Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Quantum Windbag]

Wasn't that filibustered early on?

Get rid of over the road trucking. Replace it with trains and train truckers to work on trains. Then, offload at the destination and truck goods that last bit. We'd be out from under middle east oil in a very few years.

Yeah, its the obvious thing to do but the pubs will never allow anything that could help our economy that much. The R would never allow the money for retraining, for infrastructure and they sure as hell don't want us energy independent.

Now, if there is a way to make it pay China or other countries or, or that matter, the Kochs, that would be a different story. The GObP would love it.

You have no data to back up your claims. What do you think trains run on?

A whole hell of a lot less fuel than the hundreds of thousands of cars they could replace.

And THAT is why the pubpots are against it.

You do know that freight lines actually exist in this country, and that they actually carry trailers when it is convenient, don't you? Or do you live in a world without TV?

 

[rdean]

Republicans have spent trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan. During the presidential debate, Romney said we should invest in economies and schools and infrastructure overseas.

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

Many many Dems voted for the wars, then after obtaining a super majority (not that they needed it) Obama and Dems spent Trillions on military, more than Bush year by year. If you attack Republicans over military spending and war spending then wouldn't you have to attack Democrats seeing as they spend more on it?

Obama and Dems will have spent far more on wars than Bush by the end of Obama's second term. The only reason the Iraq war ended was because of Bush, Obama tried to stay in... Dems have been in power in congress since 2006, the last 2 years of Bush's Presidency.

Republicans are for the most part progressive liberal big spenders, to pretend either party is any different when they actually have power makes you just look hyper partisan or flat out stupid. Obama used to vote against raising the debt ceiling, now he wants to have congress concede that power to a king, him… Dems ran off stopping wars and Bush’s mass spending, now they spend more than Reps. Same goes for Republicans.


Oddly, despite the OP being a flat out misguided in their one sided hate they will continue their bigotry because their hate is not really based off ignorance but in fact is purposeful. In this day in age it's just too hard to be this out of touch with reality, the OP is simply a liar and a hater, nothing more.

Democrats voted for the war because America had been attacked and Republicans lied.

Remember "You are with us or with the terrorists"?

Stop with the fucking bullshit. How come Bush Sr. never came out in favor of the Iraqi invasion? He had been a World War II officer, head of the CIA, vice president and president. He knew what was in Iraq. If his son wanted to know, he could have asked Dad. But Bush Jr. didn't care what was in Iraq. Except for the oil. He cared about that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans have spent trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan. During the presidential debate, Romney said we should invest in economies and schools and infrastructure overseas.

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

I love it when idiots talk about crumbling infrastructure like it actually means something. Tell me something, do you have any idea why the Secretary of Transportation wants federal transportation funds, which should be used to maintain that infrastructure, to be diverted to a bullet train project in California? Wouldn't it make more sense to use that money to invest in the entire country than support a politically favored fat cat who wants to line his pockets?

The structural failure injury attorneys at Denena and Points remark that transportation experts have been calling attention to the aging U.S. highway infrastructure over recent years. Especially in bridges and elevated portions of the interstates, wear and tear caused by aging materials and long use by heavy trucks have led to weaknesses in these structures that hold the potential for eventual collapse.

Sudden structural collapses, like the failure of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis in 2007, can result in multiple deaths and severe injuries. The Minneapolis bridge collapse injured 145 people and killed 13.

U.S. researchers investigate potential new aid to structural stability

I think it's pathetic when ignorant dumb fucks point to a crumbling infrastructure and insist it means "nothing".

Is there a reason you ignored my question about why Obama's Secretary of Transportation wants to divert money from roads and bridges to build high speed rail?

 

[rdean]

Why am I surprised that Windbag is lying. The train is projected to run from Sacramento to San Diego. Sorry, but those would not be considered small cities. And yes, there are small cities in central California that will be served. But they are not the reason for the train.

You must think I am dumber than you are. The first leg is going from Merced to Fresno, you want to tell me how many people are going to ride that? Even if they manage to build the whole thing, and it actually goes from LA to Sacremento, why is the federal government supporting it? Want to tell me how that has anything to do with the general welfare of the union, or why gasoline tax money should be diverted to support it?

It does not. Projections are between 2.5 and 3.5 hours. Try driving to the airport, getting there early enough to get through security, waiting for a gate, and so forth at a couple airports. And then consider the cost difference.

Projections and reality do not always meet. If you lived in California you would know that.



One is something that is economically feasible, the other is a government boondoggle.

Really? They had high speed trains in the 1800's?? You know something no one else knows. How did they hide that technology for all of those years??

Actually, I know history. Steam locomotives were capable of 90+ mph speeds, and diesel trains have set been clocked at 200 mph

Currently the only high-speed train in the United States, Acela runs from Washington, D.C., to Boston via Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York. It is the only part of Amtrak's network that actually makes money instead of losing it, and has been gobbling market share from commercial airlines. According to a recent New York Times story, 75% of travelers between New York and Washington now go by train; before Acela's arrival in 2000, only about one-third of travelers between those cities chose Amtrak.
Here you go. An actual link to an article about the bullet train system in California. You know, Windbag, actual link.
Business travelers prefer Acela to flying because the train has power outlets, Wi-Fi and cellphone access, making it easy to work during the trip. They also don't face the security hassles of airports nor the long ground travel and waiting times that can erase the speed advantage of airplanes.
Acela defies California's bullet-train naysayers - Los Angeles Times

You want links?

Land speed record for rail vehicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And why don't trains travel at 200 mph now? The land speed record is over 700 mph. Why don't cars travel at 300 mph?

See how stupid your reasoning is. High speed trains travel on tracks welded together because of impact bumps.

 

[rdean]

I love it when idiots talk about crumbling infrastructure like it actually means something. Tell me something, do you have any idea why the Secretary of Transportation wants federal transportation funds, which should be used to maintain that infrastructure, to be diverted to a bullet train project in California? Wouldn't it make more sense to use that money to invest in the entire country than support a politically favored fat cat who wants to line his pockets?

The structural failure injury attorneys at Denena and Points remark that transportation experts have been calling attention to the aging U.S. highway infrastructure over recent years. Especially in bridges and elevated portions of the interstates, wear and tear caused by aging materials and long use by heavy trucks have led to weaknesses in these structures that hold the potential for eventual collapse.

Sudden structural collapses, like the failure of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis in 2007, can result in multiple deaths and severe injuries. The Minneapolis bridge collapse injured 145 people and killed 13.

U.S. researchers investigate potential new aid to structural stability

I think it's pathetic when ignorant dumb fucks point to a crumbling infrastructure and insist it means "nothing".

Is there a reason you ignored my question about why Obama's Secretary of Transportation wants to divert money from roads and bridges to build high speed rail?

The accident rate for aging trains is terrible. High speed trains run at a fraction of the energy cost of current trains. And can compete with planes. Not to mention, the job opportunities once it's built. You could work 100 miles away from where you live and that wouldn't be a bad commute at all. Companies would love the sudden talent available. Did I mention airport congestion?

I don't answer many of your posts because you don't think things through.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why am I surprised that Windbag is lying. The train is projected to run from Sacramento to San Diego. Sorry, but those would not be considered small cities. And yes, there are small cities in central California that will be served. But they are not the reason for the train.

You must think I am dumber than you are. The first leg is going from Merced to Fresno, you want to tell me how many people are going to ride that? Even if they manage to build the whole thing, and it actually goes from LA to Sacremento, why is the federal government supporting it? Want to tell me how that has anything to do with the general welfare of the union, or why gasoline tax money should be diverted to support it?



Projections and reality do not always meet. If you lived in California you would know that.



One is something that is economically feasible, the other is a government boondoggle.



Actually, I know history. Steam locomotives were capable of 90+ mph speeds, and diesel trains have set been clocked at 200 mph

Currently the only high-speed train in the United States, Acela runs from Washington, D.C., to Boston via Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York. It is the only part of Amtrak's network that actually makes money instead of losing it, and has been gobbling market share from commercial airlines. According to a recent New York Times story, 75% of travelers between New York and Washington now go by train; before Acela's arrival in 2000, only about one-third of travelers between those cities chose Amtrak.
Here you go. An actual link to an article about the bullet train system in California. You know, Windbag, actual link.
Business travelers prefer Acela to flying because the train has power outlets, Wi-Fi and cellphone access, making it easy to work during the trip. They also don't face the security hassles of airports nor the long ground travel and waiting times that can erase the speed advantage of airplanes.
Acela defies California's bullet-train naysayers - Los Angeles Times

You want links?

Land speed record for rail vehicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And why don't trains travel at 200 mph now? The land speed record is over 700 mph. Why don't cars travel at 300 mph?

See how stupid your reasoning is. High speed trains travel on tracks welded together because of impact bumps.

The government doesn't want cars that travel that fast, why do you think cars don't go that fast?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

​

The structural failure injury attorneys at Denena and Points remark that transportation experts have been calling attention to the aging U.S. highway infrastructure over recent years. Especially in bridges and elevated portions of the interstates, wear and tear caused by aging materials and long use by heavy trucks have led to weaknesses in these structures that hold the potential for eventual collapse.

Sudden structural collapses, like the failure of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis in 2007, can result in multiple deaths and severe injuries. The Minneapolis bridge collapse injured 145 people and killed 13.

U.S. researchers investigate potential new aid to structural stability

I think it's pathetic when ignorant dumb fucks point to a crumbling infrastructure and insist it means "nothing".

Is there a reason you ignored my question about why Obama's Secretary of Transportation wants to divert money from roads and bridges to build high speed rail?

The accident rate for aging trains is terrible. High speed trains run at a fraction of the energy cost of current trains. And can compete with planes. Not to mention, the job opportunities once it's built. You could work 100 miles away from where you live and that wouldn't be a bad commute at all. Companies would love the sudden talent available. Did I mention airport congestion?

I don't answer many of your posts because you don't think things through.

High speed trains violate the laws of physics? How?

Strange, Obama never once argued that commute times are a great reason to trains. Given that it is 384 miles from Sacramento to LA, and that there will be 26 stops along the way, exactly how long will the commute actually be?

 

[rdean]

Is there a reason you ignored my question about why Obama's Secretary of Transportation wants to divert money from roads and bridges to build high speed rail?

The accident rate for aging trains is terrible. High speed trains run at a fraction of the energy cost of current trains. And can compete with planes. Not to mention, the job opportunities once it's built. You could work 100 miles away from where you live and that wouldn't be a bad commute at all. Companies would love the sudden talent available. Did I mention airport congestion?

I don't answer many of your posts because you don't think things through.

High speed trains violate the laws of physics? How?

Strange, Obama never once argued that commute times are a great reason to trains. Given that it is 384 miles from Sacramento to LA, and that there will be 26 stops along the way, exactly how long will the commute actually be?

Not everyone lives at the extreme ends of the train line.

Physics? What the fuck?

See what I mean about your posts?

 

[rdean]

You must think I am dumber than you are. The first leg is going from Merced to Fresno, you want to tell me how many people are going to ride that? Even if they manage to build the whole thing, and it actually goes from LA to Sacremento, why is the federal government supporting it? Want to tell me how that has anything to do with the general welfare of the union, or why gasoline tax money should be diverted to support it?



Projections and reality do not always meet. If you lived in California you would know that.



One is something that is economically feasible, the other is a government boondoggle.



Actually, I know history. Steam locomotives were capable of 90+ mph speeds, and diesel trains have set been clocked at 200 mph





You want links?

Land speed record for rail vehicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And why don't trains travel at 200 mph now? The land speed record is over 700 mph. Why don't cars travel at 300 mph?

See how stupid your reasoning is. High speed trains travel on tracks welded together because of impact bumps.

The government doesn't want cars that travel that fast, why do you think cars don't go that fast?

The government isn't some fucking secret entity made up of little men in trench-coats in back rooms. Our government gets voted into office. We can vote them out.

Another dumb post. You seriously need to read your posts before posting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo]Obama: Shovel Ready jobs not shovel ready - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rshermr]

Is there a reason you ignored my question about why Obama's Secretary of Transportation wants to divert money from roads and bridges to build high speed rail?

The accident rate for aging trains is terrible. High speed trains run at a fraction of the energy cost of current trains. And can compete with planes. Not to mention, the job opportunities once it's built. You could work 100 miles away from where you live and that wouldn't be a bad commute at all. Companies would love the sudden talent available. Did I mention airport congestion?

I don't answer many of your posts because you don't think things through.

High speed trains violate the laws of physics? How?

Strange, Obama never once argued that commute times are a great reason to trains. Given that it is 384 miles from Sacramento to LA, and that there will be 26 stops along the way, exactly how long will the commute actually be?

Hmm. no links again, just dogma. How like a con tool.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Republicans have spent trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan. During the presidential debate, Romney said we should invest in economies and schools and infrastructure overseas.

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

Wasn't that filibustered early on?

Get rid of over the road trucking. Replace it with trains and train truckers to work on trains. Then, offload at the destination and truck goods that last bit. We'd be out from under middle east oil in a very few years.

Yeah, its the obvious thing to do but the pubs will never allow anything that could help our economy that much. The R would never allow the money for retraining, for infrastructure and they sure as hell don't want us energy independent.

Now, if there is a way to make it pay China or other countries or, or that matter, the Kochs, that would be a different story. The GObP would love it.

How wonderfully retarded!

 

[asterism]

Wasn't that filibustered early on?

Get rid of over the road trucking. Replace it with trains and train truckers to work on trains. Then, offload at the destination and truck goods that last bit. We'd be out from under middle east oil in a very few years.

Yeah, its the obvious thing to do but the pubs will never allow anything that could help our economy that much. The R would never allow the money for retraining, for infrastructure and they sure as hell don't want us energy independent.

Now, if there is a way to make it pay China or other countries or, or that matter, the Kochs, that would be a different story. The GObP would love it.

You have no data to back up your claims. What do you think trains run on?

A whole hell of a lot less fuel than the hundreds of thousands of cars they could replace.

And THAT is why the pubpots are against it.

Cars? You said trucks earlier.


Ok, so your solution is just fiction. That's the problem with most of these left wing ideas, they aren't workable.

The actual answer is that truck shipping uses 3x more fuel than trains. Given the limitation of trains and the lack of additional capacity, shifting ALL good transport to trains would not remove middle eastern oil dependency.

You're just making shit up.

 

[Warrior102]

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

Investigation Finds Obama Financing Mosques Worldwide With U.S. Taxpayer Dollars « Pat Dollard

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is Deany's avi a black kid and an orange/green kid?

 

[rdean]

Stunning Republican Hypocrisy on the Stimulus Package

Republicans Who Opposed The Stimulus Continue To Pan It As A ‘Failure,’ While Also Taking Credit For Its Success. These exact same deceitful Republicans Who Opposed the Stimulus Line up To Criticize It Publicly, Request More Money Privately, deliberately fail to tell their constituents where the money came from!

Republicans Voting Against Stimulus Then Asked Obama for Money - Bloomberg

Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Alabama Republicans Jo Bonner and Robert Aderholt took to the U.S. House floor in July, denouncing the Obama administration’s stimulus plan for failing to boost employment. “Where are the jobs?” each of them asked.

Over the next three months, Bonner and Aderholt tried at least five times to steer stimulus-funded transportation grants to Alabama on grounds that the projects would help create thousands of jobs.

------------------------

Obama had no idea Republicans could be so duplicitous. Now he knows. The last election proves the entire nation knows. Without "gerrymandering", Republicans would be in a world of hurt.

 

[rdean]

Why is Deany's avi a black kid and an orange/green kid?

Two minorities not represented in the Republican Party, which is 90% white.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is Deany's avi a black kid and an orange/green kid?

Two minorities not represented in the Republican Party, which is 90% white.

Don't forget 6% scientists

 

[rdean]

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

Investigation Finds Obama Financing Mosques Worldwide With U.S. Taxpayer Dollars « Pat Dollard

Notice there's no link anywhere? Why do you think that is?

 

[rdean]

Why is Deany's avi a black kid and an orange/green kid?

Two minorities not represented in the Republican Party, which is 90% white.

Don't forget 6% scientists

Link?

Oh wait, I have one:

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

You would think that would hurt, but like Rick Santorum said, "Republicans have no smart people". Finally, something we can ALL agree with.