Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]flu, did you read the article about Harvard being unfair to Asian-Americans. There’s a lot similar to the past treatment of Jews.
Maybe you should concentrate your efforts on helping Asian-Americans student bring suit against private universities.[/quote]It’s not just private universities. It was also public universities when we had affirmative action and the democrats in CA who try to bring back affirmative action.
ParticipantInteresting exit poll from the 2014 elections:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/house#exit-pollsParticipant[quote=flu]Like I said before…At least at the local elections….Until CA democrats in CA change their viewpoint on affirmative action or ridiculous things like SCA-5 and drastically changes what “need based admissions means”, I will vote accordingly against every one of them locally whether their opponent is GOP or an independent…indefinitely….Anything to deny democrats a super majority in this state.
Thank you State Senator Janet Nguyen of Orange County…
Which isn’t really that bad because imho the local/state GOP candidates tend to be more moderate than probably some democrats from the midwest or south…
As far as the national election, I’ll vote accordingly based on who the underdog is…[/quote]Exact. Unfortunately, I don’t think CA democrats will change their tune anytime soon. Especially when they’re courting the Hispanic votes.
There’s absolutely no reason to give one party all the power. We’ve seen what happen when one side have all the power time and time again. They both suck when they have all the power. I so glad the Asian voters have woken up and see that (at least in CA), the Democrats don’t really care about them. They like to lump all minorities into one bucket, but it doesn’t work that way in real life.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Sure. And let’s use it to fund the construction of new nuclear power plants. Places like Camden County, Syracuse, Scranton, etc would kill to have more jobs.
Ramp up energy production from other means, and natural gas ceases to be a thing of value.[/quote]
Yeah, that’ll happen. Although new nuclear reactors have come online in the United States within the last couple of decades — the last one started operation in 1996 — the NRC hasn’t issued a license to build a new reactor since 1978, a year before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. I think there are a lot more people who hate nuclear more than you hate fossil fuel.Participant[quote=spdrun]Suits me — I rather like the Northeast and having property prices depress would be a good thing. More for me to buy.
Taking a haircut on rent due to increased utilities is still fine if initial buy-in price is lower. Here’s to it![/quote]Hope you can afford a $1000/month heating bill. What will happen to public transit in the northeast if 50% of the ridership disappear? Lets add 300% tax on nat gas too. Maybe that will drive even more people from the northeast to the southwest. I’m liking your idea.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Which is why the Feds should pimp-slap fossil fuels for motor use with a punitive tax. Start it at one cent per gallon. Double every two years 🙂
That would be the best of all worlds. Incentive for consumers to move away from oil without oil production fouling North American soil.
Other ideal scenario would be a dead US frack industry combined with political unrest in the Middle East a few years from now. Oil hitting $200+/bbl would be good shock treatment for the US.[/quote]Yep, lets end fracking. Maybe that will drive up Nat Gas to crazy level and drive many people away from the north east into the south west since they can no long afford to heat their home during the brutal winters. Yay for SD’s housing price :-). Maybe it’ll also kill the exurb since people can’t afford a $10/gallon fuel price and are force to live closer to work center. Lets do that after I buy a few more properties near south west work centers :-).
Participant[quote=flu][quote=spdrun]Did I say that they were?[/quote]
Well, you seemed to be celebrating plunging oil prices.[/quote]LoL, spdrun wants his cake and eat it too.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
fossil fuel won’t stay cheap forever. Either FCV won’t get cheap and eventually, we’ll run out of fossil fuel in 100 years and it’ll get more expensive than FCV or FCV will get cheaper through technology. Regardless of how it happen, I don’t care. I would gladly use ICE cars as long as it’s the cheapest solutions. I could careless about the greeny. They can spend their own money.
People like you are why civilized countries tax gasoline at 300% or more of actual cost. The Earth doesn’t have another 100 years of us vomiting CO2 into the atmosphere. And until we find another home, it doesn’t behoove us to crap where we sleep.[/quote]Thank goodness US is not a civilized country.
ParticipantFiat 500 starts at $17,145 and get 40MPG. Fiat 500e starts at $32,300. So, for the price difference of $15,155, you get get ~5050 gallons of fuel @ $3/gallon. @40MPG, you’re looking at a break even mileage of 202k miles. 202k miles at 60 miles/day, it would take your friend about 13 years of commute to just break even. Yep, that seems like a smart way to spend your money.
Participant[quote=spdrun]We’ll never have FCV if fossil fools and fossil farts remain cheap.[/quote]fossil fuel won’t stay cheap forever. Either FCV won’t get cheap and eventually, we’ll run out of fossil fuel in 100 years and it’ll get more expensive than FCV or FCV will get cheaper through technology. Regardless of how it happen, I don’t care. I would gladly use ICE cars as long as it’s the cheapest solutions. I could careless about the greeny. They can spend their own money.
ParticipantI was never in the BEV camp, so I’m ecstatic that we might see closer $2/gallon soon. The longer we stay close to that amount, the better. I’m rooting for FCV, so I’ll enjoy cheap gas while I wait for FCV to mature.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I think there’s a stigma paying with foodtamps and getting free school lunches.
How would the kids feel?[/quote]There’s nothing wrong with growing up poor. If they think there’s something wrong with that, then it’s best for them to learn that lesson early. Maybe it’ll make them work harder so their kids won’t grow up poor like they did.ParticipantBG, $31k before tax. How much would it be after tax? Then how much do you have to pay for child care for 2 kids? How much does diapers, baby food, etc. cost? How much does healthcare cost? Then there’s the intangible of having a parent raising the kid instead of a stranger. Have a parent there to tutor the kids after school when they’re older, making sure they’re well fed with home cooked meals, making sure they stay out of trouble. I think if you add all of that up, I would say it’s worth more than $31k.
Participant[quote=spdrun]True. BTW, not being judgmental, but you have to take it into account that not everyone wants to be on WIC or Medicaid.[/quote]Agree. The free money is there. It’s up to you whether you want to take it or not. You can always have both parents work @ $15/hr. Just saying you would come out ahead of you just have one parent stay at home.
-
AuthorPosts
