OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[Smurfy]

Jesse Jackson - now using the N word, what a disgrace.

You know what the problem with this guy is, he is SO JEALOUS of Obama. I bet at nights he wishes he was Obama.[/u]

The early days of the election campaign were much more fun. Take for example these headlines from The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/from_pr ... threatened
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bl ... for_change


Oh, and PK. As you've already said, you don't reflect the typical SUV purchaser. Please relax. I absolutely agree that SUVs are very good at starting in the snow. Stopping or steering can be a different matter. But you are clearly not typical. And for the record, I've had to drive in Rochester after a snow storm.

Edit and addition: Living at the north end of Toronto, I'm obviously not used to seeing snow

[pk500]

Oh, and PK. As you've already said, you don't reflect the typical SUV purchaser. Please relax.

Actually, I do represent the typical SUV purchaser for anyone who lives in a snowy area, which is oh, about the upper-quarter of the United States and all of Canada.

I agree that people who haul ass in their SUV's in the Sun Belt are buying for either the extra space or the "security" that a large vehicle mistakenly provides.

But you, JackB1 and WCO are painting all SUV buyers with a very broad brush, and I call horsesh*t when I smell it. And the odor is pretty thick. I doubt there's a liberal pigeon hole out there -- guns, the environment, energy usage, etc. -- into which you can't stuff all of us "non-believers" with a blind generalization.

Just as Jackdog owns and carries a weapon because he has been shot on the streets of his neighborhood and not because he's a gun-toting maniac, I drive an SUV because I live in an area where transportation can be treacherous and downright dangerous without four-wheel drive for about five months per year, not because I say "I have a small penis, and I'm driving a big, motherf*cking vehicle that owns the road and pisses all over the environment."

Maybe I get a gold star from the DSP chapter of the Sierra Club because I drive a Toyota RAV 4, a fuel-efficient vehicle by SUV standards.

Take care,
PK

[Smurfy]

Oh, and PK. As you've already said, you don't reflect the typical SUV purchaser. Please relax.

Actually, I do represent the typical SUV purchaser for anyone who lives in a snowy area, which is oh, about the upper-quarter of the United States and all of Canada.

I agree that people who haul ass in their SUV's in the Sun Belt are buying for either the extra space or the "security" that a large vehicle mistakenly provides.

But you, JackB1 and WCO are painting all SUV buyers with a very broad brush, and I call horsesh*t when I smell it. And the odor is pretty thick. I doubt there's a liberal pigeon hole out there -- guns, the environment, energy usage, etc. -- into which you can't stuff all of us "non-believers" with a blind generalization.

Just as Jackdog owns and carries a weapon because he has been shot on the streets of his neighborhood and not because he's a gun-toting maniac, I drive an SUV because I live in an area where transportation can be treacherous and downright dangerous without four-wheel drive for about five months per year, not because I say "I have a small penis, and I'm driving a big, motherf*cking vehicle that owns the road and pisses all over the environment."

Maybe I get a gold star from the DSP chapter of the Sierra Club because I drive a Toyota RAV 4, a fuel-efficient vehicle by SUV standards.

Take care,
PK

Toyota RAV 4 doesn't count. It's not an American SUV. I've heard interviews with Gladwell. A good part of his criticism levied against the American Auto Industry was that they didn't design SUVs like the Japanese and Europeans did.

Anyway, I think you don't give WCO81 the respect he deserves. He's one of the more thoughtfull and intelligent guys here. If you have a problem with Gladwell's article, then read it and UNDERSTAND it first Paul. If wco has insulted some people directly, then fine take him to task. I think the only thing I wrote here that was out of the context of Gladwell's article was my jab at the people I see in tall vehicles who still manage to get stuck behind disabled vehicles in empty lanes. [Edit: I also made the Freud comment]

wco's reference to Gladwell was well presented. Please understand what a psychological profile means and if you still have an issue, take it up with GM and Ford.

[Smurfy]

Actually, I do represent the typical SUV purchaser for anyone who lives in a snowy area, which is oh, about the upper-quarter of the United States and all of Canada.

Please Paul, I live up in Canada and I can assure you most SUVs are of the urban domesticated variety. There's no practical use for one in downtown Toronto.

[pk500]

Actually, I do represent the typical SUV purchaser for anyone who lives in a snowy area, which is oh, about the upper-quarter of the United States and all of Canada.

Please Paul, I live up in Canada and I can assure you most SUVs are of the urban domesticated variety. There's no practical use for one in downtown Toronto.

And for those who don't live in the TO? Are they all oil-guzzling troglodytes who have inferiority complexes?

Or are they all driving non-American SUV's, so they're cool, according to Gladwell? Or is your broad brush losing bristles?

Just wondering.

Hell, I know I'm gaining bristles as this thread continues -- bristling at the inane nature of it all.

Take care,
PK

[Smurfy]

<- Backs off with hands in the air.

[pk500]

Toyota RAV 4 doesn't count. It's not an American SUV. I've heard interviews with Gladwell. A good part of his criticism levied against the American Auto Industry was that they didn't design SUVs like the Japanese and Europeans did.

Then this guy is even more full of sh*t then I thought. Ever seen a Toyota Sequoia? An Audi Q7? An Infiniti QX56? A Mazda CX-9? A Mercedes-Benz GL? A Nissan Armada?

These are all classified as large SUV's, in the same category as the Expeditions, Navigators, Hummers and Yukons of the world.

Yes, nowhere designs gas-pig, over-the-top SUV's like Detroit. But to say Japan and Germany didn't follow suit is folly.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

No snow out here.

Maybe some black ice for people who drive over the mountain to and from Santa Cruz.

Plenty of SUVs though.

Like the article alluded to, most SUV owners don't go offroad and plenty are purchased by people who don't live in perma frost zones.

BTW, a profile is just that, a broad brush. The car execs. know SUVs have value in the northern and mountain states.

But SUVs exploded way beyond that niche and the studies they commissioned explain to them why that happened.

[pk500]

Smurf:

There's only way to settle this: You and me, head to head, in an rFactor race in SUV's.

Since there's no SUV mod, I guess these will suffice:

Trucks Series Racing:
http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cf ... s%20Racing

Rolls Royce:
http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cf ... ls%20Royce

Fill 'er up!

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

But SUVs exploded way beyond that niche and the studies they commissioned explain to them why that happened.

Agreed. And no vehicle will help one bit on black ice! That sh*t is nastier than snow at any depth!

Take care,
PK

[Feanor]

We bought a 2008 Jeep Liberty in April when our old Jeep finally died because my wife is not comfortable driving regular cars which she finds too close to the ground for comfort, and also for the 4WD which you really do need in winter with the snow on the roads. I know a guy who just doesn't come to work if it snows because he has a sporty car, but he's his own boss.

Changing topics, a new report shows America spends 7.5% of its total health care budget on insurance administration, and gets very low value for the money it spends on health care even as it spends more per person than any other country. Sad.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25719472/

[pk500]

This is comical: Nancy Pelosi calls Bush a total failure at everything. Now, I tend to agree with her, but it's definitely a case of pot calling kettle black.

Pray tell, Nancy, what have you and your Democratic-controlled Congress achieved in the last 18 months?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_ ... elosi_bush

Pure gridlock in D.C. Pure comedy. This nation is bordering on anarchy when it comes to government at the Federal level.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

This is comical: Nancy Pelosi calls Bush a total failure at everything. Now, I tend to agree with her, but it's definitely a case of pot calling kettle black.

Pray tell, Nancy, what have you and your Democratic-controlled Congress achieved in the last 18 months?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_ ... elosi_bush

Pure gridlock in D.C. Pure comedy. This nation is bordering on anarchy when it comes to government at the Federal level.

Take care,
PK

Sad s*** man.

Bush's approval is at 28 percent.
The public's view of Congress is even worse. Its approval rating has hit a new low of just 18 percent.

Our Goverment needs a new engine. You know what we need? We need A President of the United States that just doesn't give a f***. Somebody who just cares about the country, doesn't give a flying f*** about anybody else, just wants to do the right thing for the country. The hell with politics on Capitol Hill.
I think that person who is well spoken and doesn't care about special interests or quite honestly getting re-elected would just say, I'm only going to do four years because I don't want to owe anybody anything. I'm going to do the right thing in the first four years, period. I think that person would be wildly popular. Somebody that could come out and articulate to the Congress to get their heads out of their asses.

Talk about gridlock!!The Democrats are saying, "Well, these oil companies are failing to drill on their own federally leased lands. They've got thousands of acres." You've heard this, right? This is the Harry Reid attack.

Okay. Let me give you a story. 1981 secretary of interior proposed opening almost the entire Outer Continental Shelf to drilling. The environmentalists, surprise, surprise back in 1981 went batshit crazy. California congressional delegation slipped in a provision into a bill the same year that placed a moratorium on drilling off of the California shores. Congress enacted separate moratoriums for Cal Florida, California, New Jersey, North Carolina. None of these bans covered what is called the Destin Dome. Destin Dome is a formation in the Gulf of Mexico. It's about 25 miles off of Pensacola, Florida. Experts say it has enough natural gas to supply a million homes for 30 years, this one place.

Well, under Reagan, 1981, Chevron leased this dome. It's federal land. They have the lease for the dome, 1981. They drilled three wells to explore, one in 1987, one in '89 and one in '95. They found an estimated 2.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. So story ends. We're pumping the gas, right? No, no. The lease only gave Chevron the right to drill, not to produce the gas. They could drill. They just can't take it out. The lease that they had on the Destin Dome, they could find it but they had to go back and get federal approval to actually take it out. In 1996 Chevron submitted a developed plan to the state and interior department. They proposed drilling 21 different wells. They said as few as 12 but maybe as much as 21. Florida officials took their time dragging their feet deciding whether or not to grant Chevron's request. Eventually two years went by and they were denied. Chevron appealed the decision to the department of congress. Congress sat on the appeal. Eventually in 2000,remember this started in 1981. In 2000 the commerce department, doing nothing on the appeal, Chevron said, okay, what are you guys doing to us? They sued the federal government in order to compel it to act. While the lawsuit was pending, Bush met with his brother Jeb, who was the Florida governor. They agreed to have the federal government buy back the leases for $115 million and place a moratorium on the drilling in this dome until 2011. Now, why did that happen?

There are over 140 actual leased tracks right now that these oil companies have that they cannot drill in. They have the leases. They can drill in some of them but they can't produce. In others they can look but they can't drill. So when people come out and say, these oil companies already have these giant tracts of land, ask yourself and ask them, do they have the right to drill and produce on those lands. By the way, what did Chevron do? It took the refund from the government, it took the $115 million. Instead of the 2.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough, for 30 years of natural gas, they took the $115 million refund and they invested it in a project in Angola where they're currently producing liquefied natural gas that has to be shipped from Angola to us.

Batshit crazy.

[XXXIV]

This is comical: Nancy Pelosi calls Bush a total failure at everything. Now, I tend to agree with her, but it's definitely a case of pot calling kettle black.

Pray tell, Nancy, what have you and your Democratic-controlled Congress achieved in the last 18 months?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_ ... elosi_bush

Pure gridlock in D.C. Pure comedy. This nation is bordering on anarchy when it comes to government at the Federal level.

Take care,
PK

Sad s*** man.

Bush's approval is at 28 percent.
The public's view of Congress is even worse. Its approval rating has hit a new low of just 18 percent.

Our Goverment needs a new engine.

Yep

We will be done with Bush soon...So thats a good start...but...
Im afraid we will be stuck with the other idiot.

[Leebo33]

Styling was certainly a factor, too. Frankly, most SUVs were nicer and more attractive than many mini-vans and American-made sedans. There was a certain hipness factor, but most families buying SUVs were probably not doing it to be chic.

I'll admit it. I fall mainly into the chic group. I suggested looking at minivans and my wife said no. She wanted to feel hip and she was the one that would be driving it the most so we got the SUV of her choice (Honda Pilot). This is a woman who works hard, never spends money on herself, and usually doesn't care about stuff like that. She wanted it, we had the cash, she bought it. BFD. I'd buy it again tomorrow even if gas was $10 a gallon. It's got plenty of room to haul stuff, we can take the 4 of us plus the in-laws comfortably on family trips, and the 4 wheel drive is nice in the sometimes harsh PA winters. I think we put 5k miles a year on it.

[pk500]

BFD.

No, no, no, no: SFD. Didn't you read the psychology study, Leebo? You have a Small F*cking Dick because you drive an SUV for vanity's sake.

Take care,
PK

[Leebo33]

LOL. I haven't been insecure about my SFD since women started letting me in their pants in high school. Now "staying power" is another story. Maybe that is why I own every game console!

[FatPitcher]

Even if you accept that global warming is manmade, is a result of CO2 emissions, is potentially catastrophic, and is preventable without significantly affecting our quality of life, there are many more significant sources of CO2 to point fingers at.

For example, how many video games are needlessly played every day? How many big screen TVs needlessly watched? How many air conditioners needlessly run? How many private jets needlessly flown? How many decorative lights on the Golden Gate Bridge needlessly turned on? How many messages needlessly posted on internet forums? How many Priuses driven when mass transit would suffice? How many people on mass transit who don't have a pressing need to be out of their homes? How many NASCAR races needlessly run?

People who drive an SUV for convenience or enjoyment aren't any worse than people who partake in these other activities for pleasure or convenience.

[Brando70]

Even if you accept that global warming is manmade, is a result of CO2 emissions, is potentially catastrophic, and is preventable without significantly affecting our quality of life, there are many more significant sources of CO2 to point fingers at.

For example, how many video games are needlessly played every day? How many big screen TVs needlessly watched? How many air conditioners needlessly run? How many private jets needlessly flown? How many decorative lights on the Golden Gate Bridge needlessly turned on? How many messages needlessly posted on internet forums? How many Priuses driven when mass transit would suffice? How many people on mass transit who don't have a pressing need to be out of their homes? How many NASCAR races needlessly run?

People who drive an SUV for convenience or enjoyment aren't any worse than people who partake in these other activities for pleasure or convenience.

Gasoline-powered autos are by far the biggest culprit in emissions that could influence global warming. It doesn't really matter that much what kind of car is running, it's the sheer number of vehicles and the amount we drive that's the problem. Other energy use can play a small factor, but comparing the two is like comparing shoplifting a candy bar to armed robbery of a bank.

It's certainly not a coincidence that our oil usage skyrocketed at the same time that average fuel economy took a nosedive. An increase in population or using computers or playing videogames doesn't explain that -- it's mostly tied to autos getting shittier and shittier gas mileage. Cars are without question the largest source of our oil consumption. Even airlines don't have the same impact on consumption the way cars do.

SUVs and trucks bear the brunt of the criticism because they were the most popular vehicles during the last 15 years. I read the bestselling vehicle in America for the last 26 years was the F-150 pickup. There's no doubt that's due to a lot of people need pickups for work-related purposes, but we probably all know guys who own trucks as a half-ton penis extension. However, most cars are not very efficient. Luxury sedans, including lots of European ones sold in the US, get poor mileage. Muscle cars are in the same boat. Cars that get above 30 mpg are in the minority. That situation should have been resolved years ago instead of waiting until we entered a fuel crisis.

[JackB1]

Our Goverment needs a new engine. You know what we need? We need A President of the United States that just doesn't give a f***. Somebody who just cares about the country, doesn't give a flying f*** about anybody else, just wants to do the right thing for the country. The hell with politics on Capitol Hill.

I agree with you about our govt needing a new engine, but this is what capitalism has been producing as a president.....a self centered rich snob, who made his way to the top with money and payoffs, who can spend the most on campaigning and will make all kinds of promises and fulfill 2% of them. Our country is now run by large corporations and lobbying interests and the middle class is shrinking everyday. The rich are getting richer and the rest are getting poorer. We aren't leading the world anymore in too many categories. What is the USA best known for worldwide now? Our celebrities? Our athletes? It's depressing as hell. I don't even know how this thing will turn around. The "system" is firmly in control and the only way to overthrow it at this point would be some type of "revolution". The people in govt dont want any major changes because they are all benefiting. What's it gonna take to turn our nation around? Everyone is in agreement that the country is heading in the wrong direction, but how do we bring about a new direction? I don't see it happening without our political system getting a major overhaul.

[JackB1]

This is comical: Nancy Pelosi calls Bush a total failure at everything. Now, I tend to agree with her, but it's definitely a case of pot calling kettle black.

Pray tell, Nancy, what have you and your Democratic-controlled Congress achieved in the last 18 months?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_ ... elosi_bush

Pure gridlock in D.C. Pure comedy. This nation is bordering on anarchy when it comes to government at the Federal level.

Take care,
PK

I agree. You can't call someone else a failure while you have stood by and not accomplished anything yourself. Although it is difficult to get ANYTHING accomplished in Washington unless one party is completely in the majority. One of the major design flaws with our political system.
The ironic part of this is that Congress (18%) has an even lower approval rating than Bush (29%).

[FatPitcher]

Even if you accept that global warming is manmade, is a result of CO2 emissions, is potentially catastrophic, and is preventable without significantly affecting our quality of life, there are many more significant sources of CO2 to point fingers at.

For example, how many video games are needlessly played every day? How many big screen TVs needlessly watched? How many air conditioners needlessly run? How many private jets needlessly flown? How many decorative lights on the Golden Gate Bridge needlessly turned on? How many messages needlessly posted on internet forums? How many Priuses driven when mass transit would suffice? How many people on mass transit who don't have a pressing need to be out of their homes? How many NASCAR races needlessly run?

People who drive an SUV for convenience or enjoyment aren't any worse than people who partake in these other activities for pleasure or convenience.

Gasoline-powered autos are by far the biggest culprit in emissions that could influence global warming. It doesn't really matter that much what kind of car is running, it's the sheer number of vehicles and the amount we drive that's the problem. Other energy use can play a small factor, but comparing the two is like comparing shoplifting a candy bar to armed robbery of a bank.

It's certainly not a coincidence that our oil usage skyrocketed at the same time that average fuel economy took a nosedive. An increase in population or using computers or playing videogames doesn't explain that -- it's mostly tied to autos getting shittier and shittier gas mileage. Cars are without question the largest source of our oil consumption. Even airlines don't have the same impact on consumption the way cars do.

SUVs and trucks bear the brunt of the criticism because they were the most popular vehicles during the last 15 years. I read the bestselling vehicle in America for the last 26 years was the F-150 pickup. There's no doubt that's due to a lot of people need pickups for work-related purposes, but we probably all know guys who own trucks as a half-ton penis extension. However, most cars are not very efficient. Luxury sedans, including lots of European ones sold in the US, get poor mileage. Muscle cars are in the same boat. Cars that get above 30 mpg are in the minority. That situation should have been resolved years ago instead of waiting until we entered a fuel crisis.

Gasoline prices would be similarly high even if people did not buy large/fast cars unnecessarily. The potential delta in demand is a drop in the bucket, so to speak, and people would drive more and suppliers would produce less if gasoline were cheaper.

Also, although automobiles collectively may be the largest offender (industry/power generation are similarly large), they aren't that huge per capita. If you play 20 hours of Xbox 360 video games a week on your average 42" big-screen tv, you're putting out 25% of the CO2 an average SUV emits. If you fly on a private jet, you could pass that in a single flight.

But the main point is that you can't criticize people for wasting energy because they enjoy driving SUVs and then give a pass to people participating in similarly wasteful activities for pure enjoyment or convenience.

[Jackdog]

I liked this. It sums up they way I feel about our Goverment.

Worthy of your time and attention regardless of your Party Affiliation
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and
irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses
provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

[Brando70]

Also, although automobiles collectively may be the largest offender (industry/power generation are similarly large), they aren't that huge per capita. If you play 20 hours of Xbox 360 video games a week on your average 42" big-screen tv, you're putting out 25% of the CO2 an average SUV emits. If you fly on a private jet, you could pass that in a single flight.

But the main point is that you can't criticize people for wasting energy because they enjoy driving SUVs and then give a pass to people participating in similarly wasteful activities for pure enjoyment or convenience.

I disagree with that comparison. Plasma TVs do use a lot of electricity and emit about 1500 lbs of carbon per year (based on average American TV watching). But for each gallon of gas you burn in a car, any car, it produces 20 lbs of carbon emissions. So the less fuel efficient your car is, the more carbon you'll burn. A car that gets 20 mpg and is driven 10,000 miles per year will use 10,000 lbs of carbon. On top of that there are way more cars that get less than 20 mpg on the road than there are plasma TVs in American homes. So the difference is far greater per capita as well as in total.

I'm also not criticizing people for buying SUVs, I'm saying we should have had higher fuel standards in place a long time ago.

[RobVarak]

The entire concept of carbon footprinting is FUBAR. It's a game that can be twisted beyond all reason. I think it was Freakenomics that linked a study that showed it's always a greener choice to drive distances over 1 mile than to walk; The reason being that the carbon footprint required to replenish the energy exerted and the water needed to rehydrate was larger than the output of the car and related activities.

There have been several similar studies. I'm not arguing that global warming is a myth etc., but the metrics tossed about to allegedly support one side or another are poor in almost every case. We ought to be careful about simply accepting the commonly accepted premises, many of which are essentialy tautological.

I'm digging out from a week's backlog from vacation, but I'll post a link if I get a chance.