Fairweather

Nope. Bunker carped about a group he knew nothing about. I've worked extensively with progressives in ways a do-nothing peanut gallery member such as yourself can only dream about. My opinions come hard earned from experience. It makes sense. The progressive movement attracts carpers. It filters for them. It strokes their egos. One might argue that's pretty much all it does. And you, my friend, are it's perfect poster child. You two keep at it. I'm gonna make some popcorn.

This isn't difficult, Ivan. I'm not the one claiming to be moderate.

Not being smart-assed at all. You regularly try to portray yourself as a fence-sitting moderate, but we both know this isn't true. You like to throw in an occasional "they're all corrupt" quip, but when challenged to put your money where your mouth is, well, just refer to the above.

If she had only swallowed "poppy's seed" nine months earlier, she might have avoided this mess.

So, I assume this means you're voting for "none of the above" on Tuesday?

you dumb fuck! fresh ideas? how about addressing old problems? and reduction of 100 billion doesn't even touch the 1.3 trillion deficit. It would be like trying to pay off 60k on a credit card bill by adding 10 cents to your monthly payment- doesn't do squat. i guess math was not your strong subject at school. so unless you start cutting from military spending, medicare/medicaid or ss programs you can't even start addressing the problem. and of course you have to raise taxes, as somehow we all have to pay for happy republifaq handjob 2000-2008. OMG, I'm glad this one's on your side, Prole. As the saying goes: with friends like ggk... As for his quant comp math, well, I'd say 1:13 most certainly is greater than the 1:600,000 example provided by our local mathwiz dimwit.

Ok. But what if they're d -i --a ---g ----o -----n ------a -------l --------?

Nice dodge, moron! It's no surprise to me that you'll say anything convenient that appears to justify your pathetic ideology. You are trolling for the bottom of the barrel. Oh dear, now you're angry. I can tell because you did that changing-the-letters thing in my user name again.

Reading comprehension again, junior. Try to focus on the words "if" and "then". It's not hard--unless you're willfully ignorant. In this instance, the topic is personal responsibility--not infrastructure. As such, it is an exercise you are apparently incapable of understanding.

Or, like mountain climbers, you could just accept a little personal responsibility for the precarious nature of your endeavor and not expect society to jackpot up $8 million when your skinny little tire gets stuck in a bridge grate.

Three words: Chicago South Carolina

You can put away that whole lawyer thang, Matt. This is just a discussion. :kisss:

Can the driver of a car "opt out" of the auto licensing requirement?

Yes. Speculation. But I'd put $$ on it. Given the descriptions I've read--and Jim's post earlier today--I'd have to say that's likely. But who knows?

Fair enough. We disagree for sure. I retired my road bike years ago. The rare occasions that I ride on roads these days find me on my mountain bike. I like being able to get up onto the shoulder if I see/hear trouble coming from behind, and I don't have to worry (as much) about road obstacles/grates/etc. Another little anecdote: My dad has an old 1940's era bicycle in his garage that once belonged to my grandfather. Hanging from the back of the seat is a small, rusty Washington State bicycle license plate.

Yes. Riding a typical road bike on city streets with a 700x23 tire is, I believe, unsafe. The DOT, I presume, has no position on whether or not this is appropriate--since cyclists who ride on public streets don't have to submit to any equipment safety standards. But they should.

License tabs and mandatory rescue insurance for climbers. Mountains aren't "infrastructure". And in any event, we are forced to register and pay a fee these days, no?

The safe biking police? Yes. The same police who enforce behavior for the drivers of automobiles. Who should look out for the welfare of cyclists? Given their inherently vulnerable position on the road, I would think they would self-assume at least as large a degree of risk as the driver of a car--and try to mitigate that risk via their equipment and/or behavior. The fragile wheelsets and skinny tires they ride on would be a good place to start, as would their attitude toward speed.

Bikes vs Cars - who pays? "People who don't drive much -- including most true bike zealots -- significantly subsidize those who drive a lot. And in any kilometre-by-kilometre comparison of city residents who travel exclusively by one mode or the other, drivers tend to pay less than their real costs, while riders pay more." This isn't Canada--where the government never weans its litter.

Not necessarily.

Some friendly advice: Obey traffic laws like the rest of us, and don't run over/into obstacles and expect the rest of us to pick up the bill. License tabs and mandatory liability insurance for road cyclists.

Since even understanding satire isn't one of your strengths, I suppose it was a stretch to believe you could convey it via the written word. Reread your premise, moron.

FYI: Homeowners do pay for sidewalks in most municipalities, but it's understandable that you wouldn't know this.

OMG!!! You are so original, junior! I never even thought of it that way.