tvashtarkatena

You invade Iraq. Suicide bombing, which never occurred there before, is now rampant. Who to blame? Complicated world.

You seem to share JosephH's similarly effective power of persuasion.

Your PM history is of zero interest to me, or anyone else, I'd wager. As I said, you've logged your opinion regarding what adds value where in your typically patronizing manner, and you've been appropriately told to fuck off, end of story. Pretty simple, really. You just need to accept 'no' for an answer, however emotionally difficult that may be for you.

Any comparison of transportation that includes only federal subsidies, rather than state and local (which pay for most roads), is silly. Cherry picking alert! Why is it that nearly every one of your posts features some glaringly obvious rhetoric trick? Your either dishonest or just not very good at debate and analysis.

Joseph, While I can imagine how someone who struggles with control issues might project some larger agenda, I 'dealt efficiently' only with your inappropriate pm. By all means, feel free to imagine some larger conspiracy if that helps keep your ego inflated.

Chrysler bailout

To argue that the government has never executed a successful large scale infrastructure program requires a lot of make believe, given evidence to the contrary. When the mythical free market solution doesn't appear, this leaves its proponents groping for the nearest silver sound byte.

Sucks to argue against libruls. We check our facts.

Next up on the Tea Party Hour: The Sacred Infallibility of the Founding Fathers!

yah, public subsidies of rail networks have been retarded. Look how well the Western US developed without them. lulz. Now back to plowing billions into roads with a negative ROI! The difference being that rail use in the infancy of this country was a private endeavor. I don't think there are any cost neutral commuter train systems in the US, Amtrac being another example. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to spending the money but I'm not willing to do so under the pretense that we're going make/save money and certainly not if we just have to borrow more from the Chinese. One isn't entitled to one's own facts: Oops - history of the pacific railroad "the bill authorizing the construction of the Pacific Railroad which was adopted by Congress in 1862" Between land grants, lax labor and immigration policies, and helpfully clearing indians out of the way, the Pacific Railroad was almost completely paid for by public money. It took all of two minutes to send that Nitrox gem down the shitter. Next.... As with most historically and analytically challenged tea party parrots, Nitrox seems stumped by even the simplest 'real' question.

Also, kinda waiting on an answer about the grid. If you guys wanna just troll with each other, that's fine, too.

Light rail is also intended not just to move people around - it's designed to promote urban density along more efficient corridors, thus reducing the incentives for creating more costly, environmentally disastrous sprawl. Historically, light rail has been very successful at this.

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.

no public transportation system pays for itself. Roads are the worst - unless they are one of the few toll roads in the US (which have their own set of problems). The trouble is, light rail cost benefit analysis typically include buses, but not the cost of autos and roads. Buses always fair better than light rail in a cost/benefit, but buses a) still require road maintenance b) burn way more fuel c) are slow and subject to road closures and d) are crowded and smell like piss. Still, they are obviously more flexible than rail. When one compares ALL transportation alternatives, individual cars and the roads needed for them cost the state, the environment, and consumers far more per passenger mile than any other alternative. People are willing to pay this premium for the freedom to travel (often at a snail's pace through gridlock) wherever whenever. That's a choice, but a more expensive one. Furthermore, most light rail systems in the world have been a fantastic success. Citing Portland's current shortfall of $50 million or so for their new east side extension due to the drying up of federal funds does little to counter the overwhelmingly positive experience most cities, including Portland, have had with their light rail systems.

I'm talking about a hypothetical investment in a new grid, which would almost certainly produce a very rapid payback. Spend 60 billion on a modernized, optimized grid, or draw down the debt? That's my question for youz.

If the spending project was a new grid, with aforementioned rapid payback, would you support it?

Friendship. Tough concept for some. Anyway, now that CC's least welcome house guest is here to address these important issues with everyone, I'll slip off to my next appointment.

Well you've been a tool about all this, and to a pretty decent fellow. Colorado seems to do that to people I've noticed. And I've heard even dads and Coloradans can use CC's PM feature from the comfort of their very own spraypits.

Businesses take on additional debt for a variety of good reasons. Investing in efficiency, which reduces costs and/or increases revenue is one. If eliminating debt was always the best choice, then you should write a big fat check to your mortgage provider today.

If u really wanted to conduct a real discussion about FAs n bolting, rather than stroke your own vastly inflated sense of self importance, you'd choose a more private forum than this shitfest, no? This is more about your braying your displeasure, apparently easily aroused given your baroque personal tastes which you prefer to adorn with the word 'ethics'. You've confused the general lack of concern regarding your personal preferences with a lack of concern for beacon. Let your ego soar, by all means. I replied to one poster here because I thought things were getting petty. That poster was not you. Now, I understand that you have some control issues, and that this tick causes you to inject yourself where you're neither needed or wanted, so I dealt with you in an appropriately efficient manner. You'll live. Get over it.

No, don't go on, you're not going to shake Jay's myopic American viewpoint.

My point is that I find the controversy surrounding Stone Soup a tempest in a teacup, and that those who invest a significant amount of emotion in the naming, first ascent history, or bolt count really, really need to find a more worthy cause for you apparently underemployed passions. Now, because I was, by pure accident of invitation, part of the first ascent party, and because the route's creator happens to be a close friend, here I am, like it or not. You've expressed your dislike, you've been kindly told to fuck off, so any more discussion on this from you is frankly pointless.

Anyway, please, continue your caring....

Oh, I think you've been caring about more than just Beacon tonight, eh Joseph? Yes, just a wee bit of indulgence on your part on the old PM front, no? But hey, ya got that last word in brah!

That makes two of us, I guess.