Rudy is really shitty. I'm still pissed off at him. How can you be a mayor from fucking New York and mock community organizing/activism. What a piece of shit. You have to be lower than scum to come from New York City and mock that kind of thing. Did you not live here, bub?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Stoney Mason
Banned
Y2Kev said:
And sadly I kinda liked Rudy. He seemed to me to be the way forward for Republicans. Less socially crazy. But instead he has done nothing but embarrass himself since he started running.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Hey guys. Do you any of you have a source that says Obama would elect supreme court justices to interpret the law? Thanks.
adamsappel
Member
You haven't even the vaguest concept of what it costs to build a road, do you? Nor even how it would be possible to just put in another road to compete with an existing one.ComputerNerd said:
Stoney Mason said:
A little bit less socially crazy, but still more fucked up than some who are more right-wing. The man not only mocked community organizing, but also mocked the fact that some are offended by the term "Islamic terrorist" and actually said that the term is an insult to terrorists if anything. He's indefensible, and a monster of a human being.
teruterubozu
Member
Stoney Mason said:
I think Biden's "A noun, a verb, and 9/11" just crushed him.
quadriplegicjon said:
It's just like anytime the media interviews anyone from the McCain camp, they don't answer questions, they just constantly spit out talking points and belittle Obama.
I wonder how many times the GOP can trick the American people with the exact same message of 'shaking things up' 'reforming' 'challenging the washington way' , etc?
ComputerNerd
Banned
Evlar said:
Well, the public road is cheating. It's funded by tax dollars, while the other one is funded by people using the bridge.
When I say more efficient, I mean more efficient in building it. That doesn't negate the fact that it's hard for a private road to compete with a "free" road, which is subsidized.
The costs of the "free" road are hidden from the public. Thus they can get away with spending pretty much whatever they want. And the public choose it because it's "free". If they actually had to pay for the road's maintenance/initial building costs when they use it, then they may choose differently.
Same goes for the US Postal Service. Why don't UPS or Fedex do regular slow letter-sized mail like the USPS? Because it's hard to compete with a money-losing subsidized government division that doesn't care about how much it spends. So they have to specialize in packages, and express delivery.
Stoney Mason
Banned
teruterubozu said:
Republicans never seem to understand that less can be more. I know Rudy is a controversial figure even on how he handled 9/11 pre and post event but most Americans I'm guessing would be still eager to embrace him for it because of how absent Bush was on that day. Just be a little reserved about the whole thing. Instead he thinks he has to remind us every second of every minute of who he is and why he is on the national stage. It's not even good politics.
And he thinks the bible thumpers in that party will ever except his statements on being pro-choice and pro-gay rights in some cases. He's simply a medal for that party to take out of the desk and wear occasionally and then pitch back into the closet to dig up later if they need it. So weird.
ComputerNerd
Banned
LuCkymoON said:
The economy is stronger now than it was 8 years ago. The GDP is higher. Wages are higher. The stock market is higher. Home prices are higher.
What's happening now is a bubble burst. But even with the bubble burst, we're still better off than we were 8 years ago (when another bubble was starting to burst).
Deus Ex Machina
Member
Anyone have a live stream?Cloudy said:
Tax cuts to the wealthy don't really stimulate the economy to the extent that giving them to the middle and lower class does. Why? The concept of a trickle down economy is ridiculous. The wealthy have a predisposition to hold on to as much wealth as possible. It's how they came to have so much money in the first place. They have much more money than they need to 'survive', and they'll likely just add the cuts to their already healthy reserves.
Trickle down economy is more like a feast for the wealthy, who also take home the leftovers, while knocking crumbs off the table for the rest of the population. Giving tax cuts to the middle and lower class stimulate the economy much more because they actually SPEND their money. When you spend your money, you stimulate businesses, because money is actually changing hands. So although the rich may be taxed more, they may eventually come out making more because people are spending more at their businesses.
Trickle down economy is more like a feast for the wealthy, who also take home the leftovers, while knocking crumbs off the table for the rest of the population. Giving tax cuts to the middle and lower class stimulate the economy much more because they actually SPEND their money. When you spend your money, you stimulate businesses, because money is actually changing hands. So although the rich may be taxed more, they may eventually come out making more because people are spending more at their businesses.
ComputerNerd said:
The things you believe are simply wrong. Endlessly repeating them does not make them correct. On your bold point above, in most cases, "more efficient" would mean not being built, because most road/highway/bridge/rail projects can NOT generate enough revenue from tolls to pay for their initial construction and upkeep. Not even close. The major facilities that are being leased to private interests in various parts of the country have already been built, meaning that the private interests are simply taking over management and operations.
You might say that they then shouldn't be built, but this ignores the dramatic multipliers that most infrastructure expenditures generate in the form of land development, economic activity, and jobs.
In short, your fantasyworld answer would result in a much less competitive United States, when every other economic power is investing (yes, investing) dramatically in precisely these sorts of facilities.
Stop thinking based on conservative talking points.
ComputerNerd
Banned
adamsappel said:
The 2nd road would be built if the first one is making good money. And yes, I know how much it costs to build a road.
adamsappel said:
I don't have a problem with it, but I do censor a bit because some don't even like to read it. People have told me to pipe it down a little. Honestly, I'm trying to watch how many times I swear. Sad to see words like these have somehow become offensive. I like them for their emotional impact. Kind of hard to convey the same meaning in other words.
Haunted
Member
On a totally unrelated sidenote I've just seen a small roundtable with a financial focus on TV here (Germany), and the financial experts pretty much said outright that many people in the business hope that McCain wins this election, as the weak US dollar and the weak American economy in general are putting Europe in a more advantageous position in the marketplace.
The overall prediction is that a president Obama would certainly strengthen the US economy, whereas McCain would continue on the downhill course set by the Republicans.
Machiavellian fucks.
The overall prediction is that a president Obama would certainly strengthen the US economy, whereas McCain would continue on the downhill course set by the Republicans.
Machiavellian fucks.
:OFrank the Great said:
ComputerNerd said:
No, you clearly have no idea. Adding a High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lane to a highway, for example, typically results in the tolls paying for ~15-25% of the annualized cost of adding the lane IIRC. That's just a highway lane expansion, and it still isn't even close.
I'm sure you'll say that the tolls should just be increased! But again, this would result in no projects ever happening, and a significant retardation of growth.
typhonsentra
Banned
I just got back from Barnes and Noble where I saw the first biography about Palin. It's 160 pages long including fairly large font, the appendix, and pages upon pages of color pictures. :lol
People complain about Obama being unknown but for both negative and positive books about him I've never seen one THAT brief. It's like, a little longer than a Goosebumps iteration. :lol
People complain about Obama being unknown but for both negative and positive books about him I've never seen one THAT brief. It's like, a little longer than a Goosebumps iteration. :lol
Zeliard said:
The media's corporate sponsors want big tax cuts, and the vast majority of Americans would support Obama's tax plan if they actually understood what Obama and McCain are proposing, so they let the lie that Obama wants to raise taxes on families making 40k a year go unchallenged.
worldrunover
Member
Cloudy said:
He did the same thing at the church event...
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Look what email I just received. Guess what? I turned to Snopes!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp
:lol :lol
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp
:lol :lol
Cloudy said:
That's exactly what he did at the Saddleback forum that people lavished him with praise for, he took whatever general subject the question was and pasted his stump speech dealing with that there, which meant that the answers a lot of times just vaguely referenced the questions.
ComputerNerd
Banned
gkrykewy said:
What talking points? I'm not using any talking points.
If a highway/rail or whatever will boost the economy, then that means that it will be used. And if it gets used enough, should be able to recoup its costs.
Most infrastructure investments don't break even until years down the road. That's to be expected when they take out the bonds.
WickedAngel
Banned
Cooter said:
So you believe it's a coincidence that the Republicans have lied constantly (With impunity) since the beginning of the RNC.
Whatever you say, pumpkin.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Cloudy said:
I second this motion.
Privatization of roads would be disasterous in my estimation. Firstly, you have the issue of land rights. There's no reason corporations or even individual land owners would be guaranteed to work together to produce the shortest distance between two points-- a straight line. This means that corporations may have to make roads that curve around land that they don't own becuase another corporation or individual land owner doesn't want to sell.
Another problem is that itwould be impossible to get to a destination that isn't deemed to be revenue heavy, because there simply would be no incentive to build a road there.
The third problem that pops up is that this would greatly decrease productivity. In general, it would mean American travellers would take much longer to get to any destination. This could affect the delivery of freight for example. Toll roads all over the place would produce numerous traffic jams. A steady 60 MPH vs. having to come to a complete stop and waiting for a bar to raise?
Another problem is that itwould be impossible to get to a destination that isn't deemed to be revenue heavy, because there simply would be no incentive to build a road there.
The third problem that pops up is that this would greatly decrease productivity. In general, it would mean American travellers would take much longer to get to any destination. This could affect the delivery of freight for example. Toll roads all over the place would produce numerous traffic jams. A steady 60 MPH vs. having to come to a complete stop and waiting for a bar to raise?
There's so much urban planning, community inputting and development masterplanning that privatizing roads is just simply ridiculous. What if the second road goes against the original development master plan of the area ? I highly doubt even the government can just start constructing a road if they suddenly feel like it without much planning ahead of the time. Roads serve the public interest, not a private company's financial bottom line.ComputerNerd said:
ComputerNerd said:
No. By talking points, I mean that you're arguing from an ideological fantasyland with no correspondence with reality. Your examples are all IFs and SHOULDs, but I'm telling you from the perspective of a transportation professional that they're AREN'Ts.
Major highway/rail projects would require staggering tolls to recoup their costs, which would mean they would not be used, which would mean they don't get built. If private interests were banging down the doors of government to pay for infrastructure projects, believe me, they would be welcomed with open arms.
ComputerNerd
Banned
kevm3 said:
For 1) That issue stands right now anyway. That's been an issue since forever, and won't change with privatization.
For 2) If there's no incentive to build a road/rail there, then it shouldn't be built. Less needless road building.
For 3) The new toll roads don't require you to stop. FastTrack is a wireless tolling system, and all of the new toll roads that I know of use it. The 91 Express Lanes were the first to use it, back in 1995. You just drive through at regular speed, and it beeps. Done. If you don't have FastTrack, then it snaps a picture of your license plate and sends you the bill.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Macam said:
I received a chain mail that said Obama is against justices that interpret the law, and will make its own laws. Yes, I know it's false, but I'd like some information on his position.
Ok, I know words like "idiot" have been thrown around a lot in this thread, but please believe I mean no hyperbole when I say treating roads like a competitive market is completely retarded, about as utterly and mindblowingly stupid as embedding multiple water pipes underground to every house to provide choice in running water.
Roads aren't widgets people pick up and take home, they are travel routes. Efficiency of their use is a matter of empirical optimization, not choice. Building multiple roads to connect two points with the expectation that one eventually wins out is inherently less efficient, not more. Now, things get a little more complicated when you factor the array of roads necessary to construct a transportation system that serves a populated area as well as varying levels of traffic congestion, but it remains a problem of planned optimization.
Roads aren't widgets people pick up and take home, they are travel routes. Efficiency of their use is a matter of empirical optimization, not choice. Building multiple roads to connect two points with the expectation that one eventually wins out is inherently less efficient, not more. Now, things get a little more complicated when you factor the array of roads necessary to construct a transportation system that serves a populated area as well as varying levels of traffic congestion, but it remains a problem of planned optimization.
Cooter said:
It's not a conspiracy. It's blatant and out in the open. Look at how the credit card companies axed the Mythbusters show on RFID security as a recent example. Television networks are funded by big corporate advertisers. They twist or bury information that is inconvenient to the interests of those sponsors or they lose their business, whether it's oil companies and offshore drilling, health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals and public health care, etc. It doesn't matter how many networks there are when they're all beholden to the same interests. You can't have a healthy flow of information in a society that doesn't have a well-funded public media to counterbalance private media, and the United States doesn't have it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked