Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
cpbell0033944
ParticipantInteresting stuff, and an enjoyable debate.
I agree that the scale of the US and the emptiness of tracts of it is impossible for a Brit to get their head around. I recently researched the origin of US counties, and found one county in the upper Mid-West (cannot remember where) that had a similar land area to my home English county (Norfolk), yet had a population of under 1000, whereas the population of Norfolk in 2006 was around 830,000 (and Norfolk is a rural county). That said, I don't see that prior decisions to focus on air and car travel prevent high-speed passenger rail travel from becoming a reality in certain locations. We are similarly wedded to the car anmd aeroplane, (I can never understand people using budget airlines to fly from London to Edinburgh when they could travel along the East Coast Main Line at up to 125 mph on a comfy train) yet we now have the CTRL. I repeat that I'm not suggesting high-speed lines extending more than, say 700 miles, so of course not all areas will be suitable candidates. Another factor in favour of rail is comfort – no turbulence and room to stretch out.
As for the links – they're interesting, but I don't see their relevance. High-speed rail isn't as fanciful as high-speed travelators, after all. ???
ParticipantYes, congrats BK. 8)
ParticipantDoonesbury reference. Second offense brings a two week ban.
😉
Doonesbury's a bit leftie for you, I'd have thought. 😉
No repeat offence will occurr, ladies and gentlemen; the temporary abberation is over. Please do not adjust your sets, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. 8)
ParticipantHowever, given that the Bush administration has spent an estimated $513.4 billion on the Iraq war to date… (source: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Apologies for my impertinence, but make that $513.5 billion. It's gone up a bit. ::)
ParticipantOK Lingster, so I've not been absolutely accurate. Let's split hairs. Here's what he said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
He's advocating staying there for generations if needs be. He's not even limiting it to 100 years. Presumably he means that if a President in the year 2150 decides that there is still a need, then they'll stay. I just cannot comprehend how even the most loyal Republican supporter could envisage an open-ended presence in a perennially unstable part of the world without it necessarily affecting Americans for generations to come (I defy you to prove to me that the spending on Iraq hasn't affected people at home even slightly). Do you really want to accept reduced public spending at home in exchange for a little sandy empire? Is this not just the empire-building instinct at work? Do people not understand that South Korea and Japan are politically stable nations whose people on the whole do not object to US military presence? Do they not understand that the cost in lives, resources and greenbacks of your presence in Japan, or our presence in Germany is minimal compared to keeping a fragile semi-peace in Iraq? Do you really believe that pointing a gun, whether literal or figurative, into people's faces is the panacea to every ill?
Now back on-topic.
Please convince me that this problem:
Typically what happens is that Democrats get absolute control of a city's infrastructure to the point where it becomes a one-party municipality. With no real competition for elected office, the city slowly falls apart as corruption and laziness become the norm. At some point desperation sets in, a turnaround mayor manages to take over and he brings the place back from the brink. New York under Giuliani is a good example of the turnaround effect.
is not likely to arise where the Republican party hold power in a similar manner. Why should the Republican party be morally/intellectually superior to the Democratic party?
I also do not understand your argument that:
High speed rail would work great outside the cities, but the need to go into them for connections would be fatal to budgets.
as the European model has shown that it is entirely possible. Again, I turn to my central point: the Bush administration has spent vast sums of money on a war that was supposedly completed ages ago. If some of that money had been kept with the US, could it not have been used to provide a sufficiently generous budget for public schemes such as this?
As ever, I speak with respect but some degree of incredulity and look forward in expectation of enlightenment and the continuation of a vigorous yet rational debate. 8)
ParticipantI noticed that, too, but figured it was his evil twin brother "Skippy" that had commented. 😉
Skippy? Nah, Skippy's everyone's favourite, courageous bush kangeroo. Strewth mate, don't go to Aus and mention Skippy and evil in the same sentence; they'll not like it. 😮
I think it was more of a Jekyll and Hyde situation.:o ::)
ParticipantI voted twice 😛 thru my cellphone (different IP 😛 )
Sneaky! 8)
ParticipantHa! We don't have the money. I'll tell you what's going to happen – at some point we'll have machinery that can dig tunnels cheaply and at low risk. Once that's done, we'll be able to do high speed rail in the U.S.
Given the clusterf*ck of Boston's Big Dig, no one's seriously looking to do huge transportation engineering projects in the U.S. right now, especially not ones that touch big cities, with all their corruption.
After reading the Wikipedia entry for the Big Dig, it sounds to me like a clever and ambitious project that was bedeviled with organisational and administrative failings. At least here in the UK we usually get the engineering right (except in the new Wembley stadium which will have a short lifespan due to shoddy construction, though our projects do usually come-in over budget and late.
When you say that you can't afford it, do you mean the 100 years' occupation stuff? I cannot see how a serious Presidential candidate can say such ridiculous things.
Participant[font=times new roman][size=11pt]
ParticipantHer AMG-Lite page has been updated, two of a few samples. 8)
Source: http://www.amg-lite.com/kristy_hawkins/
She looks a little red in the face. Still, she's looking as amazing as ever she was. 8)
AuthorPosts