No roads, bridges etc... need to be built/repaired? Seriously, you are quite fucking retarded.There are no roads, bridges and dams that need to be built, because, guess what? Whenever people need those things, they hold city council meetings or county commission meetings, or state legislature meetings, and they appropriate state and local funds to do the job, and then DO IT!
So again, you point to a failed idea and use it to proclaim that since one idea failed that no others can be tried? Damn ditzie... you just can't help but spout nonsense.Convert transportation? TO WHAT EXACTLY? There are at least a half dozen various ideas on what kind of "green" transportation we should have! How has the Governmental project going on this wonderful new hybrid car I keep hearing so much about, the Volt??? Selling a lot of those, are we? Before something CAN be "converted over" to something else, we first need to collectively decide which way we're going, and then the capitalist marketplace will meet the demand for whatever products we embrace as consumers. It doesn't happen the other way around, it has NEVER worked like that. If Obama, in all his liberal brilliance, couldn't make it work, I seriously doubt your retarded ass would fare much better.
As I have stated many times. The technology exists today to convert from gasoline based engines to nat gas. The thing that does not exist is the distribution infrastructure. That is where the government can help to create jobs while at the same time reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Part of that initiative would include drilling our own resources. I know you are a fucking idiot and will likely rant on about some nuance or another, but do try to at least think about this for a minute.
Moron... the projects exist, they just weren't ready to implement right away... so Obama spent the money elsewhere in a vain attempt to be seen 'doing something'.Listen to how stupid you sound. It was a liberal idea, and it FAILED! The projects DIDN'T exist, and he finally had to admit that! I don't know where you get this idea he couldn't spend our money fast enough, Congress appropriated the funds, they were there to spend as fast and furious as he wanted to, there was just nothing "shovel ready" for him to spend it on.
Dear ditzie... no one ever stated that the Fed should be in charge of every project. But there are plenty of interstate highways, dams, levees, bridges throughout the country that do meet the need for Fed involvement.Oh, I understand, there are SOME projects which require SOME federal assistance, but those are rare exceptions, and should never be made the rule.
Dear ditzie... no one suggested we build things that were not necessary. That is simply more of your stupidity. Please try and limit your posts to two stupid comments. Putting 30 in one post makes it very hard to read.Federal funding for "bridge to nowhere" projects, are NOT what we need to be focusing on at this time. Sorry.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
See, here's your prob... you can't fucking read. I did not say that no roads or bridges need repair. Go back and read what I posted again, and see if you clarify what was said again. Whenever my county or state road needs work, my county or state government swings into action, my elected representatives either appropriate money or levy a tax to come up with the money, and they repair the road, or build new roads, bridges too! Sometimes, they might ask the federal government for some help with a project, but NEVER does the federal government go tell a county or state where and when to build or repair a road or bridge, that is MY responsibility, as they are MY representatives.No roads, bridges etc... need to be built/repaired? Seriously, you are quite fucking retarded.
No, I am pointing at a moronic idiot who thinks he is a 'moderate', yammering nonsense about a tried and failed cockamamie liberal idea. So far, I am PWNING his ass, because all he can seem to do is misconstrue things that have been said, and hurl insults, as he continues to stubbornly spew liberalism from every orifice.So again, you point to a failed idea and use it to proclaim that since one idea failed that no others can be tried? Damn ditzie... you just can't help but spout nonsense.
As I have stated many times, that is an EXCELLENT idea.... for the PRIVATE SECTOR!As I have stated many times. The technology exists today to convert from gasoline based engines to nat gas.
I actually agree that the Federal government does have a role here and can help. I disagree on the method. Here's how the Feds could help 'convert' us to NG... Announce that by 2018, all government vehicles will be NG! That's 6 years to phase out current fleets of gasoline-powered vehicles, and replace them with NG. By this one action, the Feds would cause the major manufacturers of gov't vehicles, to develop an entire line of NG vehicles, which would be made available to the general public. Fuel suppliers, also wanting to benefit from gov't business, would start implementing distribution plans, and we'd start seeing NG fueling stations pop up all over the country. By the time we get to 2018, the consumer public would be catching on, and the rest is history.The thing that does not exist is the distribution infrastructure. That is where the government can help to create jobs while at the same time reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Part of that initiative would include drilling our own resources. I know you are a fucking idiot and will likely rant on about some nuance or another, but do try to at least think about this for a minute.
Now, MY plan, doesn't really involve some massive government fortune being doled out to bureaucrats, or siphoned off by crooked politicians and their crooked contributors. It's basically money we are already going to be spending when we update the gov't fleets. Unlike your FAILED idea, which created entities like SOLYNDRA, my idea might actually WORK!
LMAO... So the projects exist, they just weren't ready to be implemented? Why not? Were people busy doing other things, like checking to see if their unemployment check had arrived? I don't get it! You are telling us that the government needs to fund these projects, but then you tell us the projects are not ready to be implemented yet! It's pretty fucking pathetic when you are literally throwing money down a rat hole, and the rats are throwing it back at you, telling you they aren't ready for it yet! LMFAOOOoooooo! You're too much, SF!!Moron... the projects exist, they just weren't ready to implement right away... so Obama spent the money elsewhere in a vain attempt to be seen 'doing something'.
Well there might be, I don't know how many there are.... but wouldn't it be a much better plan to have the state and locals come ask feds for the money when they need it, rather than trying a backwards approach of federally funding mythical projects that don't exist? It is NOT the Federal government's business to decide where a damn needs to be built. This is done by state and local officials, who are elected by the people of the state, not federal officials who are elected by other states.Dear ditzie... no one ever stated that the Fed should be in charge of every project. But there are plenty of interstate highways, dams, levees, bridges throughout the country that do meet the need for Fed involvement.
No, that's EXACTLY what you are suggesting we do! AFTER Obama has already done it, and FAILED at it!Dear ditzie... no one suggested we build things that were not necessary. That is simply more of your stupidity. Please try and limit your posts to two stupid comments. Putting 30 in one post makes it very hard to read.
Predicting the future............
SF in October 2012: You know, what we REALLY need, is some huge massive government takeover of health care!
No, runed... you are the one who is laughable. All you did was come in here and reel off three posts of sarcasm and ass-holiness. None of the questions I posed was answered, none of the ideas I presented was addressed, none of the points I made were refuted.... just three posts worth of you acting like a typical liberal jackass.
The reason those people will be without insurance will be corrected when the full policy takes effect. Everyone will be able to get insurance, some with government subsidy. So, in the future, people will have insurance regardless whether they lose their job. That problem will be solved, permanently.
As for the massive increase in premiums that will also be addressed when everyone pays into the pot; the individual mandate.
It's three years since the conception of ObamaCare. Three years to implement a program. Three years to change a system that has been in operation for an eternity. Three years to implement changes while half of Congress fight to prevent it. Just imagine how far along things would be if a governmnet mandate had been included and State Governors supported the plan and Congressional members were on board.
You can thank the Republicans for the "clusterfuck from Day 1". That was their plan. That is always their plan when it comes to social programs. Make them as inefficient as possible so they can claim they don't work and then get rid of them. Well, the good news is Obama will get a second term and then you'll see programs put into effect. He learned a lesson. If he gets a majority he'll just ignore the Republicans next time. Then you'll see all the change anyone could possibly hope for.
"May your reality be as pleasant as mine."
Weigh in on it, because I'd like to know what another supposed 'moderate' has to say... does Obama need more money to create government-funded jobs for us, or what??
Shut up, Apple... you are delusional and dreaming.
i have requested several times that you back up your claim that i flip flopped. to date, you have produced -- zero.
i would weigh in on your discussion with SF, but honestly, i have no idea where you two are in the conversation. do you want me to only address the points you raised above? seems to me that if i did so, it would leave out much of the actual debate.