# Joe Biden Rides Amtrak



## PaulLev (Aug 23, 2008)

Biden rides Amtrak every day between Wilmington and Washington - did my heart good, shows he's not only in touch with people but the future...


----------



## Tony (Aug 24, 2008)

The question is, does that experience leave him with a positive or a negative feeling about Amtrak?


----------



## Steve Manfred (Aug 24, 2008)

Tony said:


> The question is, does that experience leave him with a positive or a negative feeling about Amtrak?


Since he's been doing it since 1972 and his son is on the Amtrak board of directors, I think it's safe to say he's pretty positive.


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 24, 2008)

Steve Manfred said:


> Tony said:
> 
> 
> > The question is, does that experience leave him with a positive or a negative feeling about Amtrak?
> ...


I wonder if, and if so, how much he has riden Amtrak anywhere but back and forth on the NEC?


----------



## wayman (Aug 24, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> Steve Manfred said:
> 
> 
> > Tony said:
> ...


I would love to hear he took Amtrak from Wilmington to Springfield this week, but somehow I rather doubt it!


----------



## Tony (Aug 24, 2008)

wayman said:


> I would love to hear he took Amtrak from Wilmington to Springfield this week, but somehow I rather doubt it!


I am quite sure that he will not be taking Amtrak anywhere for a while.


----------



## Tony (Aug 24, 2008)

Steve Manfred said:


> Since he's been doing it since 1972 and his son is on the Amtrak board of directors, I think it's safe to say he's pretty positive.


Well, if he hasn't done anything meaningfully positive for Amtrak yet as a Senator, I doubt he will if VP.


----------



## planetcadillac (Aug 24, 2008)

Tony said:


> Steve Manfred said:
> 
> 
> > Since he's been doing it since 1972 and his son is on the Amtrak board of directors, I think it's safe to say he's pretty positive.
> ...


Well there is only so much one person can do in Washington especially for something like Amtrak. But suffice to say that being VP as well as his personal story and his son on the board of Amtrak well at the very least funding will not be cut.

If anything if Obama-Biden wins given the current energy crisis I think Amtrak's position will be improved. As the American psyche starts to shift away from limitless car driving Amtrak's chances can only improve.

I just read this morning that Charlotte's NC's own intra-city light rail is off to a fast start. They now project steady ridership of 18,000 per day. A figure that they had originally projected to meet in 2025!

Look out for Biden's speech at the DNC convention in Denver on Wednesday. He may and likely will mention Amtrak in his bio simply because riding the train has been an integral part of his life for so many years. Then the world will be introduced to Amtrak at least the ones that didn't already know.


----------



## PaulLev (Aug 24, 2008)

Tony said:


> Steve Manfred said:
> 
> 
> > Since he's been doing it since 1972 and his son is on the Amtrak board of directors, I think it's safe to say he's pretty positive.
> ...


I predict completely the opposite - that if Biden is VP (which I expect he will), that rail travel in this country will be revolutionized - high speed, reliable Amtrak between all major cities, and across the nation, within a decade... (or, at least, work will be started on all of that, and in some cases, ready to go).

By the way, Tony, is your view of Biden and Amtrak perhaps colored by your politics?


----------



## PaulLev (Aug 24, 2008)

planetcadillac said:


> Look out for Biden's speech at the DNC convention in Denver on Wednesday. He may and likely will mention Amtrak in his bio simply because riding the train has been an integral part of his life for so many years. Then the world will be introduced to Amtrak at least the ones that didn't already know.


Excellent point!


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 24, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> Biden rides Amtrak every day between Wilmington and Washington - did my heart good, shows he's not only in touch with people but the future...


There ya go! No need to look any further into the presidential candidates' qualifications! Joe Biden takes the short trip to and from work and that no doubt makes Obama qualified to become president! :blink:

Common folks, Joe Biden nor any other politician's verbal support for Amtrak will accomplish much without the public's demand... OUR demand for an improved passenger rail system.


----------



## PaulLev (Aug 24, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> PaulLev said:
> 
> 
> > Biden rides Amtrak every day between Wilmington and Washington - did my heart good, shows he's not only in touch with people but the future...
> ...


You're wrong on several points, Sky:

1. Biden does more than give Amtrak "verbal support" - he rides it every day! And his son is on its Board.

2. Who said anything about not looking at the candidates' other qualifications?

3. Who said anything about not, as a member of the public, continuing to push for a better rail system?

By the way, in case you haven't heard, McCain is in favor of killing Amtrak - and putting all of its service in the hands of private enterprise.


----------



## transit54 (Aug 24, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> Common folks, Joe Biden nor any other politician's verbal support for Amtrak will accomplish much without the public's demand... OUR demand for an improved passenger rail system.


Yes and no. I work in public transit which faces many of the same dilemmas as Amtrak does. The simple reality is that my agency's ridership is up tremendously, the public is clamoring for increased service, and the most we were able to do is cut some frequency and adjust some fares because fuel prices have increased our operating costs so much. It all comes down to funding, which comes from the government. We don't have the funds to go out and just start a new route without that kind of support - it doesn't matter how many indicate their demand by riding our busses (that being said, such demand will indicate where we will increase frequency and expand capacity).

If there's a strong advocate for Amtrak/public transit in the White House, there will be some centralized figure to advocate for funding, and it will happen. Combined with the advocates in Congress for increased transit and rail service, I'm optimistic that a lot of progress could be made.

We can continue to buy tickets and ride Amtrak and demand can be through the roof, but if the White House and Congress are made up of people unwilling to appropriate Amtrak money or fund the purchase of new equipment, nothing will happen.

That being said, you are right that we need to demand an improved passenger rail system. That's why I'm voting for individuals (at all levels of government) that understand and will advocate for Amtrak. Not that that's the only thing I'm voting on, of course, but strangely enough those who tend to support Amtrak also tend to advocate other policies in line with what I believe.


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 24, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > PaulLev said:
> ...


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 24, 2008)

rnizlek said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > Common folks, Joe Biden nor any other politician's verbal support for Amtrak will accomplish much without the public's demand... OUR demand for an improved passenger rail system.
> ...


Well stated! To be brief however, all I'm going to say is that I wished that I could say the same as you did in the last sentence above. But unfortunately I do not find that those who tend to support Amtrak (which I do) also tend to advocate other policies in line with what my beliefs are or what I feel is best for this country!


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 24, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> By the way, in case you haven't heard, McCain is in favor of killing Amtrak - and putting all of its service in the hands of private enterprise.*This is an instance where you're somewhat right and where McCain is another Bush. Neither of these politicans are Amtrak fans! However, your point here is moot because despite Bush's continual position on Amtrak, Amtrak has **not** been "**killed**" by a long shot and it ain't about to happen under McCain either... especially with a democratic congress!*
> 
> *In conclusing I will state that I believe that we want the same thing for Amtrak, to thrive and survive, but I also want our country to thrive and survive too! Vote for who you chose and I will too!*


Maybe McCain may not kill Amtrak, but look at this example:

The SL used to go directly to Phoenix, but then UP stopped using the line west of Phoenix (and I think they ceased maintaining it too), so Amtrak discontinued service to Phoenix and now use Maricopa as their "Phoenix" stop. (Try to forget that there is no transportation to or from Maricopa to Phoenix!)

Remember that John McCain is the *SENATOR FROM ARIZONA*! (You ever hear the word *PORK BARREL*?) I'm sure that if McCain wanted to please his own state voters, he would have pushed for Amtrak to serve his *STATE'S CAPITAL CITY*! And he might also attach a spending bill to some other bill to maintain that track in order to provide service.

I don't recall him doing either one! (BTW - I used to live in AZ for 7 years and didn't vote for him.)


----------



## RailFanLNK (Aug 24, 2008)

Last night while watching CNN, they consistently had advertisements about the DNC in Denver this week. Denver Union Station has been prominently displayed in the ad. Have any of you seen it? It made me feel good cuz:

1. I go there, been there, travelled through there all on Amtrak.

2. Biden is pro-Amtrak, PERIOD!!

3. Friends just left here (my home) and are planning on booking a trip on Amtrak. For 2 1/2 years, everyone has nodded

thier heads about taking the train, but now I have people actually doing it.

4. I will be voting Democratic this election and the only way I wouldn't be voting Democratic is if they would have fielded

Charles Manson as thier candidate.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 24, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> I predict completely the opposite - that if Biden is VP (which I expect he will), that rail travel in this country will be revolutionized - high speed, reliable Amtrak between all major cities, and across the nation, within a decade... (or, at least, work will be started on all of that, and in some cases, ready to go).


What definition of major city do you have in mind? The 35 or so biggest primary census areas, each with 1.6 million and greater populations? The 54 or so biggest primary census areas with 1 million and greater populations?

If the amount of money we're willing to spend on new track is half of what we're currently spending on the military (which is many times the current federal transportation budget), I'm skeptical that by the time some of the money is spent on intracity transportation we'll have enough money to even link all the 35 biggest cities into a national high speed rail network within the next decade.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Aug 25, 2008)

RailFanLNK said:


> Last night while watching CNN, they consistently had advertisements about the DNC in Denver this week. Denver Union Station has been prominently displayed in the ad. Have any of you seen it?


I saw the station today during the Chris Matthews show, he was in the plaza and you could see the station in the background. I checked google earth and saw that it's not far from the Pepsi center convention site.


----------



## PaulLev (Aug 25, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> PaulLev said:
> 
> 
> > sky12065 said:
> ...


 I'll skip the fancy color of the font, and just reply to your points here in plain text:

1. My point is that driving a car is in no way unusual for a Senator, but taking Amtrak every day is - and therefore shows an appreciation and support of train travel.

2. You wrote in your original: "There ya go! No need to look any further into the presidential candidates' qualifications! Joe Biden takes the short trip to and from work and that no doubt makes Obama qualified to become president!" I think your meaning was crystal clear.

3. What on Earth gives you the impression that I was saying you do not have the right to express yourself? To the contrary, I think it's good to have discussions such as these, so errors can be pointed out. By the way, as a professor and author, I am known as a staunch supporter of The First Amendment.

But I do agree that we both want the same thing for Amtrak, and our country, and that everyone should vote for whomever they please.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 25, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> I predict completely the opposite - that if Biden is VP (which I expect he will), that rail travel in this country will be revolutionized - high speed, reliable Amtrak between all major cities, and across the nation, within a decade... (or, at least, work will be started on all of that, and in some cases, ready to go).
> By the way, Tony, is your view of Biden and Amtrak perhaps colored by your politics?


Paul, thats absurd. The curse of our government, by its very design, is that it moves as if mired in slowly drying cement. No revolutions will happen in any area short of a revolution causing the government itself to fail. Biden and Obama will be better for Amtrak then McCain. Thats all I believe, and all I expect on the subject.



sky12065 said:


> PaulLev said:
> 
> 
> > sky12065 said:
> ...


Joe, man, I suggest you work on your quoting abilities because this looks silly.

In anycase, speaking of looking silly, it is not wise to tear at arguments with ridiculous arguments such as:



> *What's your point? I drive my car every day and my wife rides with me. Does that mean I support higher gas prices any more that Biden's short train rides and his son being on Amtrak's board mean that Obama supports higher funding? Whoops! Guess I am wrong here and you do have a point since Obama represents the politics of tax and spend. My bad!*


You probably don't support higher gas prices because I find myself in the minority in doing so. And yes, I drive every day. I've mentioned in other places I aim for the greater good, not mine, and the greater good is supported by higher gas prices.

I also don't know if you support increased highway funding to expand highways and decrease congestion, not to mention repair to give you a smoother ride. I don't know if you support it, but a hell of a lot of people do. If we were a group supporting driving cars, I'd imagine we'd appreciate a candidate who could relate to the abominable condition of our road infrastructure. I see their point, even if I personally would like it if we dropped highway funding altogether and let the damned things rot.

In anycase, you relation of gas prices and rail funding is ridiculous, and makes your point merely seem silly. You have a valid point, and you'd do yourself justice trying to come up with a more objective, less "fox-newsish" way to illustrate it.


----------



## inspiration100 (Aug 25, 2008)

Is John McCain is Anti-Amtrak or something? How about Obama? If not I don't see a point. It's the P that's more important than the VP when it comes to these issues. :huh:


----------



## PaulLev (Aug 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> PaulLev said:
> 
> 
> > I predict completely the opposite - that if Biden is VP (which I expect he will), that rail travel in this country will be revolutionized - high speed, reliable Amtrak between all major cities, and across the nation, within a decade... (or, at least, work will be started on all of that, and in some cases, ready to go).
> ...


Absurd? I suppose so ... in the same way that the British admiralty thought it absurd (back in the 1830s) that steam power could ever have much use in warfare, or "experts" thought air flight would have no big use in war almost a century later...


----------



## PaulLev (Aug 25, 2008)

inspiration100 said:


> Is John McCain is Anti-Amtrak or something? How about Obama? If not I don't see a point. It's the P that's more important than the VP when it comes to these issues. :huh:


Yes, McCain is anti-Amtrak, and Obama pro - details are here.


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 25, 2008)

the_traveler said:


> Maybe McCain may not kill Amtrak, but look at this example:
> The SL used to go directly to Phoenix, but then UP stopped using the line west of Phoenix (and I think they ceased maintaining it too), so Amtrak discontinued service to Phoenix and now use Maricopa as their "Phoenix" stop. (Try to forget that there is no transportation to or from Maricopa to Phoenix!)
> 
> Remember that John McCain is the *SENATOR FROM ARIZONA*! (You ever hear the word *PORK BARREL*?) I'm sure that if McCain wanted to please his own state voters, he would have pushed for Amtrak to serve his *STATE'S CAPITAL CITY*! And he might also attach a spending bill to some other bill to maintain that track in order to provide service.
> ...


Maybe he won't or can't. Who knows for sure! I definitely thought about the Phoenix situation especially since last month was my first time visit to Arizona and to the Phoenix area, but my thoughts took a direction that perhaps he's upset because of the omission or spiteing if you will of Phoenix Amtrak service. (I had to use Flagstaff off the SWC) Now that you've brought up another view all I can say is who knows for sure beyond McCain himself! It would be interesting to hear what he would say if asked!


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe McCain may not kill Amtrak, but look at this example:
> ...


John McCain has never supported Amtrak, even before they stopped serving Phoenix, which by the way wasn't Amtrak's choice. They were forced into that, so he probably could have made a difference in that if he wanted to.

On the other hand the Senator against Pork Barrel has over the years gone out of his way to ensure that EAS (Essential Air Services) continues to serve certain AZ airports, despite horribly low ridership on some of those routes.


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 25, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> I'll skip the fancy color of the font, and just reply to your points here in plain text:
> 1. My point is that driving a car is in no way unusual for a Senator, but taking Amtrak every day is - and therefore shows an appreciation and support of train travel.
> 
> 2. You wrote in your original: "There ya go! No need to look any further into the presidential candidates' qualifications! Joe Biden takes the short trip to and from work and that no doubt makes Obama qualified to become president!" I think your meaning was crystal clear.
> ...


I'll skip the "fancy color" this time too. It was done not to be fancy, but to segregate my response from your post to make things easier for the reader. Here's my reply back:

1. Appreciation and support for Amtrack is going to take a back seat, be it Biden, Obama, McCain and whomever, when it comes time to negotiate for pet projects and pork barrel or other matters that they preceive more important to THEIR personal or party adjendas. This is why I feel the Amtrak is kind of a moot item for personal thinking as to who would be the better president. Please don't misinterpet this last statement to mean that *I *don't think Amtrak is important. My feelings are quite to the contrary. I support Amtrak 100% especially long distance service!

2. If by "crystal clear" you mean intentionally factious against those (not you personally) who would make their decision on the issue of Amtrak alone, your right!

3. I am neither a professor nor an author and can't really put into words what makes me think what I did. Damn, I'm lucky that I even graduated from High School with the kind of grades I had. My son was the same - bottom 20% of his large HS class but unlike me he went on to graduate college cum laude! Anyway, despite my educational level I have more than once suprised those that know me when they find out that I'm not a college graduate and have even been called a professor following speeches (non-political you'll be happy to hear) that I've given. It will have to suffice to say that... stuff happens! :unsure:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 25, 2008)

inspiration100 said:


> Is John McCain is Anti-Amtrak or something? How about Obama? If not I don't see a point. It's the P that's more important than the VP when it comes to these issues. :huh:


John McCain is probably the most anti-Amtrak member of the entirety of the legislative branch. His actions sure support it.


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> PaulLev said:
> 
> 
> > I predict completely the opposite - that if Biden is VP (which I expect he will), that rail travel in this country will be revolutionized - high speed, reliable Amtrak between all major cities, and across the nation, within a decade... (or, at least, work will be started on all of that, and in some cases, ready to go).
> ...


My argument looks silly? This coming from someone who would like to see highway funding dropped? (or are you being factious?)

This coming from someone who would apparantly rather watch and be influenced by so called news from a bias liberal leaning network like NBC, MSNBC, CBS and CNN than one, despite leaning slightly to the right, gives the most unbiased and fair reporting one's seen in many a years?

Also, please tell me what I quoted that looks silly and why it looks silly. I really don't get that one!!! In fact I didn't really quote anything but rather segregated my response to the different segments of what I was responding to.

And as for highway funding let me say this... I would not want to be driving across a bridge and have it drop out from under me! It happened in my general area on the NYS Thruway a number of years ago and some of those that perished never had their bodies recovered. A co-worker knew one of them personally! I'm reminded of that tragedy every time I cross the bridge replacement.


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 25, 2008)

inspiration100 said:


> It's the P that's more important than the VP when it comes to these issues. :huh:


Thank you! This is the shortest but most meaningful statement I've yet to see here! B)


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 25, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> Also, please tell me what I quoted that looks silly and why it looks silly. I really don't get that one!!! In fact I didn't really quote anything but rather segregated my response to the different segments of what I was responding to.


First, let me show you how I would have done what you did to explain what I mean with regard to quotation. The reason is that I rarely look in the quote itself for the answer. Had I been you, my post would have looked like so:



sky12065 said:


> Paul:
> 
> 
> PaulLev said:
> ...


I think this looks better, I think it doesn't look as obnoxious as red text, and its more clear to the reader- at least in my opinion. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to disprove your arguments this way, just trying to help you come across better. You do have a few valid and important points.



sky12065 said:


> This coming from someone who would apparantly rather watch and be influenced by so called news from a bias liberal leaning network like NBC, MSNBC, CBS and CNN than one, despite leaning slightly to the right, gives the most unbiased and fair reporting one's seen in many a years?


Mark Twain, and many hundreds of others, once made the following not completely attributed famous statement: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." That being said, I don't think you're a fool, but that comment sure makes you look like one. I have not watched a television news broadcast since 9/11/01, when I watched the events that day. It was the one time in the past 15 years I felt the promptness of being informed important enough to watch any sort of television whatsoever.

The Talmud says in it, "First learn. Then form opinions." I've taken this to heart, my friend.

I read two newspapers each day: The _Wall Street Journal_ and _The New York Times_. Most other information I glean from places involves me searching for it and comparing it to several different sources. I hate biased news. I hate news delivered with the intent to sway opinion. I grab facts and leave the rest to people more easily swayed then I.

My liberal leanings? I'm a firm believer in the eventual superiority of Marx's predictions, which one day, many years in the future, will surely come to pass. Have been for years. I believe in mass transit over personal transportation. I believe that making things better now is not a good course, if at the expense of making things better overall in the future. I'm not your typical American. I have no ambitions other than being happy. I might be able to (probably am able to) make millions of dollars a year, if I worked my ass off, if I took on a stressful job, if I did things my moral sense tells me are wrong. (And that includes Walmarting!) But I'm not going to, because I'd rather enjoy myself and be relaxed.



sky12065 said:


> And as for highway funding let me say this... I would not want to be driving across a bridge and have it drop out from under me! It happened in my general area on the NYS Thruway a number of years ago and some of those that perished never had their bodies recovered. A co-worker knew one of them personally! I'm reminded of that tragedy every time I cross the bridge replacement.


I would not want you driving across the bridge, period. I'd rather you avoid using your car unless it is absolutely nesscary. That is my perspective. Given that I'd like to see America entirely abandon her highway network and not use it by 2015, why the devil would I want to spend a dime upkeeping it? A bridge gets unstable? Close it. You have an iota of doubt about it? Demolish it.



sky12065 said:


> My argument looks silly? This coming from someone who would like to see highway funding dropped? (or are you being factious?)


I'm not being facetious. My argument is not silly, if you bothered to consider why I might feel the way I feel. Unpopular? Yes. Silly? No.

I said your argument looks silly, in that the way you are making it makes you seem excessively biased, and really looks, to me at least, like you are intending to skew the facts and arrange them so as to make your argument look better. Doing that just makes you seem to be support something without much just cause. Which is unfair, because some of your reasons for supporting what you support make sense. You'd be better off attempting to portray them objectively.

Fact is, Joe, reasonable minds can differ. I, based on my ideas, my ideals, my perspectives, and my personal vision for humanity's future, believe we should be heading in a specific direction. Obama heads a lot more towards my vision than McCain does. Neither do it, but Obama comes closer. You do not share my vision. And thats fine. Few people do. I do not hold it against you that you differ in your goals for humanity and yourself.

Given what you seem to want, McCain is the right man for the job of the two. I just feel bad that your very valid arguments and perspectives get lost under a litany intended to discredit. Say not what Obama doesn't do or will be unable to do. Say what McCain does and can do for your goals.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 25, 2008)

inspiration100 said:


> It's the P that's more important than the VP when it comes to these issues.


Maybe, maybe not. The President tends to be pretty busy. I wonder if maybe even a Vice President is less busy such that maybe a very pro rail Vice President would be able to spend more time making more rail happen than a very pro rail President.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I also don't know if you support increased highway funding to expand highways and decrease congestion, not to mention repair to give you a smoother ride. I don't know if you support it, but a hell of a lot of people do. If we were a group supporting driving cars, I'd imagine we'd appreciate a candidate who could relate to the abominable condition of our road infrastructure. I see their point, even if I personally would like it if we dropped highway funding altogether and let the damned things rot.


I think we should maintain the current highways at their current capacities (or maybe think about gradually shrinking them, one lane in each direction every decade or two), but that we should be looking at rail where we want to decrease congestion.

There's a lot of rearranging what buildings are where that would need to be done to get to an all-rail environment, and I'm not sure how you connect farms with consumers effectively in an all-rail environment (then again, it was done in the past, probably with farms depending on horses to get to the train station).


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I would not want you driving across the bridge, period. I'd rather you avoid using your car unless it is absolutely nesscary. That is my perspective. Given that I'd like to see America entirely abandon her highway network and not use it by 2015, why the devil would I want to spend a dime upkeeping it? A bridge gets unstable? Close it. You have an iota of doubt about it? Demolish it.


For the most part I am not going to respond to this post What you've stated speaks for itself, much of which I disagree with. I will how ever make a few comments:

 

1. I have to agree that your quoting method is better, but I would say that it is not significantly enough better that it was worth commenting about. Anyway, it did at least make me thing that making the quoting is not as time consuming as I was thinking it would be. I just didn't stop to think about the quoting button. (See, I can be open minded about some things! LOL)

 

2. I've watched many hours of the news networks I previously mentioned and I do believe that they are bias to the left. I have watched FOX for many more hours than the other networks and I know that they get a bad rap from the left because they do try hard to be unbiased or have a balance on shows like Hannity (C/R) and Colmes (L/D). As I said Fox does lean slightly to the right but is way more unbiased that all the others. I especially like O'Rielly who is neither Dem or Rep but indepentant! To be honest he's been more than fair to the left that I would personally care to witness! Anyway, to demostrate just one example of their unbias, on H&C especially - whenever they have a pundant for the left I have to hold the steam in my ears because they almost always have to interject "McCain is another Bush" into their responses no matter what the question is that they are asked; so much so that "Polly wants a Craker" rings in my brain everytime I hear it! In contrast, I would do reading like you, but reading is very tiring on me. I just started reading last year at the age of 60 and just finished my 50th book since then. The last on I started while in Mesa Arizona last month and just finished up just a few days ago - one month after starting! So I just don't have the impitus to get into news papers, never did, probably never will!

 

3. I left just one thing in my quote above because I want to say that I vehemently(sp) disagree with your view on highways, roads and bridges. Your vision would deny me and many like me the ability to have a life. I'm not supposed to walk further than a 5 minutes distance, I would not be able to get to an airport even if could fly, I would not be able to get to an amtrak station (heavens forbid) to travel and even if I could I'd go nowhere from the train stations where I would arrive at. I would also not be able to get to any doctor appointments, the hospital if necessary and I would not be able snow-bird to Arizona which we hope someday to be free to do. I would also not be able to visit family or friends nor could they ever visit me. Of course I could revert to the horse and buggy to resolve some of these issues, but then again I'm in no shape to take care of a horse and his droppings!  :huh:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 25, 2008)

Your opinion on FOX disagrees with what little I have incidentally been subjected to, but since I do not watch it or others on a regular basis, I'm really not qualified to comment.

I'm not suggesting removing cars and not replacing them with other methods of transportation. I have a wide variety of items I feel that, between them, will more than replace automobiles for most needs. Further, I wasn't suggesting all roads be demolished. Just the highway system. For long distance travel, a car is neither convenient nor efficient.

By the way, if you want to get farther into a discussion on this, email or instant message me.


----------



## Guest_George Harris_* (Aug 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I read two newspapers each day: The _Wall Street Journal_ and _The New York Times_. Most other information I glean from places involves me searching for it and comparing it to several different sources. I hate biased news. I hate news delivered with the intent to sway opinion. I grab facts and leave the rest to people more easily swayed then I.
> My liberal leanings? I'm a firm believer in the eventual superiority of Marx's predictions, which one day, many years in the future, will surely come to pass.


Probably should leave this alone, however:

If you believe the New York Times is unbiased, you really need to get out more and try to compare what they say with observed reality. There bais has in many areas has been readily apparent as long as I have been reading newspapers, now about 50 years.

The Marx statement is frightening. The abject failure off all governments that have ever attempted to follow any part of it whether in reality or pretense should put the lie to the validity of his perspective.

End political commentary.


----------



## Tony (Aug 25, 2008)

Just saw a story on CNN, that Biden was at his usual Amtrak station today. He apparently missed his normal train (I think he said 120?).

While he was at the station, CNN didn't specifically state that Biden actually road Amtrak today.


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Your opinion on FOX disagrees with what little I have incidentally been subjected to, but since I do not watch it or others on a regular basis, I'm really not qualified to comment.


It's sort of like taking a statement out of context like Obama's committee took McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comment out of context! It's apparant though that you haven't watch Fox much... or to be fair & balanced like Fox is, you might have watched something that I havent! In any case I've found that when someone does have an opinion that Fox is bias, it's usually because they hear truths that are contrary to their own belief or does not align with their political agenda. But to be clear, I don't believe that applies to you if you have not been as exposed to Fox as you indicate! But I would if you watched regularly! BTW, it's not by accident that FoxNews is by far the most popular network and some of their programs are #1 in the ratings!



> I'm not suggesting removing cars and not replacing them with other methods of transportation. I have a wide variety of items I feel that, between them, will more than replace automobiles for most needs. Further, I wasn't suggesting all roads be demolished. Just the highway system. For long distance travel, a car is neither convenient nor efficient.


Your comments did not reflect that you were not suggesting "removing cars" or suggesting that "all roads (not) be demolished." So I'll take the comments as standing corrected! However, I disagree with the idea of "just the highway system should be demolished." (It's this kind of thinking that helped make me a Republican) A defunct highway system would devistate the economy because it would not be practical for all points nationally to be serviced. It would also make distant travel near impossible for many of us who are limited by disablities and many that are quickly becoming unable to afford for either train or air travel... and just what else would be negatively effected by setting us us back by more than 50 years of progress! It would be much better to get rid of cell phones than the highway system, but that ain't gonna happen either!



> By the way, if you want to get farther into a discussion on this, email or instant message me.


No, I don't want to get farther into a discussion on this! I didn't want to start in the first place and tried telling myself not to, but in some cases I won't or just can't ingnore what's posted when I strongly disagree with it and I will respond accordingly and publicly.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 25, 2008)

Guest_George Harris_* said:


> Probably should leave this alone, however:
> If you believe the New York Times is unbiased, you really need to get out more and try to compare what they say with observed reality. There bais has in many areas has been readily apparent as long as I have been reading newspapers, now about 50 years.


I never suggested they were unbiased. I just said I read them. I think their factual reporting of local news is fairly accurate, and they do a fairly good job of reporting things accurately compared to most of the rags around here.



Guest_George Harris_* said:


> The Marx statement is frightening. The abject failure off all governments that have ever attempted to follow any part of it whether in reality or pretense should put the lie to the validity of his perspective.
> End political commentary.


Any attempt to create a government following Marx's prediction that isn't a natural occurrence is doomed to failure, that I don't disagree with. Marx's political system will take hold of its own accord. When we are ready for a new, better world, it shall come to pass. It will not work now, couldn't work now. It would require greed to become abolished due to an evolutional hatred for it. It will happen. Has to. Lest we become extinct.



sky12065 said:


> It's sort of like taking a statement out of context like Obama's committee took McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comment out of context! It's apparant though that you haven't watch Fox much... or to be fair & balanced like Fox is, you might have watched something that I havent! In any case I've found that when someone does have an opinion that Fox is bias, it's usually because they hear truths that are contrary to their own belief or does not align with their political agenda. But to be clear, I don't believe that applies to you if you have not been as exposed to Fox as you indicate! But I would if you watched regularly! BTW, it's not by accident that FoxNews is by far the most popular network and some of their programs are #1 in the ratings!


Its not by accident that Smirnoff and Absolute are the two most popular vodkas. People have poor taste. At least they have to be to like that weak-but-rough garbage. My only point being, popularity is rarely correlated to something's virtues.



sky12065 said:


> Your comments did not reflect that you were not suggesting "removing cars" or suggesting that "all roads (not) be demolished." So I'll take the comments as standing corrected! However, I disagree with the idea of "just the highway system should be demolished." (It's this kind of thinking that helped make me a Republican) A defunct highway system would devistate the economy because it would not be practical for all points nationally to be serviced. It would also make distant travel near impossible for many of us who are limited by disablities and many that are quickly becoming unable to afford for either train or air travel... and just what else would be negatively effected by setting us us back by more than 50 years of progress! It would be much better to get rid of cell phones than the highway system, but that ain't gonna happen either!


You say that because you are paying out about $10,000 a year in operating a car. Now imagine that $10,000 now in your budget, but going to mass transit instead. Same thing, different product.

It is entirely possible for all points to be connected. I mean you can even use the already present rights of way! We call them "highways". Just lay rails over them. Nothing is impossible except for skiing through revolving doors.


----------



## Walt (Aug 26, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> It is entirely possible for all points to be connected. I mean you can even use the already present rights of way! We call them "highways". Just lay rails over them. Nothing is impossible except for skiing through revolving doors.


I thought "highways" had the wrong turn radius and the wrong inclines, for rails?


----------



## AlanB (Aug 26, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Nothing is impossible except for skiing through revolving doors.


Actually with a thin layer of snow spread out and a pair of supershorts, even the above is possible. :lol: Probably not practical or very useful, much less fun; but again, with a pair of supershort skis it would be possible.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 26, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> I'll skip the "fancy color" this time too. It was done not to be fancy, but to segregate my response from your post to make things easier for the reader.


If you want to make things easy for the reader, don't hide new text inside a quote box. I generally only read text inside a quote box if, after reading text below that quote box, I am looking for clarification of the context, because normally the text people put in a quote box is text I've already read.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 26, 2008)

Walt said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > It is entirely possible for all points to be connected. I mean you can even use the already present rights of way! We call them "highways". Just lay rails over them. Nothing is impossible except for skiing through revolving doors.
> ...


I think Walt is right that many of the highways we have in the US have grades which are too steep and curves which are too sharp for current rail technology. And with a rail car having less surface area in contact with the rail than a truck has in contact with the highway for a given amount of weight, that may be a difficult limitation to overcome unless you want to remove some of the energy efficiency that rail offers over rubber tires.


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll skip the "fancy color" this time too. It was done not to be fancy, but to segregate my response from your post to make things easier for the reader.
> ...


So let me see, how do I respond to this? Aah, I got it! *ADAPT!* That's right, adapt! It's not that hard! Don't expect the world to adapt to you and don't expect me or anybody else to taylor make our posts to the personal preferences of each and every poster. I really don't agree that what you suggests hides text or that it makes things any easier (or worse) for reading! You're beginning to sound like the professor who has problems separating himself or herself from the classroom!

EDIT: As an after thought, I think I have already started doing just that which you're suggesting, except where it may be more of a bother than it's worth. Irregardless, my ADAPT response still stands!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 26, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> So let me see, how do I respond to this? Aah, I got it! *ADAPT!* That's right, adapt! It's not that hard! Don't expect the world to adapt to you and don't expect me or anybody else to taylor make our posts to the personal preferences of each and every poster. I really don't agree that what you suggests hides text or that it makes things any easier (or worse) for reading!


I think fewer than one out of ten thousand posts on this forum follows the convention you had been using.

Most people who post here probably post because they want other people to read what they write. If you don't care whether I read or even skim the things you have to say, I don't have any objection to you ignoring the convention. But I would expect you might be interested in learning to maximize the effectiveness of the things you write.

There's really nothing for you to disagree with when I tell you that putting your new text inside a quote box makes it much less likely that I will read it.

I really doubt I'm the only person who reads these forums in this fashion.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > So let me see, how do I respond to this? Aah, I got it! *ADAPT!* That's right, adapt! It's not that hard! Don't expect the world to adapt to you and don't expect me or anybody else to taylor make our posts to the personal preferences of each and every poster. I really don't agree that what you suggests hides text or that it makes things any easier (or worse) for reading!
> ...


Joel & others, including GML, You're smart, no doubt, but when you want to correct a fellow poster, please pm them if they're registered. That shows more courtesy. For me, I despise reading these "correction of your technique posts". They're arrogant and it breeds more arrogance. You need to give some slack for the variety of folks that post here. I fall in the "don't care" group.


----------



## Montanan (Aug 26, 2008)

Guest said:


> Joel & others, including GML, You're smart, no doubt, but when you want to correct a fellow poster, please pm them if they're registered. That shows more courtesy. For me, I despise reading these "correction of your technique posts". They're arrogant and it breeds more arrogance. You need to give some slack for the variety of folks that post here. I fall in the "don't care" group.


Um, it seems to me that you've just made a post of the very sort that you claim to despise.


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > So let me see, how do I respond to this? Aah, I got it! *ADAPT!* That's right, adapt! It's not that hard! Don't expect the world to adapt to you and don't expect me or anybody else to taylor make our posts to the personal preferences of each and every poster. I really don't agree that what you suggests hides text or that it makes things any easier (or worse) for reading!
> ...


Boloney that "one out of ten thousand posts on the forum follows the convention" I've been using. That's your opinion, and if you did do the research to prove what you've stated, you surely have entirely too much freek'n time on your hands!

As for your quote box problem, what part of my statement *"I think I have already started doing just that which you're suggesting, except where it may be more of a bother than it's worth."* don't you understand??? (which incidently you just happened to conviently exclude in your quote) I don't know if your problem is because of pettiness, lazyness or whatever, or because your political views (and those of the liberal that pushed the same opinion onto me) differ from my own, but the problem is not my problem. The problem is yours and anyone that would agree with you.

To Others: My apologies to those who had to read this response, but since this matter was made personal and publicly, I deserve the right to respond in like! Hopefully this will be the end of this "beating of a dead horse" issue that I feel should have never begun in the first place!


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 26, 2008)

*To any moderator:*

* *

*Perhaps you should consider closing this thread to make sure the discussion ends!*


----------



## AlanB (Aug 26, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> *To any moderator:** *
> 
> *Perhaps you should consider closing this thread to make sure the discussion ends!*


Closing the thread is not an option that I'm willing to consider at this point, since the main topic contained in this thread is still relevant.

However, I will agree that who quoted what in what way has run its course, and therefore will instruct the staff to delete any further posts on that subject.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 26, 2008)

Walt said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > It is entirely possible for all points to be connected. I mean you can even use the already present rights of way! We call them "highways". Just lay rails over them. Nothing is impossible except for skiing through revolving doors.
> ...


That would depend on the highway. In some cases, you'd probably have to straighten it a bit in places, increase curve radii, and flatten grades. I admit my comment was an over simplification


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 26, 2008)

AlanB said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > *To any moderator:** *
> ...


Fair enough. Thank you! B)


----------



## PaulLev (Aug 27, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> inspiration100 said:
> 
> 
> > It's the P that's more important than the VP when it comes to these issues. :huh:
> ...


But that doesn't mean that the VP is irrelevant on an issue like Amtrak. In fact, a VP taking Amtrak and train travel in America under his (or her) wing could be the best way a resurgence of train travel could helped by the gov - a little under the radar, but with a powerful enough base of support.


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 27, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > inspiration100 said:
> ...


I hope you're right about that, but I won't bank on it! BTW, I heard this morning that McCain could pick a pro-Amtrak VP. However, I don't know if I heard it on Fox news or on another posting on this forum. But if it's true it could just be a win-win situation no matter who is elected! Another BTW, irrevelent to this posting, but for those on this forum that think Fox News is biased, I heard Gov. Randell (D-PA) a Hillary and now Obama supporter, last night personally state that Fox news is defininately Fair and Balanced. Just thought I'd mention it!


----------



## PaulLev (Aug 28, 2008)

Meanwhile, I assume everyone heard Biden mention his position vs. McCain about Amtrak last night?


----------



## sky12065 (Aug 28, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> Meanwhile, I assume everyone heard Biden mention his position vs. McCain about Amtrak last night?


I'm sure many did, but do we really know if his words will result in a better Amtrak anymore that McCains words will result in a status quo or worse? I don't think that this question will truly be answered until we know what Amtrak's situation is four years down the road.


----------



## IndyCars (Sep 2, 2008)

Rough life for the common man Biden. He has to rides the Acela Express for $146.00 one way from DC to Wilmington. I wonder how he makes ends meet. It has to be rough sitting next to all the other commuters and crying babies on his way to work! He is just like me, Not!


----------



## PaulLev (Sep 2, 2008)

IndyCars said:


> Rough life for the common man Biden. He has to rides the Acela Express for $146.00 one way from DC to Wilmington. I wonder how he makes ends meet. It has to be rough sitting next to all the other commuters and crying babies on his way to work! He is just like me, Not!


He still has more in common with most Americans than Republicans who do their best to see that oil companies make record profits. Any one who rides the rails, including Acela, is building the way to a better transportation system in this country.


----------



## MrFSS (Sep 2, 2008)

I wonder how many AGR points he has???


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Sep 2, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> I wonder how many AGR points he has???


That's a select city pair, right? So, 750 points each way or 1500 round trip. But perhaps he redeems points every time he has enough for an Acela first class ticket, thus limiting how many points he accumulates.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 2, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many AGR points he has???
> ...


Nope, Wilmington - DC is not a select city pair. So he'd only be earning 2 X $ in points for each trip.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 3, 2008)

IndyCars said:


> Rough life for the common man Biden. He has to rides the Acela Express for $146.00 one way from DC to Wilmington. I wonder how he makes ends meet. It has to be rough sitting next to all the other commuters and crying babies on his way to work! He is just like me, Not!


Please, if you are going to rail, quote facts, not nonsense. It hurts your case. Low bucket for WIL to WAS is $83 on the Acela, and the highest price for tomorrow (today, actually) is $125. $146.00 my arse.

As for his monetary position, he IS one of the least wealthy members of the Senate. I don't think he's poor or anything of the sort, but he's a lot more connected to the average person than the very wealthy Mr. McCain. Not that it really is proof of much either way. I've met wealthy people who are quite connected with the reality of life. I've met poor people who aren't. I mean I've met Americans who can't afford to put their children through college, or even buy decent food, yet live in a house that has over 4500 sq ft of living space and drive a brand new BMW. I personally think that person has their connections to reality a little skewed, don't you?

You'd be better served picking on things that are true, primarily involving specific policy issues. But whatever.


----------



## Just Sayin (Sep 3, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> IndyCars said:
> 
> 
> > Rough life for the common man Biden. He has to rides the Acela Express for $146.00 one way from DC to Wilmington. I wonder how he makes ends meet. It has to be rough sitting next to all the other commuters and crying babies on his way to work! He is just like me, Not!
> ...


Here's what I cam up with for a first class round trip back on Aug 25th. http://i38.tinypic.com/2lt11sy.jpg $362 round trip.


----------



## jackal (Sep 3, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> IndyCars said:
> 
> 
> > Rough life for the common man Biden. He has to rides the Acela Express for $146.00 one way from DC to Wilmington. I wonder how he makes ends meet. It has to be rough sitting next to all the other commuters and crying babies on his way to work! He is just like me, Not!
> ...


At least one Republican, the new VP nominee, isn't for that. In fact, she's been criticized for the windfall tax on oil company profits she put in place in Alaska, which has resulted in oil companies actually reducing their exploration up here and instead concentrating on exploring the Gulf of Mexico because it's not as profitable to drill here anymore. The new law she championed for building a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope, AGIA (the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act), has been criticized as too restrictive to the oil companies, which have now formed their own pipeline coalition (Denali: The Alaska Gas Pipeline) that will attempt to proceed without state funding.

So, if anything, Sarah's too much for the people and doesn't give in to the oil companies' demands. I'd hardly call that wanting to put more money in the coffers of "Evil Big Oil"...


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Sep 3, 2008)

jackal said:


> So, if anything, Sarah's too much for the people and doesn't give in to the oil companies' demands. I'd hardly call that wanting to put more money in the coffers of "Evil Big Oil"...


according to this :

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion

New York Times

September 3, 2008

And Then There Was One

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Op-Ed Columnist

As we emerge from Labor Day, college students are gathering back on

campuses not only to start the fall semester, but also, in some cases, to

vote for the first time in a presidential election. There is no bigger issue on

campuses these days than environment/energy. Going into this election, I

thought that — for the first time — we would have a choice between two

“green” candidates. That view is no longer operative — and college

students (and everyone else) need to understand that.

With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated

drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe

mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John

McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run

for president to just another representative of big oil.


----------



## Guest_George Harris_* (Sep 3, 2008)

Remember, Friedman has an axe to grind here. That is he is strongly pro-Obama. Not to mention I have long ago lost any belief of ANYTHING that appears in the New York Bird Cage Liner. As to the belief that mankind does or does not play any role in climate change, the current fad, the jury is still out on that one and likely will be for several years more. I am sure that Friedman is promoting his view toward college students in the thought that this is a group that has not yet developed sufficient scepticism toward politicians that know how to sound good and have very little to back it up.


----------



## sky12065 (Sep 3, 2008)

Guest_George Harris_* said:


> Remember, Friedman has an axe to grind here. That is he is strongly pro-Obama. Not to mention I have long ago lost any belief of ANYTHING that appears in the New York Bird Cage Liner. As to the belief that mankind does or does not play any role in climate change, the current fad, the jury is still out on that one and likely will be for several years more. I am sure that Friedman is promoting his view toward college students in the thought that this is a group that has not yet developed sufficient scepticism toward politicians that know how to sound good and have very little to back it up.


G.H., I thought similarily, but you will note that the article at least identified Friedman as an "OP-ED Columnist" which by definition means that the content is "_his personal opinion_." So what does OP-ED mean under the banner of the NY Times? It means make sure to have the cool-aid tested before you drink it!


----------



## jackal (Sep 3, 2008)

Dutchrailnut said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > So, if anything, Sarah's too much for the people and doesn't give in to the oil companies' demands. I'd hardly call that wanting to put more money in the coffers of "Evil Big Oil"...
> ...


Just because Sarah supports opening ANWR and is skeptical that global warming is a man-made problem doesn't equal that she's a shill for the oil companies. That's baseless speculation, whereas I've seen her decisions and policies with my own eyes over the last two years and I've heard the oil company execs squirm in her presence and lambaste her for her policies. _They don't like her!_ Her reasons for wanting ANWR open are _purely_ to support the economy of the state of Alaska and provide wealth and resources for the general population. Even in the brief conversation I had with her personally during her campaign, she didn't try to schmooze me and get my vote by lying that she would support my issue: she told me, to my face, that she did not currently believe it was the best use of our limited resources, but if it turned out to be a good deal for the _people_ of Alaska, she would throw her weight behind it. That's how she operates. As far as his portrayal of Palin goes, Friedman's piece is a load of horse pucky.

(Oh, and if the northern edge of my state is falling into the Arctic Ocean, then Los Angeles is going to be shaken off into the Pacific Ocean during the next earthquake...I'm sorry, but Friedman lost all credibility with that line.)


----------



## Guest_George Harris_* (Sep 3, 2008)

jackal said:


> (Oh, and if the northern edge of my state is falling into the Arctic Ocean, then Los Angeles is going to be shaken off into the Pacific Ocean during the next earthquake...I'm sorry, but Friedman lost all credibility with that line.)


To give credit where credit is due, that was not Friedman's line, but his quotation of Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club, where he is quoted as saying, among other things, "While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, ‘The jury is still out on global warming.’ ”

If this guy belives that melting sea ice results in rising ocean levels, he needs to watch what happens when the ice melts in a level full glass of ice tea. Guess what: It does NOT overflow or rise, not even a hair. So regardless of source, it is an exposition of scientific ignorance, if not downright stupidity. I would regard LA being shaken off into the Pacific in an earthquake as being more likely.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Sep 3, 2008)

Guest_George Harris_* said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > (Oh, and if the northern edge of my state is falling into the Arctic Ocean, then Los Angeles is going to be shaken off into the Pacific Ocean during the next earthquake...I'm sorry, but Friedman lost all credibility with that line.)
> ...



you obviously failed Physics in school with global warming your right about north pole, its floating ice.

The south pole is land Ice and will add to surface water of the world, so does melting of all Ice on Glaciers like in Switserland and Austria , which by the way are melting at alarming rate.


----------



## Guest_George Harris_* (Sep 4, 2008)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Guest_George Harris_* said:
> 
> 
> > If this guy belives that melting sea ice results in rising ocean levels, he needs to watch what happens when the ice melts in a level full glass of ice tea. Guess what: It does NOT overflow or rise, not even a hair. So regardless of source, it is an exposition of scientific ignorance, if not downright stupidity. I would regard LA being shaken off into the Pacific in an earthquake as being more likely.
> ...


Then you must have failed reading. Did you notice I said SEA ICE.

So far, as far as the effect of glacial melting all I have seen is arm waving and running around in circles and wild numbers being thrown out with no back up. Lets see some real numbers by some real scientists that include such things as

1. Volume of ice in glaciers

2. Surface area of ocean at current elevation and plus 1 foot, 2 foot, etc elevation so that the volume necessary for a foot of rise can be calculated.

3. Volume of sea water lost due to evaporation, as warmer temperatures increases both the ability of the air to hold water and the amout evaported from the ocean surface, plus higher rainfall over various land masses will result in more water in lakes, rivers, and the ground.

And, while we are at it, lets see comparisons of previous projectsion with observed reality, such as, take the prujections made say 10 year ago and compare with the observations over that period, then 20 years ago and do the same and so forth. That is the only way there can be any confirmation of the reasonableness of the projection modeling.

When we see these things, then it can be determined if there is any credibility to these "global warming" related claims of impending disaster, and not before.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 7, 2008)

First of all, I don't think anyone is denying global warming is happening. If you are, you're kinda dumb. The question is, "did we cause it, and if so, what can we do about it?"

That being said, we should be operating on the basis that there is something we can do about it. Why? Because if there is, we shouldn't wait until its too late. If there isn't, ok, we wasted some money. Good lord, we're Americans. Wasting money is what we do. If we fail on this, we all die much sooner than we are sitting here thinking about.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> First of all, I don't think anyone is denying global warming is happening. If you are, you're kinda dumb.


And this is the typical response of anyone believing in global warming when anyone asks for back up of their assertions. Name calling. Skip this nonsense and the insults and try for some facts, or simply go away until you do have some facts and knowledge of whereof you speak.

Actually, there are a lot of people with serious scientific credentials that question whether or not "global warming" is real on the one hand and that the disaster scenarios that are postulated are real even if the warming itself is real on the other hand. They just do not get the press that the others do.



> The question is, "did we cause it, and if so, what can we do about it?"


 No. the first question is, is it real or a short term statistical blip. 


> That being said, we should be operating on the basis that there is something we can do about it. Why? Because if there is, we shouldn't wait until its too late. If there isn't, ok, we wasted some money. Good lord, we're Americans. Wasting money is what we do. If we fail on this, we all die much sooner than we are sitting here thinking about.


Doing the wrong thing is frequently worse than doing nothing at all. First and foremost, IS IT REAL? If it is, then do serious scientific analysis rather than try to find some feel-good quick fix.

As I said before, global warming or no global warming, we must start treating oil and other fossil fuels as finite resources to be conserved, and spend serious efforts on determining alternate methods of generating electricity and alternate sources of fuel that can be used reliably and in huge quantities. Doing anything else is simply trying to look like you are doing something.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 9, 2008)

Pfui.

Here's a question for you. If ya have a snow ball rolling down a hill that may or may not hit your house, at what point do you decide it is going to hit, and at that point, can you still actually stop it?

In any case, there really isn't a disadvantage to generally moving towards lower impact forms of technology on the whole. But meh. You're just arguing with me because you enjoy arguing with me.


----------



## Guest_George Harris_* (Sep 9, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Pfui.
> Here's a question for you. If ya have a snow ball rolling down a hill that may or may not hit your house, at what point do you decide it is going to hit, and at that point, can you still actually stop it?
> 
> In any case, there really isn't a disadvantage to generally moving towards lower impact forms of technology on the whole. But meh. You're just arguing with me because you enjoy arguing with me.


GML, I am not arguing with you for the sake of doing it, although I might suspect you of that. I am in full agreement with the first sentence of your last paragraph, In fact if you read mine, you would see,

"As I said before, global warming or no global warming, we must start treating oil and other fossil fuels as finite resources to be conserved, and spend serious efforts on determining alternate methods of generating electricity and alternate sources of fuel that can be used reliably and in huge quantities. Doing anything else is simply trying to look like you are doing something."

My concern is that if we start conserving and looking for alternatives because we fear GLOBAL WARMING, is that if Global Warming turns out to nonsense it will discredit the need to conserve and find alternate fuels because the main justification proposed proved to be false. We must start taking our rate of fuel consumption very seriously, global warming or no global warming. If we do it because the supply is finite and the import of fuel is both bleeding our own economy white and supporting some of the worst nut case governments in the world, those reasons stand, global warming or no global warming.

I do put my money where my mouth is on this. That is one of the primary reasons I have spent most of my working life in rail, mostly urban rail transit and long distance rail passenger systems, plus a little on the freight side. And, oh by the way, am currently living carless in San Francisco.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Sep 9, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> In any case, there really isn't a disadvantage to generally moving towards lower impact forms of technology on the whole.


You're not even arguing that there's an economic disadvantage to building high speed track that would be able to replace a significant fraction of airplane travel, and an economic disadvantage to building 5000 copies of Cape Wind to displace coal?


----------



## Guest_George Harris_* (Sep 9, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> You're not even arguing that there's an economic disadvantage to building high speed track that would be able to replace a significant fraction of airplane travel,


You got to explain that one. What is the econimic disadvantage to building high speed track so that riding train replaces a significant fraction of airplane travel. That I do not see at all. I do see a lot of advantages. Just for starters:

1. Lower fuel consumed per passenger mile moved. (even forgetting the greenhouse gas issues)

2. Less congestion in and near airports.


----------



## monorailfan (Sep 9, 2008)

Interesting thread. But in general, forget about it. On Sunday, according to what analyst you believe, we just added $5-7 Trillion to the national debt. Oh, and we have 100 year old sewer systems that need repair, let alone entitlements.

Amtrak, and many, many other government programs will be going away regardless of who wins, regardless of the environment, etc. In fact, you can bet they'll kill Amtrak, NASA, etc. before most other programs. So enjoy it now while it lasts.

And it stinks. But just look at the math. The money is all gone.

Sorry, not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I enjoy as much as anyone else thinking about and discussion a resurgence of passenger rail and ideas. But every once in a while the pragmatic side of me takes over.......


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 10, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, there really isn't a disadvantage to generally moving towards lower impact forms of technology on the whole.
> ...


I'm not arguing anything at all in that particular comment except what it says. In fact, it must be about the most general comment I have ever made. No specifics mentioned at all.

To counter your specific, though- I think the world needs to slow the bloody hell down. Airplanes can be replaced by a conventional consist of a AEM-7 and a buncha Superliners. (operating on electrified corridors designed for double stacks, of course) running down the road at 80, or if you insist, maybe 110 mph. And those of us crossing the ocean can ride a resurgent fleet of ocean liners. And we can all bury this ridiculous idea of going 3000 miles when the day is done. And all this (especially if you added a aerodynamic transition between the AEM-7 and the Superliners) would be a heck of a lot better for the enviroment, not to mention the state of the human mind, than a phallusesque monstrosity attempting to defeat air friction at 250 mph.


----------



## twoaday (Oct 2, 2008)

I thought I'd add this quote from Joe Biden

Biden headed up to next car, assuring a passenger that "If we get elected, it will be the most train-friendly administration ever."

Further someone had asked if he'd every done anything for Amtrak. The answer is yes.. a couple of examples here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-b...for_amtrak.html

"Papa Biden is an original co-sponsor of the Amtrak reauthorization bill, known as the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007, versions of which have passed both chambers and are now awaiting a conference committee. Biden is also a regular signatory to letters calling for increased funding for the service, which is always a target for cuts by conservatives and other critics (including John McCain)."


----------



## RaechelParker (Nov 20, 2009)

Very nice post with a ton of informative information. I really appreciate the fact that you approach these topics from a stand point of knowledge and information

instead of the typical “I think” mentality that you see so much on the internet these days.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 20, 2009)

Another excavation from the old topic graveyard.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Nov 20, 2009)

PRR 60 said:


> Another _excavation_ from the old topic graveyard.


"exhumation"?


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 20, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Another _excavation_ from the old topic graveyard.
> ...


That's the word!


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Nov 20, 2009)

PRR 60 said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > PRR 60 said:
> ...


Glad to help.

Now, I wonder what "humation" means?


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> Now, I wonder what "humation" means?


Just what you'd expect: to bury. The "hume" in both words comes from "humus", the latin word for ground.

Similarly, we've got disinter (and inter), which contain "terra", latin for earth.

And now back to your regularly scheduled train discussions.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Nov 20, 2009)

Guest said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I wonder what "humation" means?
> ...


Ah, I love entenmanns!


----------



## Gord (Nov 23, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Walt said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Diesels might have trouble with main route, highway grades but electric traction in passenger service is feasable. Grade climbing ability is a huge advantage for electrics over diesels. Any curve over about 400 foot radius would also be negotiable, albeit at reduced speeds at tighter radii.

Gord


----------



## whistler (Nov 23, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > PetalumaLoco said:
> ...


I prefer Freihofers<rimshot>.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Nov 23, 2009)

whistler said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


I was going for a pun on Etymology, but I guess I was being too obscure... :blink:


----------

