What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Higher fuel efficiency is great. We just bought a car that significantly increases our household's efficiency. That said, it'll be very interesting to see where the car companies can wring that much more efficiency out of a gasoline powered vehicle. They've made the cars a lot lighter, but I don't know how much lighter they can go. And from what I've read the combustion engine has been maximized in a number of ways already and there aren't any obvious ways to get much more out of it. So, I really hope we could get to 50+ mpg, but this could also be one of those targets that we feel good about setting now, but we get out closer to the date and it's just not getting us there, though even getting halfway there would still be an enormous improvement.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Bob Gray said:
Higher fuel efficiency is great. We just bought a car that significantly increases our household's efficiency. That said, it'll be very interesting to see where the car companies can wring that much more efficiency out of a gasoline powered vehicle. They've made the cars a lot lighter, but I don't know how much lighter they can go. And from what I've read the combustion engine has been maximized in a number of ways already and there aren't any obvious ways to get much more out of it. So, I really hope we could get to 50+ mpg, but this could also be one of those targets that we feel good about setting now, but we get out closer to the date and it's just not getting us there, though even getting halfway there would still be an enormous improvement.
Click to expand...

I'd still much rather have the SUV. I probably couldn't even fit into one of those sub-compacts.

Cars did get lighter between 1975 and 1984, but once the oil embargoes finished, cars were developed with more metal again. I'm sure we'll see the same thing quite soon.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

FlagDUDE08 said:
I'd still much rather have the SUV. I probably couldn't even fit into one of those sub-compacts.

Cars did get lighter between 1975 and 1984, but once the oil embargoes finished, cars were developed with more metal again. I'm sure we'll see the same thing quite soon.
Click to expand...
Certainly a big part of the challenge will be to keep cars decent sized and functional for families while improving mileage significantly. It's a lot easier to push toward 50+ mpg for a tiny little box of a car than for a decent sized SUV. But, our 2012 CRV gets about 30 mpg overall. One innovative feature is the "ECO" button where, when you have it pushed in, you give up a little horsepower and A/C power but gain a little on mileage. There's probably more they could do in those sorts of directions.
 
Kepler said:
Meanwhile, in herpa-derp news.
Click to expand...
Legally, Texas can split into 4 more states. Wonder ( a) how the legislature would do it and (b) if Kevin, the lost bunny of the Apocalypse would finally find a constituency.

Seriously, the judge is no different than all those who either fled to Canada or predicted the end of civilization as we know it following 2004.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

joecct said:
Legally, Texas can split into 4 more states.
Click to expand...
Snark? If serious, source?

Texas has no special legal standing - it's just another state. If it wants to divide, each of the new states would need to apply to join the Union just like all 37 other additions have done.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Kepler said:
Semi-legend. Texas is no different than any other state -- it could be divided, but Congress must consent.
Click to expand...
Yah, every so often there's an article about how the Dems here in southern Arizona, primarily Tucson, want to split off from the rest of Arizona. There's quotes from some local Dem pols and all, but in the end everybody admit's it's extremely unlikely to ever happen. Fun to think about though. I remember when I lived in Duluth and there was talk about the UP, northern Wisconsin, and northern Minnesota splitting off into a new state, so all those southerners wouldn't control things.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Bob Gray said:
Yah, every so often there's an article about how the Dems here in southern Arizona, primarily Tucson, want to split off from the rest of Arizona. There's quotes from some local Dem pols and all, but in the end everybody admit's it's extremely unlikely to ever happen. Fun to think about though. I remember when I lived in Duluth and there was talk about the UP, northern Wisconsin, and northern Minnesota splitting off into a new state, so all those southerners wouldn't control things.
Click to expand...

I honestly wish NYC would split off from the rest of the state. They have bankrupted 54 of NY's 62 counties.

I've also heard a few times that Vermont has wanted to secede.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Bob Gray said:
I remember when I lived in Duluth and there was talk about the UP, northern Wisconsin, and northern Minnesota splitting off into a new state, so all those southerners wouldn't control things.
Click to expand...

Talk of that has renewed in recent years.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

The obvious state to split is California. The north and south have very different economies. CA has 38 million people. WY has .5 million. It's ridiculous.

CA Republicans are probably the most screwed voters in the country. 5 million of them voted for McCain and they had squadoosh chance of mattering.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Bob Gray said:
Yah, every so often there's an article about how the Dems here in southern Arizona, primarily Tucson, want to split off from the rest of Arizona. There's quotes from some local Dem pols and all, but in the end everybody admit's it's extremely unlikely to ever happen. Fun to think about though. I remember when I lived in Duluth and there was talk about the UP, northern Wisconsin, and northern Minnesota splitting off into a new state, so all those southerners wouldn't control things.
Click to expand...

Meh. Alaska until about 1992 had a prominent party dedicated to breaking away and forming its own COUNTRY.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

LynahFan said:
Snark? If serious, source?

Texas has no special legal standing - it's just another state. If it wants to divide, each of the new states would need to apply to join the Union just like all 37 other additions have done.
Click to expand...
http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2009/07/01/The_Five_States_of_Texas.aspx

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/annex.htm <-- this contains the actual legislation. Does not look like the Congress has to ratify anything. If Texas does it, it's a fait accompli.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

joecct said:
http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2009/07/01/The_Five_States_of_Texas.aspx
Click to expand...
Did you read it? "Technically, Texas does not have the right to divide itself up into five new states."

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/annex.htm <-- this contains the actual legislation. Does not look like the Congress has to ratify anything. If Texas does it, it's a fait accompli.
Click to expand...
Or this one?

"Third, New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution."

Any territory that split off from Texas would still have to apply for statehood via the normal Constitutional process.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Kepler said:
The obvious state to split is California. The north and south have very different economies. CA has 38 million people. WY has .5 million. It's ridiculous.

CA Republicans are probably the most screwed voters in the country. 5 million of them voted for McCain and they had squadoosh chance of mattering.
Click to expand...

They can move. It's a free country.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

5mn_Major said:
As has been discussed many times, oil is a global market. If we do drill more, the relatively small amount of extra drilled will be thrown into the global market (as oil companies absolutely will chase overseas contracts if they're worth more profit). The result is virtually no relief as Asia guzzles everything in sight. On the flip side if we as a country just consume less...it has meaningful reduction on the need for overseas oil, while reducing the financial drag on the economy. I wouldn't underestimate the doubling of fuel efficiency for autos on the impact on our consumption. The environment is gravy.
Click to expand...

Then why, pray tell, is the cheap Chicago hack taking credit for "increased" drilling that was green lighted under the hated George W. Bush? While his administration does everything possible to make certain America doesn't profit by the energy revolution? As usual, tree huggers present this as an either/or argument. Evidently, drilling and greater efficiency are incompatible. Why not do both?
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Kepler said:
It is, but it's still a joke that a Wyoming resident has 76 times the Senate representation as a CA resident.
Click to expand...
Same with those small New England states, though I wouldn't expect you to have the same issue with them given their political lean. Personally, I'd take the whole of New England and make them merge and not have the amount of Senate representation they now have with tiny states like Vermont.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top