rob

I dunno, j_b. Every time *I* challenge you, you respond by calling me a fuckwit, or a douche, or something. And, we don't even disagree on politics!

97.6% of it is a lie.

I digress, but I'm totally reserving "flapping cunt" as the name of my first FA. Did everyone hear that? It's reserved. Thanks.

As pat pointed out, I think most communities with high-speed rail have been pretty happy with their investment.

Is this "Celebrate Naivety Day" or did I get skipped in the toke circle again? We're still reeling from a financial crisis caused by investment banks reaping billions by knowingly selling junk paper and betting against their own customers. The fossil fuel industry is one of dozens that hires "scientists" and lobbyists to knowingly spread misinformation about the impacts of its practices. Corporations are not people and the calculus of profit and growth they're ruled by more often than not doesn't include the kind moral/ethical consciousness or intention you're applying here. I'm not applying conscience or ethics to criminal corporations, but to the many, many well-intentioned citizens who have been mislead by people like Sara Palin, rush Limbaugh, and Glenn beck.

Can you really expect someone to know what they don't know?

I don't understand the right's constant refusal to accept the scientific fact of climate chane. It's weird But, that article is really a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Since it's hard to understand their position, you can make two logical assumptions: 1) They are criminally insane -- i.e. they secretely know they're destroying the environment in exchange for higher profits or 2) they really DON'T believe in climate change, hence their passion -- and they sincerely believe it's the "liburuls" that are actually consciously trying to destroy this country, and so they are "fighting back." I think #2 is more likely, and when you frame the argument that way, you realize these guys are hopelessly misguided, but that they're americans just like you and me. I sincerely believe that most people on the right ACTUALLY THINK they're doing what's best for this country. Their intentions are not bad. So, maybe you can frame them as stupid, or misguided, or whatever, but I don't think that's a very productive way to address the problem. If everybody accuses the other side of being anti-american and of destroying our country, nothing will ever get done, because in reality, neither side is really trying to do that.

To be fair, though, I don't think republicans typically are "against taxation" as much as they are "against waste." I think they would argue taxes could be lower if government were more efficient, and that should be dealt with first. I would arue, of course, that they're just findin an excuse for their selfishness. Or, at least, that's kind of what I've come to assume -- it's burried underneath all that bullshit party politics and hyperbole that keeps everyone at each other's throats and destroys rational discussion on both sides of the aisle. Imagine if people stopped to find common ground, instead of polarizing their opponents? Oops, I mean "opponents."

It's about time. The military took over our country DECADES ago.

Well, our founding fathers didn't need no highways. Slaves and horses were good enough for them, they should be good enough for us. Sink or swim, I've always said. What cracks me up the most is that Republicans are typically the bigest proponents of military spending (by far the BIGGEST chunk of our spending), but they argue we should cut taxes, give money back to the people, etc. And then they have the audacity to point at democrats as "tax and spend" liberals. Isn't tax and spend better than just SPEND?

You could probably change the colors from republican/democrat to populations, and the results would look the same. King County probably pays a lot more taxes than some podunk county in Eastern Wa, for example. And assuming every county is treated equally (probably not true), then the less populous ones would be getting a larger "share" since they didn't pay as much in. Duh. Why don't we get rid of them already, anyway? The republicants over there would probably be much happier being part of Idaho. And, according to this chart, republicans are just costing us money. Wait, if all those republicans became democrats, would they start paying more? Or, taking less? Is that the point? I'm confused.

there is nothing worse than someone who can dish it out but can't take it.

Yeah, I drug my kids, too. Really calms them down.

YOu know what's weird? Politically, you and I are basically the same. Nitrox, FW, et.al. disagree with me just as much as you. And yet, they don't call me a whiny bitch. Why do you think taht is?

AD HOMINEM! AD HOMINEM! JACKBOOT THUG!

kevbone, did your wife use one of those? DOn't they jsut force the kid to bend to your will????

Like Scalia, I'm a strict constitutional originalist. That's why I think the second ammendment absolutely guarantees that every citizen can own a flintlock musket.

Things were AWESOME in the 18th century!!! Let's go back!

Carpooling per capita has dropped to half of what it was in the '80s. People aren't going for it. Latin America has a system of collectivos - small vans that run around everywhere, basically little buses with flexible routes that respond to changes in demand. Seems like a great way to fill that gap between your single occupancy car and a full size bus. I'm imagining a bunch of VW vans with "Ass, gas, or grass - nobody rides for free" stickers. How about substantial tax breaks for people who give up their driver's license?

I wish we could find a way to charge single-occupancy vehicles on the bridge an EXTRA toll, and pump that money into supporting non-automobile forms of transportation. The fact that there is no train between Montlake and Redmond boggles my mind. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people all leaving the same place at the same time and travelling to the same destination? Hello!!! TRAIN!!! Single-occupancy driving should be taboo, like parking in a handicapped spot.

Great! Let's start with our biggest expenditure (hint: it's not trains.)

I'm with you when it comes to the concept that death is better than not living, and I don't have a problem with taking risks. But, your argument sounds retarded.

Huh? Anyone soloing is by definition conservative? Logic fail. Not soloing the pickets traverse = living in a padded whie box? Are you high?

Not all synthetics are bad in fires.