The final bubble

[StoneOne]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Yes, we should build a bunch of subways and trains nobody will ever use. This isn't Europe.

Cars don't need to run on gasoline there are a variety of alternatives that exist today and will be even better by the time the additionally infrastructure is built.

Getting people to use electric, fuel cell etc automobiles is going to be much easier than getting them to dramatically change their lifestyles and start using public transit.

Exactly. Whether people will continue to drive gas guzzling cars or ones that run on biodiesel or batteries, the fact remains that the roads and bridges in this country are in absolutely horrible condition.

Regarding subsidies, I would very much like to see a rail network in America, although I don't want it to be some state-funded enterprise that's destined to fail. What would be better would be to increase tolls on interstate highways and take other actions to make the playing field level for autos and trains. Then the market will decide which is ultimately better. My suspicion is that we would have a much better rail network, but that cars would still dominate. Air travel would probably decrease.

[sterlinggirl]

Originally Posted by StoneOne

Regarding subsidies, I would very much like to see a rail network in America, although I don't want it to be some state-funded enterprise that's destined to fail. What would be better would be to increase tolls on interstate highways and take other actions to make the playing field level for autos and trains. Then the market will decide which is ultimately better. My suspicion is that we would have a much better rail network, but that cars would still dominate. Air travel would probably decrease.

I'd like to see light/medium duty rails built into the fast lane of all the interstate highways. It would give us an easy right of way for a rail system, and cars could still use those lanes as long as there was a light to warn them to move over for approaching trains.

[Venusian_Artist]

Originally Posted by Ria Rhodes

Bush/Cheney: signing on to break international law, stomping on the social welfare compact, and allowing tax law changes that favor the richest citizens at the expense of the rest.

Hmmm...Republicans who wanted stronger regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Democrats like Frank and Dodd who didn't. Hussein's seventeen U.N. violations under the Clinton Administration met with only a signing of the 1998 Iraq Freedom Act, whereas Bush actually did something about it. Clinton's "Extraordinary Rendition" and "Project Echelon" which were egregious violations of American civil rights; including warrantless searches (Aldrich Aames.) See, I can play that game too. Don't be a partisan tool.

I'm certainly no socialist, but things have gotten so far out of hand from immoral leadership which used nationalism, militarism, jingoism, religion,

So why aren't you voting Libertarian?

The Dem's grandstand and act generally repellent often enough, but they maintain a healthy respect for societies welfare at large.

Ahhh, making a case for the bakers who will put the sh*t icing on the crap cake--very wise, indeed.