PDA

View Full Version : Obama's ambitious high speed rail project



jvjim
19th April 09, 06:42 PM
WASHINGTON — President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) on Thursday highlighted his ambition for the development of high-speed passenger rail lines in at least 10 regions, expressing confidence in the future of train travel even as he acknowledged that the American rail network, compared with the rest of the world’s, remains a caboose.
With clogged highways and overburdened airports, economic growth is suffering, Mr. Obama said at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, shortly before leaving for a trip to Mexico and then Trinidad and Tobago.
“What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century,” he said, “a system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.”
And he added, “There’s no reason why we can’t do this.”
Mr. Obama said the $8 billion for high-speed rail in his stimulus package (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) — to be spent over two years — and an additional $1 billion a year being budgeted over the next five years, would provide a “jump start” toward achieving that vision.
The stimulus money has yet to be allocated to specific projects, but Mr. Obama said the Transportation Department would begin awarding money by the end of summer.
The government has identified 10 corridors, each from 100 to 600 miles long, with greatest promise for high-speed development.
They are: a northern New England line; an Empire line running east to west in New York State; a Keystone corridor running laterally through Pennsylvania; a major Chicago hub network; a southeast network connecting the District of Columbia to Florida and the Gulf Coast; a Gulf Coast line extending from eastern Texas to western Alabama; a corridor in central and southern Florida; a Texas-to-Oklahoma line; a California corridor where voters have already approved a line that will allow travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two and a half hours; and a corridor in the Pacific Northwest.
Only one high-speed line is now operating, on the Northeast corridor between Washington and Boston, and it will be eligible to compete for money to make improvements.
Mr. Obama’s remarks mixed ambition and modesty, reflecting the fact that American high-speed rail is in its infancy compared with systems in France and Japan.
“Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination,” Mr. Obama said. “It is happening right now; it’s been happening for decades. The problem is, it’s been happening elsewhere, not here.”
The Federal Railroad Administration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_railroad_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org) defines high-speed rail as any train traveling 90 m.p.h. or faster. In Japan, the Shinkansen trains average about 180 m.p.h. The TGV train in France uses special tracks to sustain speeds of 133 m.p.h. on the Paris-Lyon route.
The Acela Express operated by Amtrak (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/amtrak/index.html?inline=nyt-org) is capable of a speed of 150 m.p.h., but track conditions and other rail traffic bring its average speed to just over half that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17train.html

Now THIS is the kind of stimulus you can get behind. It would be a boon to industries that rely on personal travel, could lead to advances in technology that make high speed public transportation more viable, and would be something every American could be proud of. Plus, TGV's are fucking awesome.

Cullion
19th April 09, 06:53 PM
Don't you already have aeroplanes in the US?

jvjim
19th April 09, 07:02 PM
Yeah, but these are planes that fly ON THE GROUND. I wouldn't expect you limeys to understand.

Cullion
19th April 09, 07:21 PM
Why do you think a subsidised railway network would be something that every American could be proud of ?

HappyOldGuy
19th April 09, 07:28 PM
Why do you think a subsidised railway network would be something that every American could be proud of ?
Cause it will run better than yours.

I know. I know. You want us to be like all those other more successfull countries who don't pay for their transportation infrastructure with public money.

Cullion
19th April 09, 07:33 PM
If it runs better than ours it will be because it's not got a unionised labour force and/or it's subsidised more by the Federal government. You already pay for transportation infrastructure with public money, it's just Obama is hoping that if you spend more on it, then, uh, it will fix the stock market and get everybody out of debt, or something.

I'm just wondering which more succesful economies you were thinking of when linked 'success' with 'state-funded railway network'.

HappyOldGuy
19th April 09, 07:53 PM
I'm just wondering which more succesful economies you were thinking of when linked 'success' with 'state-funded railway network'.
All of them? You know of a first world country with purely private transport infrastructure?

Robot Jesus
19th April 09, 07:55 PM
I7APE6mmZi8

theotherserge
19th April 09, 08:10 PM
Why do you think a subsidised railway network would be something that every American could be proud of ?
*sigh* cause it's the only way it's going to happen. Sort of like all the "private ballparks" that get built out here, why would any intelligent business leverage their own assets when they know that the govt will eventually pay for (subsidize) it.

It still needs to happen. There is too much environmental resistance to airport expansion these days.

mrm1775
19th April 09, 08:27 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17train.html

Now THIS is the kind of stimulus you can get behind. It would be a boon to industries that rely on personal travel, could lead to advances in technology that make high speed public transportation more viable, and would be something every American could be proud of. Plus, TGV's are fucking awesome.Done right it would certainly be cleaner and less expensive than flying. This would definitely be a boon to travelers and any business catering to them, and would give the airlines incentive to become more efficient in order to compete (while finally letting some of the larger companies who should have failed years ago finally die). The upfront costs would be enormous, so I don't know if its something we could tackle right now.

Regardless, I see the conservatives fighting it all the way.

theotherserge
19th April 09, 10:16 PM
We should just fuckng do it. If the Chinks can build the Three Gorges damn, then we need to one-up those muderous bastards!

Oh yeah! Sorry, we're getting our bond money from them. Didn't want to offend them like the US Olympic bike team did, for shame.

Kein Haar
19th April 09, 10:19 PM
Isn't that like war-economy shit?

Ajamil
19th April 09, 10:29 PM
I'd love to get behind this - I love trains and would take them in a second over air travel along the east coast if they had something like this going. Still, rails never make money shipping people.

theotherserge
19th April 09, 11:20 PM
Not like I know better, but car travel via highway doesn't look like it's working out so well.

Maybe more trains=fewer cars=more room to drive my vintage Lotus (which I wish I had)

elipson
19th April 09, 11:28 PM
This is really only going to become an attractive option if gas prices keep increasing. As long as they are cheap then people will rather drive. Train prices will either have to be high or subsidized to be profitable, and high prices wont happen until gas prices increase substantially.

Personally I think its a good idea, just might not be profitable in the short term.

MrGalt
20th April 09, 12:04 AM
Great, so when I move back to America someday I can um...drive my car to the train station in Memphis, then pay out the nose for an American Shinkansen ticket to Denver, then um....rent a car and drive it around Denver for a while, then repeat the process in reverse? Awesome.

A high-speed rail network will ONLY replace air travel and have most of the inconveniences thereof. It will also take unholy amounts of money. 8 billion? Please. I will look for the reference if anybody cares, but I've read that Japan's rail network (which most people cite as the gold standard) had a total price tag of around 1 trillion 2005 US dollars. Since the US has what, 30 times the land area and 3 times the population, I imagine it would cost between 3 and 30 times that for a comparable American train network that is still going to serve a much smaller proportion of our spread-out population.

Of course, if all we want is about a dozen lines connecting major cities, we might be able to do it for a hundred billion dollars or so, but why would we bother? Especially with public money.

HappyOldGuy
20th April 09, 12:33 AM
By the way, other than getting an opportunity to poke Cullion with a stick, I'm not all that in favor of this. I could see a few lines working out like a california line and a couple back east, but mostly the US is just too big and high speed rail only fits in a kindof narrow window between flying and driving.

EuropIan
20th April 09, 02:41 AM
A3xGtjhZ_Yg

Shawarma
20th April 09, 03:19 AM
Don't listen to Cullion, he's deeply traumatised by how bizarre the British rail system is. This is, in theory, a very good idea - Now you just gotta get the American people, many of whom equate public transportation with communism and homosexuality, to actually USE it.

EuropIan
20th April 09, 03:29 AM
Privatizing railways is misguided captitalism.

Americans are better off with automated traffic systems, imo.

jubei33
20th April 09, 03:55 AM
Don't you already have aeroplanes in the US?
columbus to chicago took about 3 hrs start to finish (this was before sept 11). A Shinkansen could rival that time easily. Currently, the only alternative is the greyhound bus, which sucks balls (it takes 12 hours Columbus to New york). A shinkansen type train between major cities would benefit a lot of people, increasing travel and probably commerce.

Coast to coast, airplanes would still be quicker, but say something like new York to Boston, or Chicago to Cleveland and people would take to that like: insert your favorite positive euphemism here.

This was one of the ideas that I was fully behind during the election.


Of course, if all we want is about a dozen lines connecting major cities, we might be able to do it for a hundred billion dollars or so, but why would we bother? Especially with public money.

because, thats where the big money is, lots of people fly between those cities. Its not at all like the 2 flights a day Memphis to Denver.

theotherserge
20th April 09, 10:42 AM
Isn't that like war-economy shit?
I am trying to inspire a Nation to act!

I'm so sick of driving on our fucked up roads that I'd take anything that would improve that. However, I don't think were up to it. To build HALF of a bridge out here (Bay Bridge) is costing around $3 billion, and the thing isn't even finished yet. We are a joke compared to what we could do 50 years ago and it makes me sad.

I don't remember the cost, but an extension was added to the BART system out here, so that there is a rapid train you ride from SF to the airport. It ran near empty at first and it looked like a huge failure. There was a big uptick during the ggas prices, no suprise.

Likely what will happen is $15 b will funnelled to a committie to study the routes and volume of demand and etc then they will conclude "It is a good idea-R!" and that will be it for another decade.

Ajamil
20th April 09, 11:36 AM
Major cities adopted subways, why not longer train trips as well?

EuropIan
20th April 09, 11:39 AM
because trains-> communism

Kein Haar
20th April 09, 12:08 PM
I've been across the pond once.

They actually perform abortions on trains in Yrup.

EuropIan
20th April 09, 12:10 PM
^It's true.

Also, gays are married on trains.

theotherserge
20th April 09, 12:31 PM
Additionally, you are not allowed to bring your guns onto trains!

Spade: The Real Snake
20th April 09, 12:43 PM
Obama does realize that the bulk of the nation's actual track are owned by privately held freight companies, with the exception of the Eastern corridor.

Amtrak has to provide right-of-way to freight trains while on their tracks.

The concept of spending all this money to add tracks is ridiculous. Most of the land next to the freight lines, the most logical place to put these, is already owned by the freight companies.

Next up:

Stimulus monies for dirigibles.

EuropIan
20th April 09, 12:50 PM
Obama does realize that the bulk of the nation's actual track are owned by privately held freight companies, with the exception of the Eastern corridor.

Amtrak has to provide right-of-way to freight trains while on their tracks.

The concept of spending all this money to add tracks is ridiculous. Most of the land next to the freight lines, the most logical place to put these, is already owned by the freight companies.

Next up:

Stimulus monies for dirigibles.
A new ambitious train project like this would also require entirely new train tracks...

I love trains, I really do, but this is a huge money pit.

Spade: The Real Snake
20th April 09, 12:59 PM
A new ambitious train project like this would also require entirely new train tracks...

I love trains, I really do, but this is a huge money pit.

I love trains as well.

Actually, my child does.....he wouldn't watch cartoons as an infant and toddler, he would watch train documentaries. I, of course, had to watch. I just spent Friday touring a Pullman car that four US Presidents used for touring the country and the one NORAD was signed in.

The idea for a high-speed rail in a smaller country would make sense, but the US is too spread out. The trackage ownership is too diverse, hell BNSF owns the mineral rights to MY property.

They would need to build new track and the cost benefit just doesn't make sense. From Boston to DC....yeah.

The one from Los Angeles to Las Vegas....maybe. They can probably get some casino sponsorship out of that....of course since some casinos are having their own financial troubles, maybe not.

But coast to coast? Can we sit on a flatcar and shoot buffalo, too?

Phrost
20th April 09, 01:19 PM
I might shock you fuckers by saying that I'd love to see this work, and be financially viable.

But then I'll bring you back to reality by saying it probably won't, and won't be.

Cullion
20th April 09, 01:22 PM
If there were good odds of it being financially viable, you'd have to ask yourself why the private sector hasn't tried to build it (like it did the original railroads).

Most European and Asian mass transit systems function on the basis of substantial government subsidy even if they aren't publicly owned.

Cullion
20th April 09, 01:24 PM
P.S. I hate our railway system.

Spade: The Real Snake
20th April 09, 01:26 PM
If there were good odds of it being financially viable, you'd have to ask yourself why the private sector hasn't tried to build it (like it did the original railroads).

Most European and Asian mass transit systems function on the basis of substantial government subsidy even if they aren't publicly owned.
They did.

In the 1800s.

Off the broken back of slave, indigenous and immigrant labor.

Wildlife and natural resources be damned.

The railroads pretty much opened up the Western half of the US to settlers and passenger rail quit being viable about 50 years ago and has morphed into strictly freight, which is actually doing quite well for itself now.

Phrost
20th April 09, 01:28 PM
If there were good odds of it being financially viable, you'd have to ask yourself why the private sector hasn't tried to build it (like it did the original railroads).

Most European and Asian mass transit systems function on the basis of substantial government subsidy even if they aren't publicly owned.

Yeah, but that's logic. And there's no point in arguing logic with idealogues.

EuropIan
20th April 09, 01:32 PM
I've taken a passanger train in the US (it was in California).

It was LOUD and unCoMfoRtabLe... It's like amtrak wants you to hate trains.

From this personal anecdote I can tell trains are not for America anymore.

Cullion
20th April 09, 01:34 PM
They did.

In the 1800s.

Off the broken back of slave, indigenous and immigrant labor.

Wildlife and natural resources be damned.

The private sector built our railroads too, without slaves or captive 'indigenous' people.

Phrost
20th April 09, 01:35 PM
Maybe if there's a line that connects California to the rest of the country, those dipshits will actually realize that they actually aren't living in the promised land.

Spade: The Real Snake
20th April 09, 01:40 PM
Maybe if there's a line that connects California to the rest of the country, those dipshits will actually realize that they actually aren't living in the promised land.

There is one.

But they still want a mag-lev train to Las Vegas.



The private sector built our railroads too, without slaves or captive 'indigenous' people.

Your entire country can fit comfortably into one of our states.

Cullion
20th April 09, 01:42 PM
Your entire country can fit comfortably into one of our states.

Are you suggesting that made the construction cost per mile less?

Or might it be that we just needed fewer miles of track ?

If we needed fewer miles per track, and the railway charged based on mileage..

you see where this leads.

Cullion
20th April 09, 01:43 PM
Why not create a federally-owned domestic airline too?

Spade: The Real Snake
20th April 09, 01:46 PM
We essentially have those parading under the banner of publicly traded corporations which frequently go broke and scream for Federal dollars to keep operating and negate the possibility of being sold to a foreign entity.

Spade: The Real Snake
20th April 09, 01:47 PM
Are you suggesting that made the construction cost per mile less?

Or might it be that we just needed fewer miles of track ?

If we needed fewer miles per track, and the railway charged based on mileage..

you see where this leads.

You just didn't know how to use your indigenous people and immigrants in the 1800s.

EuropIan
20th April 09, 01:50 PM
Why not create a federally-owned domestic airline too?
poor comparison

Cullion
20th April 09, 01:53 PM
Why not rocket powered greyhound's with their own special lanes on the interstates?

EuropIan
20th April 09, 01:54 PM
^Much better.

And yes.

elipson
20th April 09, 02:02 PM
I'm changing my vote to throw my weight behind the rocket powered greyhound busses.



I don't see why this can't work between major hubs, especially on the east coast. Start small, between two major cities that see a lot of Highway/Airport traffic, and expand from there in the future. It won't really become popular however until other modes of transportation become bejeesly expensive, which is going to happen eventually.

Cullion
20th April 09, 02:06 PM
So are you in favour of subsidising these routes, or do you want them to be self-financing ?

Spade: The Real Snake
20th April 09, 02:10 PM
No love for the dirigible?

EuropIan
20th April 09, 02:14 PM
No love for the dirigible?
Can they consistently break speeds over 300 km/h?

theotherserge
20th April 09, 02:34 PM
You just didn't know how to use your indigenous people and immigrants in the 1800s.
Citizenship for Mexican/et.al. illegals in exchange for railroad-work

Also, I remember reading about a theoretical train that is basically a bullet in a tube, you create a vaccum in the tube and then you can launch the [email protected],000 mph. LA-DC in 20 minutes! Except they figured the acceleration constant would kill most people.

Spade: The Real Snake
20th April 09, 02:44 PM
Citizenship for Mexican/et.al. illegals in exchange for railroad-work

Before consent or concurrence, I need to check with my wife if this will or will not get me in trouble.



Also, I remember reading about a theoretical train that is basically a bullet in a tube, you create a vaccum in the tube and then you can launch the [email protected],000 mph. LA-DC in 20 minutes! Except they figured the acceleration constant would kill most people.
And the downside would be?

HappyOldGuy
20th April 09, 02:47 PM
If there were good odds of it being financially viable, you'd have to ask yourself why the private sector hasn't tried to build it (like it did the original railroads).

The private sector built the US railways almost entirely out of the public pocketbook. It's literally the textbook example of how to use government to rob the public for private gain. Hence, robber barons.

HappyOldGuy
20th April 09, 02:49 PM
Why not rocket powered greyhound's with their own special lanes on the interstates?

The aussies have those for frieght.

They're cool!

theotherserge
20th April 09, 03:34 PM
Before consent or concurrence, I need to check with my wife if this will or will not get me in trouble.

Choose wisely. My main reason for voting Obama (new boss=old boss, +or-) is that I knew if she found I voted Palin/McCain then the already infrequent BJs would entirely end!




And the downside would be?

Only the G-force resistant would survive? That is a good pressure test in the best sort of Arrakis/Dune Desert Planet way!

Robot Jesus
20th April 09, 03:51 PM
No love for the dirigible?


I vaguely remember reading about plans for a transcontinental dirigible jet. it would double travel time, but passengers would be afforded their own cab and cut costs by 75%.

but that may have been an ergot dream.

HappyOldGuy
20th April 09, 03:55 PM
I was just watching something about a company looking to find market uses for dirigibles in research applications who were operating out of the old hangers in Moffet.

Spade: The Real Snake
20th April 09, 04:03 PM
I was just watching something about a company looking to find market uses for dirigibles in research applications who were operating out of the old hangers in Moffet.

Perhaps to trumpet the amazing new invention called THE WORLD'S FAIR

Cullion
20th April 09, 05:08 PM
The private sector built the US railways almost entirely out of the public pocketbook. It's literally the textbook example of how to use government to rob the public for private gain. Hence, robber barons.

Hmm. Well, you and I disagree a lot on economics, but I don't have you down as a liar. Pls point me somewhere I can read more about this.

Victorian brits didn't build them with public assistance to my knowledge.

Robot Jesus
20th April 09, 05:28 PM
Canadian railway was all government cheese.

built by this man
Macdonald was well known for his wit and also for his alcoholism. He is known to have been drunk for many of his debates in parliament. One famous story is that during an election debate Macdonald was so drunk he began vomiting violently on stage while his opponent was speaking. Picking himself up Macdonald told the crowd, "see how my opponent's ideas disgust me."

suck it Gorge Washington

Cullion
20th April 09, 05:34 PM
No love for the dirigible?

Not for peasants, no. I'd like to be sure that the free glass of champagne and the spacious dining tables will never be abandoned. People like me don't require public assistance. We just need to know that we won't be disturbed whilst we're thinking.

elipson
20th April 09, 06:15 PM
Can't use the Canadian railway as an example.

It was horribly uncompetitive and overpriced. The american rail was always cheaper due to higher usage, so to prevent all the traffic from taking the US rail system east/west, the Canadian railway was hugely protected.

Ajamil
20th April 09, 08:29 PM
Macdonald was well known for his wit and also for his alcoholism. He is known to have been drunk for many of his debates in parliament. One famous story is that during an election debate Macdonald was so drunk he began vomiting violently on stage while his opponent was speaking. Picking himself up Macdonald told the crowd, "see how my opponent's ideas disgust me."

Best. Cover. Ever.


No love for the dirigible?
To quote Clevinger: Steampunk Inside.
http://www.nuklearpower.com/images/steampunk_preview.jpg

MrGalt
20th April 09, 09:10 PM
How many of the people who are now complaining about the incredibly sad state of America's roads were doing so before that bridge collapse? I used to drive everywhere and while Louisiana and Arkansas stand out in my mind as pretty bad, I never really thought, "This is so bad I'm ready to just give it all up and use trains, planes, blimps or llamas." The only thing that ever bothered me in regards to roads in America was the neverending construction.

So are the roads really that bad or are you just paying attention to them now? Also, if they ARE that bad, they're still going to have to be rebuilt IN ADDITION TO a train network, or do you propose that we just let all the roads go and Nature can reclaim them? As far as I remember, every road in America seems to actually go somewhere somebody needs to go. If the roads ARE so bad and do NEED to be rebuilt, then why not just do that since it's an unavoidable expense and not add an avoidable expense to it?

Ajamil
21st April 09, 07:40 AM
Pennsylvania actually has the worst roads in my experience. I've never seen the roads on my daily commute without construction happening somewhere. Of course, we have some of the worst weather and geography for roads, so it makes sense.

Cullion
21st April 09, 02:18 PM
Nobody gives a shit about roads, it's just the Lord Obama himself has told them that the best way to fix the economy is to take people's money away and then spend it on random government projects, so they will rationalise for several years until the obvious fail becomes too much to ignore and then be all upset how they feel betrayed.

That's how it worked out in the UK for Liberals with Blair, anyway.

HappyOldGuy
21st April 09, 03:05 PM
Seems to me like he would still be getting blown by passersby in the streets if not for Iraq. Is that a false read?

theotherserge
21st April 09, 03:56 PM
Ultimately, liberals are secretly in favor of Iraq as it opens the door for Iran to blow Israel off the globe and then the Palestinians get a country of their own where there will be routine honor killings, gays will be buried alive in the sand, girls will not be taught to read so they can be properly repressed, so forth.

[/wackjob-conspiracy]

Spade: The Real Snake
21st April 09, 07:04 PM
Nobody gives a shit about roads, it's just the Lord Obama himself has told them that the best way to fix the economy is to take people's money away and then spend it on random government projects, so they will rationalise for several years until the obvious fail becomes too much to ignore and then be all upset how they feel betrayed.

That's how it worked out in the UK for Liberals with Blair, anyway.

Because government projects are in his direct control as to how the money is spent.

theotherserge
21st April 09, 09:44 PM
As far as the roads go, one drive on the Autobahn and you realize: Americans can't drive for shit and we're getting ripped off since all the taxes that should go to improving/maintaining our roads are appropriated for other bullshit.

It's taxation without representation, we suffer this shit on a daily basis, it chews up our tires&suspension. What do they propose? More taxes for mileage, more bridge tolls, more DMV fees, etc. For what? IDK I hate driving in this bullshit.

EuropIan
22nd April 09, 01:57 AM
Americans need an autobahn.

MrGalt
22nd April 09, 06:14 AM
Wouldn't work. We'd try to drive American cars on it.

Cullion
22nd April 09, 01:36 PM
Seems to me like he would still be getting blown by passersby in the streets if not for Iraq. Is that a false read?

Hmm...

Before Iraq, the first people to become disenchanted with Blair were generally the old-school Labour voters like my Dad who thought he was too close to big corporations and had generally turned the Labour party into something they didn't recognise.

Iraq was a big turning point I think. It wasn't that he didn't do a lot of bad stuff before and after, but until Iraq it was mostly a few cranky libertarian- or paleo-conservative- types like me, and the old-school left ('Old Labour' as it would be called in the British press) who noticed it.

After Iraq, people across a spectrum from people like my Dad who hadn't quite given up yet, to moderate conservatives who'd generally been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt had him mentally pegged as a liar so they started examining everything he said and did more closely.

Brown is more unpopular than Blair ever was, he's still in favour of lots of nutty surveillance and other authoritarian measures, he's just as tainted by Iraq because he was in the Cabinet and didn't do or say anything to hold Tony back, and worst of all, he's closely associated with our economic problems.

The last one is the kicker. People who don't normally give a shit about politics start paying attention and wondering whose fault it is when they lose their jobs and/or start struggling to pay their mortgage.

I'd say that the wild, almost hysterical landslide popularity he enjoyed was gone before Iraq though. In the 1997 election, Labour won with 18% more of the total votes cast through the country than the Conservatives in second place. In 2001, that gap was down below 9%, and their popularity steadily decreased in the polls further before the war.

jvjim
22nd April 09, 03:54 PM
Everyone who's against the TGV=nazicommi.

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd April 09, 04:03 PM
Everyone who is for the Shinkansen=tojoimperialist

jvjim
22nd April 09, 04:12 PM
BONZAI MOTHERFUCKER!

Cullion
22nd April 09, 05:40 PM
I will only give my blessing to this project if you armour plate it and mount machine guns on it. Otherwise it will be un-American.

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd April 09, 06:08 PM
I will only give my blessing to this project if you armour plate it and mount machine guns on it. Otherwise it will be un-American.
And my suggestion of using immigrant and indigenous labor?

It must be powered by using the carcasses of endangered species, as well.

Cullion
22nd April 09, 06:19 PM
I think you should just stop pussy-footing around with this individualist christianity stuff from your country's past and get the army to start bringing back muslim slaves.

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd April 09, 06:22 PM
I think you should just stop pussy-footing around with this individualist christianity stuff from your country's past and get the army to start bringing back muslim slaves.

But we aren't a British Colony any longer.

mrm1775
23rd April 09, 04:24 AM
And my suggestion of using immigrant and indigenous labor?

It must be powered by using the carcasses of endangered species, as well.
Nah, that would'nt necessarily make it American.

Republican, perhaps.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd April 09, 09:46 AM
Nah, that would necessarily make it American.

Republican, perhaps.

Fine we will throw a Rainbow Flag made of Pink Triangles on there.

Happy now?