Support NeoGAF

[Stoney Mason]

Well, when you vote, you're not emptying your wallet.

And there are elections that are decided by very few votes. 2000 Florida? What was the separation in that? Just a few hundred votes? Maybe a few thousand? I don't recall. Other elections are closer than that (local ones for example).

Another dude who comes into the thread flailing his arms around madly and not making any points.


Nice.

Btw most conservatives were supposely upset by campaign finance reform because their argument was money given to a candidate was essentially freedom of political speech and should have no limits. So what the hell are you even arguing?

 

[reilo]

Oh my lord.

Holy shit at this segment. Can't believe they went this far :lol

 

[thekad]

What the report where that Heritage Foundation graphic comes from? I want to use it, but I can't just post pictures without the corresponding report. Thanks!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/PDF/C2.pdf

 

[Evlar]

We have a bridge near here, great location crossing a major waterway that at one time divided a county in half. Now, with the bridge in place, the north side of the county can reach the south side in ten minutes instead of 40.

But the bridge is privately bonded and currently has a $2.50 toll, so it's very lightly used (vicinity of four tolls per minute on a bridge that could accommodate fifteen times that- the alternate, much longer public route sees around 150 vehicles per minute). The bridge already exists, obviously. It's sunk cost.

So how the hell is the private bridge more efficient compared to having a public, low-toll or toll-free bridge in the same spot?

 

[Cheebs]

OK, this is insanely cool of Biden

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/06/1358150.aspx

They hope he can return after the election? That implies he'll loose since I doubt a VP can fly to delaware every sunday to teach. :lol

 

[Stoney Mason]

What the report where that Heritage Foundation graphic comes from? I want to use it, but I can't just post pictures without the corresponding report. Thanks!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/fe...8-boc-C2-Government-Spending-Grew-Faster.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/fe...8-boc-C7-Non-Defense-Spending-Growth-Was.html

Search from there.

 

[kaching]

No matter how much you give, your money won't make a difference in the outcome of the election.

If you say so, I'll be fine with having contributed to the message that was sent when Obama out-fundraised McCain's campaign 10 to 1 in the 24 hrs after Palin went attack dog at the RNC.

 

[numble]

They hope he can return after the election? That implies he'll loose since I doubt a VP can fly to delaware every sunday to teach. :lol

Amtrak!

 

[Frank the Great]

I'm so sorry for bringing up the road-discussion. I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to actually defend it. I used it as an extreme example of far-right thinking.

Anyway, private roads would never work for the same reason any necessity-based "free" market would never work. Consumers have no choices in which roads they take, they need to take whatever road that leads to where they are going. It is impossible to make an educated decision on which roads to take based on quality and price.

This would lead to unbelievable price gouging and an eventually monopoly. This would further lead to higher prices and less quality roads.

I mean seriously. Private road system? What planet do these people live on?

 

[Zeliard]

Well, when you vote, you're not emptying your wallet.

And there are elections that are decided by very few votes. 2000 Florida? What was the separation in that? Just a few hundred votes? Maybe a few thousand? I don't recall. Other elections are closer than that (local ones for example).

Individual votes matter, because if everybody simply decided that their vote didn't matter and stayed home, nothing would happen. Same thing with donations. If everybody thought "oh, I'm not going to donate, someone else will and it won't matter", then campaigns would end up with little money as most of their donations come from the general populace. You can't have that sort of "it doesn't matter" mentality. It isn't a waste. It's cliche to say, but every little bit counts.

That also goes for votes for third parties. I've never seen them as a waste, even if the chance of a third party actually coming to power is extremely unlikely in the near future. The only way we'll ever get past a 2-party system in this country is if the third parties become larger and more impactful, and they can't do that without people voting for them and donating to them.

 

[ComputerNerd]

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/new-gop-spin-palins-not-ready.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AV_54517R8

They have some aids advising her about foreign policy. I'm not surprised they're keeping her locked down for a little while until she gets up to speed on her shortcomings. They know once she talks to the press, the first thing they'll ask about is foreign policy. In the meantime, she'll still give stump speeches. We'll see how this plays out.

 

[M3wThr33]

But is she ready to lead?

According to Karl Rove, YES and NO.

 

[adamsappel]

Wait, Biden teaches a law class during the Senate recess? That is so cool.

 

[M3wThr33]

Wait, Biden teaches a law class during the Senate recess? That is so cool.

He HELPS the Community? FUCK HIM.

 

[theviolenthero]

Well, for one, with a toll, the people that use the road are the ones that pay for it. With a tax, I'm paying for highway up in San Fransisco that I'll never use.

And two, private enterprises are more concerned where their money is going. Unlike the government, they normally just don't throw around money hoping something will get done. They make sure it gets done, and in the most cost-efficient manner possible.

There's also many areas where different roads will compete. That will keep toll rates in check.

And three, private roads are better kept than public roads.

I'm sorry, but your response doesn't make any sense at all and is downright silly.

First of all, the actual tolls cost extra money to build,maintain & manage. Imagine the amount of paper work required to deal with "toll jumpers".

Having different private companies own roads would be a fucking nightmare unless there was a universal payment system which would NEVER happen.

You say private roads are better kept than public roads so your admitting that MORE work is done on private roads which would raise cost.

You actually believe private companies are gonna do what's in the best interests of the citizens? :lol


etc,etc,etc....


Certain things should NEVER be opened up to private companies and our road system is one of them.

 

[Zeliard]

Wait, Biden teaches a law class during the Senate recess? That is so cool.

Obama was also a constitutional law professor, though I believe he stopped when he joined the Senate.

 

[CharlieDigital]

if private companies are building roads for public use...won't we need more GOVERNMENT to make sure they're doing it right and not just cost cutting to make a profit?

There's an interesting bit of Chinese history which is relevant to this discussion.

In 221 B.C., the Warring States period came to a sudden end when the kingdom of Qin defeated all its competitor kingdoms and unified the empire.

Indeed, the English word for China derives from the name of the uniting dynasty, the Qin. The Qin were able to conquer their rivals not because of any new technologies but because they found a new way to organize their state. To draw a modern analogy, one could say that the armies of the regional kingdoms all fought with the same hardware -- crossbows, bronze weapons, and armor -- but that the Qin had the advantage of new software -- namely a bureaucracy organized on the basis of merit. The Qin founder followed the teachings of Legalist ministers who advocated the abolition of all privileges of the nobility.

That in itself is interesting, but more relevant to this discussion of private/public roads is how the short lived Qin dynasty revolutionized the Chinese empire and the people of China:

Once he had assumed his new title, the Qin emperor implemented various policies to shore up his power...He unified all measures and imposed a standard currency on the empire....In addition to implementing a unified system of units for length and volume, the new dynasty also specified a national standard gauge for vehicles so that roads could be uniform in width and carts could travel freely throughout the empire.

Perhaps the most striking standardization was that of the script. The Qin reformers introduced a new simpler script called Small Seal script, and they discouraged the use of difference variants of the same character. Because the Qin forbade any writing in regional or popular variants, the rulers ensured that linguistic unity would continue even when the empire was no longer unified.

The Qin dynasty also organized the population into massive public works projects. In the twelve years before the Qin emperor's death in 210 B.C., laborers built a network of roads over 6,800 kilometers (4000 miles) long which rivaled the road system of the Romans...

While the Qin dynasty is remembered in history as one of the most brutal and ruthless regimes (it only lasted 14 years), today, China takes its namesake from the dynasty in part because of the significant changes brought about in standardization and government mandated public works projects (and of course, you know, that whole unification thing). The works of the Qin dynasty modernized China and allowed the next dynasty to prosper and last -- I believe -- for 200+ years. It had many socialist aspects based on the philosophy of Legalism and it is one of the defining moments in the history of China.

 

[Frank the Great]

For every dollar your state sends to DC, here's how much you get back:

District of Columbia $6.64
New Mexico 1.91
Alaska 1.80
West Virginia 1.75
Mississppi 1.70
Alabama 1.64
North Dakota 1.64
Virginia 1.60
Hawaii 1.54
Montana 1.51
Arkansas 1.43
Oklahoma 1.43
South Dakota 1.43
Kentucky 1.41
Louisiana 1.41
Maryland 1.41
Maine 1.36
South Carolina 1.35
Tennessee 1.29
Arizona 1.28
Missouri 1.27
Idaho 1.25
Utah 1.14
Kansas 1.11
Vermont 1.11
Iowa 1.10
North Carolina 1.10
Wyoming 1.09
Pennsylvania 1.07
Nebraska 1.06
Rhode Island 1.03
Ohio 1.02
Florida 1.01

Donor States
Georgia 0.99
Indiana 0.99
Texas 0.98
Oregon 0.97
Washington 0.91
Michigan 0.88
Wisconsin 0.85
Colorado 0.84
New York 0.84
California 0.83
Delaware 0.83
Massachusetts 0.82
Nevada 0.78
Illinois 0.77
Connecticut 0.73
Minnesota 0.73
New Hampshire 0.73
New Jersey 0.63

Lol New Jersey. I love my state

PS. I had no idea Biden was a teacher as well!

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Wait, Biden teaches a law class during the Senate recess? That is so cool.

I'm quoting this in order to see in what world does some one Biden's qualifications get bested by someone of Palin's qualifications?

 

[Zeliard]

He HELPS the Community? FUCK HIM.

 

[Cheebs]

I'm quoting this in order to see in what world does some one Biden's qualifications get bested by someone of Palin's qualifications?

Being in the PTA = teaching a college course

 

[thekad]

CharilieDigital: I have no idea why you dug 400 years into China's history when you could just look into our own history 150 or so years ago to completely obliterate the libertarian argument for a privatized road system. But I like your dedication.

 

[no_to_co]

For every dollar your state sends to DC, here's how much you get back:

District of Columbia $6.64
New Mexico 1.91
Alaska 1.80
West Virginia 1.75
Mississppi 1.70
Alabama 1.64
North Dakota 1.64
Virginia 1.60
Hawaii 1.54
Montana 1.51
Arkansas 1.43
Oklahoma 1.43
South Dakota 1.43
Kentucky 1.41
Louisiana 1.41
Maryland 1.41
Maine 1.36
South Carolina 1.35
Tennessee 1.29
Arizona 1.28
Missouri 1.27
Idaho 1.25
Utah 1.14
Kansas 1.11
Vermont 1.11
Iowa 1.10
North Carolina 1.10
Wyoming 1.09
Pennsylvania 1.07
Nebraska 1.06
Rhode Island 1.03
Ohio 1.02
Florida 1.01

Donor States
Georgia 0.99
Indiana 0.99
Texas 0.98
Oregon 0.97
Washington 0.91
Michigan 0.88
Wisconsin 0.85
Colorado 0.84
New York 0.84
California 0.83
Delaware 0.83
Massachusetts 0.82
Nevada 0.78
Illinois 0.77
Connecticut 0.73
Minnesota 0.73
New Hampshire 0.73
New Jersey 0.63

The Blue states are subsidizing the Red states. How awesome is that!!

 

[Frank the Great]

The Blue states are subsidizing the Red states. How awesome is that!!

http://fuckthesouth.com/

 

[CharlieDigital]

CharilieDigital: I have no idea why you dug 400 years into China's history when you could just look into our own history 150 or so years ago to completely obliterate the libertarian argument for a privatized road system. But I like your dedication.

It's my unique perspective I have a thing for ancient Chinese history (I get a hard on for it and Chinese philosophy) and the Qin, while short lived, was one of the most important in that it unified China, standardized language, currency, and measures, and it also implemented massive public works projects which modernized China at the time and allowed for unprecedented commerce.

I guess my take from this is that at some key junctures in history, you need big government to make progress.

 

[Slurpy]

It was just some advice. I'm not forcing him to do anything.

I've just thought that giving money to political candidates to be a waste of money. I've never given money to a political campaign, and I never will.

No matter how much you give, your money won't make a difference in the outcome of the election.

God forbid someone donates their money to a cause they believe in, to something which will have the largest single impact on this country. This is coming from someone who wants to cut things like education and all social services simply to expand the military and wage more wars. You're an embarrassment.

 

[Frank the Great]

It's my unique perspective I have a thing for ancient Chinese history (I get a hard on for it and Chinese philosophy) and the Qin, while short lived, was one of the most important in that it unified China, standardized language, currency, and measures, and it also implemented massive public works projects which modernized China at the time and allowed for unprecedented commerce.

Who would win in a fight, Qin China or Augustus' Rome?

 

[CharlieDigital]

Who would win in a fight, Qin China or Augustus' Rome?

My ancient Greek/Roman/Anglo history is terrible, so I couldn't tell ya' :lol

 

[gkryhewy]

Who would win in a fight, Qin China or Augustus' Rome?

Augustus' Rome was at the peak of its power, wasn't it? And Qin's China was just getting started as an empire. Certainly Rome.

 

[CharlieDigital]

http://fuckthesouth.com/

:lol that's awesome

No, No. Get the fuck out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell and fucking Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your real American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who do you think those fucking stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for fucking blue states. And it would be 10 if those Vermonters had gotten their fucking Subarus together and broken off from New York a little earlier. Get it? We started this shit, so don't get all uppity about how real you are you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh I've been a state for almost a hundred years" dickheads. Fuck off.

 

[NetMapel]

Augustus' Rome was at the peak of its power, wasn't it? And Qin's China was just getting started as an empire. Certainly Rome.

Both would lose to Genghis Khan

 

[kevm3]

The dems really need to go after Palin for the exile in Alaska ordeal. If Palin isn't prepared to meet face to face with a CNN reporter, how will she be ready to stare in the eyes of a Vladmir Putin or a Kim il Jong in moments of pressing national and international security? Is this what is called "ready to lead"?

The Dems need to get Palin now before the repubs can establish an image of her. This is the easiest time to handle the Palin factor, which isthe biggest wildcard in this election.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Again: Anything good that happens while a Democrat is President is credited to the previous Republican President. Anything bad that happens while a Republican is President is the fault of the previous Democrat President.

Oh and there's always Gingrich.

1. The economy Clinton inherited: Shultz's contention that Clinton "inherited prosperity" is misleading; an objective assessment of late 1992 and early 1993 reveals a weak and highly uncertain economic environment.

Overall economic growth was extremely shaky in late 1992 and early 1993: GDP growth when President Clinton took office in the first quarter of 1993 was essentially flat – recorded as negative for most of the last decade, and revised to an extremely anemic 0.5 percent growth in a benchmark revision in December 2003. [BEA]

The unemployment rate stayed persistently high during 1992 and early 1993: Shultz's piece conveniently chose to ignore the unemployment rate, which hovered in the 7.6-7.8 percent range for much of 1992 and was at 7.3 percent when President Clinton took office. [BLS]

In some states unemployment was 10 percent or higher: For example, in West Virginia the unemployment rate in January 1993 was a whopping 11.1 percent and in California it was 9.7 percent. [BLS]

Whi le job growth resumed in 1992, it was anemic: Average monthly job growth in 1992 was 118,000, half the 236,000 monthly job growth averaged for all eight years of the Clinton presidency. [BLS]

Many of the nation's top economic analysts concurred with the interpretation of a weak and uncertain economy in the second half of 1992:

James Cooper and Kathleen Madigan, Business Week: "To be sure, President-elect Bill Clinton inherits a struggling economy." [BusinessWeek 11/23/92

Bruce Steinberg, Merrill Lynch: "The economy is comatose and shows only the faintest signs of life right now." [Quoted in the Washington Post, 9/26/92]

Allen Sinai: "There are real signs here that the economy is sliding badly, surprisingly badly." [Quoted in the Washington Post, 9/26/92]

Fortune Magazine's Annual Economic Forecast: 11/2/92 "Everywhere executives are grumbling in disappointment – they had expected things to be better by now…The economy could be even weaker than the official figures show."

Washington Post, article by Steven Mufson and John Berry, 9/10/92: "Americans have been unable to mount a convincing economic recovery … the economy is crawling forward so slowly that it appears to be standing still … In some statistical categories .. there has even been a "triple dip."

.

 

[FightyF]

The dems really need to go after Palin for the exile in Alaska ordeal. If Palin isn't prepared to meet face to face with a CNN reporter, how will she be ready to stare in the eyes of a Vladmir Putin or a Kim il Jong in moments of pressing national and international security? Is this what is called "ready to lead"?

The Dems need to get Palin now before the repubs can establish an image of her. This is the easiest time to handle the Palin factor, which isthe biggest wildcard in this election.

Heh, you keep repeating this over and over. I do agree, I just find it funny how you're posting it over and over.

IMO they just have to keep it simple. She's Cheney 2.0. Cheney was also known as ruthless, vengeful, all that jazz. She's the female version.

 

[gkryhewy]

1. The economy Clinton inherited: Shultz's contention that Clinton "inherited prosperity" is misleading; an objective assessment of late 1992 and early 1993 reveals a weak and highly uncertain economic environment.

Overall economic growth was extremely shaky in late 1992 and early 1993: GDP growth when President Clinton took office in the first quarter of 1993 was essentially flat – recorded as negative for most of the last decade, and revised to an extremely anemic 0.5 percent growth in a benchmark revision in December 2003. [BEA]

The unemployment rate stayed persistently high during 1992 and early 1993: Shultz's piece conveniently chose to ignore the unemployment rate, which hovered in the 7.6-7.8 percent range for much of 1992 and was at 7.3 percent when President Clinton took office. [BLS]

In some states unemployment was 10 percent or higher: For example, in West Virginia the unemployment rate in January 1993 was a whopping 11.1 percent and in California it was 9.7 percent. [BLS]

Whi le job growth resumed in 1992, it was anemic: Average monthly job growth in 1992 was 118,000, half the 236,000 monthly job growth averaged for all eight years of the Clinton presidency. [BLS]

Many of the nation's top economic analysts concurred with the interpretation of a weak and uncertain economy in the second half of 1992:

James Cooper and Kathleen Madigan, Business Week: "To be sure, President-elect Bill Clinton inherits a struggling economy." [BusinessWeek 11/23/92

Bruce Steinberg, Merrill Lynch: "The economy is comatose and shows only the faintest signs of life right now." [Quoted in the Washington Post, 9/26/92]

Allen Sinai: "There are real signs here that the economy is sliding badly, surprisingly badly."

.

I see you have now done your homework!

 

[Stoney Mason]

1. The economy Clinton inherited: Shultz's contention that Clinton "inherited prosperity" is misleading; an objective assessment of late 1992 and early 1993 reveals a weak and highly uncertain economic environment.

Overall economic growth was extremely shaky in late 1992 and early 1993: GDP growth when President Clinton took office in the first quarter of 1993 was essentially flat – recorded as negative for most of the last decade, and revised to an extremely anemic 0.5 percent growth in a benchmark revision in December 2003. [BEA]

The unemployment rate stayed persistently high during 1992 and early 1993: Shultz's piece conveniently chose to ignore the unemployment rate, which hovered in the 7.6-7.8 percent range for much of 1992 and was at 7.3 percent when President Clinton took office. [BLS]

In some states unemployment was 10 percent or higher: For example, in West Virginia the unemployment rate in January 1993 was a whopping 11.1 percent and in California it was 9.7 percent. [BLS]

Whi le job growth resumed in 1992, it was anemic: Average monthly job growth in 1992 was 118,000, half the 236,000 monthly job growth averaged for all eight years of the Clinton presidency. [BLS]

Many of the nation's top economic analysts concurred with the interpretation of a weak and uncertain economy in the second half of 1992:

James Cooper and Kathleen Madigan, Business Week: "To be sure, President-elect Bill Clinton inherits a struggling economy." [BusinessWeek 11/23/92

Bruce Steinberg, Merrill Lynch: "The economy is comatose and shows only the faintest signs of life right now." [Quoted in the Washington Post, 9/26/92]

Allen Sinai: "There are real signs here that the economy is sliding badly, surprisingly badly."

.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7834571&postcount=9

 

[Gantz]

 

[Cloudy]

Anyone else just see the Q&A session with Obama at the AARP convention? A lot of good answers/proposals and they started chanting "Obama" at the end. McCain coming up now. He better bring it to top that...

 

[kevm3]

Heh, you keep repeating this over and over. I do agree, I just find it funny how you're posting it over and over.

IMO they just have to keep it simple. She's Cheney 2.0. Cheney was also known as ruthless, vengeful, all that jazz. She's the female version.

Yeah, I don't mean to be annoying about it, but it's just something that needs to be done. Posted a similar line ofthinking on Obama's myspace, but I doubt he reads that.

 

[Macam]

Biden teaches a class on "Selected Topics in Constitutional Law" and has been since 1991. I read the story on Roll Call when it was posted, but the site, which is quite good for Congressional news bits, is also behind a paid firewall for older articles, so you'll have to be a member to see the original story which is linked at the bottom of the Raw Story website. Unfortunately, the Raw Story article tints the picture a bit unfavorably when the article itself was rather neutral. Nonetheless, the basic points are there.

And I'm not entirely sure what went on for the last ten or so pages, but I would suggest avoiding placing too much optimism solely on an Obama presidency or too much cynicism on any changing of the guard, regardless of party. Government is largely ineffective because people have tuned out for so long and let politicians slide and not be held accountable. So if you just cast a vote and consider your job done or just think it's all pointless and do nothing, then you're going to be disappointed.

 

[Tamanon]

Well that's certainly uncalled for.

 

[maximum360]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&em&oref=login

Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?

By ALAN S. BLINDER
Published: August 30, 2008

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Where's the conservative/Libertarian defense force?

 

[sc0la]

Yeah that gif is putrid. not funny and I HATE his current campaign and ticket.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Well that's certainly uncalled for.

Unfortunately some people never seem to understand the line and what is over it which drove me away in the Hillary Clinton days.

 

[maximum360]

Yeah that gif is putrid. not funny and I HATE his current campaign and ticket.

Agreed. It's especially crude. I'd leave that stuff up to elements in the other party.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Holy shit at the spending/revenue graphs! I favorited those two. This country would be far better off with a democrat in the WH than a republican. :lol

EDIT-and thanks to everyone with the voter's registration chart. You guys are giving me a shitload of ammunition!

 

[Clevinger]

It's to be expected from an Itagaki fan.

 

[ComputerNerd]

I'm so sorry for bringing up the road-discussion. I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to actually defend it. I used it as an extreme example of far-right thinking.

Anyway, private roads would never work for the same reason any necessity-based "free" market would never work. Consumers have no choices in which roads they take, they need to take whatever road that leads to where they are going. It is impossible to make an educated decision on which roads to take based on quality and price.

This would lead to unbelievable price gouging and an eventually monopoly. This would further lead to higher prices and less quality roads.

I mean seriously. Private road system? What planet do these people live on?

For very short trips, you can likely get on and off the highway before you hit the wireless toll booth. The 73 near my area, for example. There's several miles of it I can ride on without hitting the booth.

As for monopolies on areas, if one road is charging too much and gets too much traffic, you can bet somebody else will go "Hey, I want a piece of that pie", and build a competing road/bridge/whatever. That would force down the prices.

I think this would also solve a lot of our congestion issues. In my area, there's heavy congestion on the 91. And I mean HEAVY. It's bumper-to-bumper for like 15 miles. To solve that issue, I say hey, let's privatize the 91, which they can probably sell for like a billion dollars, and let another company build a tunnel through the Ortegas (which is currently under consideration, along with double-decking the 91. I don't think they're considering the private option however. They actually want to spend 10 billion tax payer dollars on it.)

 

[Stoney Mason]

Holy shit at the spending/revenue graphs! I favorited those two. This country would be far better off with a democrat in the WH than a republican. :lol

EDIT-and thanks to everyone with the voter's registration chart. You guys are giving me a shitload of ammunition!

That's why republicans in recent history can never run on their actual record. It's always about what they would do if only they had power when they've had the exact power they are talking about. That's why the Mccain argument is so phony. He's been there the whole time. He voted with a bush a good deal of the time. And on the instances where he didn't he has flipped back to Bush orthodoxy for the election. Baffling.

 

[Zeliard]

That's why republicans in recent history can never run on their actual record. It's always about what they would do if only they had power when they've had the exact power they are talking about.

It was very amusing to hear the establishment railing against "the establishment" at the RNC.