starfish

This reminds me of that old drug abuse prevention commercial, you know the one with the egg frying in the pan.

Bob Dylan sang "Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord, But you're gonna have to serve somebody."

Razor - I hate to always be the one on this forum to constantly disclose how so many of the self-proclaimed intellectuals have become lemmings running head-long over a ledge into an ocean of stupidity but in someway, somehow, someone needs to stand up for humanity. Your repeating comments by some liberal environmental religious whacko producing a movie that was designed to create a political reaction in attempt to alter your thinking and make a profit as fact. The EV-1 WAS a neat car, but as a vehicle to compete with its gasoline cousin it was a total failure at every measure. There was no oil company conspiracy. There was no corporate collusion to ban its sale. There was no diabolic plot to crush the cars like some aborted fetus depriving the owner of life's fufillment. This concept was a project that had guidelines. The contract was fufilled and its listed obligations were met. This car was a total loser for company profit. As a publicly owned entity, GM had a right to pull the plug at any time to protect the shareholders from further loss, a loss that they new would accumulate. The EV-1's time was up, but that did not mean the technology was scrapped. The automobile manufactures decided at that time they were pissing up a rope with a technology that would be so limited by its own virtue that they had to change course of direction. Linky dink to another radical right-wing conservative website describing how the EV-1 sucked

Razor - Generally I am in agreeance with many of your opinions here in this forum. On this particular issue I seemed to have struck your nerve? As a kid I grew up watching the Jetson's and always had hoped that by now we all could drive those cool little space cars like George and Mr. Spacely. Sadly, we know how that has turned out. I have been involved with automobiles for more years than I care to discuss as it is my livelihood. I remember quite well the excitement level when the EV-1 came out and the hope it was to make that Jetson car closer to a reality and it's departure. Many of the comments I had made were based on articles I had read from auto writers in magazines and trade publications years ago. I no longer have these articles but have found some great summaries on-line that seem to echo my statement. Thanks for helping me remember what a neat car the EV-1 was. General Motors EV-1 Who killed the electric car? Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage Please no snivveling, your apologies are accepted. B)

The fact that the EV-1 cost $80,000 each to build I guess had nothing to do with it? The fact that the EV-1 could only be driven in California and Arizona making larger production runs unrealistic had nothing to do with it? The fact that the EV-1 was unpopular amongst drivers had nothing to do with it? The fact that GM had to maintain a parts inventory and meet service requirements for a 10 year period for each of these unpopular vehicles had nothing to do with it? The fact that it was cheaper for GM to sue California to rescind their overstepping laws than to continue producing a vehicle at a tremendous loss had a lot to do with it!!! None of your examples were the cause of $10 a barrel oil. It was a world-wide recession.

Idiot liberal Supreme Court Justices outlaw exhaling! In its Monday ruling, the Supreme Court majority agreed that global warming represents a different kind of air-pollution problem. Gases such as carbon dioxide, once released into the atmosphere, "act like a ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat," the court said. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said that the Clean Air Act said the Environmental Protection Agency shall regulate the emission of "any air pollutant" that is likely "to endanger public health or welfare." He noted that the word "welfare" is defined broadly to include "effects on the climate and weather." In scolding the EPA for not moving to regulate greenhouse gases, he said the emissions fit well within the law's definition of air pollutants and that the agency "has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles." The court did not say EPA must set national emissions standards for motor vehicles. But it made clear the agency must make its case if it chooses not to act. "Under the clear terms of the (law), EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or it provides some reasonable explanation" why regulations are not needed, Stevens said. New regulations limiting greenhouse gases would probably force automakers to produce vehicles that burn less gasoline. Concurring with Stevens' opinion in the case were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Disagreeing were the court's four most consistently conservative members -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Why would anyone believe that some idiotic dufus sitting on the Supreme Court can understand the science of climatology? This is what happens when you let liberals take control of the congress and court systems. Liberalism, the choice of wusses!

COLLUSION - Nobody was crying for the oil companies when oil hit $10/bl. RECORD PROFITS - Today cheap oil is hard to come by because of either a majority of government regulations or location. During this time of record oil prices we also see that the government has received record tax collection as gas is taxed on a percentage basis so that the higher the commodity is priced the more government collects. Coincidence or is the government maintaing the status quo? How about a tax relief on gas to lower prices? BUSH THE OIL MAN - If Bush is an oil man than so am I and so are you. When I hear people saying talking like it is a bad thing or something it is nothing but crazy talk. How many people in this country have there retirement accounts that hold there investment money in oil stocks? Oil is the energy that drives the worlds economic engine. If you want to see what it is like living in a country that is not oil dependant, move to some third world African nation. The top countries leading the way with economic growth today are China and India. They did it with cheap labor and pursuing interests in acquiring huge oil supplies. Hence the higher demand as these long suffering economies grow. RENEWABLE ENERGY - Its called methanol! Where have you been? The farmers in this country can not grow corn fast enough and we are attempting to import as much as we can to help the supply chain to make more methanol. This is a stupid idea because we now compete energy costs with food costs. President Bush has stated many times that we need to go to "switch grass" and increase biofuels and has funded many of these projects. This is a start but will not be a either or solution to eliminate our need for petroleum. The production of methanol is a net energy loser. Farmers are dumping huge amounts of nitrogen fertilizers every year to grow these crops. These applications will have a greater pollution impact on water supplies as more and more acres are producing corn. The production of ethanol requires more huge amounts of water in the distilling process. I hope your not on a well nearby the local ethanol plant? If we were to be totally reliant on corn for methanol production to have everyone driving in some E-85 vehicle we would need to plant corn on an acreage 1-1/2 times the size of the United States, and in a short period of time we would be in the same position as we are in now. ELECTRIC VEHICLES - Another idea that at first glance appears promising but in any type of major changeover would result in an environmental disaster. It takes more energy to produce a Toyota Prius than a Hummer. The environmental impact on supplying and recycling toxic battery chemicals will never be tolerated on a large scale. California has the most registered vehicles in the nation. Every year we read or hear on the news about rolling blackouts or rolling brownouts due to excessive electric usage to run air conditioning. We would need to build what maybe 700 new nuclear power plants across the nation at a price I could not imagine to source these new electric cars. I'm sure Al Gore will go for that! THE CONSERVATIVE ANSWER - Increase oil production. Increase oil refining. Increase energy conservation. Develop alternative energy sources that can compete in a free and open market. God gave us oil for a reason, to use as an energy source. It has no other value. THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT ANSWER - There is none! They are more interested in a political cause than a solution. Their message is all about the spreading of misinformation, the building of worry, grooming feelings of loss of hope to develop more mindless victims into Democratic voters.

There you go again with the "ultra" label. President Bush may be a Republican party member but his record sure ain't being a conservative. If you leftist liberals want to decrease oil company profits why are YOU not supporting an increase in domestic oil production? If you leftist liberals are worried that an entity is removing too much money from the consumers pocket, why do YOU not support a tax cut? Is there a Democratic presidential candidate who supports removing or reducing government restrictions and increasing our domestic oil drilling and refining production? Which Democratic presidential candidates has laid out a plan to deal with any of the current energy production problems? What is the long term policy to increasie the affordable energy supply needed to drive our economy forward into the future as a first rate global economic leader by any Democrat party member or leader? While you quibble over semantics of political jargon I won't hold my breath waiting for any effort of a legitimate attempt to answer these questions.

There has been no collusion amongst the oil companies to raise oil prices, congress has investigated that claim forever and never turned up anything. The demagoguery by liberals against oil companies making a profit by sticking it to Americans is ridiculous. The oil companies work totally at the mercy of the entire American political system, that means you and me included. The spike in prices can not solely be placed on the war either. The problem is a greater world demand and the fact that oil exploration and recovery is more costly. As I reported a long time ago in this forum, no oil refinery has been built in this country since the 1970's and many have closed since then. Due to many city/state regulations and demands there are well over 100 different blends of gas mandated by law. Each oil refinery is operating at near 100% capacity. Manufacturing at these high capacities require freguent plant shutdowns for maintainance. When this happens local quantities of special blends can become in short supply as the manufacturing is rerouted and pump prices reflect supply. There is no shortage of $70/bl oil, there is though a shortage of $10/bl oil. When Clinton decided to close off known oil reserves in Alaska one of his comments was why bother, it will take us at least 10 years to get the oil out of there anyway? Finally you say that you and I cannot control oil costs. What current democratic presidential candidate is in favor of the US exploring for new gas and oil reserves to become less dependant on middle east oil and ease pricing? Methanol, electrics, hybrids, biofuels and conservation is nothing but a short term political patch for a growing problem in an expanding world economy. When the Arab oil producing countries formed OPEC they took out competion by regulating the flow out the tap. Most of these countries produce as much as they can to acquire funds to run their individual governments. When OPEC decides to increase or cut back production only one country has the power to do that, Saudi Arabia. If you want to help control costs, support candidates who are in favor of removing restrictions to increasing domestic supply.

This is a supply and demand issue. Too much demand and a tight supply controlled by mind numb middle eastern whack jobs and their oil cartel. Combine that with the political miscalculations of former President Bill Clinton and the Democratic party members of the US Senate that killed ANWR oil and gas drilling. Add on Jimmy Carter and his love of communist dictators in South America and further turn the world's oil suppliers against us. These congressional liberal morons made us energy dependant on desert rat infested oil rich countries that use the high prices to prepare military actions of war or nuclear bomb threats against the west as our politicians today act like sheep. So don't be too upset at $2.70 cuz were headed toward $6-8/gal sooner than you think. Baaaaa, baaaaaaa, baaaaaa to Hillary you liberal sheepole! Send Jimmy Carter to Iran in exchange for the British sailors being held hostage's release, that might help lower your gas price?

America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Illegal immigrants getting free healthcare in US thanks to our overtaxed citizens. Doctor says, throw the bums out! Friggle-fraggin crap-smackin goddamm liberals!!!

What? You mean this? Osama Obama

I think you are way more funny than I could ever hope to be. B)

Who said that being incarcerated has to be a deterrent to future criminal activity in order to be successful? Who is suing the government and costing the taxpayers money? Gee...Its the inmates and the liberal ACLU lawyers. Oh what a surprise! Liberals make me laugh. The liberals always tell us that the law keepers are the law breakers, that being hardworking, honest and law abiding is second to those who are unwilling and corrupt, and now, that it does not matter if there is truth to a critical statement, but who said what first or the most or is famous for saying what rather than acknowledging what is being told is a generic statement of fact. If you are looking for something new I'll go along so here it is. Liberalism, the choice of wusses.

Evidently your knowledge base has a two week time frame. The DSM-IV-TR, (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders defines dependent personality disorder as a pervasive and excessive need to be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: *Has difficulty making everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others. *Needs others to assume responsibility for most major areas of his or her life. *Has difficulty expressing disagreement with others because of fear of loss of support or approval (this does not include realistic fears of retribution). *Has difficulty initiating projects or doing things on his or her own *Goes to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance and support from others, to the point of volunteering to do things that are unpleasant. *Feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of exaggerated fears of being unable to care for himself or herself *Urgently seeks another relationship as a source of care and support when a close relationship ends. *Is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take care of himself or herself. From the inception of the science of psychology over 100 years ago, many people before Michael Savage ever penned the title on his book have made the very same criitique of liberalism.

Like I said, liberalism is a mental disorder. :lol:

Wow! What a commanding knowledge of politics and politicians. How can anyone argue against logic like that?

No, you heard it here first! They will be no match for this ticket. Click here

So why did they not explain it to you? Ask yourself how any functional human being with any type of occupational skil whatsoever in the US can sit back and idly earn $9.903 a year while they have a spouse and 2 children is unfanthomable in a society that has a record unemployment rate. This report is not telling the full story. This report is choosing to manipulate the reader with false and misleading statements and inserting their left-wing political beliefs into the news versus reporting the full data or bothering to interpret it correctly. For example, if a person reached critical mass i.e. they got FU money in savings in the bank were to quit his job in early January and never sought employment for the remainder of the year, he/she would fall into that group would they not? There are so many types of scenarios that can effect a survey in so many different ways, when the reporter choses to not include data which surely he must of had in front of him, he is giving you propaganda. Politicians have leaned over backwards severely to help low income earners by becoming their daddy. They came up with food assistance programs, housing assistance, home buying assistance, medical and drug cost assistance, education assistance, job training assistance, education grants, government grants to open a business, social security payments, welfare, unemployment compensation, disaster relief grants, womens, infants and childrens programs and services, low income tax credits both State and Federal and in some areas Local, child tax credits, child care tax credits, energy assistance, assistance for those who are handicapped, telephone assistance, utility assistance, weatherization assistance, legal assistance, and the list is practically unending. These people do not know poverty like some third world individual. Many of these programs can be utilized by families earning up to $39,000 per year or more. There is a growing population of takers, they know all about how to get government handouts for nothing. The more the government entitlement programs provide the more needy certain people become, its a proven fact. In this case your report ends with this telling statement, "U.S. social programs are minimal compared to those of western Europe and Canada. The United States has a population of 301 million, but more than 45 million U.S. citizens have no health insurance." Out of the 45 million people, how many choose not to purchase available insurance from their employer because they do not wish to purchase a product they feel they will not be using? We know that there are at least 20 million undocumented illegals in this coutry alone. How many of them do not have health insurance? Are they included in the 45 million count? Who wrote this stupid article in the first place? Oh, it came from Agence France-Presse, a socialist French news agency. Go figure? So why did you bother wasting your time reading garbage reports like this one and add it on in an edit? Is it because everything you believed in has been shown to be a lie?

If poverty is defined as generally lacking adequate nutritious food for one's family, suitable clothing, and a reasonably warm, dry apartment in which to live, or lacking a car to get to work when one is needed, then there are few poor persons remaining in the United States. Real material hardship does occur in America, but it is limited in both extent and severity. The bulk of the "poor" live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. The old maxim that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is simply untrue. Material conditions of lower-income Americans have improved dramatically over time. In fact, living conditions in the nation as a whole have improved so much that American society can no longer clearly remember what it meant to be poor or even middle class in earlier generations. But higher material living standards should not be regarded as a victory for the War on Poverty. Living conditions were improving dramatically and poverty was dropping sharply long before the War on Poverty began. The principal effect of the War on Poverty has been not to raise incomes, but to displace self-sufficiency with dependence. A second consequence of welfare has been the destruction of families. When the War on Poverty began, 7.7 percent of children were born out of wedlock. Today, the figure is 32 percent. Using the Census Bureau's own standards, a child born to a never-married mother is 700 percent more likely to live in poverty than is a child born to a husband and wife whose marriage remains intact. The Census poverty report has been tightly linked to the War on Poverty since its inception. The implicit message of the poverty report is that government should throw more and more welfare benefits at low-income communities in an effort to artificially raise family incomes above the official poverty thresholds. Such welfare policies have been disastrous. Despite spending $7 trillion, the War on Poverty--by eroding the work ethic and marriage--has failed. By undermining families' capacity for self-support, the War on Poverty expanded the clientele of needy persons. Government became caught in a trap: The more aid that it gave, the more persons in apparent need of its aid emerged. With the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, the federal government finally began to break away from this failed entitlement mentality. But the Census Bureau report continues to embody the old, failed philosophy of unending free handouts. The Census poverty report also has had a distorting effect on the national dialogue by focusing attention exclusively on income and material living standards while ignoring values and behavior. The report is rooted in the belief that "poverty" causes social problems such as crime, drug use, school failure, illegitimacy, and dependence. This belief, although common, is false. Clearly, there were far more truly poor persons in earlier generations than there are today. (In fact, nearly all adults alive today had parents or grandparents who grew up "poor" in the sense of having incomes below the current Census thresholds, adjusted for inflation.) If it were true that "poverty" causes social and behavioral problems, then earlier generations should have been awash in drugs, crime, and promiscuity. But this was not the case. Most social problems have expanded as incomes have increased. In reality, it is the norms and values within a family, rather than its income, that are critical to a child's well-being and prospects for success in future life. Ironically, conventional welfare, with its misplaced emphasis on artificially boosting income, has a strongly damaging effect on the very values that are critical to a child's success. By ignoring values and undermining the norms of work, self-control, and marital stability, the War on Poverty has harmed those whom it intended to help. Overall, the Census poverty report is deeply flawed as a measurement tool and misleading as a policy indicator. The report not only exaggerates poverty, but, even more tragically, encourages policymakers to focus on the symptom of income shortage while ignoring behavioral problems, which are the root causes of the lack of income. As such, the report serves both society and the poor badly. Heritage Foundation.org Food is so abundant in the United States that the liberals have to advertise heavily to find new people/victims willing to accept these government handouts that are often found to be unnecessary. "whitev70r" 's belief that the country has gone to hell in a handbasket with gross dispairity of rich and poor is unsubstantiated. The poor in this country share little if anything with the poor around the world. Today many of these so labeled poor Americans have never tasted true poverty. Once again the liberal cry of doom and gloom is unfounded with facts and reality. NOT ENOUGH PIGS AT THE TROUGH Maria Shriver: Don't let food stamp benefits go unused July 21, 2006 In Santa Cruz, estimates show that 12,000 people neglect to receive more than $14 million in benefits — dollars that could be spent at Santa Cruz grocery stores, and would put more money in the pockets of local farmers. So rip this article out and give it to anyone who might qualify for food stamps. This resource is not perfect. We're working to improve it. But let's not wait. Let's make sure all Californians, especially our children, eat better today. Santa Cruz Sentinel.com Friday, October 20, 2006 $54 million for food unused Outreach workers try to increase families helped By CLAUDIA ROWE P-I REPORTER Only half of those eligible for food stamps in King County receive them, according to a national study that places the Seattle metro area near the bottom of the list for participation in the federal program. If all of those who qualified in 2004 received the aid, families in the region would have been able to buy $54 million more in groceries, the study found. Seattle Post-Intelligencer.com Food stamps going unused, report says Almost 189,000 Minnesotans could benefit, and food-stamp usage could bring $172 million a year to the economy, it said. By Robert Franklin, Star Tribune Last update: February 19, 2007 – 10:35 PM Hunger in Minnesota Nearly 189,000 Minnesotans -- more than 40 percent of those eligible -- don't use the federal food stamps to which they are entitled, according to a report being released today. One in 10 Minnesotans said they or someone in their family went to bed hungry during one month because of a lack of money for food. Millions of Eligible People Don't Get Food Stamps Posted on Sep 28, 2005 (modified on Nov 24, 2005) More than 3 million needy people in big cities could be getting food stamps but don't for a variety of reasons, an anti-hunger group says (see story in CNN). That translates to $2.1 billion in unused food stamps, the Food Research and Action Center said in a report released Wednesday, Sep 28, 2005. http://millions-of-eligible-people-don-t-g...et-food-stamps/

You live in The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts and you are proclaiming that the US is far right? :lol:

What are you implying? You first state that we have "high levels of poverty with children going to school hungry in America," and when questioned about your broadbrush statement you reply that you met some? That is not an example of common regularity found in America and I know you are smart enough to realize that. There is such utter nonsense in the fact that you never question parental responsibility. I don't need the government to be my daddy. You questioned me about not knowing "all the children of America." I don't fall for this liberal guilt complex crap where when you have no evidence to support your outrageous argument you place the burden of truth upon your opponent to prove your theory wrong. How about some real facts first? If you research this topic of hungry children attending school from countries around the globe you find the same thing over and over again, the self-proclaimed do-gooder liberal attacking capitalism for the failure of some extremely small minority to function on a daily basis as they deem to be necessary not as the individual requires in his life. People have a right to live as they see fit, if they are unable to care for themselves society has formed many safety nets. These programs to be successful need to wean as many able bodies off of them as to not become a permanent teet to the contributors or taxpayers wallets. In regards to the homeless, you state that I lack a personal awareness of homeless people. Although I do not regularly meet with the homeless community for discussion of their perils, I do read reports and can draw from them observations. Many of the homeless are mentally ill, drug abusers, alcoholics, victims escaping from abusive relationships and societies malcontents. There are many government, religous and charity groups already in place to feed, shelter, clothe and provide medical care, job training and assistance to those who seek help. This assistance is not a government mandate to accept. We could offer to put up the entire homeless membership in a four star resort and still we would have a large homeless population because a majority segment of this populace have choosen their place in society to be homeless because they are unwilling to follow any simple basic rules period. Those members should be jailed. On an uplifting note, at least we can share some common ground in my acceptance of your complement on my "archaeic" economic principles. I am willing to further learn about your 21st century new economics theories, but it sure smells like more liberal revisionism. Show me some data from some countries with a low GDP, a large diverse population such as ours and the qualities of life you refer to. It would be very interesting to read about this existance of this socialist liberal utopia. Meanwhile, I'll just continue to breathe our polluted air and drink our polluted water while I chop down some more trees to watch the polar bears drown as our planet turns into a global warming fireball caused by my capitalistic economic affluences.

You are repeating the statistically false mantra of highly emotional charged outpourings of the typical radical left-wing liberal inwhich data to back up these claims is non-existant. There are no children in America who go to school on a daily basis hungry. A majority of the homeless people in America are homeless because they choose to be so. Consumerism is not a crime or immoral behavior. American capitalism drives the worlds economy. Facts about Sweden 1. No new net jobs have been produced in the Swedish private sector since 1950. 2. None of top 50 companies on the Stockholm stock exchange has been started since 1970. 3. Well over 1 million people out of a work force of around four million did not work in 2003 but lived on various kinds of public welfare programs, such as, pre-pension schemes, unemployment benefits, sick-leave programs, etc." 4. Sweden has dropped from fourth to 14th place in 2002 among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (i.e., affluent industrialized countries) in terms of GDP per capita since 1970. http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...02740-9436r.htm

Obama. Who is he? What are his qualifications to lead the United States of America in these most turbulent times? What is his record of distinction in either his former position as an Illinois State senator or currently as a US senator. He wrote a book. Big deal, there are lots of books written. He appeared on Oprah! He's a Democrat. He's half white and half African. He is not Hillary Clinton. He has big ears and a toothy grin. He's a Democrat. He is against the war in Iraq. He is not Hillary Clinton. When he gives a speech it sounds like the same old one political cliche after another mumbo jumbo and the liberal media tells us he is brilliant. He is a Democrat. When asked a question about his inexperience he gets defensive and accusatorial and oftens winds up stumbling on his words. He is not Hillary Clinton. He is from the land of Lincoln. He is a Democrat. He states that all Americans will have health care by the end of his first term as president. but can not state how he will come up with the trillions of dollars to fund it. He is not Hillary Clinton. He has no public record in the Senate. He is a Democrat. He is not Hillary Clinton. He doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination.