Riffhard wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 2:05pm:


not to be nitpicky, but this is not true. the allies suffered 2500 KIA on DDay (about 1200 of which were on omaha). we've lost what - 4200 KIA in iraq so far? somewhere around there.

Quote:


huh?!?!? how do envirostandards kill people?

nankerphelge wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 2:46pm:


or, more accurately, my wife studied genetics and medicine for about ten years, racking up thousands in student loans, and decided to go into primary care instead of dermatology. d'oh! i, however, am by no means an expert. but the stories she tells me of patients in their 30s that are now suffering from terminal cancers...or the fact that half the adults in my family develop alzheimer's of some sort....or every time i turn on the TV and see michael j fox doing the shakey shakey thing....just makes me wonder why those on the right are opposed to it, seeing as those stem cells will get tossed anyway.

Quote:


we have a headstart on the problem. we have ten years of groundwork that scientists today and tomorrow will be able to use to cure said diseases. we ain't going to find a cure for parkinson's overnight...these things take time...and we just lost 8 years. thanks, dubya!

Starbuck wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 2:53pm:




Well if we're going to start talking about the death toll on Oma Beach specifically I'll concede your point. However, let's, for the sake of argument, say that the Iraq War has been nothing like the carnage the US suffered at Iwo Jima.


As per the CAFE Standards, and how they are responsible for more deaths annually than the annual death toll in Iraq.

Here--->A number of studies have documented the lethal consequences of requiring carmakers to improve fuel standards.

*     According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks.  Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12

*     A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."13 
 
*     An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles.  This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14

*     The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of all vehicles.15

*     A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use."  Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16

*     The same Harvard-Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500-pound weight reduction of the average car.  As a result, occupants were put at a 14 to 27 percent greater risk of traffic death.17

*     Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in traffic accidents with large cars.  Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the lighter car.18

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html


Riffy

Some Guy wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 2:46pm:



Class act, SG!
You dish it out and can take it with a sense of humor.

LJ.

My proposal for dealing with all the debt is to completely cut off the boomers. No Social Security and no Medicare. Sorry mom and dad, you squandered it already, no use sticking the next generations with YOUR debt.

Why should the soldiers be the only ones sacrificing right now?

Ten Thousand Motels wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 5:10pm:


TTM?

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said large U.S. budget deficits threaten financial stability and the government can’t continue indefinitely to borrow at the current rate to finance the shortfall.

“Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth,” Bernanke said in testimony to lawmakers today. “Maintaining the confidence of the financial markets requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance.”

---------------

No shit!?

Obama is slicker than you think

L&G The RS tonight, thanks

Jumping Jack wrote on Jun 4^th, 2009 at 3:36am:


That video is hilarious, thanks for that. howe absurd!  The righties have no one to blame but themselves though.

Starbuck wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 11:58am:

You're fucking pathetic.

I thought this a.m.'s speech was pretty good. So very complicated issues. Glad I got to listen and weigh in without ANY influence by pundits.

Issues that are important to me were handled well, imo:
--Women's rights (could hear a pin drop in that room with this topic)
--Strong Security against Al-Queda
--Israel's right to exist and her strong SOLID bond with US
--Recognition of Holocaust (yes Mr Ahmadinejad it DID happen and it will NEVER happen again)

He needed to walk a tightrope and I think he succeeded.

See. I DO have the ability to be fair and balanced!

LJ.

I sense a thawing