TheMoreYouKnow
Silver Member
- Dec 14, 2017
- 1,246
- 182
- 110
- Banned
- #221
Very successful venture in Japan for years. This can be done.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.
Numerous studies done in Europe have proven that is not the case. High-speed trains following the main highways in Europe did not reduce traffic on the highways. Those high-speed trains in Europe also lose money.
True. Here in America Amtrak has been running in the red since it was founded in the early '70s and has required massive gov't. subsidies, despite being almost as expensive as flying. Long-distance passenger trains will NEVER make a profit in America because of basic geography: distances in America are so massive that flying is simply more practical because it only takes a matter of hours to get around large swaths of this country in a plane.
I would rather ride a train if it could mean an hour cut in commute time. I could be spending that time more productively on a train. A Sacramento to San Francisco line would definitely ease congestion on our freeways.being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.It just shows how brain-addled liberals are that they actually THINK any train route can compete with the most heavily traveled and one of the cheapest air routes on this planet: Bay Area to LA Area. Between the 3 Bay Area major airports and the 5 LA Area airports, there are literally flights every couple of minutes throughout the day. For less than $100 each way, sometimes far cheaper if you shop around. Which takes less than an hour.
Given the overall costs and its normal operating costs, Brown's ridiculous choo-choo will have to charge a fuck of a lot more than $100 each way just to make ends meet. Now using human-nature-logic, why the fuck would a person pay a huge amount of money to get from SF-LA in three hours when they could pay a much, much smaller amount and get there in only one hour on a plane? The project itself defies basic common sense in more ways than I can even keep track of.
A hundred-trillion-gazillion airplane flights a day between these two metro area already do that. Three times faster and fairly cheap compared to this hypothetical leftist choo-choo. A train (which will never be completed anyway) very few people would use, is not going to have a significant effect on car traffic between SF and LA.
As was stated by the leftist,the camp fire battle was hindered by heavy winds.
Not all fires are hindered by high winds. This of course would allow more man power to be put in place in areas that couldnt be fought by air.
They may not need 300 of these aircraft but several dozen extras would be helpful considering California's wildfire history.
Please name the major fires in California which were NOT hindered by high winds.
Rather than spending the incredible amount necessary to maintain 30 giant tankers, after the purchase of the tankers, they could easily do controlled burns for several years and drastically reduce the intensity of their fires of today.
As was stated by the leftist,the camp fire battle was hindered by heavy winds.
Not all fires are hindered by high winds. This of course would allow more man power to be put in place in areas that couldnt be fought by air.
They may not need 300 of these aircraft but several dozen extras would be helpful considering California's wildfire history.
Please name the major fires in California which were NOT hindered by high winds.
Rather than spending the incredible amount necessary to maintain 30 giant tankers, after the purchase of the tankers, they could easily do controlled burns for several years and drastically reduce the intensity of their fires of today.
Or they could allow the dead wood to be collected and sold for firewood. I'm sure California has some law against burning fires, but outside in free America, there are plenty of real Americans willing to buy it.
Not practical. I live near the Apalachicola National Forest in the Florida Panhandle. It is over 632,000 acres. In a prior life, I raced Enduros. We also held them here in the National Forest. We could easily lay our an 80 to 120-mile course and maybe cross two or three National Forest Roads while covering areas inaccessible to anything other than a motorcycle or on foot.
The biggest problem isn't fallen trees which would be nearly impossible to remove but the branches, twigs, and leaves which trees drop constantly. All that build up is a tinderbox of fuel.
We also have the Tall Timbers Research Station just to the North of us. For decades they have been doing research on the short and long-term effects of regular controlled burns. There are few if any negatives. The burns reduce forest fires, enhances wildlife conditions, flowering plants, reduces CO2 emissions, the list is endless.
Tall Timbers Research Station | Stewards of Wildlife & Wildlands
It isn't a theory. It is a proven fact that capital Must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect.You can't hire everyone who wants to work, even if you tried. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.that only works in right wing special pleading. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment merely for the sake of the capital bottom line. That places a Burden on Labor.No emotion on my part, we WORK for the Good of our Republic and those that WORK for the Good of our Republic should be rewarded and compensation for the WORK. The lazy are not working period and so no Good comes of that to us or to the Republic.
Have anymore fallacy BS you want to try to pass off?
I am all for helping the poor and the disabled Americans in our country, I will not support the lazy that are able to work and decide they don't want to.
Sorry, if you want a job in today's economy you will find one, if you want to sit on your ass and say you can't find one, it is because you aren't trying at all.
Our company is hiring and can't find enough people to work and we are paying over $20 an hour for those jobs.
If you are lazy and don't look for work, then you earn what you get, nothing.
Only capital need circulate to improve the efficiency of our economy.
Look, there are jobs for those that want to work, you can give all the excuses you choose, however capitalism allows us to create our own jobs should chose. I don't buy your theory.
I would rather ride a train if it could mean an hour cut in commute time. I could be spending that time more productively on a train. A Sacramento to San Francisco line would definitely ease congestion on our freeways.being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.It just shows how brain-addled liberals are that they actually THINK any train route can compete with the most heavily traveled and one of the cheapest air routes on this planet: Bay Area to LA Area. Between the 3 Bay Area major airports and the 5 LA Area airports, there are literally flights every couple of minutes throughout the day. For less than $100 each way, sometimes far cheaper if you shop around. Which takes less than an hour.
Given the overall costs and its normal operating costs, Brown's ridiculous choo-choo will have to charge a fuck of a lot more than $100 each way just to make ends meet. Now using human-nature-logic, why the fuck would a person pay a huge amount of money to get from SF-LA in three hours when they could pay a much, much smaller amount and get there in only one hour on a plane? The project itself defies basic common sense in more ways than I can even keep track of.
A hundred-trillion-gazillion airplane flights a day between these two metro area already do that. Three times faster and fairly cheap compared to this hypothetical leftist choo-choo. A train (which will never be completed anyway) very few people would use, is not going to have a significant effect on car traffic between SF and LA.
As was stated by the leftist,the camp fire battle was hindered by heavy winds.
Not all fires are hindered by high winds. This of course would allow more man power to be put in place in areas that couldnt be fought by air.
They may not need 300 of these aircraft but several dozen extras would be helpful considering California's wildfire history.
Please name the major fires in California which were NOT hindered by high winds.
Rather than spending the incredible amount necessary to maintain 30 giant tankers, after the purchase of the tankers, they could easily do controlled burns for several years and drastically reduce the intensity of their fires of today.
You're the one claiming that all fires are hampered by high winds.
From what I know Florida isn't plagued by wildfires,just like Texas isnt,it's way too damp.
Cali on the other hand.....,.
The only option in Cali is to let fires burn to keep the underbrush under control.
If thats not possible I dont see what can be done to stop the major damage caused by wildfires.
As was stated by the leftist,the camp fire battle was hindered by heavy winds.
Not all fires are hindered by high winds. This of course would allow more man power to be put in place in areas that couldnt be fought by air.
They may not need 300 of these aircraft but several dozen extras would be helpful considering California's wildfire history.
Please name the major fires in California which were NOT hindered by high winds.
Rather than spending the incredible amount necessary to maintain 30 giant tankers, after the purchase of the tankers, they could easily do controlled burns for several years and drastically reduce the intensity of their fires of today.
You're the one claiming that all fires are hampered by high winds.
I asked you to name which ones were NOT made more fierce by high winds. You could not. Thank you.
Very successful venture in Japan for years. This can be done.
From what I know Florida isn't plagued by wildfires,just like Texas isnt,it's way too damp.
Cali on the other hand.....,.
The only option in Cali is to let fires burn to keep the underbrush under control.
If thats not possible I dont see what can be done to stop the major damage caused by wildfires.
I don't know about Texas, but I know here in Florida we use controlled burns effectively to keep wildfires under control. Something California's naturists have refused to do for decades. They believe everything should happen NATURALLY.
so what. We have a Constitution. Why should I care about Your, "reinvention of a social wheel" in a vacuum of special pleading.It isn't a theory. It is a proven fact that capital Must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect.You can't hire everyone who wants to work, even if you tried. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.that only works in right wing special pleading. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment merely for the sake of the capital bottom line. That places a Burden on Labor.
Sorry, if you want a job in today's economy you will find one, if you want to sit on your ass and say you can't find one, it is because you aren't trying at all.
Our company is hiring and can't find enough people to work and we are paying over $20 an hour for those jobs.
If you are lazy and don't look for work, then you earn what you get, nothing.
Only capital need circulate to improve the efficiency of our economy.
Look, there are jobs for those that want to work, you can give all the excuses you choose, however capitalism allows us to create our own jobs should chose. I don't buy your theory.
That wasn’t the theory, I believe people have a right to spend their hard EARNED money. No one should steal hard workers money.
A high speed option could cater to Commerce.I would rather ride a train if it could mean an hour cut in commute time. I could be spending that time more productively on a train. A Sacramento to San Francisco line would definitely ease congestion on our freeways.being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.It just shows how brain-addled liberals are that they actually THINK any train route can compete with the most heavily traveled and one of the cheapest air routes on this planet: Bay Area to LA Area. Between the 3 Bay Area major airports and the 5 LA Area airports, there are literally flights every couple of minutes throughout the day. For less than $100 each way, sometimes far cheaper if you shop around. Which takes less than an hour.
Given the overall costs and its normal operating costs, Brown's ridiculous choo-choo will have to charge a fuck of a lot more than $100 each way just to make ends meet. Now using human-nature-logic, why the fuck would a person pay a huge amount of money to get from SF-LA in three hours when they could pay a much, much smaller amount and get there in only one hour on a plane? The project itself defies basic common sense in more ways than I can even keep track of.
A hundred-trillion-gazillion airplane flights a day between these two metro area already do that. Three times faster and fairly cheap compared to this hypothetical leftist choo-choo. A train (which will never be completed anyway) very few people would use, is not going to have a significant effect on car traffic between SF and LA.
Those that use it need to subsidize the trip with their own money and not the taxpayers which largely will never be able to use the train. Use a bus, it is energy efficient and the cost per mile is a lot less burden on the hard working taxpayers
so what. We have a Constitution. Why should I care about Your, "reinvention of a social wheel" in a vacuum of special pleading.It isn't a theory. It is a proven fact that capital Must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect.You can't hire everyone who wants to work, even if you tried. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.Sorry, if you want a job in today's economy you will find one, if you want to sit on your ass and say you can't find one, it is because you aren't trying at all.
Our company is hiring and can't find enough people to work and we are paying over $20 an hour for those jobs.
If you are lazy and don't look for work, then you earn what you get, nothing.
Only capital need circulate to improve the efficiency of our economy.
Look, there are jobs for those that want to work, you can give all the excuses you choose, however capitalism allows us to create our own jobs should chose. I don't buy your theory.
That wasn’t the theory, I believe people have a right to spend their hard EARNED money. No one should steal hard workers money.
A high speed option could cater to Commerce.I would rather ride a train if it could mean an hour cut in commute time. I could be spending that time more productively on a train. A Sacramento to San Francisco line would definitely ease congestion on our freeways.being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.It just shows how brain-addled liberals are that they actually THINK any train route can compete with the most heavily traveled and one of the cheapest air routes on this planet: Bay Area to LA Area. Between the 3 Bay Area major airports and the 5 LA Area airports, there are literally flights every couple of minutes throughout the day. For less than $100 each way, sometimes far cheaper if you shop around. Which takes less than an hour.
Given the overall costs and its normal operating costs, Brown's ridiculous choo-choo will have to charge a fuck of a lot more than $100 each way just to make ends meet. Now using human-nature-logic, why the fuck would a person pay a huge amount of money to get from SF-LA in three hours when they could pay a much, much smaller amount and get there in only one hour on a plane? The project itself defies basic common sense in more ways than I can even keep track of.
A hundred-trillion-gazillion airplane flights a day between these two metro area already do that. Three times faster and fairly cheap compared to this hypothetical leftist choo-choo. A train (which will never be completed anyway) very few people would use, is not going to have a significant effect on car traffic between SF and LA.
Those that use it need to subsidize the trip with their own money and not the taxpayers which largely will never be able to use the train. Use a bus, it is energy efficient and the cost per mile is a lot less burden on the hard working taxpayers
in other words, just the subjective value of morals instead of economics; i got it, right wingers.so what. We have a Constitution. Why should I care about Your, "reinvention of a social wheel" in a vacuum of special pleading.It isn't a theory. It is a proven fact that capital Must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect.You can't hire everyone who wants to work, even if you tried. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
Only capital need circulate to improve the efficiency of our economy.
Look, there are jobs for those that want to work, you can give all the excuses you choose, however capitalism allows us to create our own jobs should chose. I don't buy your theory.
That wasn’t the theory, I believe people have a right to spend their hard EARNED money. No one should steal hard workers money.
I’m not pleading or reinventing and it will stay my way because you are lazy. Thank you!
A high speed option means improved "time to market". time=money under Capitalism.A high speed option could cater to Commerce.I would rather ride a train if it could mean an hour cut in commute time. I could be spending that time more productively on a train. A Sacramento to San Francisco line would definitely ease congestion on our freeways.being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.
A hundred-trillion-gazillion airplane flights a day between these two metro area already do that. Three times faster and fairly cheap compared to this hypothetical leftist choo-choo. A train (which will never be completed anyway) very few people would use, is not going to have a significant effect on car traffic between SF and LA.
Those that use it need to subsidize the trip with their own money and not the taxpayers which largely will never be able to use the train. Use a bus, it is energy efficient and the cost per mile is a lot less burden on the hard working taxpayers
Buses are more efficient and are less costly. Why should people that will never use the train pay for the train? Seems you want hard working Americans to pay for your toys.