American Third Position Political Party

[Name deleted to protect the ignorant] wrote:
On 1/18/2010 1:58 PM, Jürgen Exner wrote:
"JerryD\(upstateNY\)" wrote in rec.photo.digital:
If it makes me a scoundrel to not want America to turn into a failed socialist country like most European countries, so be it.

Exactly which European countries are socialist?
^^^^^^^^
||||||||
||||||||


Cuba [...], North Korea [...], Laos [...], Vietnam [...],
Angola [...], Benin [...], Chinese [...], Congo [...], Ethiopia [...],
Grenada [...], Kampuchea [...], Mongolian [...], Mozambique [...]
Somali [...], Tuvan [...], Yemen

.... and so on and on and on.

I know, I know, I should be used to it by now, but the level of
geographic ignorance of some people in a certain country still never
fails to amaze me. With what they don't know you could easily fail
another half dozen students.

jue

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:50:11 -0800 (PST), Twibil
wrote:


In order: (A) You're ****ing nuts. Europeans drive long duistances
quite regularly. (B) Their mass transit is better than ours in urban
areas but not much better over longer distances.

That's certainly not what I observed in Europe. There are long
distances between many Point A's and Point B's, but because of the
alternative means of public transportation available, they don't need
to travel those distances in automobiles. And, those alternative
systems for long distance travel *are* most definitely superior to
what is found in most of the US.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Twibil wrote:

On Jan 18, 12:26*pm, ceviche wrote:


If it makes me a scoundrel to not want America to turn into a failed socialist country like most European countries, so be it.

Hummm, this will come as a surprise to those "failed socialist
countrys", all of whom think they're doing quite well. (You might try
actually visiting Europe some time before attempting to lecture about
it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...list_countries

These are short-lived political entities that emerged during wars or revolutions (mostly in the aftermath of World War I) and declared themselves to be socialist under some interpretation of the term, but did not survive long enough to create a stable government or achieve international recognition.

These, and the rest of the cite stand as noted.

Oh dear. What part of "most European countries" didn't you
understand?

What part of socialistic nations do you deny?

He's talking about *current* European countries, just like the rest of
the right-wing fruitcakes refer to practically *any* modern Europeran
country as being "socialist". And modern Europe is doing just fine,
thank you.

It is also socialistic and doing not so fine at all given the recenrt muzzie influx, and banking meltdowns, thank you.

Got it now, Poopsie?

Your lies, ****sie?

No, thanks I do not.


If gas gets to be $7.68 per gallon like it is right now in Germany or $7.97 in the Netherlands, and nobody can afford to drive, then tell me about how good Obama is doing.

Funny, the people in Germany and The Netherlands are driving every
single day. *I wonder how they can do that if "nobody can afford to
drive"?

They have VERY short duistances to drive and dense mass transit, you stupid *******!

In order: (A) You're ****ing nuts.

In order, no I'm not, you ass-licking liar.

Europeans drive long duistances
quite regularly.

Do they?

Cite?

Average commute time/distance for Euros is?


(B) Their mass transit is better than ours in urban
areas but not much better over longer distances.

Utter BULL****!

They have superior linked train transit across all nations, you LIE again.


(C) Last time they
ran me through the Stanford-Binet tests I scored 168. (And you?)

What?

Is this a stamp your feet and produce an IQ rating game?

(D)
My parents were quite throughly married.

Wonderful, you've achieved intellectual *******ship on your own sad merits, congratulations.

You scored four obvious lies in only 14 words!

You managed to use an entire post to lie with, kudos.

This may be a new
record, even for a Rush Limbaugh, a Glenn Beck, or a Sarah Palin.

Oh my, the libitard's calling card - call off three "most hated" conservatives in anger.

You silly child.

Yeah, just like it did with $3.00 gasoline.

Did you miss the economic recession it caused at it went to $4/gallon?

I saw an economic downturn as people -and businesses- readjusted their
priorities. Once they had done so, it levelled out.

You call 10-20% unemployment "levelled out"???

You're barking mad.

BTW A "recession" is what we're recovering from *now*, and it wasn't
caused by high gas prices.

In large part it was, they have a ripple effect through ALL industries and services.

Stop the *******'s lying.

You stupid *******

Poor little pussylipped

You need your face kicked in.

Game?

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:05:29 -0500
tony cooper wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:50:11 -0800 (PST), Twibil
wrote:


In order: (A) You're ****ing nuts. Europeans drive long duistances
quite regularly. (B) Their mass transit is better than ours in urban
areas but not much better over longer distances.

That's certainly not what I observed in Europe. There are long
distances between many Point A's and Point B's, but because of the
alternative means of public transportation available, they don't need
to travel those distances in automobiles. And, those alternative
systems for long distance travel *are* most definitely superior to
what is found in most of the US.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Thank you.
--

In article , tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:50:11 -0800 (PST), Twibil
wrote:


In order: (A) You're ****ing nuts. Europeans drive long duistances
quite regularly. (B) Their mass transit is better than ours in urban
areas but not much better over longer distances.

That's certainly not what I observed in Europe. There are long
distances between many Point A's and Point B's, but because of the
alternative means of public transportation available, they don't need
to travel those distances in automobiles. And, those alternative
systems for long distance travel *are* most definitely superior to
what is found in most of the US.



Thats funny, when i went to visit some distant relatives in the UK way back in
1979 as a kid, almost all of the trains we rode on around Wales, England and
Scotland were pre early 20th Century to WWII era. Not exactly modern
,superior transportation.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:03:20 GMT
(GMAN) wrote:

In article , tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:50:11 -0800 (PST), Twibil
wrote:


In order: (A) You're ****ing nuts. Europeans drive long duistances
quite regularly. (B) Their mass transit is better than ours in urban
areas but not much better over longer distances.

That's certainly not what I observed in Europe. There are long
distances between many Point A's and Point B's, but because of the
alternative means of public transportation available, they don't need
to travel those distances in automobiles. And, those alternative
systems for long distance travel *are* most definitely superior to
what is found in most of the US.



Thats funny, when i went to visit some distant relatives in the UK way back in
1979 as a kid, almost all of the trains we rode on around Wales, England and
Scotland were pre early 20th Century to WWII era. Not exactly modern
,superior transportation.


But UBIQUITOUS, relevant, in use, and serving the need.

So really despite rolling stock age they were still in service, weren't they?

Yes?

--

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:03:20 GMT,
(GMAN) wrote:

In article , tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:50:11 -0800 (PST), Twibil
wrote:


In order: (A) You're ****ing nuts. Europeans drive long duistances
quite regularly. (B) Their mass transit is better than ours in urban
areas but not much better over longer distances.

That's certainly not what I observed in Europe. There are long
distances between many Point A's and Point B's, but because of the
alternative means of public transportation available, they don't need
to travel those distances in automobiles. And, those alternative
systems for long distance travel *are* most definitely superior to
what is found in most of the US.



Thats funny, when i went to visit some distant relatives in the UK way back in
1979 as a kid, almost all of the trains we rode on around Wales, England and
Scotland were pre early 20th Century to WWII era. Not exactly modern
,superior transportation.

But you could get from any city in the UK to any other city in the UK
without any problem, at a reasonable cost, and in a timely fashion.
Appropriate to the era, of course.

I traveled around Europe on a Eurailpass for a month on my first trip
and never was faced with "you can't get there from here". The same
can't be said for most of the US.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

JerryD\(upstateNY\) wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
A classic example of patriotism being the refuge of the scoundrel.


If it makes me a scoundrel to not want America to turn into a failed socialist country like most European
countries, so be it.

Only a rightard would claim that European countries are "failed". But
then anybody who thinks that workers should earn less in order to make
rich people even richer cannot be all that smart.

--
Ray Fischer

(GMAN) wrote:
In article , tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:50:11 -0800 (PST), Twibil
wrote:


In order: (A) You're ****ing nuts. Europeans drive long duistances
quite regularly. (B) Their mass transit is better than ours in urban
areas but not much better over longer distances.

That's certainly not what I observed in Europe. There are long
distances between many Point A's and Point B's, but because of the
alternative means of public transportation available, they don't need
to travel those distances in automobiles. And, those alternative
systems for long distance travel *are* most definitely superior to
what is found in most of the US.

Thats funny, when i went to visit some distant relatives in the UK way back in
1979 as a kid,

Of course you realize that your information is 30 years old by now and
things might have changed a bit.

almost all of the trains we rode on around Wales, England and
Scotland were pre early 20th Century to WWII era. Not exactly modern
,superior transportation.

But even so at least you could get around using a train. Try getting
from let's say the capitol of Idaho to the capitol of Nevada by train or
even just by some sort of public transportation. Good luck!

Compare that to e.g. Germany's or France's interlinked network of
high-speed trains, which connect all major cities typically every hour,
on busy routes sometimes even every half hour and extend all the way to
London, Madrid, and Rome.

jue

Twibil wrote:
On Jan 18, 8:05*pm, tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:50:11 -0800 (PST), Twibil

wrote:

In order: (A) You're ****ing nuts. Europeans drive long duistances
quite regularly. (B) Their mass transit is better than ours in urban
areas but not much better over longer distances.

That's certainly not what I observed in Europe. *There are long
distances between many Point A's and Point B's, but because of the
alternative means of public transportation available, they don't need
to travel those distances in automobiles.

Sorry; won't wash. Long-distance European public transportation -I.E.
high speed rail transport- has nothing like our freeway system's
ability to move huge numbers of people and/or freight long distances
in short periods of time.

Actually I am not sure about that. Let's check some numbers: a half
train of the ICE3 has about 950 seats. Depending on demand typically two
half trains are combined for a full train. Let's assume a capacity of
only one train every 10 minutes (if pushed actual maximum capacity is
likely more than twice this) then we are looking at 5700 passengers per
hour. That would require 1140 cars, each loaded to capacity with 5
people, or one car every 3 seconds on average. That is an awful lot of
cars, in particular when considering that even at peak travel times cars
are rarely loaded with more than 2 people while trains can get very full
at those times.
And not to mention that those trains run at 2 to 3 times the speed of a
car on the freeway.

That's why Europe has a system of highways
quite similar to our US freeway system;

Actually it's the other way round. Eisenhower modeled the US freeway
system after what he had seen in Germany after WW II.

and their highways get used a
*lot*. Been there. Cruised the German Autobahns at 120+. They were
busy. And besides the long-distance highways, the traffic jams in many
urban European areas such as London and Paris often approach classic
gridlock.

No question about that.

US mass-transit systems could use a lot of improvement, but it's not

Now, urban traffic is a different story altogether. Running a train
every 90 seconds (as is actually done during rush hour in metropoleis)
with 200 seats and about twice as many standing passengers per train
gives you a capacity of 24000 passengers per hour. There is no way cars
could possibly beat that number in any way.

jue