on the subject, let's address the real reason that Obama's been hamstrung at every turn by the Republicans. It's because he's half African-American, and it burns every good ol' boy's ass. They want him out at any cost- even if it's at the expense of the whole country. I've seen many administrations come and go, but never this much hatred and foot stomping. It's sickening to see the most intelligent president America's seen in a lifetime be boycotted and filibustered to death because of the color of his skin.

It's pure paranoia to believe the government is going to dictate what kind of car you drive, it will just be a more efficient behemoth if that's what you'd like.

It's more like pure physics.

Yes, you can make a truck run (relatively) efficiently, but the problem is that there are physical constraints in how good an internal combustion engine can be in one way, before it starts to get worse in other ways.

You can increase the efficiency by employing e.g. a tuned Atkinson cycle hybrid, like in the Prius, but then you get an engine that is unsuitable in characteristics for things like pulling a boat with your truck.

Prius has one set of operating parameters, your truck has two: light load and heavy load. Your new hybrid engine is efficient on light load, but when you put a boat behind it, it can pull it only so far as there's charge in the battery. Or, you have to compromize efficiency with a bigger engine that runs at partial load under light operation.

You can't get it all.

@Telekinetic said:

It's sickening to see the most intelligent president America's seen in a lifetime be boycotted and filibustered to death because of the color of his skin.

Really? Are you serious?

I think you missed the latest issue of ObamaBeat Magazine - you're still reading off last month's "talking points".

Right off the top of my head - without even trying - I can come up with at least several trillion reasons to dislike Obama's policies, and that's before we even start in on the whole "socialism" thing, and his skin color has absolutely zero to do with it.

And you know it. What you've done there is called a "cheap shot". I saw what you did!

But really, it is a dated cheap shot - you need to keep up with the times! I think this week's directive is to (whenever possible) work in a reference to the Norway slaughterer when referring to us right-wingers.

You're slacking, and it shows...

Of course, there are ways to making it work, by simply making it work.

Not enough power in one engine to pull a boat? Install two.

Problem is, who's gonna pay for it? What you gain in fuel economy you lose in cost, so it's not necessarily better for the person who is buying it.

Laws and mandates that focus on one thing and apply it like a blanket on all the population are doomed to make these sort of fibs where instead of providing the better for everybody, they simply put the same size shirt on both the thin guy and the fat guy.

If if fits you, great, if it doesn't, then what?

Is it a cheap shot to point out the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim?

It's entirely relevant that Anders Breivik is the Norwegian equivalent of a Tea Partier. That's not to say an appreciable percentage of Tea Partiers are terrorists, but that the possibility is there for them to exist.

Remember the huge stink when a memo leaked out of Janet Napolitano's department even suggesting the possibility of right wing terrorism? Talk about right-wing political correctness.

I believe within just a month or two after that memo, James von Brunn shot up the holocaust museum.

Go to www.freerepublic.com and you'll find post after post of wing-nuts talking about keeping their "powder dry" among other sickening things. You'll also find plenty examples of outright support for Breivik, because "what choice did he have? Gotta strike first!"

So yes let's stick our heads in the sand because only progressive marxist muslims are terrorists.

It's entirely relevant that Anders Breivik is the Norwegian equivalent of a Tea Partier. That's not to say an appreciable percentage of Tea Partiers are terrorists, but that the possibility is there for them to exist.

That's mighty big of you to admit "That's not to say an appreciable percentage of Tea Partiers are terrorists..."
I mean really, "appreciable percentage"? Given that Anders Breivik ISN'T a Tea Partier (he's a right-wing extremist and murderer, and yes I admit such a thing exists), can you name even a single Tea Partier who IS also a terrorist?
I know you disagree with the Tea Party. Vehemently!
But still, I'm thinking the percentage is zero.

I'm taking exception with your "Norwegian equivalent of a Tea Partier" statement because "equivalent" he certainly is NOT.

Shelgeyr, racism is deeply entrenched in this country, and I wish it was a dated accusation, but it's here for a long time to come. If you live on either coast, you might imagine that things have gotten better, but by the recent beating deaths of people of "color", there hasn't been any real progress. When you get deeper into the heartland, you'll get a sense of hostility toward non-whites that is even more pronounced. When Obama was first elected, there was a palpable rumble of assassination in the air- the first president to have that happen at the beginning of his first term. His color is still resented, perhaps not by you, but it's naive to think that people are suddenly color blind. On the issue of correlating conservatives to the recent massacre is grotesque, and those who have surmised my position by now would know that I don't resort to that. The Republican resistance Obama's receiving is inordinate, unbudging, and has an underlying, ugly side due to racial intolerance.

"Dagens Næringsliv writes that Breivik sought to start a Norwegian version of the Tea Party movement in cooperation with the owners of document.no, but that they, after expressing initial interest, ultimately turned down his proposal because he did not have the contacts he promised."

From Wikipedia. I also threw the source into a translator and found that the owner of document.no described Breivik as "special, but not extreme". I'm assuming he meant that his behavior/rhetoric prior to the attack was not out of the ordinary for those on that site.

Check out www.freerepublic.com if you want to see the american equivalent. It was disgusting to see them initially salivate over the idea of another muslim to blame mass murder on. Then when they realized it was a "christian conservative marxist hunter" many began to try to justify his actions if not outright praise them. If you don't believe me I'll dig up examples, but I find it more effective to let people dig them up on their own.

@Eikka, Gave you a five for your response to me because it was civil for the political divide debates...Which brings us to Freethinking...

You have no idea. I'd be bragging if I told you how many ways you would wish your life was like mine, but lets just suffice it to say, I gain exactly nothing personally by being a moderate independant who supports some of obama's policies, and would lose money if they closed the tax loopholes, which I support.

arbeit macht frei-thinking

Right off the top of my head - without even trying - I can come up with at least several trillion reasons to dislike Obama's policies,

A trillion is a lot.

Progressives are the racists. Only a progressive is stupid enough to linking a mass murdering racist socialist to the tea party. Facts please! Oh I forgot, whatever a progressive says must not be questioned as they are the elite.

Planned parenthood founder was a racist. Hitler a socialist was a racist. The democratic party is the party of racist. But facts never got in the way of a progressive speaking.

@freethinking:
Your rants don't amount to much more than the spittle flying off of the braces of a 10 year-old when her Hello Kitty diary has been violated. Your knowledge of history is appalling. You are the dumbest commenter on this forum to date- hands down.

Part 1:
(This may take awhile, what with the 3-minute no flood posting rule)

Dagens Næringsliv writes that Breivik sought to start a Norwegian version of the Tea Party movement...

I'm going to be careful in this reply so as to not deny Breivik's right-wingedness (or version thereof), while still suggesting that neither he, nor possibly you (I'm not certain, but you're painting with a vastly over-broad brush here) are completely clear as to who makes up the American Tea Party, or what it stands for. The phrase ""Norwegian version of the Tea Party" could mean many things, and I think Breivik's manifesto was pretty clearly not focused on "Taxed Enough Already".

Check out www.freerepublic.com if you want to see the american equivalent.

American equivalent of what? Breivik (which is unwarranted), or the Tea Party (which doesn't make sense)?

Part 2:
Frank, the freepers vent a lot of rhetoric (I wouldn't dare deny that - it would be too easy for you to site examples). Still, keep in mind:
1) The bulk of the comments (IMHO) on this publically postable board are oriented around defense/prep, or around political desires/strategies, not around advocating violence. Feel free to find an exception that isn't immediately and roundly condemned by other posters.
2) By citing the freepers I think you're illustrating a common mistake (or tactic) of the left, which is to confuse (intentionally or otherwise) the various flavors of conservatives. Your average New England steel worker, San Francisco communist leager, and La Raza members nationwide all vote Democrat, but otherwise they hardly overlap in their interests or advocacies.

"Stay on target, stay on target..."

Part 3:

Then when they realized it was a "christian conservative marxist hunter"...

Some liberal writers are blasting those on the right for saying "he's not one of us", but all they can site is that "Breivik called himself one". His claiming to be a Christian holds as much weight as if I claimed to be a Martian. Doesn't make it true. He said he doesn't have a relationship with Jesus Christ and God (the definition of "Christian"), and wrote of "Atheist Christians", a conflict in terms.

His manifesto, page 817, lists the "re-founding" members of the Knights Templar, among which are an English Christian atheist, a German Christian atheist, a Dutch Christian agnostic, and a Russian Christian atheist. On page 820, he says: "...As such, any European Christian conservative can act as a Justiciar Knight. This includes Christian agnostics and Christian atheists."

Pardon me if I don't let deranged murderers even "right-wing" ones redefine common terms for me.

In any case sucking in clean air and spewing out poisonous emissions to provide locomotion will one day be seen as a crime against humanity.

Au contraire,my friend.In some cities,the engine exhaust from a new car is cleaner than the surrounding air..

Hey Shelgeyr,

It wasn't my intention to offend -you-. I was however being intentionally facetious but not about the main point. What I was trying to get at is that any ideology is capable of producing terrorists.

I've never heard someone liberal or conservative who I consider to be a rational actor claim Islam is not capable of producing terrorists. I've never heard a Muslim claim otherwise.

However, I've heard many conservatives, many self proclaimed tea partiers, in the media, in person, on the internet --in every venue-- claim Christians, BY DEFINITION, cannot be terrorists. The act of committing a terrorist act retroactively removes any claims to Christianity by the said actor. How can this be a valid definition?

If you try to explain the No True Scotsman fallacy to them they will say "but Christians can't X (murder, etc)". When you point out similar Islamic verses they will then usually result to the tactic of excluding Islam as a religion. "It's a political movement."

Or if not that they'll say "Christianity is the truth, not a religion" or other similarly twisted logic. Just so Islam and Christianity are not in the same category and so all Christians are precluded from being terrorists.

American equivalent of what? Breivik (which is unwarranted), or the Tea Party (which doesn't make sense)?

I meant they were both. There's post after post after post on freep of people talking about "keeping their powder dry," "exterminating 'thugs'," "second amendment remedies," "stocking ammo for 'Holder's people',".

The only difference between Breveik and your average freeper is he actually acted on his words. Fortunately most freepers are too old to pull off that kind of carnage. The Holocaust Museum shooter only managed to get two fortunately.

Until recently, Freep was part of mainstream conservatism. Tony Snow had an account under his own name. Since Obama got elected they've gone nuts and any vaguely respected commentators have left.

That isn't to say they are not influential. They wield quite a bit of influence. All you have to do is read the site for a while. They are a sizable chunk of the Tea Party. The fact they
are too far to the right for most mainstream conservatives to adopt their causes is the entire reason for the tea party's existence. A tea partier is someone too conservative to consider himself a republican in essence. This also perfectly describes Freep.

Admittedly I'm pulling this figure out of my ass, but I'm sure at least 75% of Freep self identifies as tea partiers, and the ones who don't more than likely view them as not conservative enough.

Anyway, my points in succession were:

1) Any ideology is capable of producing terrorists, including Christianity

2) The Tea Party is predominantly Conservative and Christian.

3) Free Republic is predominantly comprised of tea partiers.

4) Free Republic has produced known terrorists and often flirts with terrorist language in the guise of "revolution".

To sum up: being told for 8 years you aren't a "real American" can leave a person a little bitter.

On top of that, seeing those same people both 1) deny the capability of their own to commit horrible acts, and when they do 2) try to justify them, can leave a person a little enraged.

I've been called a terrorist directly to my face by some asshole on my television. Have you?

FrankHerbert said:

It wasn't my intention to offend -you-. I was however being intentionally facetious but not about the main point.

Buddy, you didn't offend ME, but I do believe I misread or misinterpreted the gist of your post, for that I apologize.

I've heard many conservatives, [snip]--in every venue-- claim Christians, BY DEFINITION, cannot be terrorists.

I have a couple of problems with this statement, without flat out contradicting you, nor do I mean to imply you're saying anything false, but rather that my experience is different. 1) I have NOT heard these groups of people claim that Christian, by definition, can't be terrorists. However, 2) If they have made such a claim, they'd be wrong. In other words, in that part I agree with you.

I happen to think it very unlikely for a Christian to be a terrorist, and for reasons stated earlier that applies to Breivik. But "can be"? Yes.

Why? Christians, like anybody, are capable of violating their own ethics.

"keeping their powder dry," "exterminating 'thugs'," "second amendment remedies," "stocking ammo for 'Holder's people'"

That's a mighty mixed bag.
1) "Keeping your powder dry", whether literally or figuratively, is good advice. It also (almost always) implies a defensive "wait and see, but be ready" posture. You may not like it, but there's nothing really wrong with that.
2) "exterminating 'thugs'" - Were they talking about murderous criminal vigilante hit-squads, the effects of in-home defense, or some other context? Because context is paramount in this case.
3) "second amendment remedies", Frank you may not like it (I don't know your views on this), but the 2nd Amendment is there for a reason. Again, what was the context? And by the way, opposing an oppressive government is a valid context. I'm not saying that's a current valid case, I'm saying it is a valid context.
4) "stocking ammo for 'Holder's people'", Now this one I need to deal with in more space than I have left...

4) "stocking ammo for 'Holder's people'"

Again, what was the context, because I can think of several possibilities - mostly all bad, but at least one good - so knowing the context would be very helpful. Meanwhile, let me speculate:
1) Someone is so pissed off at the Justice Department, most likely for perceived (or real) injustices, that they're ready to shoot at a Federal officer if one comes around. Verdict: They've become unhinged. That's bad.
2) The comment was meant in racial terms. Verdict: The speaker is a racist who has (most likely) become unhinged (or already were, and are now just more so). That's bad.
3) They've witnessed (or read about) specific derelictions of duty within the Justice Department (the Black Panther case comes to mind), and for whatever reason the speaker has valid fears that they're targeted. So they've become prepared in case they're attacked, however likely or unlikely that is. Verdict: Reasonable, possibly even wise.
4) Ran out of room again...

4) "stocking ammo for 'Holder's people'" (continued)

4) Pure braggadocio, youthful or otherwise. Verdict: If youthful, then simply "stupid", and likely based on lies as well. If not youthful, then really, really unwise - it is never a good idea to telegraph your defenses, whether the reasons for having those defenses are based on reality or fever dreams.
(Skipping way ahead...)

The only difference between Breveik and your average freeper is he actually acted on his words.

False on its face, Frank, BUT even if true - that's a big BIG difference. It would be to your credit to realize that in such a case that one difference FAR outweighs the similarities. From our earthly perspective, the sun and the moon are both celestial bodies. The only difference between them is... (almost everything?)

The fact they are too far to the right for most mainstream conservatives to adopt their causes is the entire reason for the tea party's existence.

Not true.

More later...

...is the entire reason for the tea party's existence.

Frank, because of the freepers, I think you've fallen into a "part for the whole" logical fallacy. Which is a fancy way of saying I think you don't have a clear picture of who makes up the Tea Party, or what they stand for. It is an easy trap to fall into, because much of what is said about them differs substantially from what they clearly say about themselves.

Anyway, my points in succession were:
1) Any ideology is capable of producing terrorists, including Christianity

True. Again, not Breveik, because despite his calling himself a Christian, his claim of not having a relationship with Christ & God negates that. But still, and certainly in the abstract, though IMHO the percentage likelihood is very low, it isn't zero.

2) The Tea Party is predominantly Conservative and Christian.

Probably true, but most polls show so is the country...

(to be continued...)

3) Free Republic is predominantly comprised of tea partiers.

I don't know, but let's go with your guess of 75% of freepers also being Tea Partiers. While I doubt ALL those 75% are also exactly the same ones making those incendiary remarks, let's just take it as given.
That leaves the question: But what percentage of Tea Partiers are freepers?

I'm betting the freepers are a small minority of Tea Partiers, even if Tea Partiers are a large majority of freepers. I'd be stunned if the numbers don't bear that out. So what does an examination of the freepers tell you about the majority of Tea Partiers?
Answer: Diddly/Squat.

4) Free Republic has produced known terrorists and often flirts with terrorist language in the guise of "revolution".

Wow, that's a 2-parter.
1) Who? Please name names. What known terrorists have the freepers produced?
2) I'm going to have to say that "terrorist language" is in the ear of the be-hearer, even in the instances wherein we would AGREE.

To sum up: being told for 8 years you aren't a "real American" can leave a person a little bitter.

No kidding! (I'm being a little sarcastic.)
And no doubt. (I'm not being sarcastic here at all.)

That would truly suck.

...seeing those same people both 1) deny the capability of their own to commit horrible acts, and when they do 2) try to justify them, can leave a person a little enraged.

Even though I almost always seem to disagree with you politically, I have to say your reaction to this situation strikes me as quite appropriate. There is indeed such a thing as justified anger.

I've been called a terrorist directly to my face [snip]. Have you?

I don't know what you're specifically referring to, but I have no doubt that it hurt you. As to me, no of course not. I'm not counting some of the bulk insinuations made against right-wingers as a whole, but me personally? Nope. Or at least, not that I'm aware of, which emotionally is the same thing.

I though I was done with this set of replies, but then realized I need to revisit one point before heading off for some tragically overdue sleep...

The only difference between Breveik and your average freeper is he actually acted on his words.

Because of your 75% guestimate, I'm going to take the liberty of pretending you said "Tea Partier" instead of "freeper" and address it that way. Please forgive the license.

Frank, if you truly think that the average Tea Partier secretly desires to slaughter their opponents' (Democrats') children, but are too gutless to do so, then my (unsolicited) advice to you is to turn off the TV, get off the Internet for awhile, and go and actually meet a lot of Tea Partiers. Not so that you'll "find out they're really great", although that's possible, or "so you'll switch sides", etc., but so you'll have a more accurate grasp of who you're calling your enemy. Know they enemy. Let the chips fall where they may.

Wishing you the best...

To all the stupids that not understand the point of Obama. The oil is running out !!! There is no alternative !

@Buyck, the oil is not running out.

@FrankHerbert: I can't believe I misspelled "thy" in what I'd intended to be my "impact line". Instead it became a "punch line". I hope the typo was obvious, but if not, I meant to say "Know thy enemy..."

I'm always amused at lawyers who think that by passing a law, technology and the laws of physics will automatically change for fear of being fined or put in jail. Totally narcissistic worldview our "leaders" have.

The bottom line is cars and trucks are going to cost more. That hurts the middle class. I'm a carpenter and wonder if the environmental folks wont be happy until I'm carrying my tools in a Prius with a sheet of ply wood strapped to the top. America needs trucks and vans to power the economy. I do agree we should do what we can to produce more gas efficient cars and trucks, but NOT on the back of a very unstable economy and shrinking middle class.

How will making improved fuel efficiency standards create more jobs? Who is paying for all the research that must be done for this? The consumer will pay for this, which means all of us. Its a backdoor tax in the long run.

The bottom line is cars and trucks are going to cost more. That hurts the middle class. I'm a carpenter and wonder if the environmental folks wont be happy until I'm carrying my tools in a Prius with a sheet of ply wood strapped to the top. America needs trucks and vans to power the economy. I do agree we should do what we can to produce more gas efficient cars and trucks, but NOT on the back of a very unstable economy and shrinking middle class.

How will making improved fuel efficiency standards create more jobs? Who is paying for all the research that must be done for this? The consumer will pay for this, which means all of us. Its a backdoor tax in the long run.

When you read this article, you'll find the words 'light trucks'. I hope you read your blueprints more carefully than you've read this piece.

No one is going criticize you using your truck for business, all business would grind to a halt. Do you really like spending over sixty dollars every time you fill up? The idea is to make it cost less to operate your vehicle and put less of a burden on our lungs. Don't worry about who's going to pay for it, it's built in to the cost of manufacture, you'll wind up actually saving money, and your customers will think your smart for driving a fuel-efficient truck.

telekinetic,

I think the problem with you is, you THINK you know history, but know very little.

Also telling someone, Dont worry about whos going to pay for it, is stupid. Progressives will make new cars so expensive the common person cant buy them. Progressives are making gas so expensive people cant drive used cars.

killerkopy yes Obama and other progressives are lowering your standard of living by increasing your costs, they want to nudge you to poverty.

arbeit macht frei-thinking,

I think the problem with you is, you THINK you know history, but know very little.

Telekinetic

I wish you would read my post if you are going to quote them. So let me reiterate. I am concerned about the price of cars and trucks going up, in including "light trucks". I Will be more then happy to pass the price of gas and higher cost on to the consumer. All that equates to is less jobs and less people that can afford to fix up their homes. It cost me 115 dollars to fill my truck not 60. I cant wait until gas is 5 or 6 dollars a gallon. When gas is, that will negate and cost per gallon I might have saved for buying a more expensive fuel efficient truck. Also keep in mind less gas bought is less tax money for the states, who will raise the tax on something to keep that same revenue stream coming in. Once again my only point is the people are going to pay for this one way or another.

The government has just decided that increased fuel efficiency is in your best interest.

Unless american car manufacturers increase the efficiency of their cars drastically they will never be competitive on the international market (which is where the real money is made).

Fuel prices are MUCH higher elsewhere in the world and efficiency is consequently a major point of sale for many consumers (e.g. in germany I'm currently paying in excess of 8$ per gallon - guess what No. 1 was on my list when shopping for a new car)

Companies that cannot compete internationally will get swallowed by those who can - and then you WILL see the jobs go overseas. So Obama's new standards are not just a plea to save the environment/resources but a last ditch effort to save the American auto industry.

Do you really believe that the American auto companies are not doing all that they can to produce the most cost effective efficient product. Ford could build a car that will run 150 Miles to the gallon. The problem is on one could afford to buy that car. The tech is expensive. They have 3d tvs that do not require glasses to see 3d. The problem is they are to expensive for that average person to buy. Should the government force the tv companies to make those tvs only. Let the free market stay FREE!

Do you really believe that the American auto companies are not doing all that they can to produce the most cost effective efficient product.

What I believe or not isn't the point. Fact is: Currently they are not building efficient vehicles (by international standards). International car manufacturers are, somehow, able to design/build these types of cars at competitive prices - and have been able to do so for decades. The tech isn't THAT complicated.

Obama's job is to save jobs and the economy. If the car companies fail (because they don't see the need to convert) and foreign car makers take over then a lot of jobs and a sizeable portion of the economy are in jeopardy.

There can't be infinite bailouts for the auto industry.
(and if the government hadn't bailed them out - i.e. if the US had let the market stay free - then there wouldn't have been any US auto makers left after 2008)

KillerKopy, BULLSHIT.

The Model T got 25 MPG in what... 1908? The average car on the road today gets about 24 MPG. In over 100 years the efficiency versus price ratio hasn't increased AT ALL? Find me an industry with a similar problem. Computers? No. Manufacturing? No. Anything? NO!

Please keep saying the "free market" will fix everything though. Just plug your ears and close your eyes so you don't have to know about any bailouts your ideology makes necessary. Wouldn't want to feel any cognitive dissonance, would you?

Shelgeyr,

Prominent anti-Islamic tea partier Pam Geller supports Breivik.

http://thinkprogr...k-right/

To get her point across, Geller posts a picture of the youth camp children Breivik targeted. The picture was taken on the Utøya island camp about 24 hours before Breivik killed over 30 children, so it is likely Geller is mocking many of the victims. Under the picture, Geller writes: "Note the faces which are more MIddle [sic] Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian."

Geller, a fixture on Fox News and conservative gatherings, gained a large national following last year after fueling a campaign to smear a planned community center several blocks from the Ground Zero site as a "victory mosque."

And she is not the only leading conservative to rationalize Breiviks beliefs and actions. Pat Buchanan wrote a column recently arguing that "Breivik may be right." On his radio show, Glenn Beck said the youth camp Breivik targeted, which could be compared to the College Democrats or other mainstream political organizations, reminded him of "Hitler Youth."

It's not an isolated trend.

Frank

LOL you cant really be serious! The major advancements in the auto industry are unparalleled. The Model T got 13-21 MPG and had 20 HP with a top speed of 40 MPH. It was basically a casket on wheels as far and safety, it didn't even have a windshield.

The 2011 Ford Taurus Show with about that same MPG has 365 HP and the car cuts the driver off at 140 MPH.

Were the auto companies bailed out or did they get a loan? Besides who said I was for the bail out, for the banks or the autos, I have my stock in Ford anyway. The bailout pissed me off. But I guess to antialias_physorg Ford isn't an American auto company because it didn't take the government loan.

Right and what is the MPG at 140 MPH? I went up to cut off speed (130 or 135, I forget) in my '92 Taurus and you could practically watch the fuel needle fall. Why the hell can any car, let alone an economy car, go that fast? For you it's some source of pride, for me it's an incredible waste of engineering talent.

The point is the auto industry has focused on increased power at the expense of efficiency precisely because of the "free" market. Sometimes you need the government to prime the pump on a technology so to speak. Fuel standards, rebates for efficient vehicles, R&D money, etc. There are many ways the government can manufacture an incentive to produce these technologies. The "free" market has proven it won't.

Bravo Frank you arrived at my original point all by yourself. If the Government has to offer rebates and R&D money who is going to pay for that? Everyone!!!
People don't want to buy those piece of crap "smart cars", at least not in Detroit where I live. We want to make my own choices on what car to buy, and don't need big brother in Washington telling Detroit what cars to build. If people want more fuel efficient cars Detroit will build them, if people don't then Washington should piss off.

You live in Detroit and you can't see the problem?

If people want more fuel efficient cars Detroit will build them, if people don't then Washington should piss off.
You are hopeless.

That's why most of the best selling cars in the US are foreign?
http://www.goodca...ica.html
( The top 2 are GM ;-) )

Of course you'll never experience the full brunt of the "free" market. Had the American auto-industry been allowed to collapse I would hope you would get this. However, liberal benevolence has saved you from having to reap the seeds you have sown. You have the luxury of your ignorant opinion thanks solely to President Obama. You should personally thank him for saving you from that mess.

Do you seriously read what I'm writing? I was not for the loan! I don't work for the autos and didn't want my taxes going to the banks or car companies. If GM and Chrysler failed then Ford and other companies would benefit, that's fine by me. That's how free enterprise works. Economics 101... come on man, your not a Marxist are you?

KillerKopy, if the auto industry didn't get a bailouts, they would have failed (all except FORD I believe) in its wake thousands of people would have been out of work. Also there would have been a void in car manufacturing.

This void would be filled by smaller, more innovative and reactive car manufactures. Now because you have multiple companies instead of 1, you would need several accountants instead of 1, you would more workers filling duplicate jobs.

So the collapse would eventually generate more jobs.

Also since new smaller companies are generally more innovative, one would generate a high power luxury car that gets 100MPH that people want, another would build a battery powered car that charges in 10 minutes and goes 500 miles before recharging and is affordable.

Now because of the bailouts, we get less innovation, less jobs, higher national debt. BTW did the bailouts go to those who legally should have received the money first or to the unions? If you guessed unions, you are right. You got to love it that Obama gave tax payers hard earned money directly to the unions! Killerkopy you must be a right wing nut job if you object that the money that went to the unions are now going to help re-elect dear leader Obama!

This void would be filled by smaller, more innovative and reactive car manufactures.

You think so? More likely the international car manufacturers would simply increase their market share (or easily buy up/push out any fledgling startup that is even close to producing a reasonably competitive car).

This is standard (capitalist) practice and can be seen in any business segment. Currently most notably in software development, but the buying up of smaller car manufacturers in recent years is also a pretty long list (buyer in parentheses):
- Rover (Tata)
- Volvo (Geely)
- Saab (GM)
- Chrysler (first Daimler now Fiat)
- Mini (BMW)
- Jaguar (Tata)
- Porsche, Bentley, Lmborgini, Skoda, MAN, Scani, Bugatti, Seat (Volkswagen)
- Renault-Nissan ...

You really think a fledgeling startup would stand any chance?

who would think a startup operating from a garage could over shadow mighty IBM in less than 20 years?

another would build a battery powered car that charges in 10 minutes and goes 500 miles before recharging and is affordable.

The "free market" is literally magic to you isn't it? Holy shit.

Well ya see... you just let 2/3rd of the industry fail and see... companies have these things like pine cones, and when they feel a company is about to collapse they release their company seeds and new companylings will sprout up in their place. Through magic and the awesome power of jesus these much smaller less funded companies will magically produce better products cheaper because FREE MARKET AMERICA JESUS YEAH!

who would think a startup operating from a garage could over shadow mighty IBM in less than 20 years?

Because said startup's first product was a product comissioned by - you guessed it - IBM (That product having been MS-DOS)

Which IBM foolishly didn't buy but agreed to pay royalties for every copy sold/used.

They certainly learned from that mistake.

Oh hey, "might IBM" got its start through a government contract to tabulate the 1890 census. Communist bastards!

Frank when I travelled communist east germany I saw a sign that said, the party acts and thinks for you. Progressives theology couldn't be phrased better.

Why is it that progressives are so scared of the free market? Is it because they have so little confidence in themselves? Is it because they want to control others? I understand why established big business hates the free market and wants regulation, but why do progressives want to support big business? Why are progressives more interested in shutting down childrens lemonaid stands than catching real criminals?

Progressives say they are for the small guy, but do everything they can to help big business crush small business. If small business makes a mistake, they fail. If big business makes a mistake, and they pay their dues to the right progressive, they get a bail out.

This void would be filled by smaller, more innovative and reactive car manufactures.

Says who? It seems to me that the surviving big car manufacturers would be in a better position to capture that market "void" than some start-up entrepreneur. Your thinking is rife with unexamined assumptions such as this one.

Thrasymachus no it isn't. In the business that I'm in, there are much larger companies than the one I own, and many about my size. If the larger companies fail, there is more room for us smaller companies to grow.

BTW, we are also more green (and have received awards for being green) than any of the big guys for several reasons. 1. I hate throwing anything away, 2. we can change our policies and procedures on the dime, 3. being small allows us to change out our equipment.

Now if the bigger guys can change regulations to benefit themselves, if they could convince a progressive to give them bailouts when they make mistakes, they would drive us out of business. With the smaller companies out of business prices would rise, unemployment would rise, innovation would decrease.

It's somewhat amusing that progressives on one hand say they are against corporate wealfare, then on the other hand defend it.

As a conservative, I believe companies should fail or succeed on their own.

some start-up entrepreneur.

What big auto company is working on flying cars?

smaller less funded companies

By whom? It's the GEs, protected by 'progressives' that play it safe and risk little corporate funding.
It is the start up entrepreneur that, if he has a sound idea and product, can obtain venture capital funding, like Spaceship One and Two.

For the record, GM and Chrysler DID go bankrupt. It wasn't the companies that were bailed out, it was their unions.

If people are still driving gas-powered cars by 2025, we're in big trouble.

How will road taxes be collected?
Gasoline and diesel are heavily taxed ostensibly to pay for roads.
No gasoline, no diesel, no taxes. What will the govt do?

Frank, you said:

Prominent anti-Islamic tea partier Pam Geller supports Breivik.

Frank, that's beneath you. It is also false. I'm not calling you a liar, because I think you've been deceived from reading things like the thinkprogress link you provided. Here's counter-links:

http://atlasshrug...ter.html

http://dailycalle...T9QwOJzj

From the above:

Geller also told TheDC that shes never advocated in favor of anything violent. Nowhere in anything that Ive ever written do I ever in any way promote violence...

Frank, I realize we've gotten far afield from car efficiency standards, and reading other parts of this thread I'm glad it seems to have gotten back on track, so I hope you don't mind that I'm going to answer a couple more of your points...

It is organizations like Al Jazeera which are equating Glenn Beck with Breivik (as all being cut from the same rotten cloth). Hardly a good source for your "trend".
http://www.glennb...jazeera/

You said:

Glenn Beck said the youth camp Breivik targeted, (snip) reminded him of "Hitler Youth."

And exactly how does equate with supporting what Breivik did? Beck didn't say the campers deserved to be slaughtered, he said, essentially (I'm paraphrasing here) that the purpose of the camp creeped him out.

Your quote about Pat Buchanan is a slur. I don't even like Buchanan and yet you've managed to get me to defend him. That's talent!

What was Buchanan referring to when he said "Breivik may be right"?

It wasn't the killing spree... it was that the threat to Europe "comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists."
http://www.wnd.co...TDOTaroZ

In this very article that your lefty blogs cite for trashing Buchanan, he writes "Breivik is evil a cold-blooded, calculating killer..."

He ends by saying "As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right."

You said "It's not an isolated trend."

My friend, it is not a trend at all.

it was that the threat to Europe "comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration

I think the guy should pick up a history book once in a while. It's astounding how little US citizens (and those of its 'elite') know about anything outside the US' borders.

How will road taxes be collected?

Probably the same way road taxes are already being collected in some countries (e.g. in germany a system for trucks is already being used): A mandatory small device in the truck registers whenever you pass an Autobahn checkpoint.

who would think a startup operating from a garage could over shadow mighty IBM in less than 20 years?

Do you happen to know how many Nobel prizes have been received by employees of that former garage startup?
Who's standing in whose shadow?

Shelgeyr,

From your link:
"'Its like equating Charles Manson, who heard in the lyrics of Helter Skelter a calling for the Manson murders,' Geller said in an exclusive phone interview. 'Its like blaming the Beatles. Its patently ridiculous.'"

If Helter Skelter had repeated "SHARON TATE IS DESTROYING YOUR CULTURE!" this would be an accurate analogy. A more accurate (though still flawed) analogy would be trying to absolve Manson of his murders because he never actually killed anyone. The difference between Manson and Geller being Manson actually told people to do it. However, there are more similarities between Manson and Geller in her analogy than there are between The Beatles and Geller.

She is peddling conspiracy theories to mentally ill people.

Buchannan is culpable for the exact same reasons. I'm not even going to touch your defense of Beck, and frankly, your apologetics have lost you any of my respect.

who would think a startup operating from a garage could over shadow mighty IBM in less than 20 years?

Do you happen to know how many Nobel prizes have been received by employees of that former garage startup?
Who's standing in whose shadow?

Yaser Arafat won a Nobel Prize.

If people are still driving gas-powered cars by 2025, we're in big trouble.

How will road taxes be collected?
Gasoline and diesel are heavily taxed ostensibly to pay for roads.
No gasoline, no diesel, no taxes. What will the govt do?

Enable motor vehicles to be PAID for the work they do, and TAX them directly for the infrastructure wear and tear that THEY produce, as well as their storage, upkeep, and recycling.

Vehicles will be able to report EXACTLY what work they do and for whom. There is no reason owners cant be circumvented and revenues collected directly, thereby replacing taxes lost to automation.

The potential to recover lost $$ due to duplication, error, incompetence, and corruption would be enormous. This would only be a clever accounting rearrangement. Your buddy Ross Perot should be able to figure out how to do this.

Shelgeyr: First of all Buchanan is a racist SOB. He showed his true colors again the other day on Sharpton's show. Don't defend him. Calling a psychopath serial killer right about the stated reason for his rampage is sick, even if you call him names.

notthinking: I hope you learn from these exchanges that you don't think this stuff through very well. You come here with your tripe and get smacked around constantly. At least ryggy makes good points. The Arafat one is funny.

I don't know what industry you are in, but the auto industry has some huge barriers to entry and economies of scale that make it near impossible for smaller companies to compete. Before ryggy pipes in, I'll easily concede that some of the barriers are government controls that we may be better without, but there are other technology barriers that just take money and time to overcome. US car manufacturers failing could have easily sent us into a Great Republican Depression, instead of the Recession.

Probably the same way road taxes are already being collected in some countries (e.g. in germany a system for trucks is already being used): A mandatory small device in the truck registers whenever you pass an Autobahn checkpoint.

I guess Germans are used to their government keeping track of their travels.

FrankHerbert said to me:

I'm not even going to touch your defense of Beck, and frankly, your apologetics have lost you any of my respect.

That saddens me. While I'm not asking you to like Beck, or what he said, if disputing your assertion that he was "rationaliz(ing) Breiviks beliefs and actions" is enough for you to lose respect for me then I guess A) that's sad, and B) it was probably inevitable.

Just for the record, while I'm not trying to act "holier than thou", I will say that despite thinking some of your ideas are ridiculous, I haven't ridiculed you for them (I don't think - I hope I'm not forgetting something here). I certainly haven't lost respect for you, especially in terms of debate.

I've defended people I could not stand who were falsely accused. I wanted to shout out "Give me something valid, because they didn't do THIS." Hope springs eternal that you would do similarly, and I think you're falsely accusing these three.

US car manufacturers failing

There was NO risk of US car manufacturers failing.
Ford, Toyota, Honda, Suburu and others were doing quite well. Volkswagen is opening a factory in TN.
Govt money went to prop up the UAW, not GM or Chrysler. GM and Chrysler DID go bankrupt, but they are still trying to stay in business. GM killed Saturn and Pontiac, but they are doing pretty well in China.
BTW, how is Tesla doing? They seemed to be able to do something many of the big guys can't do.

Pyle:

Calling a psychopath serial killer right about the stated reason for his rampage is sick, even if you call him names.

Believe me, emotionally speaking I'm with you, but let me parse this out... and please keep in mind I do not like Pat Buchannan.

When you say "...right about the stated reason for his rampage", you're using "true but deceptive" language, easily misunderstood to mean "right about the rampage" (and it has been). You've left no room for a version of "agree with your concerns, but not only disagree with what you did about them, but find your actions to be unspeakably evil".
I paraphrase, of course.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but bear with me:
The Dow fell 512 points today. If for some reason (a screw loose, or just plain being evil) my ardent concern over this was my excuse for going on a racist killing spree, it wouldn't make YOU a racist, much less in support of my killing spree, to agree that the Dow's fall was a matter of serious concern.

"He notes that so far at least, the explanatory power of sociobiology combined with neuroscience is entirely "retrospective." Experts can draw correlations between this and that, "but they can't even tell you what's going to happen on the New York Stock Exchange tomorrow."
"Human action remains mysterious, and what's more, "it's dangerous to think we do have that kind of understanding," because in the worst case, it could lead to a kind of scientific dictatorship."
{Which appears to be the motivation of 'progressives'.}
"Dr. Dalrymple has a point. And if the deepest thoughts of even our friends and acquaintances would be a horror, we should be grateful that there are gaps in our understanding of an Anders Breivik. Some gaps, we don't really want to fill. "
http://online.wsj...000.html

Its amazing that progressives say conservatives are racist with no or false information yet ignore their own racists.

BTW, follow the money. Who got the money from the auto bailout? Unions! Who do the unions support with their money and time? The same ones who gave them the money in the first place. So everyone who pays taxes gave their money to re-elect Obama. How fair is that.

I think everyone can agree that any entity that receives government money shouldn't be allowed to be political.

Shelgeyr: I don't disagree with your argument. What I find disgusting is that Buchanan is a racist jerk. While not condoning violence, he is providing justification to violent psychopaths. Your leap to his aid despite disliking him is misguided, but your argument is sound. That is just my sporadically informed opinion.

Its amazing that progressives say conservatives are racist with no or false information yet ignore their own racists.

I don't ignore any racists. Buchanan's comments during his appearance on Sharpton's show were racist.

Who got the money from the auto bailout? Unions!

Yeah. Union members got some of the money. Guess what. They're American taxpayers. The money they got was spent in their local economies. That money helped keep America afloat. Where as the money Bush and Paulson gave their buddy banksters? Multi-million dollar bonuses. I'll take the unions, thanks.

I think everyone can agree that any entity that receives government money shouldn't be allowed to be political.

Entity? That includes people persons as well as your union persons and corporation persons? So Social Security recipients shouldn't be allowed to be political? How about me and my loan that the bank sold to Fannie Mae?

So who exactly should be allowed to be political? Just the billionaires getting laws passed so they can avoid taxes and protect their monopolies (nod to ryggy)? Idiot.

At least ryggy makes good points. The Arafat one is funny.

No, it isn't. ryggesogn2 is just evading questions, as always.

Your comparison of a peace Nobel prize (awarded to anti-democrats like Kissinger and Tendzin Gyatsho because of political haggling) to physics Nobel prizes is inappropriate.

Truth is:
There's no way a company like IBM that produced five scientific Nobel Prizes is being overshadowed by a former garage start-up that is making profits based on the uninformedness of the customers.

IBM that produced five scientific Nobel Prizes is being overshadowed by a former garage start-up that is making profits based on the uninformedness of the customers.

Where were these Nobel Prize winners when IBM was nearly out of business?
What really frosts the 'progressives' cookie is people like Henry Ford, without even a high school diploma could make products and services people want to buy and become wealthy. The 'progressive' just doesn't think this is 'fair'.
How can anyone become wealthy by persuading customers to buy their products?

What really frosts the 'progressives' cookie

You do realize that the 'progressives' were an offshoot of the Republican party (which later rejoined that party except for one person who went to the Democrats?)

What really frosts the 'progressives' cookie

You do realize that the 'progressives' were an offshoot of the Republican party (which later rejoined that party except for one person who went to the Democrats?)

Some of the people in tea parties are, or were, Republicans.
US 'progressives' started with Teddy Roosevelt.
Hayek begins his "Road to Serfdom" with, 'to socialists of all parties'.
Socialist is as socialist does regardless of party affiliation.

Democrat and Progressive racists:
FDR, Jesse Jackson, Dan Rather, Cragg Hines, Al Sharpton, Dick Gephardt, Andrew Cuomo, Lee. P Brown, Mary Frances Berry, Billy McKinney, the KKK.

During the Civil Rights Act debate, 40% of the House Democrats voted against the civil rights bill. Only 20% of the Republicans did. It was passed by the hard work of Republican Everett Dirksen and Thomas Kuchel.

Three most notorious oppenents of school integration where all Democrats. Oraval Faubus, one of Bill Clinton's political heroes, George Wallace, Lester Maddox.

Racism, re-writing history, and using people is something Democrats and progressives do very well.

Pyle:

What I find disgusting is that Buchanan is a racist jerk.

I consider myself a right-winger, probably even a "far, far (echos continue into the distance) right-winger", but I agree with and endorse that statement.

That is just my sporadically informed opinion.

I love that phrase, and plan on stealing it to replace the way overused "IMHO". Good one! Thank you very much!

Your leap to his aid despite disliking him is misguided, but your argument is sound.

Please understand, and you probably already do, but my "leap to his aid" wasn't because it was HIM, in fact I wish someone else had been the target, but rather because the same type of argument/accusation/charge was being leveled at several conservatives, it needs to be answered, and he was one of those cited. In other words, I didn't really pick the target, he was part of the topic. I appreciate the feedback though.

ft: I didn't say there weren't enough racists to go around. I would argue the KKK shouldn't be thrown into any political camp, but especially not the progressives or Democratic party. Because the basic message of the first part of your comment was legitimate I acknowledged it, but the KKK bit and all that followed warranted a 1.

I really don't care who was labeled what back in the 50's. What I do care is that the Republicans in elected office throughout the country now are bought and paid for by moneyed interests who have anything but the general well-being of the citizens of the US and the health of this nation in mind.

frajo: I didn't say ryggy was right. His deflections are just good and they make me laugh. He is always twisting this way and that to avoid the heavy losses he takes in these exchanges. What I admire is the level of intelligence required to keep up the fight that apparently isn't used at all to honestly evaluate his own position.

ft: I didn't say there weren't enough racists to go around.

Racism is unfortunately a wholly natural expression of the tribal dynamic; internal altruism and external animosity. It is common to species in general and is the germ of speciation, the 'urge to diverge', to occupy all occupiable niches and maximize diversity.

But like so many of our animalistic urges and compulsions, racism endangers civilization. In order to suppress it, the artificial identification with humanity as a whole as being ones 'tribe' must constantly be reinforced. Western culture is designed to do this in many different ways. It is no easy task.

So anyway keep up the good work pyle. You are a credit to your tribe.

So anyway keep up the good work pyle. You are a credit to your tribe.

Thanks. Um. I think?

Racism is unfortunately a wholly natural expression of the tribal dynamic;

During this whole conversation I wanted to expand this from racism to the concept of us and them. Why limit it to race when we can hate everybody that isn't just like me? I think the same tribal instincts apply. Unfortunately misogyny doesn't fit into that mold. There is a whole other set of explanations for why people can be so bad to women.

Fuel efficiency standards? Huh?

Why limit it to race when we can hate everybody that isn't just like me?

Correct. I think that biologically it concerns 1) perceived competition over resources and 2) The idea of loss of adaptation.

Unfortunately misogyny doesn't fit into that mold.

Misogeny, like racism, is probably not the right word. Male and female animals have different reproductive priorities. Biologically, men seek to maximize the number of mating partners. Their strategy is based on Quantity. A woman however has much more invested in each child she bears. Her priority is Quality.

And how does she discern which male is best qualified as donor for her next child? The best way is to pit partners and potential suitors against one another. This too is biological, and it is also a grave danger to the cohesiveness of tribes. Jealousy and infighting endanger trust and self-sacrifice necessary for success on the battlefield.
cont

bought and paid for by moneyed interests who have anything but the general well-being of the citizens of the US and the health of this nation in mind.

Like the Wall Street Obama donors?

The only people who seem to have the best interests of the US citizens, and hence the world, are those from tea parties that want a govt that doesn't suck up all the people's wealth and put them on food stamps, serfs to the state.

And so I think that from very early on the natural urges of 'squaws' in the tribe were culturally suppressed, and the tribes which did this could grow larger and more compact. The most obvious examples of this can be seen in fundamentalist cultures. Islamists cover their women from head to toe and restrict their activity to bearing and raising children. There is no jealousy, no 'trading up' by women as they have no way of attracting contenders. This is also a formula for maximizing aggressive growth.

Western culture wants now to restrict growth. It has returned to women their real 'right to choose' - to choose the most suitable donor for each and every child they wish to bear.

As we are tropical animals the urge to merge is constantly with us, and so this dynamic is constantly at work in society.

The New World Order - the Ascent of the Woman - is upon us. It is meant primarily to restrict growth, as is the legalization of gaydom etc. It too takes a great deal of effort to maintain.

The New World Order - the Ascent of the Woman - is upon us. It is meant primarily to restrict growth, as is the legalization of gaydom etc. It too takes a great deal of effort to maintain.

HAHAHAHAHA
Otto, you go too far.

Ryggy: Yup, just like the Obama donors. Funny that you say the teabaggers have the best interests of the US citizens in mind. Their little stunt with the debt ceiling almost sent the world into a Depression. But its OK. They thought they were doing the right thing. Lets hear it for principles. Who cares if their ideology has been proven wrong over the past 30 years. Free market capitalism and removing government controls with tax breaks for the rich and corporate interests got us into this mess. Maniacs the lot of you.

Their little stunt with the debt ceiling almost sent the world into a Depression.

"Govt official: US expecting S&P downgrade" http://blogs.abcn...ade.html
"Food stamp use rises to record 45.8 million"
http://money.cnn....HP_River
"Fannie Mae seeks $5.1 billion more from taxpayers"
http://www.cnbc.c...4032122/
"Beneath Jobs Report Surface Lie Some Ugly Truths"
http://www.cnbc.c...44033486
"The average income was $54,283, a drop of more than $3,500, or 6 percent, from 2008. That put the average income at its lowest level since 1997.

Read more: http://www.politi...UC0R7ZIl

Obama is doing a bang up job!
Whose ideology IS being proven wrong?
Can you say "socialist"?

Actually the socialist ideology IS being proven to be correct.
It does lead to the equal sharing of misery as Churchill said.

Obama is doing a bang up job!
Whose ideology IS being proven wrong?
Can you say "socialist"?

Obama is trying to pick up the pieces left after the disaster that should be called the Great Republican Recession. The US and its economy was in a nose dive when he took office and he is slowly trying to pull us out despite the obstructionists from the party of NO that controls the House.

Obama is doing the best he can given the cards he was dealt. The train wreck left by Bush, two years of filibustering in the Senate and two more years of a divided Congress.

And he is NOT a socialist. He favors some socialist policies, as do all reasonable people. He also favors capitalist policies.

Excuses, excuses.
'Liberal' democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2011.
Obama's FIRST priority was to nationalize health care. NOT to get the economy out of a recession. He even inspired MA to vote for a Republican senator.
Socialist is as socialist does. Obama IS a socialist.

The New World Order - the Ascent of the Woman - is upon us. It is meant primarily to restrict growth, as is the legalization of gaydom etc. It too takes a great deal of effort to maintain.

HAHAHAHAHA
Otto, you go too far.

Only when I am completely SERIOUS. women haven't won any ultimate intrinsic freedom; it only feels like it. If you're a woman that is. There is no 'freedom' in regard to biology. We're all captives.

"In other words, the President's "signature achievement" actually exacerbates the main problem it was ostensibly designed to solve. Obamacare will "bend the cost curve" upward while expanding the unemployment rolls."
"And all of this damage was done despite the vociferous objections of the voters, who made it obvious in town halls, huge public demonstrations, and off-year elections that we wanted the Democrats to abandon their fixation on health care and focus on jobs. But the President and his congressional accomplices simply ignored us."
http://spectator....n-waiti#

Hey ryggamajig
I was researching dysgenics and came across this term - paleoconservative. Is this you?
http://en.wikiped...ervatism

-it's like cromags with tricorner hats I think.

"It's time for the president and his allies to start listening to the real job providers people like Home Depot founder Bernie Markus and Las Vegas kingpin Steve Wynn, who recently spoke up and follow their simple plan for the way the federal government can truly spur the economy.

Reduce regulations like the new fuel economy mandate of 54.5 miles per gallon lower and simplify taxes, and cut spending severely, to allow our free market economy to thrive and for the real job providers to begin hiring again.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.co...UCQm4800
"
http://detnews.co...kets-can

"The only thing worse than the abject failure of a liberal president, at least in the eyes of the liberal, is the undeniable failure of liberalism itself. To claim Mr. Obama has been a good president no longer even remotely passes the laugh test. Consider the results thus far of the Obama presidency:

Two million-private sector jobs have been lost.
Unemployment jumped from 7.8 to 9.2 percent with a simply terrible 2011 first-quarter economic growth rate of just 0.4 percent.
A record 1 in 7 Americans is on food stamps."
"as the liberal presidency of Mr. Obama becomes increasingly indefensible, the liberal is faced with an unthinkable dilemma: acknowledge the fundamental failure of his collectivist liberal philosophy, which tends toward socialism, or blame its failures on a single man whom, until just recently, the liberal deified."
http://www.washin...k-obama/
Pyle, are you going to blame Obama or socialism?

Pyle, are you going to blame Obama or socialism?

Neither.
I am going to blame the 30 years of holes dug by conservatives in Washington that undermined the foundation that made the US strong.
I am going to blame the illegal war waged by Bush. Tax cuts for the rich. Medicare part D that siphoned money to big pharma. Deregulation of the banking industry and utter lack of enforcement that Dubya's executive branch pursued. I am going to blame Dubya's cronyism, installing incompetent fools to run the country because they attended Pat Robertson University and the like.

No, I'll blame the cause, not one cleaning it up.

If your ideas were enacted the WORLD would enter a second great Depression in weeks, if not days. Would your imaginary market forces eventually sort it out? Maybe, but my guess is it would look like the world at the end of Atlas Shrugged, just as your visionary Ayn Rand predicted. Not a very good target in my book. (For the hipper crowd, think Hunger Games.

It is interesting to note how 'progressives' completely ignore historical data, and proven theories, that shows the failure of socialism to increase liberty and prosperity.
I can only conclude that goal of the 'progressive' is NOT individual liberty and prosperity.

I can only conclude that goal of the 'progressive' is NOT individual liberty and prosperity.

You're right! The goal of the progressive is to improve the quality of life and security of the majority, not the moneyed few. You want people to be free to abuse each other and accumulate wealth in the hands of the few. I want the masses to be able to live in comfort and security with good paying jobs that contribute to a healthy society.

You seem to think that if you cut the robber barons loose that they will make a better world. You are wrong. You are the one selectively picking from historical data the data points you like, while ignoring the volumes of suffering written by your delusional ideology.

(btw, disappointed you didn't attack my choice of worlds. I chose them thinking you'd have a great retort based on my selection. Oh well.)

Pyle, since it has been proven that progressives are racist manipulators, who re-write history, why should conservatives believe progressives when they say their goal is to improve the quality of life and security of the majority?

Or, how can we trust progressives to improve the quality of life and security of the majority when the policies that they enact and espouse have been proven to have the exact opposite.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Conservatives want everyone to live under and be treated the same as everyone else. To be judged not by our skin color, our religion, our beliefs, but by our character. Is it not progressives that judge based on skin color, religion, beliefs, and ignore character as important?

I didn't say ryggy was right. His deflections are just good and they make me laugh.

I wouldn't call something "good" that demonstrates the stance of "no understanding needed". There is no discernible difference to the stance "I'm your master; your opinion does not matter". He's exercising an Orwellian language crafted for the sole purpose of suppression.

He is always twisting this way and that to avoid the heavy losses he takes in these exchanges. What I admire is the level of intelligence required to keep up the fight that apparently isn't used at all to honestly evaluate his own position.

I don't admire fascist mind sets. And I wouldn't call "intelligence" what is more appropriately described as "antisocial instincts".

he goal of the progressive is to improve the quality of life and security of the majority, not the moneyed few.

What is 'quality of life'? I just saw a prison in Norway. They have a great quality of life. But it is still a prison.

cut the robber barons loose

They never existed without the support of the govt.

You are justifying your desire for power with false history.
The 'progressive' era for the past century has been shown to fail to accomplish even your objective.
Churchill is correct. Socialism (aka 'progressiveness') is the equal sharing of misery. Capitalism is the unequal sharing of prosperity.

"t a liberal society is one that accepts that inequality of income and wealth is inseparable from individual freedom. Given the diversity of mens natural and acquired abilities and volitional inclinations, the rewards earned by people in the marketplace will inevitably be uneven. Nor can it be otherwise if we are not to diminish or even suffocate the incentives that move men to apply themselves in creative and productive ways."
"Mises bemoaned the fact that people are all too willing to resort to state power to impose their views of personal conduct and morality whenever their fellow human beings veer from their own conception of the good, the virtuous and the right. He despaired, The propensity of our contemporaries to demand authoritarian prohibition as soon as something does not please them . . . shows how deeply ingrained the spirit of servility still remains in them. . . ."

http://www.thefre...y-part-i

"Government regulations, redistributive welfare programs, trade restrictions and subsidies, tax policies, and monetary manipulation are employed to grant profit and employment privileges to special-interest groups that desire positions in society they are unable to attain on the open, competitive market. Corruption, hypocrisy, and disrespect for the law, as well as abridgments on the freedom of others, naturally follow."

http://www.thefre...part-ii/
Pyle somehow believes the power of the state won't be corrupted to benefit special interests.

... free to abuse each other and accumulate wealth in the hands of the few. I want the masses to be able to live in comfort and security with good paying jobs that contribute to a healthy society.

Esscuse me, but you all on both sides of this debate seem to be oblivious to the dynamics of pop growth and how IT affects individual liberty and the level of discord in society. During the growth phase of a Cycle there is plenty of Prosperity to go around. Investment in new tech and markets creates jobs AND wealth.

But this unavoidably leads to overgrowth. It's what warm-blooded tropical animals DO. Malthus was only popularizing what Leaders had known for millennia. Prosperity in zero-growth western nations attracted those most ambitious and resourceful from overcrowded 3rd world countries, artificially feeding the Cycle.
Cont

No matter who is in charge or what kind of govt they occupy, they will be blamed for shortages and discontent as resource supply cannot keep up with demand, and the Collapse phase of the Cycle ensues. The only reason we are not experiencing runaway inflation at the moment is because significant numbers of people are unemployed and investment money has dwindled.

The beauty of democracy is that it offers people the illusion of choice - of change - but even this does not last. In Germany in the 1920s dozens of political parties sprang up, and democracy effectively collapsed, to be replaced by despotism as Aristotle had explained.

It is Overgrowth which increasingly restricts freedom and encourages abuse. Either side of your ideological debate is equally prone to this. You are being divided up along Predictable lines in preparation for Planned Conflict.

It is going to be a very messy year or 2 or 3. Is your powder dry?

As we can see (if we choose to LOOK), these Cycles of growth, decay, collapse, and rebirth are extremely obvious and eminently Predictable. They are to be expected. And if left to play out by themselves they can ruin economies and critically weaken nations.

OBVIOUSLY, Leaders who knew this could occur and WOULD occur without proper intervention, would want to intervene to prevent the Inevitable from destroying all that had been constructed so far.

They would owe it to their own families and Their Tribe.

And we can see (if we choose to LOOK) that this may explain the world we live in today, and the history behind it.

Open your bible and read how Joseph and pharaoh ended up owning all of Egypt because they accepted that collapse wad inevitable and chose to prepare for it.

Otto, were the lat three comments really from you? I may not agree with it all, but you are being reasonable! For that I give you a 5...

Otto, were the lat three comments really from you? I may not agree with it all, but you are being reasonable! For that I give you a 5...

OF COURSE! Pay attention. Otto has been blasting this stuff for months. It makes SENSE out of your book and your religion (but so sorry it's still got to go).

There IS an EMPIRE. A Tribe of Leaders. They Own us.

It's entirely relevant that Anders Breivik is the Norwegian equivalent of a Tea Partier. That's not to say an appreciable percentage of Tea Partiers are terrorists, but that the possibility is there for them to exist.- FrankHerbert

If you truely believe this, you must be borderline retarded. Anyone with any semblance of historic literacy knows that extreme wack job PEOPLE, including Obama's leftist buddy Bill Ayers, ... are potential terrorists, NOT an ideology of itself.

The TEA party merely stand for less spending, smaller government, less redistribution by devaluing wealth. That's it!! Potential terrorists!??? Now that is extreme rhetoric and over the top irrationality on your part,... makes me wonder about your stability by your logic.

If I had my way Anders Breivik would be strung up by his nads until he died,... but because his idiotic country is so liberal, in principal he can only serve a maximum of 20 years!

,... further more, numbnutz,.. the fact that liberal diversification is a complete and under fraud and colossal FAILURE, and that complete assimilation of immigrants should be mandatory,.. are legitimate points of view and are reactions to social realities that exist. By holding these views, which I do, one is not equivalent to a Anders Breivik. Only an intellectual fraud would suggest such a thing,... that a Breivik comes from a "tea party" ilk,.. as if Tea Partiers are anything other than normal Americans. People like you are what is wrong with political debate in this country.

.... given the riots in London, black youth mobs in the USA committing crimes attacking whites and robbing stores as flash mobs, banckruptcy of Greece, and near bankruptcy of the USA, ALL caused by liberal entitlements,.. that you would find time to berate the Tea Party,.. ordinary law abiding citizens concerned about the clear incompetence of their government, is truely Remarkable. But you are a disinterested political hack with no vaules, nor principals.

,... it does not surprise me that you called ME a terrorists and threatened to get the FBI after me merely because the screen name "Noumenon" is used over at FreeRepublic. As I stated I have never posted there,.. and further the other guy named "Noumenon" has free speech rights, which I'm sure you would love a leftist government to remove. What YOU just said about Tea Party people, regular folks is stupidly irrational as what you quoted the other "Noumenon" said about liberals.

Are you still mad that I called you out when you fraudulently gave a review of Rand's book?

You are very immature.

Cont... @ FrankHerbert,... the criminal rioters and looters in Greece, London, and the looter racist "flash" mobs in Philadelphia, Wisconsin and other USA cities,... they come from YOUR political affiliation. People just like you and Vindacar,.. young useless know-nothings subsisting on government cheese, ... wanting to be radicals for the sake of being radicals, just like the useless naive hippies of the sixties.

Dude. You been drinking?
Ease up man.

Neither side wants rioting or killing sprees, the problem is their rhetoric doesn't reflect this. Both sides need to tone down the violent rhetoric. Left and right. Let's leave it at that.

I agree, conservatism and liberalism both are legitamate ideologies held by intelligent good Americans, but neither right at all times , and no I don't drink. Show me where the Tea Party advocates crime.

I was responding to a PM from FeankHerbert basically calling me a terrorist and saying HR's getting the FBI after me. The guy is an abject troll. I owe you a bucket of ones for no reason.

I owe you a bucket of ones for no reason.

Oops. My bad. Just saw you waking up a dead thread with a bunch of anger. I didn't see the PM so I guess pour them on.

Social engineering will not be the solution to energy issues. We WILL squeeze every once of oil from the oil sands in Canada, and drill out oil in the USA,... and burn every drop. This is not fantasy ideology,.. it is plan realty. Cheapest energy source WILL be used first, period.

No collective naive school girl green hope is going to change hard reality. People will not tolerate idiots like Vendicar social engineering people's use of energy,... telling them where to set their thermostat, how fast they can drive, because of a non-problem.

That said I don't have a problem mandating reasonable efficiency standards, but what you have to understand is just because the novelty president, Obama waves a magic wand doesn't mean reality will bend to his whim.