The Obama Presidency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojack

As liberal as I might be I tend to disagree with sentiments such as this. One's transportation is one's own business.

---

Does this this go against your point? Aren't you saying that "transportation" is the business of the state? Otherwise, how could they take it away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojack

If public transportation proves to be untenable in your area one must work to either make it better and then convince people to use it or be smart and move closer to your job/school.

---

really? Start a bus or train? Or just move?

"well, lost my license because I'm such a fuck up that I can't drink and not hit people. Guess I better go start a bus system or buy a railroad."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squall_vb

Everything should be a right. It's not fair that I should have to work.

---

Let your voice be heard, Comrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojack

You should have indeed. Keep this up and you'll become right wing buttcheeks.

Anyways, the other day I saw a Newsweek article "Here" and don't understand why some people expected Obama to do much of anything. Was he supposed to prop up a dictator whose country clearly hated him or meddle in the affairs of the common Egyptian protestor? He apparently seems to be doing little to nothing about this and all of a sudden he's supposed to pick sides and start fucking around instead of letting them handle their own shit? What am I missing?

---

I don't see why this is surprising. The US has been picking sides and fucking around for 60 years. The US has been propping up dictators whose country clearly hated them for a long time, including Hosni Mubarak.

The idea that the USA would not meddle in the affairs of a foreign, sovereign country is truly distateful to the the beltway political class, made up of the type of people who write for abominations like Newsweek. Only a very narrow set of opinions is allowed in "serious" discussion among that class, and meddling in foreign affairs is certainly one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

"well, lost my license because I'm such a fuck up that I can't drink and not hit people. Guess I better go start a bus system or buy a railroad."

---

Losing your license because you're a danger to society behind the wheel is inconvenient. Imagine that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

Does this this go against your point? Aren't you saying that "transportation" is the business of the state? Otherwise, how could they take it away?

really? Start a bus or train? Or just move?

"well, lost my license because I'm such a fuck up that I can't drink and not hit people. Guess I better go start a bus system or buy a railroad."

---

Bascially peeps have 3 options,

1. Drive a car but STFU about it and keep your license (usually easy to do for most people)
2. Do whatever you can to improve your public trans or learn to deal (I understand this is difficult for average folks)
3. Move closer to where you routinely go.

Government's job is to merely provide opportunity for transportation (i.e. roads/rail/sidewalks/bike paths) and the rest is up to the populace. Moving might be a hassle but we can't expect bus routes that benefit like 6 people or go out of the way for miles and miles. Public transporation should apply only to densely populated areas. It's nice if one can get it otherwise but dumb to even hope/much less expect a transporation system that will serve every one in a sparsely populated area.

I know. I just want my trains out in bumb fuck ;_;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

bumb fuck

---

Really?

The dumbass rednecks you are surrounded aren't going to pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojack

As liberal as I might be I tend to disagree with sentiments such as this. One's transportation is one's own business. If public transportation proves to be untenable in your area one must work to either make it better and then convince people to use it or be smart and move closer to your job/school. If I didn't have to have my car for my job then I would have been able to ride a bike or at worst walk an hour or so to every job I've ever had except one. Perhaps public transportation should be even more restrictive to help curb America's hideous urban sprawl and perhaps gas taxes could convince Americans to not live in a different area code from their job so they can afford one more half bath and an extra quarter acre for their house.

---

I can't believe you're advocating increase tax to curb behaviour you find distasteful. Lets stifle ease of movement to teach people a lesson! It's this kind of thinking that curbs progress. I agree with your general sentiment that if people have it hard they should move. But if they already can't afford a car what's the issue except placing a non-existent burden on everyone else (the goal you said you wanted to do away with at the beginning of your paragraph)? Urban sprawl isn't a big enough issue to push an agenda on IMO. In fact urban sprawl might be the best thing to convince people to commute via public transportation. If not, let'em sit.

It's not really "tax to curb behaviour you find distasteful" since the behaviour he finds distasteful is largely the result of government policies as well. America after World War II invested heavily in roads (interstate system) while trains and other forms of PT were largely left alone. That helped to create the terrible sprawl, dependence on oil, etc. What you call "ease of movement" I call the government subsidizing suburbs.