tvashtarkatena

I don't think the uber-progressives latch onto a guy like Ron Paul because they're closet libertarians. Rather, they follow candidates who are as fanatical on a single issue as they are; in Paul's case, his staunch opposition to the war. They also like iconoclastic outsiders, because they feel that they and their candidate must remain 'outside the system' to be legit. Because these progressives are not want to form coalitions because it involves some compromise, they are forever doomed to vote for losers (electorially speaking).

Packing popcorn, anyone? Back to the thread: former Naderite progressives seem to be going for Ron Paul because of his stance on the war. As for his other stances, personally, I don't see him as being of much appeal to socially liberal voters.

Ummm....wouldn't that be Eastside drivers?

"The Greening" - by Cormick McCarthy

The abandoned tractor, which once plowed 40 furrows per gallon, now stands forlon, rusting, forgotten.

The more unyielding the wet, bushy ground, the deeper the hard, unrelenting plow plunges, splitting the last straining roots, which surrender and unfold to release the moist fragrance of a newly violated furrow.

They both fascinate and frighten us

Maybe we ought to start a support group, titty boy. will you be my sponsor? pleeeeese!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus, dude, you've gone 'downhill' from your Yosemite days.

Hope you have a Costco pack of fresh razors.

Maybe we ought to start a support group, titty boy.

Are these man pre-boobs? I'm just trying to learn here. Suckin In My Gut on Mellow Oregonian Pinnacle?

I noticed this, to my dismay, yesterday when listening to Green Day's masturbation song. This new policy must just be coming online. 'fuckin' became f----in, etc. Fucked up little snippets of silence where the words used to be. Considering Green Day's lyrics, it cut out about a third of the song. I'm mean, come fucking on, the song's about masturbation, for Christ's sake. What's the point here?

Trust me, if you've worked a campaign and seen how hard a huge army of volunteers strives to get every single vote, you'd realize how important each of those votes are. The reality of the biz is: EVERY VOTE COUNTS. Look at it this way; the more apathetic the general public is, the more YOUR vote counts. The more apathetic you are, the more you're handing over your political power to some fundamentalist moron with a hefty Rapture insurance policy. Taken to extreme; if no one voted but you, shit, you'd be better off than a dictator, because you'd have some dirty little politician to do all the work and catch all the flak for it.

Jesus people, get a chat room!

I couldn't agree less here, from personal experience During the last gubenatorial election my team canvased 3 precincts. Since we all know the federal government could manage it's way out of a paper bag, state governments have become the most important government entities to move us in the right direction. In one precinct alone, our happy band of about 10 people got 150 registered Democrat infrequent voters; those who would normally blow it off, to come out and vote. That number exceeded Gregoire's winning margin (120 or 130 something) that Gregoire won by. Had we., or any group of canvasers around the state, not showed up, Gregoire would have lost to Shithead. The 2000 election is another case in point. The shame is that many precincts go uncanvased for lack of volunteers. The party that mobilizes its volunteers more effectively a week before a close election wins. Period. After these experiences, I've come to realize that every single vote matters a whole lot. Calling also matters if the calling campaign is timely. Join organizations with strong lobbying efforts (sales pitch: the ACLU has one of the best if civil liberties issues is your thing) and their calling or email campaigns usually happen as the issue is being debated on the floor: very effective. How do you think Fienstein changed her vote? A well timed direct public pressure campaign.

Never dumped my bike in seven years (knock on pavement). I know full well what can happen when you do (seen it). But then again, I know full well what can happen when you get hit by a basket-ball sized rock in the mountains (seen it). Life's always a balance of risk and keeping it interesting. I would think a few road rage shootings might make many Northwest aggro drivers (generally corn fed young bucks in pickups who all seem to be sporting the same goatee) a bit more courteous. You're a decent shot, Archie. Do us all a favor and start the trend.

Physics just isn't as highbrow as it used to be.

You're omitting the fact that they also come standard with 4 airbags, which is key during any collision that transfers G forces to passengers. Given the 4 airbag feature, the vehicle seems as safe or safer than my Subaru Outback in the event of a collision. Personally, I would have no problem feeling safe in it. The crash test film posted earlier shows a SmartCar hitting a concrete barrier head on at a slight angle at 70 mph. The passenger compartment survived relatively intact. Pretty impressive. For those who thing bigger is safer, there is a similar crash test involving a dump truck. The cab of the truck is totally obliterated. There are three safety deficiencies of trucks (pickups and SUVs) that owners fail to recognize: 1) They roll much easier than other vehicles, which greatly increases risk of injury or death. 2) You've got the full mass of that big vehicle behind you in a crash. Hit something imobile, like a tree/etc, and you're going to take it all. And 3) truck bodies are not unibody construction, and therefore not designed to absorb impacts by crumpling nearly as well as cars. They are a body tacked to a relatively rigid chassis. This transfers much more of the impact the passengers. One thing that seems to be strangely missing from this thread is the obvious solution to our traffic woes: smaller vehicles. motorcycles and Smart Cars (which are half the length of a conventional vehicle), unlike other conventional, 'roomier' economy cars, seem to be the only privately owned powered vehicles that address this huge problem. When speaking about being 'green', it seems fundamental that a person would choose a vehicle that is more likely to enable roadways to operate most efficiently and with the least amount of emissions per passenger mile. Idling in traffic jams because everyone has maximized the size of their vehicles certainly doesn't help much.

Comprehensive Analytical Model Explaining Loci for the Theory Of Everything

Well, it's not LNG (just NG), but yes, you can use it in a conventional car. The Honda GX is a NG car. You can only go about 2/3 the distance per fillup, but they are considerably cleaner than gasoline or diesel. There is also a NG pump called Phill that you can install in your home to mitigate the dearth of commercial NG filling stations.

Hmmm, I make that six conventional gas cars rated at 40mpg and above. Maybe you're trying to play some semantic/statistical game regarding the term "average"? I live in the country, so my "average" rather resembles the term "highway." Smartcar's website declares "The vehicle is designed to achieve 40 plus mpg under normal driving conditions." Frankly, given the constraints imposed by the size and capacity of the vehicle, the thing ought to offer considerably better mpg performance than a variety of other four passenger conventionally powered vehicles. Given the performance stats offered by the manufacturer, I can only conclude that there is more smoke, mirrors, and marketing hype than actual delivery on claims of impact. Greenwashing, while perhaps an effective sales strategy, is to be reviled no matter who makes the fraudulent claim. You know, it doesn't matter how the product actually performs, as long as the consumer feels good about it. Yes, higher mileage better performing small cars are desirable to a segment of the market, and necessary for a host of environmental & ecological reasons. No, Daimler is not your daddy. Nope. Not for average mpg, which is what the number I've focused on all along. All of your conventional vehicles, when average mpg is considered (check the site) fall below 40. More than half the population (and increasing) lives in cities, so the city driving mpg would be closer to the mark. Many of the remaining 'rural' population actually live in suburb like settings, with plenty of stop lights, which, again, would produced a more city/highway average. A much smaller percentage of the population live in areas where they drive in only pure highway conditions. There is no semantics in focusing on the average mpg as the most important predictor of fuel economy for these vehicles. Also, you're ignoring the lower embodied energy due to it's smaller size/curb weight and improved recyclability of a Smart Car, which is every bit as important when trying to be green as mpg.

Nah, she's busy at work. Try it, sometime.

Staying in Holden every night or will you be able to overnight out somewhere?

Guilty. After running Mailbox 20 times a week, I just got tired of looking at them.

It's real.