Just read the news before watching SOA here and came across this and it made me think of Baddog...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...daniel-foster#

I'm lucky if I drive my car fifty miles a month. (But I work from home.)

We drive down to Socal a few times a year, and it's not the miles that makes us stop for fuel - it's the need to get out of the car and stretch and eat food.

Do you ever read what you type?

Absolutely

Before they go bankrupt

So, you get it?

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...93196351_n.jpg

When he picked Palin I was kinda like...that's cool, a woman.
Then I was watching Bill Maher's show and he played a clip of her "speaking in tongues" at a church meeting!

And like you, I thought: "No fucking way"

Until then I was sort of undecided. But after I saw that church clip...Obama got my vote.

Obama said "FEWER horses and bayonets". Why is everyone trying to be so literal with that comment, and just missing the point? Oh yeah, it's because most people are idiots.

I agree and trick will be if for them to design a solar panel into the roof of the car. That doesnt change the look. Then its charging all the time and the 100 mile max isnt a problem anymore.

Sorry baddog I was on my phone when I typed that.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I honestly believe the Republicans threw the election that year.

McCain? I voted for McCain years ago before most of us knew his name. He went to Vietnam and said "I don't care what anyone thinks, you tortured me for years, your all gooks" and that was kick ass. When he ran for Present... He looked like he was going to die at any moment.

Palin.... That was great entertainment. Why watch sitcoms when you have Palin on TV.

The Republican party knew they had zero chance of winning in 2008 so the just put up two people who had no chance in winning. I was surprised it was as close as it was.

Now with Romney I'm wondering what the Republican party is thinking. This is a former governor who did so poorly in office that he left office with a 37% approval rating. He was ranked one of the worst governors ever. You've got to be kidding me.

Solar panels can barely power a house. I mean sure, they can, but it takes massive panels. How is the small real estate of a car's roof top going to charge an electric car so that you can drive around without changing your daily habits?

Im talking people smarter than me creating a better panel into the roof, the car would still have a battery but it would be trickle charging the battery all day. Like where Robbie and Rochard live its sunny most of the time,they would never have to plug it in. .

Because there are not fewer bayonets; there are more now than in WWI. He tried to make a "zinger" and he was wrong.

How about horses?

It won't. It takes massive solar panels to power a home...and that's if you are not using a lot of electricity.

The small solar panel on top of a car would be useful to help charge the battery for the average person who goes to work and parks their car in the sun from 9 to 5.
But it definitely wouldn't give it but maybe 5 minutes of battery life like that.

I have solar yard lights. And the small solar panels on each one are double the size of the light fixture (way bigger in comparison than a car solar panel would be). And it takes all day long for that to fully charge 2 AA batteries to run the tiny led light in the fixture for 6 hours.

Now that it's winter time and there's less daylight, my yard lights only run about 4 hours.

No way an electric car is going to run off that.

The solution I read that makes more sense is the one that has the actual road you are driving on as a "battery charger" with charging current in it and your cars battery charging every second you are on the road.

But that would be a huge infrastructure issue.

Too bad we didn't use that 2 trillion of "stimulus" money that was basically thrown away and built electric cars and rebuilt the highways to power them.
That would have put people to work and changed everything.

But I guess it was more important to give that money to politicians buddies (like always)

jesus christ you guys are wasting your time. Who cares who will be president? You guys really expect to see changes? Wake the fuck up. They all work for the same big corporations out to fuck you out of more money.

PIRIOD.

Keep in mind that where I live it's 115 degrees in the summer. Nobody parks their cars in the sun here.
We'd have to have a remote solar panel as well so that when the car is parked in a garage it could still be solar charging.

</thread> :1orglaugh

Horses are still used, I did not get the number of active duty horses in the military. Look it up.

baddog do you realise you are arguing over completely useless crap two puppets are saying on tv? Do you really not understand the system is a complete sham? I thought the older you get the wiser you get.

A hydrogen-based system seems more plausible and practical to me at this point. The technology already exists, there is a infrastructure issue, of course.

It reminds me of Democrats and their hanging on to Big Bird and binders of women; how about you?

Actually, I am not arguing. I realize English is not your native tongue, so I don't expect you to understand.

Damn makes GA sound like a cold place lol. But thats a good idea. If I remember one of the high end mazda's had a solar panel built in the moon roof to trickle charge the battery.

Trickle-down econo... err... I mean energy charging doesn't work. ;-)

I was gonna say I was in the Marines for four years and do not ever recall seeing a horse.... Although I have seen a few dogs.

http://dogs.thefuntimesguide.com/fil...dog.jpg?9d7bd4

But I did find this: http://www.horsechannel.com/horse-ex...ry-horses.aspx

Ah I should've expected another one of your cryptic responses. Never straight to the point, which makes your posts extremely annoying.

It's called debating. It's entertaining.

There is nothing cryptic about it. Just because you do not understand does not mean it is cryptic. If you respond in Dutch, does that mean your response is cryptic just because Google translator did not convey the message properly to me?

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_...y_full_600.jpg

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_...y_full_600.jpg

I never thought about that.... So how many horses do you think the US military has in total? Sixty? One hundred and twenty?

Still a far cry from the tens of thousands we had in the 1930s.

the day soldiers are using horses instead of hummers, then he has a point.

No one suggested otherwise. Obama is the one that brought up horses, no one else.

Look. Obama said there are less bayonets and horses in the military, that doesn't mean it's any weaker. There is nothing ambiguous about that statement, it's completely true.

Romney was a fool for saying that argument again after giving Obama's team a week to work up a snappy answer. This thing is a Romney fail, that's just the math of it. And it doesn't even matter because nobody was swayed from undecided to decided by that quip.

I'm guessing you are implying that Obama was incorrect with his statement by saying that our military has less horses and less bayonets.

Obviously, we have a lot less horses.

I have no idea how many bayonets are in use by the US military, and you correctly pointed out that the US Marines still train with them and they are in fact standard issue. However, I believe what Obama was trying to convey in a quick sound bite was that we no longer use bayonet tactics on a large scale. This is something that ended in WWII for the most part.

Actually, there are more bayonets now. :2 cents:

It was a great pre-rehearsed "zinger" by Obama that Romney had telegraphed by saying that same line about ships over the last few weeks.
And now, it's being played out in political cartoons like Romney thinks that we do need more horses and bayonets. :1orglaugh

Give credit where it's due: David Axelrod.

As for the actual issue of the military size...I agree with Obama, who actually agrees with Donald Rumsfield. It was Rumsfield under Bush who began streamlining the military and pushing for a "modern" force without all the old things like lots of unnecessary ships and tanks (and probably bayonets and horses lol)

and probably more military personnel now too.

Exactly this. :2 cents:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Baddog is on par with 12clicks on getting the keyboard warriors all worked up in this thread. Amazing how many of you fall for it.

I am sure there are. But what Obama was clearly trying to say was "We haven't done a large scale bayonet charge since Korea, get with the times" but he had to narrow it down to a little sound bite.

And it worked because days later we are still discussing it.

You know both sides practiced such "zingers". I wonder how many hours both sides put into debate practice.

Our military is amazing. If you study military history you can see it plainly. During WWII it took us years to fight to Berlin from all sides. I just read a book by a former Iraqi General and he says the Iraq war was over the first night with the first shot - which took out all of their military communications instantly.

We in fact use less bayonets. We have a much smaller army than we did in the year Romney mentioned and therefor have less bayonets then we did back then. In times of war we purchase more bayonets to replace the ones lost when a soldier is killed and/or positions are overtaken.

Back in Romney's suggested year we had a cavalry of about 10,000 to 12,000 men. Today that division only has a small number of horses. If you ever watched any Vietnam movies you would understand what happened to our cavalry. They moved into helicopters. In the movie We Were Soldiers Mel Gibson's character gives the men in his unit a speech about it. The speech was taken from the memory of those who were there.

still busy debating the number of bayonets i see. You guys are officially retards.

Those days would be the CLINTON years. Democrats build the country up - RAPEublicans pillage and drive us into debt and misery. It's all in the history books. :thumbsup

I know it was being reported by MSNBC before the first debate that Romney (not Obama) was practicing "zingers".

And every liberal on GFY was screaming that doing something like that was "retarded" and just ripping on Romney.

Then...he never used any zingers. It was an unsubstantiated report in the first place from pro-Obama people.

And now that the only candidate to actually use "zingers" turned out to be Obama...well, his supporters suddenly think that's great!

Just like when he lies about shit...it's not his fault. Or when he uses the military all over the world killing people...it's all good!

The incredible blind loyalty to Obama amongst his supporters is damned amazing. He really does have the charm.

"They're all the same" is the pussy answer. You'd rather beat off than pay attention and get involved. :jerkoff


Who is President DOES make a difference.

Obama 2012.

No, the Clinton years had gas way under a dollar per gallon.

I had an MG Midget sports car and had to use premium gas and usually never paid more than 90 cents a gallon for premium in the 1990's (I was in South Carolina at the time).

Clinton was a great president. And he also was lucky enough to preside over the internet bubble that saw vast new business and income. Great years for everybody. :)