Previous 31 - 40 Next
As for the notion of "transportation trust funds" being bailed out by general funds, that's EXACTLY backwards in my state. Where I live, the so-called transportation trust fund has been pillaged. So, while I agree that FULL privatization is a good thing, don't be fooled by government-private "partnerships." Unless the entire enterprise is riding on true profit and loss, ANY avenue back to the taxpayer is an IDEAL means to steal from him.
You will find them objecting to paying for the roads with no corresponding cut in taxes. This IS double-taxation and it should be opposed. There are also MAJOR issues with tolling and the police state: monitoring all movements by EZ Pass like tolling technology. Any honest evaluation of tolling will consider these realities and not dismiss them so blindly.
Mr. Scribner wrote: "In contrast to the claim that public-private partnerships (P3s) are “essentially crony capitalism,” P3s are important tools to advance private-sector ownership and control of the road network. While long-term concessions based on a “design-build-finance-operate-maintain” model do not technically amount to full privatization, they do increase private sector involvement in infrastructure ownership and management. " This is absurdly misleading. "Private industry" partnerships with government are frequently EXACTLY what they have been labeled: crony capitalism. The libertarian objection to tolling comes from several sources. But you won't find libertarians objecting to FULL privatization of roads.
...should that magically trump all other context of the domestic dispute being considered? And should it automatically revoke hard-won legal protections of the individual from the state? Of course not.
Third, let us consider "citations of authorities." Citations of authorities are only as good as the authorities, and the extent to which one believes in those authorities. Far too often people cease to think and instead take the word of supposed "authorities." For instance, ask yourself what you think when you hear of a "climate scientist" making some sort of claim. So, when Mr. Usher cites the expertise of panels of former dug addicts as the authorities who should be given license to decide whether people in domestic disputes maintain or forfeit basic legal protections about innocence until proof of guilt? Setting aside whether you believe those "authorities" are even experts in substance abuse, who cares? Even if they are,...
Mr. Usher's statement above is fairly telling. Take "rhetoric" for a second. It is unclear how ANYTHING said by anyone here, whether in the article or in the comments, is to be considered anything but rhetoric. So, the critique of so-called "rhetoric" is itself, rhetoric no different from any other rhetoric. As for "ridicule", as others have noted, anyone can view what I wrote and consider my points, and can contrast that with Mr. Usher's early abandonment of the discussion in favor of calling me a "liberal troll." So, at BEST his criticism of "ridicule" is hypocritical. I would go further, saying it is both unfounded AND hypocritical.
Wrong. Communism=socialism=fascism=massive crony capitalism=totalitarianism=STATE CONTROL OVER THE INDIVIDUAL AND HIS PROPERTY. What's different is freedom. REAL capitalism=freedom and ownership of one's own property, the stored fruit of his labor.
In response to:

Losing Patience With the New Pope

JustMC Wrote: Mar 22, 2013 3:55 PM
And let's be even more clear about the first question: If, say, you are a paid Congressional staff member or something along those lines, the answer would be YES. Your posting here does not have to be FORMALLY listed as part of your job, especially if you are salaried and not hourly. And let's add a question 4. Whatever your income, is part or all of that directly or indirectly funded with tax dollars?
In response to:

Losing Patience With the New Pope

JustMC Wrote: Mar 22, 2013 3:53 PM
And let's be VERY clear about the questions. 1. Are you paid for ANY of the time you spend reading/posting here? 2. If so, by whom exactly? 3. If so, does any of that employer's money come from tax dollars of any sort?
In response to:

Losing Patience With the New Pope

JustMC Wrote: Mar 22, 2013 2:01 PM
Because the volume and makeup of your posts suggests it is very possible. How about the answer?
In response to:

Goading Gullible America Into War

JustMC Wrote: Mar 22, 2013 1:36 AM
This is a total strawman argument. You are arguing with something never said. Mr. Buchanan didn't say the GOP is the War Party. He simply calls those who are pushing for war with Iran the War Party. There is NOTHING in the piece saying to what extent that group overlaps with Democrats or Republicans or anyone else.
Previous 31 - 40 Next