yyz28

Get Well Man!!! Lookin' forward to having you back on the board!

Fair enough. Hope I didn't offend. I'm with you on the talking points, of both parties. While I may agree with and say something that sounds like a talking point, you can rest assured I don't know what the talking points are for either party. I just call it like I see and believe it. If it happens to match a talking point, that's ok, but it isn't my intention to parrot any party, as they both make me want to puke.

There is nothing wrong with debate and discussion. Sometimes we learn something from each other. Sometimes one side makes a point the other hasn't seen yet and those who are thinking instead of just regurgitating talking points learn new things in these debates. Nobody here thinks what is said on this site will change the world. You can think of me what I want - Have thick skin, and I promise not to get my panties in a wad - but the issues we're talking about here ARE serious and the dicussion was being handled maturely by all, I think. I realize I am. There are 5 or 6 on the other side as well. This is a sports board and there aren't many of us here wo care about politics (or at least enough to dicsuss it), so you're going to see a small minority of our membership posting in these threads, and it will be a handful on each side of the issue who are passionate about politics. To put it another way - if you don't like the content of a thread and could give a sh!t less about it, don't read it. Higt the back button and move on with your life.

Beat me to it... ...easier to make blanket conclusion statements instead of discussing the actual points.

The impact on the speculation side of the market is real. If the Federal government opened up ANWR, federal lands, lift restriction on shale production and told the states where they can stick it on the issue of the the coasts today, oil will close at 100 or so tomorrow. The speculators would run home to mama. ...and transportation and operation in that environment isn't the impossibility you make it out to be. We have a pipeline in place. I believe the thougth would be to simply extend it. The people who want to expore the area claim they can do so durring the summer months and then pump the rest of the year, making the environment a non-issue.

I think my iPhone should be left out of this...

This should be posted next to the "labor laws" poster at all places of employment.

I've been to the region. ANWR is a HUGE place, and there are some nice areas. However the coastal plain is as advertised. ANWR is a very diverse area, but the zone they are wanting to drill in is not a spot anyone wants to visit, and there is little to no wildlife to inturrupt there. ...and Alaskan wildlife has proven they can adapt to what we're doing. You've seen the pictures of thousands of carribu grazing right next to the pipeline, right? ...and that's where your argument falls flat on its face. CAFE standards have mandated fleet averages in the 30+MPG range of the automakers, so the 6MPG Hummer is going to be the exception, not the rule. You also just assume that Exxon-Mobil, Shell Oil and the other major energy producers in this country just want to run all the oil they can through their pipelines and then when it runs out, they are going to just say "oh well, that was fun while it lasted, I guess we're just going to shrivel up and die now..." Do you actually think that they don't know where the limits on the supply are? Do you really think they won't be getting themselves in a place to keep going after the oil thing is over? You actually belive that people are going to say "screw alternitive energy?". No matter the price of oil, would you drive an electric car because of the environmental benefits if you could get one for about the same price as an internal combustion model? I bet you would. I bet there is a huge market out there for that, without the governemt making one up and without those of you who would want such a vehicle mandating them on those of us who don't. My point is this. Alternitives to oil burning transportation have been in the works for a couple of decades and are now getting close to being ready for primetime. Do you really think people and companies who have put the effort into such endeavors are just going to say "f-it" if oil prices go back down? If you do, then you haven't been educated on the inventive nature of this country very well. If there is a market for something, and there is for electric and other types of transportation, the FREE MARKET, not the Government, will make it happen. Your side of the argument loses credibiltiy when you blame america and lecture us on our "over-consuming way of life". It is an amazing fact of history - we adapt very well. Well, the left has stopped us from using nuclear power in this country. Obviouslly, wind, solar and hydroelectric energy is and will continue to be used in this country. I don't get the point of the question. Are you asking if we keep it all here or put it on the global market? Obviously we put it on the global market. It is the only smart thing to do. ...yet for some reason I'm not. Spend my morning in my car listening to my radio, on my schedule - or go wait for the smelly train so I can sit across the isle from the homeless guy who jumpped the turnstyle and will become violent when the conductor tries to throw him off the train for not having a ticket. He'll flail around, bump into me, I'll spill my coffee on my paper, and will have waited on the platform 15 mintues for this luxury. Ugh. There is a train line that runs into Plano. It would run to McKinney if Allen would pull it's head out of it's ass... Line is being built to Carrolton. ...and what exactly does the lack of a government run and publically funded transportation system have to do with a sense of entitlement? I find it ironic that people who support real entitlement programs like government run healthcare call people living their lives as they see fit as having a "sense of entitlement".

The problem with your point is that we have more reserves in this country than the reserves of the entire middle east that we can't tap. Everyone's going to run out of oil eventually, the question is what do we do for the next 50-100 years we have to get through before other alternitives become viable via our growing technology and while energy demands worldwide remain on the incline?

Pretty much sums it up. There are versions of ethonol (not corn) that may be a real play as they develop. Hydrogen may be a play as technology advances and we can make it in a more effiencent manner. Electric power is a real option but again, technology has to advance to where the battery longevity and cost gets battery powered vehicles that PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO DRIVE on the roads. The footnote to electical power is the coal issue, and the fact that the same morons who won't let us get our own oil and use it are the same morons who keep electricity costs high by over-regulating the coal plants and refusing to allow any new nuclear power in this country. We're technologically not there with any of these items yet. ...but we are getting closer, and alternatives will be found. We don't need government incentive - those who develop the future alternitives to fossil fuels will make so much money, there is no need for the government to be spending money on R&D in this area. Let the private sector work this out on their own... Government needs to get the hell out of the way on energy, not get further into the middle of it. They've done a good enough job of screwing it up.

King - you are correct. But there is even more to it than that. He claims the pills are cheaper. They really aren't. They are when you actually plunk money on the counter for them. ...but you've paid 50+% in income taxes to subsidize the system. If a vial of pills cost $10 and you’re getting $8 from the taxpayers, you only have to charge the end-user $2 and he thinks he’s getting cheap pills. Pea and Shell…

Numbers are funny about being black and white... The calcluation is still valid. It has been adjusted, always to a larger number, over time since such measurements have been taken. The number goes up via inflation, and sometimes as a "political" adjustment. ...but always up. While you may contend that the number that descirbe poverty is greater than 21K per year, the numbers still show that the poor aren't getting poorer, despite the propoganda to the contrary. Oh, nobody's arguing that unemployment is on the rise right now, but you can say that it goes up under any President. If you're going to judge a President by employment%, then it should be an average, not what happend in one month. Green Mean, you're simply wrong about healthcare in Europe and Canada. These countries are bankrupting themselves at an alarming rate with their social programs. Here's Illuvius screaming about 5.5% unemployment, yet you're pushing us to follow systems of high taxes and bigger social programs embraced by the EU countries... ...that yeild 12% unemployment. Ummmm... No. Tell ya' what. I'll shop and provide the insurance that is right for my family. No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity. Not one. Lower taxes, fewer government services. Let the people keep more of what they earn and make more of lifes decisions for themselves.

You should re-evaluate your stand on him based on Poverty and Unemployment. When captured through the filter of history, he has done very well on both fronts, especially in the light of the recession he inherited and what 9/11 did to the economy - On Poverty - From the Census Bureau When we keep taxes low, spending in check, and our economy open - conditions that empower businesses to create new jobs - all Americans benefit. Census Bureau data released in August of 2007 confirms that more of our citizens are doing better in this economy, with continued rising incomes and more Americans pulling themselves out of poverty. The Census data shows that income gains in 2006 were substantial and widespread across all income categories. And the largest percentage income gains occurred for people in the bottom 20% of incomes. The data also shows that poverty levels improved significantly, with nearly half a million fewer people living below the poverty line in 2006 than in 2005. Moreover, the poverty rate in 2006 was lower than all but one year in the 1980s and 1990s. On Unemployment - Average Unemployment under G. W. Bush 5.1%. This is a better proformance than the last 5 Presidents. Since FDR, only Truman, Eisenhouer, Nixon & Johnson have presided over a better employment situation in this country. Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and Clinton all had average unemployment figures higher than George W. Bush. Feel free to research this on your own. ...but the numbers don't lie.

Ugh, we DO have a Healthcare system. It isn't run by the Government, but we do have a healthcare system. It's the best in the WORLD. ...ask the Canadians who come across the border to pay for procedures they can't get in Canada because of healthcare rationing. National Healthcare is broken in Canada, the UK and most of Europe. Socialism at any level has NEVER WORKED WHEN TRIED. ...why do we keep trying? They don't want to fix the problem because they created it in the first place. They took money they were supposed to put in the SS system and spent it on other stuff. Do you want the same people who we can't trust with SS running the healthcare system? REALLY? The government DOESN'T deny healthcare. In fact, if you don't have insurance, you are sent to Government run hospitals. Ask the Tax Payers of Dallas county who support Parkland if they feel like they have paid their fair share. What a scare tactic. That's some strange insurance. Insurance usually has deductables, copays, etc, but there isn't a limit on the amount of healthcare you can recieve until you get into the millions of dollars in a year. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE HEALTHCARE!!! Somebody has to pay for it. Let me give you a quick lesson in economics: Free healthcare creates unlimited demand. Meaning, if it is free to go to the doctor, people who currently get the sniffles and says "screw it, It'll pass" are going to go to the doctor. Multiply this by millions. At some point, if demand will outweigh the supply. This is when Medical rationing will start. (and it will be rationed here like it is in EVERY NATION that has socialized or nationalized medicine) The current popluar overinflated number is 47 Million people in this country without insurance. This is wholly over-inflated when talking about this issue because it doesn't take into account people who CHOOSE not to have health insurance who can afford it, includes illeagal immigratnts, etc. This is a big number, but let's just assume the 47 Million is right. 301 million people in this country - that means that 15% of the country doesn't have health insurance. ...that also means that 85% OF US DO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE!!!!!!. This is not a healhcare crisis. According to studies, 67% of the people in this country are happy with their medical plans. So you would have those of us who like our plans, and want to provide for our own families give up what we have worked hard for and our choices to pool our resources via wealth redistribution to participate in a FORCED government run health system where there are no choices? You don't know what high taxes are. 50+% off the top is what we're talking about - and not just for the rich. Again, look at the examples around the world. Pulling out of Iraq and eliminating the "Bush taxcuts for the Rich" doesn't pay for national healhcare. IT JUST DOESN'T! Again, there is no free lunch. Those in nationalized healthcare systems are asked for a penny; several of them, just not at the doctor's office. ...and the evidence shows that people wait for care, and many never even get it in this type of system.

...gonna have to warm up the Tivo for the next few days...

ugh... the federal department of education has a $69,000,000,000 budget for 2009, which is a fraction of what is spent at the state and local level on education in THIS COUNTRY ALONE. ...yet we're still chunin' out dunces at a rather alarming rate, and do so no matter what party is in power. That's some fuzzy math strategery goin' on in your sig there bro...

See, I was attacked by Milton Bradley... TWICE... since 9/11. ...but I've got NO LILY! I wish I knew then what I know now...

Tech's going to do better than UT? ...that'd be a switch.

In some ways, though the poster is a little over the top, he is right. We have an administration without the gravitas required to get things done. The other instituions in this state (and across the country) impose student fees to pay for their growing athletics programs. UNT has HUGE potential - the problem is that we have had said potential for going on 10 years and we haven't had an administration during that time who has shown any ability to seize on that potential in a way that has allowed us to gain much ground. We can't put the weight of the entire athletic department's future on one man (Dodge) and count on him to win so the "big doners" will get motivated to give. We've GOT the big doners RIGHT NOW. ...many of them are sitting in class in Denton as I type this. The student fee is just the latest in a series of events that just points to a lack of nads amoungst the administrators of our fine institution. Checkfacts is a tool, don't get me wrong, and bashing UNT constantly is dumb - there are a lot of good things going on - but no matter how poorly delivered, we should heed the point he is trying to make.

Sorry... UNTflyer for the win. This competition ended with that collage.

...Engage!

You'd have to go back to like the middle of the thread, but it isn't worth your time...

In the short term... a tiny bit. I think the acedemic hit we took is far worse in the short term then the Mendoza thing... ...in the long term - both will be little more than blips on the radar screen. Footnotes in UNT History.

93-97's are a little tricker. LT1 takes more than an LS1 to get into that type of time. 98-02 is pretty easy. Especially if you go with the giggle juice. I don't - I'm an all motor guy, but you can take a stock LS1 Camaro, put a 100-150 shot of N2O and whip any of these cars, including the electric. I've got a Forged LS1 with a great set of heads and a big a$$ cam. Couple that with a good torqueconverter, the essential bolt ons (better intake, and a good set of headers) and a well thought out suspension, and low 11's high 10's on motor in a 3500LB car isn't a problem (even with my fat-a$$ in the driver's seat...) They have the potenital, but they are very costly - parts are expensive and OHC designs are much harder to work on than pushrod motors are. The 5.0 by itself is limited, but heads for that motor are cheap and the car is light - almost 250-300LBS lighter than the Camaro (both 3rd Gen and 4th Gen Camaros) I know guys with GT40 Heads, an E cam and a set of headers running mid to low 12's on motor. The Fox body and the 5.0 REALLY shines when put under boost though. One of the best Supercharger platforms you can start with, as the stock pistons are forged and the motor has a relatively low 9.0:1 compression ratio from the factory. Stroker kits to take the motor to 331 or 347 are also cheap and a common path. Plus - you can get into these REALLY cheap today. Great It is more than just a question of weight. Electirc motors are superior to gasoline powered engines in many ways. Assuming you can get them big enough and power them for long enough, they will be a viable performance option in the future - Electric motors produce less than 10% of the friction of a gasoline motor, so it can spin to max RPM and thus be in the power band nearly instantaniously. Hence the slingshot like behaivior you see in the 60' in that video. You don't have to have huge horsepower numbers if the torquecurve keeps you in the powerband immediatley and all the way down the track. Scale it up to a big car with a bigger motor and the results would be similar. LOL! So true. My 2000 Z28 is the fast car, but my daily driver is a restored '91 RS w/ a Carb'ed 383. It'll run high 12's but isn't nearly as strong as the 2000. 13 MPG and it's gotta have 93 octane. Darn right I'm still living it. I'll never give up my muscle cars. I might eventually be forced to drive some econo-beater to the office, but I'm still going to have my toys in the garage. ...got a depoit on a 2010 Camaro already. I loved the '85 vintage 'Foxes.

Trust me - If a $450,000 car gets beat by a street driven Camaro (or frankly even if the Camaro keeps up...)- it's been embarassed, I don't care if the Camaro wins by half a fender. There are PLENTY of Camaro's/Birds/Mustangs running around that could hand that thing it's ass and they aren't all drag-cars or trailer queens. Rumpity-Rumpity...