Right Wing Americans...

[Ignatius]

Haha wow, this thread.

[rickgm]

Granted, this site is nowhere near a political forum, and I am missing the correlation between oil and Republicians, but that is by far the best quote of this topic! I'm going back to looking at thick thighs now.

KFD

I think curvage should ban political posts.  That's what ruined dimensions.

[Guest]

I think curvage should ban political posts.  That's what ruined dimensions.

Dimensions went to shit because of Conrad.

[Guest Smithsonius]

I think curvage should ban political posts.  That's what ruined dimensions.

Curvage has always had political posts, it's one of the reasons we have a serious discussion section and it's never hurt anyone to have a spirited argument or rant about politics from time to time. Just wait until election time  ;D

[KFD]

Do you prefer freerepublic.com? 

I prefer furiously masterbating if Avatar Girl is nowhere nearby...

Anyway, since we are on the topic of cars (Oh Jeez, KFD and cars : ), it's really fascinating how Big Oil has control of things...

Quick history lesson, kids...

Erwin Rommel and his "Afrika Corps" brigade of Panzer tanks got their asses handed to them in Libya and Morocco by Patton and his Cadillac-built Shermans and M5s. One of the ways was logistics. Those Caddy V12s were thirsty, but seeing how there was nothing but sand and camels in North Africa, logistics was key. However these massive tanks were able to get close to a hundred miles per gallon. Yes, archaic Detroit iron was shaming Priuses back then. Like any good conspiracy theorist will tell you, big oil holds that patent now.

Now, let's take into effect that Carter mandated economy in automobiles... A 1970 fill in the blank got single digit Mileage, while fifteen years later a Honda CRX was getting 40 MPG. 25 years later, it seems like 40 MPG is a big thing. Yawn. My 1958 dodge with its fins, chrome, six acres of hood and big V8 got 25 mpg on the highway. So I'm not really impressed with new cars that get mileage that still can't touch a high performance bike. We have the technology to be getting better fuel economy today, but congress is so easily purchased.

I'm going back to beating off to fat chicks now.

KFD

[gta]

[...] Cadillac-built Shermans and M5s [...] were able to get close to a hundred miles per gallon. Yes, archaic Detroit iron was shaming Priuses back then. Like any good conspiracy theorist will tell you, big oil holds that patent now.

Wat.

Try dividing that by 100.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69:the-sherman-medium-tank&catid=46:tanks&Itemid=57

http://www.sandstone-estates.com/index.php/military-vehicles/sherman-mk-iv/83-sherman-tank-moves-again-under-its-own-power-after-50-yearsfin

http://www.fordfe.info/Sherman.html

[Queen Victoria]

Dimensions went to shit because of Conrad.

Dimensions went to hell because they let the so-called 'goddesses' run the place, and then the white-knighting got out of hand. They also give way too much wiggle-room to divisive issues such as weight loss surgery, which tends to tear the FA community apart.

[KFD]

It exists... I have seen one of those Caddy V12s... It didn't have a conventional carburetor ( I want to say it had an open plenium/open intake), but on top of that, all those urban myths of cars getting insane mileage only to have the magic carburetor removed do exist, no matter how unlikely a mystery part ends up on a regular car is...

KFD

[Guest spock]

• I don't approve of gay marrage, and I don't have to. I don't need the endorsement or the blessing of the people who support it, and I don't give a damn about their condemnations, either.

You're so stucking fupid!

Gay people don't want to get married under your god. Hell, most straight people don't even! He sucks and quite frankly doesn't exist.

Also, why not argue that sperm and eggs are people too? Ban abortions AND fapping! Just ask Ryan Paul how we can stop women from ovulating and we're set!!! Then we can stop those poor follicles from becoming useless eggs who die too soon!

[Guest Atlya]

You're so stucking fupid!

Gay people don't want to get married under your god. Hell, most straight people don't even! He sucks and quite frankly doesn't exist.

Also, why not argue that sperm and eggs are people too? Ban abortions AND fapping! Just ask Ryan Paul how we can stop women from ovulating and we're set!!! Then we can stop those poor follicles from becoming useless eggs who die too soon!

Ditto.

All bow to logical thought!

[supermanicsoul]

You're so stucking fupid!

Gay people don't want to get married under your god. Hell, most straight people don't even! He sucks and quite frankly doesn't exist.

Also, why not argue that sperm and eggs are people too? Ban abortions AND fapping! Just ask Ryan Paul how we can stop women from ovulating and we're set!!! Then we can stop those poor follicles from becoming useless eggs who die too soon!

+1

Case dismissed.

[wilan]

Right-wing Americans are stupid – yes, they are;

Unbending in their views, they always go too far.

Reading their diatribes can make you feel quite ill;

Unending is their bile – we all have had our fill.

[vennie]

Americans also do not possess either the mass transit systems (either short range or long range) or the money to build them in order to match those in Europe. And, adding to that fact, the distances involved are far larger on a country-by-country comparison. Believe me -- I'd love to zip from city to city on 220 mph bullet trains, but the infrastructure required to set up a true national network like this would cost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Thus, if our gas isn't cheap, we shut down. The logistics are extremely different from Europe in this manner.

Maybe if you stop spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in the defense/military industry, you could have your transit system that matches Europe

Oh wait, you have to overthrow oil states occassionally, so I guess you can't get rid of the military

[Guest LoveTheGain]

Against my better judgment, I'm going to respond to this thread. First and foremost, I love how "right wing Americans" are unbending and "progressives" are open-minded...that's a load of horse shit. Open minded unless you don't agree with them, and then you're "retarded". If "the left" had all of this figured out, Europe wouldn't be in the fucking mess that it is in right now. If you think the American economy is upside down, Europe is 6 feet under.

And yes, I see myself as very "right wing", which I prefer to refer to as being conservative. I'm very fiscally conservative and am Catholic, so that means that I grew up with certain social teachings. However, I'd also like to think that I'm well-educated, intelligent and often think for myself. So I've got a mix of ideas on some of the big issues.

Gay Marriage: The United States government should not be involved with the institution of "marriage" in the first place. "Marriage" has a religious connotation; this is why Christians in this country are so hell-bent against gay marriage. The root of the problem lies within the rights/breaks given to married couples under US law. The most intelligent way to go forward is to get rid of marriage, in the state's eyes, altogether. If you want those rights and breaks that were previously given to married couples, you have to go down to your local courthouse and get a civil union. Then you can go get married, if you choose to do so. There are plenty of churches that will marry a gay couple. What's the point in denying a gay couple next of kin rights, hospital visitation rights and a tax break?

Women's reproductive rights: It is not my right to tell someone what they can or can't do with their body. And it is certainly not the right of the government, if someone truly sees themselves as conservative and a champion of smaller government, they should ask themselves why they disagree with this sentiment. Do I think abortion is wrong? You bet your ass I do. If it were a personal question, I'd tell you that abortion is an intrinsic evil. Would I be one of those people standing outside an abortion clinic handing out information about alternatives to abortion? Absolutely. But my question is why do some people see that as a bad/dumb thing? We don't need to go into the scientific reality that that is a human person inside there. We send Mike Vick to jail for killing dogs but we don't recognize the killing of babies? Something seems a bit backwards about that. And government paid abortions are absolutely wrong. Using taxpayers' money to fund abortion is an abhorrent act.

And the same goes for forcing religious institutions to pay for things that go against their core dogmatic beliefs. Catholic institutions have a right to religious freedom, that includes the fact that they shouldn't be forced to pay for birth control. Do we force Islamic Centers in this country to buy pork items? No, that would be a loathsome act and highly offensive. So why is it suddenly alright to go against the religious freedom and beliefs of other institutions?

Environmental Policy and energy...well those aren't really all that important right now. Let's keep our eye on the ball, as our employment figures are atrocious, our civil employment to population ratio (the true measure of employment in this country) is the lowest it has been in 30 years and our median income has dropped at the same time as a spike in gas prices. That's the thing about the left; they want to talk about these grand plans about making everyone "feel" better. When people just want to have a fulfilling job, good pay and have the ability to provide for their family. And that doesn't mean simply handing out whatever people need. We want too much in this country, it's about damn time that people start living within their means or do what they need to do to budget what they have.

Which side is it that understands how to get people back to work? Is it the side that thinks we should squeeze every last penny out of the "big bad rich fat cats" to pay for social programs? Or is it the side that understands that those people are the employers of this country. That if you don't champion business, you seek to create a nation of lazy, entitled assholes. People need to take economics classes in high school and college, otherwise they'll never understand what sets America apart. It isn't some top secret means to create something, it's the highest productivity levels in the world. The American worker is simply more productive; that's due in part to a higher level of technology but without the work ethic that put us at the top, we're bound to sink into ruin. So the government should foster business and growth, not vilify it.

I doubt any of you will read all of this so I'll make it short and sweet. How does the left ensure a bright future for their cause? They create a nation that is dependent on the government. So that if it comes time to choose between those that would seek to limit government, they can scare their voting bloc into action. The left doesn't want you to work hard for what you could have, they want to pacify you. Just look at the opening video of this year's DNC for their beliefs on government's role in our lives. "We are all different races and creeds and backgrounds...the only thing that we all belong to is government." They actually believe that we are a government that owns a nation, where they fail to grasp that we are in fact not so. We were created as a nation that owns a government, they are ours, not vice versa. It's about God damn time they realize that.

[Guest Atlya]

I read all of your post, and let me put it this way: you're evil.

[Guest LoveTheGain]

I read all of your post, and let me put it this way: you're evil.

That's your response? I seriously hope you're being sarcastic.

[wilan]

Environmental Policy and energy...well those aren't really all that important right now.

I wish I'd realised that; I've always thought they were important. Well, that's a relief, I must say.

[Guest LoveTheGain]

I wish I'd realised that; I've always thought they were important. Well, that's a relief, I must say.

There are times when getting people to work and getting world economies on track are far more important. If you think environmental issues are more important, you're either living on benefit or are one of the lucky ones that doesn't have money issues. I love how the left can put environmental issues ahead of human issues and be perfectly fine with it.

[Guest Atlya]

That's your response? I seriously hope you're being sarcastic.

I gave my opinion of you while jokingly winking at your own use of that adjective.

[wilan]

There are times when getting people to work and getting world economies on track are far more important. If you think environmental issues are more important, you're either living on benefit or are one of the lucky ones that doesn't have money issues. I love how the left can put environmental issues ahead of human issues and be perfectly fine with it.

Environmental issues are human issues; they are always important.

[Guest mx]

Environmental Policy and energy...well those aren't really all that important right now. Let's keep our eye on the ball, as our employment figures are atrocious, our civil employment to population ratio (the true measure of employment in this country) is the lowest it has been in 30 years and our median income has dropped at the same time as a spike in gas prices.

Your government has gone to war twice for energy resources in the last decade. How much do the wars cost? Well, never mind.

There are about 1.4 million jobs in the environmental sector over here. And there will be approximately 2.4 million jobs in 2025. Germany has a market volume of 300 billion Euro and a market share of 15%. The global market volume in the areas energy efficiency, renewable energy and recycling amounts to 2,044 billion Euro and is supposed to be doubled in 2025.

I wonder if Mitt Romney's Campaign accept donations from abroad ... 

[mickloud]

Concerning the matter of gay marriage,  I think there's more to it than simply trying to establish a distinction between "marriage" and "civil unions."  I agree that we should have such a distinction, but I don't think it would solve the problem as far as the outcry from the socially-conservative Christians in America.

As I see it, far-right Christians do not want our society to accept homosexuality as a cultural norm.  They do not want to raise their children in a world where openly gay or lesbian couples are normal, nor do they want to have to explain to them why some people are straight, while others are gay, bisexual, transgender, etc. 

Furthermore, many believe that homosexuality is a choice, and deny the overwhelming body of research on human sexuality -- which demonstrates it to be a veritable tapestry of behaviors stemming from a complex array of biological, psychological, and environmental factors.  They believe that there is one correct expression of human sexuality -- one man, one woman, bound by marriage as ordained by God. Thus, homosexuals can be marginalized on the basis that they have actively chosen to deviate from the "correct" behavior. 

Lastly, their image has been dragged through the mud, associated with extreme hedonism, hyper-sexuality, and ultimately the erosion of "transitional morals" in modern society.

To be fair, it is the minority of Christians that treat the issue with this degree of ignorance and intolerance, but they are loud and politically influential minority.  Unfortunately, for the sane majority, in the interest of honoring each person's right to religious freedom, we can do little but sit back as parents spread these hateful ideas to their children, who inevitably grow up to be just as homophobic, bigoted, and scientifically illiterate as their parents.

Ultimately, I do think civil unions will help.  And we can't really ask for much more from government, lest we risk trampling on the religious freedoms to which all people are entitled.  Its up to people to become educated and stamp out the ignorance and misinformation that has led to the marginalization of non-hetero couples in America.

- - - - -

And as for the environment... I can't say for sure if the environmental issues we're facing today are as serious as some experts would claim.  But if they are, in 25 years, the economic struggles of Europe and the US will hardly be remembered in contrast to the overwhelming failure of our leadership to take action and protect our planet.  Nations rise and fall, and nothing man-made can last forever.  But we have one planet.  Are we really willing to wager that it's "not that important" ?

[gta]

Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Seems to be the quintessential neo-conservative mindset when it comes to the environment. "The future? Fuck that, I'll be dead anyways by the time the shit really hits the fan." I don't give a shit if "drill baby drill!" allows someone a job so they can buy more crappy material possessions and own a McMansion. Earn your wealth or be a so-called "job creator" another way. Stop polluting my dream of a cleaner world to live in. You say "b-b-b-but China and India don't give a shit about the environment! Why should we?" Well good for them, doesn't mean we can't do our part and be a good role model if anything else.

And when are people going to realize that most of the push for EPA deregulation is so the corporations can reap the profits, and not the average American? People think that deforesting and pumping toxins into the water table is going to make these companies hire more people and pay them better? Where is the correlation? Trickle-down economics my ass.

[Guest LoveTheGain]

Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Seems to be the quintessential neo-conservative mindset when it comes to the environment. "The future? Fuck that, I'll be dead anyways by the time the shit really hits the fan." I don't give a shit if "drill baby drill!" allows someone a job so they can buy more crappy material possessions and own a McMansion. Earn your wealth or be a so-called "job creator" another way. Stop polluting my dream of a cleaner world to live in. You say "b-b-b-but China and India don't give a shit about the environment! Why should we?" Well good for them, doesn't mean we can't do our part and be a good role model if anything else.

And when are people going to realize that most of the push for EPA deregulation is so the corporations can reap the profits, and not the average American? People think that deforesting and pumping toxins into the water table is going to make these companies hire more people and pay them better? Where is the correlation? Trickle-down economics my ass.

If you think creating jobs and employing more people; both home and abroad, is trickle-down economics, then you're a fucking moron. End of story. I'm sick and tired of people trying to label pro-business as "trickle-down". Take an economics class for the love of God.

CORPORATIONS EVIL!!!!! RAAAWWWRRRR

I love the use of Germany's energy consumption as an example, too bad your energy consumption in as recently as 2009 was: Oil 34.6%, Natural gas 21.7%, Lignite 11.4%, Bituminous coal 11.1%, Nuclear power 11.0%, Hydro and wind power 1.5%, Others 9.0%. So you've put billions into a sector that still produces less energy than nuclear power, oil, natural gas, coal and lignite? Good for you, you're billions in the hole and still using fossil fuels.

[Guest Atlya]

If you think creating jobs and employing more people; both home and abroad, is trickle-down economics, then you're a fucking moron. End of story. I'm sick and tired of people trying to label pro-business as "trickle-down". Take an economics class for the love of God.

CORPORATIONS EVIL!!!!! RAAAWWWRRRR

I love the use of Germany's energy consumption as an example, too bad your energy consumption in as recently as 2009 was: Oil 34.6%, Natural gas 21.7%, Lignite 11.4%, Bituminous coal 11.1%, Nuclear power 11.0%, Hydro and wind power 1.5%, Others 9.0%. So you've put billions into a sector that still produces less energy than nuclear power, oil, natural gas, coal and lignite? Good for you, you're billions in the hole and still using fossil fuels.

Yeah sure, nuclear power is unlimited and quite safe too.