RE: Infrastructure Spending

RE: Infrastructure Spending (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

GotSteel -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 3:07:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Honest, helpful advice isn't the same as an ad hominem And the same advice applies to you, as well That's not logic you're pulling out of your ass, that's a turd. It would help if you were capable of differentiating the two.

Sanity -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 3:10:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel That's not logic you're pulling out of your ass, that's a turd. It would help if you were capable of differentiating the two. Thank you for again demonstrating how my advice to you to grow up was absolutely spot on

Gauge -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 3:33:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Thank you for again demonstrating how my advice to you to grow up was absolutely spot on Need more time for those solutions? Man... I bet, when you do post them, they not only are going to be massive ideas, but lots of explanations on how to get it done. I applaud you for your integrity and dedication. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4734234

Gauge -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 3:37:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Would you recommend an extensive toll system instead? Nope. Tax to be paid every year for every road registered vehicle, collected when your registration comes due. And we can also keep the gas tax where it is right now. And toll for entry from either border for vehicles... if that isn't already done.

GotSteel -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 4:18:59 PM)
In reality an ad hominem fallacy is when: quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+hominem 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering an argument. It doesn't matter if you consider it honest, helpful or any other thing it doesn't even matter if what you are saying is factually demonstrably true the moment you start talking about me to justify avoiding my argument you are committing an ad hominem fallacy. Or expressed in common colloquial parlance it's a turd: quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Turd 2. An expression of worthlessness You certainly didn't get your opinion regarding ad hominem from anywhere as what you're doing is a classic ad hominem. Colloquially stated it's another turd and to express how this has happened colloquially it is of course because you're pulling it out of your ass. Where the expression pulling it out of your ass means: quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pull%20it%20out%20of%20my%20ass When you have no time, are unprepared, or don't know what you're doing... You're pulling it out of your ass. Commonly used in situations where a person may have procrastinated or waited until the last minute to prepare anything, or is put in position where they must perform or answer questions on things they have no idea about. So you see no matter how many turds you pull out of your ass it's never going to add up to a valid argument.

TheHeretic -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 6:30:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You do know we all lived through 2009 right? Sober up. Why yes, Ken, we do recall 2009. Complete Democrat control of the House, Senate, and White House. Yet there you were, whining about what the "cons" wouldn't allow. What unmitigated bullshit. Sober? Oh yeah. It must be hard for you, when I mention frosty cold beer, or a good bourbon whiskey, or how nicely a blended margarita compliments a spicy Mexican dinner, or the art of having a 3-day bender in Vegas, and waking up for the drive home without even the slightest hint of a hangover. One great thing about drinking so much less than I did in my youth is that I can afford much better stuff than back in the day. For normal people, moderate alcohol consumption has a number of positive health benefits, assuming they are capable of drinking responsibly. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

DomKen -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 8:13:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You do know we all lived through 2009 right? Sober up. Why yes, Ken, we do recall 2009. Complete Democrat control of the House, Senate, and White House. Yet there you were, whining about what the "cons" wouldn't allow. What unmitigated bullshit. Sober? Oh yeah. It must be hard for you, when I mention frosty cold beer, or a good bourbon whiskey, or how nicely a blended margarita compliments a spicy Mexican dinner, or the art of having a 3-day bender in Vegas, and waking up for the drive home without even the slightest hint of a hangover. One great thing about drinking so much less than I did in my youth is that I can afford much better stuff than back in the day. For normal people, moderate alcohol consumption has a number of positive health benefits, assuming they are capable of drinking responsibly. Sucks to be you, doesn't it? Your anger issues need help and attacking for being ill? That is real classy. As to the rest, the Democrats bent over backwards trying to get con support for the stimulus bill, as the record clearly shows, so don't pretend otherwise. So own what your side demanded and got even though none of your guys actually voted for it.

TheHeretic -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 8:56:08 PM)
Sure, Ken. As they illustrated forcing through Obamacare, the Dems wouldn't do anything without getting bipartisan support... [8\|] Rocks and glass houses, kiddo, rocks and glass houses.

cloudboy -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 9:14:09 PM)
I think the tax should be closer tied to those who drive on the highways and use gasoline -- as opposed to simply owning a car.

tj444 -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 11:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Would you recommend an extensive toll system instead? Nope. Tax to be paid every year for every road registered vehicle, collected when your registration comes due. And we can also keep the gas tax where it is right now. And toll for entry from either border for vehicles... if that isn't already done. Vehicle registration is state controlled tho.. and each state has different costs for registering a vehicle.. There are ways of getting around expensive states and that's to register your vehicle (in an LLC) in Montana (plus no sales tax in Montana).. its pretty cheap compared to expensive states like CA.. and if your vehicle is older (11 years, I think) then you can get permanent registration.. and you can do all that by mail and get your plates and tags sent to you.. See how easy that was? and how easy to avoid yer tax.. [8D]

Gauge -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 11:41:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Vehicle registration is state controlled tho.. and each state has different costs for registering a vehicle.. There are ways of getting around expensive states and that's to register your vehicle (in an LLC) in Montana (plus no sales tax in Montana).. its pretty cheap compared to expensive states like CA.. and if your vehicle is older (11 years, I think) then you can get permanent registration.. and you can do all that by mail and get your plates and tags sent to you.. See how easy that was? and how easy to avoid yer tax.. [8D] I know it is a State thing... I was shooting from the hip with an idea. Not saying it is infallible but it could be a starting place.

Sanity -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/24/2014 5:39:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I think the tax should be closer tied to those who drive on the highways and use gasoline -- as opposed to simply owning a car. You know the politicians though. If theres a tax dollar there, theyre going to get it. They'll say its for highways, or for the children... And that its temporary.

Musicmystery -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/24/2014 5:54:59 AM)
Unfortunately, roads and bridges aren't maintained and repaired by magic.

Sanity -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/24/2014 6:30:04 AM)
No, they're maintained by fat cat government cronies employing exorbitantly overpaid union goons

mnottertail -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/24/2014 7:57:47 AM)
Oh, you mean Haliburton et al, the Nazified country destroying constantly criminal behaviored corporations, your heros boys? I agree.

Musicmystery -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/24/2014 7:58:50 AM)
No, they're not maintained, because the fat cat government cronies refuse to adequately fund them. One major economic advantage the US has is its infrastructure. If we actually let it crumble, we'll lose that advantage.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/24/2014 8:00:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I think the tax should be closer tied to those who drive on the highways and use gasoline -- as opposed to simply owning a car. What is causing the damage, the driving or the use of gasoline?

Musicmystery -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/24/2014 8:03:45 AM)
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the bulk of driving takes place with the use of gasoline. Thought you should know.

GoddessManko -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/24/2014 8:48:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery One major economic advantage the US has is its infrastructure. If we actually let it crumble, we'll lose that advantage. Agreed, this is Keynesian thinking as well and that can be broken down to a very simplistic form. The basic business model. Short term investment, long term return. During the Great Depression Keynes formulated the New Deal which included infrastructure spending, the CCC (an entity that employed both skilled and unskilled workers) etc, etc which helped the US emerge out of the Great Depression. The common theme is as long as we allocate funds to infrastructure, it equates to automatic job creation.What I don't understand is why the teabagggers in Congress wish to raise student loan interest rates by $40 billion dollars and then allocate those funds to OIL COMPANIES, meanwhile wind farms, geothermal, the ITER and other sources of renewable energy do not get remotely close to the same tax incentives. Any takers? I can purport lobbyists, but then, that would make me some sort of political hack, wouldn't it? [:D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/24/2014 11:14:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the bulk of driving takes place with the use of gasoline. Thought you should know. But, it's not the gasoline that is the cause of the road damage, is it? And, I'm not sure you're aware, but the amount of gasoline that is used to travel a mile seems to be going down, so the ratio between the amount of miles traveled on the roads vs. the amount of gasoline used is rising. Thought you should know.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875