Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 330
  1. #76
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "large corporations acting unethically"

    How naive.

    Corporate-Americans have absolutely NO fiduciary responsibility to act morally or ethically.

    Generating profits is the only ethic, and anything goes, up to and often beyond the law and regulations.

    Get caught? declare bankruptcy, "corporate shield" law lets perps skate away.


  2. #77
    License to Lillard tlongII's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trail Blazers
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Post Count
    28,727
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...e-than-europe/

    Infrastructure Gap? Look at the Facts. We Spend More Than Europe

    Big government advocates seek to subs ute “infrastructure” for the “s” (stimulus) word. President Obama’s State of the Union address called for $40 billion to fix the nation’s roads and bridges and also called for a federal infrastructure bank. On April 29, he called for an additional $4 billion of infrastructure spending. $40 billion here and $4 billion there, and soon you have some real money.

    To convince a wary public to spend more with trillion dollar deficits, big government advocates must gin up a national infrastructure emergency that threatens safety, jobs, and well being. Public spending lobbyists are ready to oblige with D+ report cards for “aging and unreliable” roads, bridges, and ports. Big government advocates subs ute scare tactics for the facts that our infrastructure is as good as Europe’s and that we spend more than the European Union on public investment. If we spend as much or more and have inferior infrastructure that is a political failure of untold proportions for which someone should pay.

    President Obama used Miami’s port as a backdrop for his pitch for more $4 billion more in infrastructure spending. Gone are grandiose plans for massive stimulus to boost output and employment on Keynesian steroids. Instead the President is repackaging stimulus as infrastructure spending. Obama’s speech was timed to the newly-released American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2013 infrastructure report card. Its D+ rating rang the alarms that our roads, bridges, water and waste treatment, rail, dams, and airports are crumbling and unsafe.




    At least the President reminded us in Miami that we have had the good fortune of four years of enlightened stimulus spending under him:

    ““Now, over the last four years, we’ve done some good work. Construction crews have built or improved enough roads….to circle the globe 14 times and upgraded enough (rail) to go coast to coast and back. We’ve repaired or replaced more than 20,000 bridges. We’ve helped get tens of thousands of construction workers back on the job.”

    If our roads circled the globe 50 times would we get a B+? Teachers reserve D+ for students who make no effort other than to show up. D+ brings to mind backwater countries of Latin America and Asia. D+ is a national disgrace for a once great country! How could we have let it get so bad?

    The Society of Civil Engineers (Failure to Act Studies) gives its price tag for restoring a first-world infrastructure. It would take $1.7T to correct our current infrastructure deficit and an extra $160 billion a year – or $1.1T — to meet our infrastructure needs through 2020. Our civil engineers do not tell us the effect of almost $3T in additional spending on the deficit. We should focus on the positive side. After all, what is it worth being able to drive across bridges without fear of plunging to certain death? (By my calculations our bridge failure rate is one in three hundred and fifty thousand).

    Even though we do not have the $1.7T for current needs and the $1.1T for later, we would be penny wise and pound foolish not to borrow and spend, say our civil engineers. The $160 billion extra over each of the next seven years would alone raise GDP by $3.1T (a three to one return) and add 3.5 million jobs! What a bonanza!

    We have not seen such optimistic numbers since the young Obama administration promised huge returns for the first stimulus. Should we put again put caution aside? A word of warning: The web site of the Society of Civil Engineers shows it to be a lobbyist for infrastructure spending. Asking the civil engineers how much infrastructure spending we need is akin to asking defense contractors how much we should spend to keep America safe. I doubt if the big government people would like that.

    The U.S.’s fourteenth place ranking in the World Economic Forum’s infrastructure index scarcely bespeaks a national scandal. Luxembourg and Canada rank just above the U.S., and Austria and Denmark rank just below. None of these countries are exactly slouches in the infrastructure category. Among the twenty largest countries, the U.S. ranks second only to Canada. The World Economic Forum index also shows that U.S. infrastructure beats the European Union average by a wide margin! How can that be with the high speed rail and the gleaming Autobahns of the European Union – the envy of our transportation bureaucrats?

    Consider another hitch. OECD infrastructure experts find that Europe has too much supply of roads and rail relative to the demand. Yes, they have trains departing every few minutes, but half empty, and do Germans really need five different Autobahns to drive from Munich to Frankfurt? The same OECD experts find that the U.S., Canada, and Australia have built about the amount of infrastructure that fits the demand.

    Well, if all else fails, our big government spenders at least can show that we spend little on infrastructure relative to countries that have good infrastructure. We can really catch the U.S. with its pants down by looking at its miserly infrastructure spending.

    Get ready for a surprise. According to OECD statistics, the United States spends 3.3 percent of its GDP (2006-2011) on infrastructure investment versus the European Union’s 3.1 percent. With roughly equal GDPs, the United States actually outspends the Europe Union – our model of infrastructure perfection.

    If we spend as much or more than the European Union on infrastructure, we should have better or equal results. In both the United States and Europe, public investment and procurement are political processes characterized by waste, politics and corruption. If we get less bang per buck from our infrastructure dollar than do our European colleagues, our problem would be not too few dollars but too much waste and corruption.

    In his Miami pitch for more infrastructure spending, the President stated: “We’ve got to do it in a way that makes sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.” Does he know something the people do not? Could it be that tax payer dollars were not wisely spent in the past? Could the unions, crony capitalists, and lobbyists have collected at taxpayer expense?

    That would be as hard to believe as Claude Rains’ surprise that there was gambling in Casablanca.

  3. #78
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    The VRWC stink tank shill doesn't mention how the US financial sector has screwed municipal bonds market with LIBOR fixing, exploding interest rates, swaps, etc, etc. iow, the FINANCIAL costs of US infrastructure expenses go to his "crony, corrupt capitalists" probably much more so than in Europe.

    So his prescription is to REDUCE infrastructure spending in USA? let the water, sewer, roads, bridges, electrical grid just rot away?

  4. #79
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    What I wish were to happen was that both conservatives and liberals be given states to run with. We could end up taking the best ideas from both, even as dubious as I am with the idea that " them, let them starve" is really a policy solution that I could morally live with.
    Isn't that already occurring? In all seriousness? We have states dominated by liberals and conservatives. Unfortunately, despite these examples, we can't even agree on what IS working vs. isn't. There is too much of an agenda. If it looks like the tax cuts in Kansas MIGHT be reaping some benefits - those MUST be dismissed by the left, lest their agenda/philosophy/religion on "supply-side" be questioned. Same thing with immigration reform, raising capital gains taxes, and other issues that the right has a knee jerk doctrinal/tribal - negative reaction to.

  5. #80
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "If it looks like the tax cuts in Kansas MIGHT be reaping some benefits"

    still waiting for hard proof that KS taxes inhibited jobs and reducing KS taxes on the wealthy/corps created jobs.



  6. #81
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Isn't that already occurring? In all seriousness? We have states dominated by liberals and conservatives. Unfortunately, despite these examples, we can't even agree on what IS working vs. isn't. There is too much of an agenda. If it looks like the tax cuts in Kansas MIGHT be reaping some benefits - those MUST be dismissed by the left, lest their agenda/philosophy/religion on "supply-side" be questioned. Same thing with immigration reform, raising capital gains taxes, and other issues that the right has a knee jerk doctrinal/tribal - negative reaction to.
    Yes, it kinda is happening in state laboratories.

    In all due seriousness, I am always more interested in what works and what doesn't. In this case, the best reading I can get out of the data is that it isn't doing much, if anything. The only real effects seem to be draw downs of the financial reserves of the state, more debt, and pressure to cut budgets for education and transportation, which is short-sighted in the extreme.

    I have not really ever seen any evidence that supply-side ideas work, despite their having been tried in various places and times, and I am always happy to consider serious data and studies, even ones from the Cato ins ute.

    If the cuts in Kansas actually do anything other than wreck the states finances, I will be happy to admit it. The problem proponents and defenders of these policy options have, will be to separate what would have happened absent the cuts from the effect of the cuts, as has already been noted by the states own budget experts.

    This isn't a knee-jerk reaction. It is what the data does or doesn't show. The cuts were pretty substantial. If the effects of tax cuts were really all that strong, it should have been a lot easier to pick out the signal from the noise.

  7. #82
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    "If it looks like the tax cuts in Kansas MIGHT be reaping some benefits"

    still waiting for hard proof that KS taxes inhibited jobs and reducing KS taxes on the wealthy/corps created jobs.

    You will be waiting for a long time.

    One thing you should keep in mind, is that government spending is part of GDP, by definition.

    Further funds spent by governments dont, contrary to what some believe vanish out of the economy. Government employees pay bills and buy things, and safety net programs give money to the people who are most likely to spend the funds, further adding to GDP, again, by definition.

    Read up on the "velocity of money" concept.

  8. #83
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Asking the civil engineers how much infrastructure spending we need is akin to asking defense contractors how much we should spend to keep America safe.

    Description of Cir stantial Ad Hominem

    A Cir stantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves subs uting an attack on a person's cir stances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
    Therefore claim X is false.

    A Cir stantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and cir stances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's cir stances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.
    Who should we be asking about infrastructure? Dentists? GMAFB.

    I see a long opinion piece, almost completely devoid of facts or valid arguments.

    What might be helpful though, is to see what actually goes into the civil engineers assessments, rather than simply saying they are wrong, because they make their living being experts on the topic.

    It makes for interesting reading.

    http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

  9. #84
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    So let's start with infrastructure categories.

    INFRASTRUCTURE GRADES FOR 2013

    ENERGY D+
    SCHOOLS D
    PUBLIC PARKS & RECREATION C-
    TRANSIT D
    ROADS D
    RAIL C+
    PORTS C
    INLAND WATERWAYS D-
    BRIDGES C+
    AVIATION D
    WASTEWATER D
    SOLID WASTE B-
    LEVEES D-
    HAZARDOUS WASTE D
    DRINKING WATER D
    DAMS D

    Looks like a bit more than just roads.

    First lets see what goes into the grades, i.e. what do they mean:

    A
    EXCEPTIONAL: FIT FOR THE FUTURE
    The infrastructure in the system or network is generally in excellent condition, typically new or recently rehabilitated, and meets capacity needs for the future. A few elements show signs of general deterioration that require attention. Facilities meet modern standards for functionality and resilient to withstand most disasters and severe weather events.

    B
    GOOD: ADEQUATE FOR NOW
    The infrastructure in the system or network is in good to excellent condition; some elements show signs of general deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit significant deficiencies. Safe and reliable with minimal capacity issues and minimal risk.

    C
    MEDIOCRE: REQUIRES ATTENTION
    The infrastructure in the system or network is in fair to good condition; it shows general signs of deterioration and requires attention. Some elements exhibit significant deficiencies in conditions and functionality, with increasing vulnerability to risk.

    D
    POOR: AT RISK
    The infrastructure is in poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life. A large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration. Condition and capacity are of significant concern with strong risk of failure.

    F
    FAILING/CRITICAL: UNFIT FOR PURPOSE
    The infrastructure in the system is in unacceptable condition with widespread advanced signs of deterioration. Many of the components of the system exhibit signs of imminent failure

    They go into quite a bit more detail on the methods they use to get their assessments here:
    http://www.infrastructurereportcard....rd/methodology

  10. #85
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    So let's pick the one closest to an "F". See what they are worried about.

    Our nation’s inland waterways and rivers are the hidden backbone of our freight network – they carry the equivalent of about 51 million truck trips each year . In many cases, the inland waterways system has not been updated since the 1950s, and more than half of the locks are over 50 years old . Barges are stopped for hours each day with unscheduled delays, preventing goods from getting to market and driving up costs. There is an average of 52 service interruptions a day throughout the system. Projects to repair and replace aging locks and dredge channels take decades to approve and complete, exacerbating the problem further.
    So, it seems here that there are some pretty direct, identifiable, and, CAUSAL, connections here to aging waterway transportation networks.
    http://www.infrastructurereportcard....and-waterways/

    Our nation’s inland waterways and rivers are the hidden backbone of our freight network – they carry the equivalent of about 51 million truck trips each year. For that reason, they are often called “inland marine highways.” These marine highways provide a crucial way to carry large amounts of cargo that would otherwise travel by truck or by rail, easing congestion on the surface transportation system.

    The inland waterways system includes 12,000 miles of commercially navigable channels, with over 200 lock chambers. Major water channels, from the Mississippi to the Columbia-Snake river systems (the latter in the Pacific Northwest), carry barges that are the preferred method for moving bulk cargo such as grain and steel, as well as hazardous materials. More than 566 million tons of freight move through the inland waterway system annually, valued at more than $152 billion. Actual traffic on inland waterways has remained stable in recent years, although the Department of Transportation has projected that it will increase over the next 25 years.

    An intricate system of waterways ties inland ports to ocean ports. For example, the Mississippi River connects to ports on the Gulf of Mexico, the Columbia and Snake rivers connect to Pacific Northwest ports, and interconnecting rivers form a marine highway network in the heart of the nation, from the Gulf Ports to the Great Lakes. It is estimated that 346 million tons of goods were transferred from inland waterways to deep water ports in 2010, primarily for export.

    For customers that ship goods through the inland waterway system, the price of services has increased since 2005 as the system ages and causes delays. The greatest threats to the performance of the nation’s inland waterway system are delays caused by insufficient funds for proper operation and maintenance of the facilities. Many of the locks are too small for modern barges, and are susceptible to closures. When a lock or dam reaches poor condition, barges have to stop more often to allow for scheduled maintenance. These scheduled lock outages to address maintenance issues are increasing. Unscheduled delay is most often the result of high volumes at transit points, as well as occasional failures in equipment, resulting in increased operating costs. Unscheduled delays are especially costly because vessel operators are unable to anticipate and offset the costs of these incidents.

    Ninety percent of locks and dams on the U.S. inland waterway system experienced some type of unscheduled delay or service interruption in 2009, averaging 52 delays a day. The hours lost due to unscheduled delays has increased significantly since the 1990s, which costs industry and consumers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. For 2011, the total number of hours of delay experienced by barges throughout the entire inland waterway system reached the equivalent of 25 years. The greatest total delay in 2011 at a particular lock was at the Markland Lock on the Ohio River with 52,032 hours. The Ohio and Upper Mississippi systems have a disproportionate share of delays compared to other rivers across the country.
    It goes on.

    This is what evidence and facts look like tlong.

    Snarky op-eds do not solve problems. People like this, do.

    Spending on this, even if it were financed by debt, offer tangible short and long term benefits.

  11. #86
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    One would be hard pressed to argue that decreasing business losses on lost productivity are a wasteful investment of taxpayer funds, IMO.

    Unless, of course, you are driven by ideological dogma. In that case... all you need to do is dredge up another op-ed.

  12. #87
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Isn't that already occurring? In all seriousness? We have states dominated by liberals and conservatives. Unfortunately, despite these examples, we can't even agree on what IS working vs. isn't. There is too much of an agenda. If it looks like the tax cuts in Kansas MIGHT be reaping some benefits - those MUST be dismissed by the left, lest their agenda/philosophy/religion on "supply-side" be questioned. Same thing with immigration reform, raising capital gains taxes, and other issues that the right has a knee jerk doctrinal/tribal - negative reaction to.
    You don't have to be a lefty to dismiss it because it doesn't add up. It's easy to "benefit" the cons uents by showering them with tax cuts the state can't afford. It's clear they can't afford it since the budget has a huge hole in it now.

    This is what happens when you apply dogma instead of an actual fiscal plan. There's nothing wrong with cutting taxes if that's what you feel is going to work for your economy, but you either need to have a plan to shrink government or make up the revenue shortfall in a different way. Unlike the federal government, States can't print up money and make up the difference.

  13. #88
    License to Lillard tlongII's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trail Blazers
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Post Count
    28,727
    So let's pick the one closest to an "F". See what they are worried about.



    So, it seems here that there are some pretty direct, identifiable, and, CAUSAL, connections here to aging waterway transportation networks.
    http://www.infrastructurereportcard....and-waterways/



    It goes on.

    This is what evidence and facts look like tlong.

    Snarky op-eds do not solve problems. People like this, do.

    Spending on this, even if it were financed by debt, offer tangible short and long term benefits.
    Facts presented by the American Society of Civil Engineers who directly benefit from infrastructure spending. Yeah right.

  14. #89
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    , especially when it comes to protecting ordinary people from the large corporations that would, and do so readily prey on individuals and smaller companies in unethical, if not outright illegal ways.
    Agree 100%. Unfortunately, however, the more powerful the corporation, the more the government is used to enable, encourage, and ultimately enrich them. Since the corps. control the government, the more power the government has, the more we are living in a Plutocracy. Gramm-Clint...errr...Leach was the MAJOR accomplishment of the Plutocrats, and it was supported by BOTH parties - neither is looking out for the "ordinary" citizen, rhetoric notwithstanding. Neither is more honorable or forthright than the other, they simple each use their own narrative to maintain roughly 1/2 the power - each speaking "truth" to half the population (ideal if you want THIS system to be perpetual. A single party in control can be overthrown, more than two can be chaotic, 2 is JUUUST right).

    Clinton and most of the Republican front-runners are already Street approved. This dynamic isn't changing anytime soon. That's why I support de-centralizing power whenever possible. If the corps can buy all the power they need in one location, great for them. Washington, your one-stop for complete national control!

  15. #90
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    You don't have to be a lefty to dismiss it because it doesn't add up. It's easy to "benefit" the cons uents by showering them with tax cuts the state can't afford. It's clear they can't afford it since the budget has a huge hole in it now.

    This is what happens when you apply dogma instead of an actual fiscal plan. There's nothing wrong with cutting taxes if that's what you feel is going to work for your economy, but you either need to have a plan to shrink government or make up the revenue shortfall in a different way. Unlike the federal government, States can't print up money and make up the difference.

    I get that, I was just using that as an example of knee-jerk response (to keep this alter-thread I began somewhat related to the OP). Not really debating the merits of the tax cuts. Before this report, frankly, I thought it was universally agreed that Kansas was in the ter.

  16. #91
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Facts presented by the American Society of Civil Engineers who directly benefit from infrastructure spending. Yeah right.
    This has already been explained as a bad argument.

    A guy selling you a radiation suit before you take a tour of Chernobyl is not lying about the dangers of radiation.

    If you can't say why specifically they are wrong about their assessment, you should ask yourself why that is. If they really are playing up the danger to promote their own interests, it should be fairly easy to show how that is.

    You could also tell me who would tell us if our infrastructure was in bad shape? Businesses that depend on canals and so forth from shipping certainly are feeling the effects of the delays.

    Are you saying that somehow the engineers are wrong about the hundreds of millions of dollars in extra costs to the shippers that depend on functioning canal locks?

  17. #92
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I get that, I was just using that as an example of knee-jerk response (to keep this alter-thread I began somewhat related to the OP). Not really debating the merits of the tax cuts. Before this report, frankly, I thought it was universally agreed that Kansas was in the ter.
    There's a lot of demagoguery going around, and it's not specific to a single party. It gets compounded by interest-group-turned-into-think-tank cherry picking.

    I mean, Kansas is also an egregious case because the legislature is also controlled by the GOP. So it's not a case like in NJ, where Christie needs to deal with a Dem legislature and it's a constant battle, here they could do whatever they wanted and they half assed it.

  18. #93
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Agree 100%. Unfortunately, however, the more powerful the corporation, the more the government is used to enable, encourage, and ultimately enrich them. Since the corps. control the government, the more power the government has, the more we are living in a Plutocracy. Gramm-Clint...errr...Leach was the MAJOR accomplishment of the Plutocrats, and it was supported by BOTH parties - neither is looking out for the "ordinary" citizen, rhetoric notwithstanding. Neither is more honorable or forthright than the other, they simple each use their own narrative to maintain roughly 1/2 the power - each speaking "truth" to half the population (ideal if you want THIS system to be perpetual. A single party in control can be overthrown, more than two can be chaotic, 2 is JUUUST right).

    Clinton and most of the Republican front-runners are already Street approved. This dynamic isn't changing anytime soon. That's why I support de-centralizing power whenever possible. If the corps can buy all the power they need in one location, great for them. Washington, your one-stop for complete national control!
    I pretty much agree.

    It is frustrating to me, for pretty much the same reasons.

    There should be a healthy balance though between state and federal, as it is a lot easier for sub-industries to buy state governments.

    HOAs in Texas are a good example.

    Payday loans another.

    Again, John Oliver nails it, and comments on Texas rather directly:


  19. #94
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    There's a lot of demagoguery going around, and it's not specific to a single party. It gets compounded by interest-group-turned-into-think-tank cherry picking.

    I mean, Kansas is also an egregious case because the legislature is also controlled by the GOP. So it's not a case like in NJ, where Christie needs to deal with a Dem legislature and it's a constant battle, here they could do whatever they wanted and they half assed it.
    I will call bull . The parties are not equal in that regard.

    Name a Democratic equivalent to Ted Cruz.

    There is a vast gulf between the parties. The crazies have stormed the battlements of the GOP, and it shows.

    Moderates of all sorts have been handed their heads in GOP primaries.

    Dems have their faults, and demagogues, but you can't say they are equivalent. No way.

  20. #95
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "they are equivalent"

    rightwingnuts' main defense of their Repug assholes and Repug disasters is that the Dems are just as big assholes, would screw up, eg invade Iraq for oil, just like the Repugs did, and do.

    It's JUST ANOTHER BIG LIE on which always-wrong, ALWAYS-lying rightwingnuts base their "philosophy"



  21. #96
    License to Lillard tlongII's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trail Blazers
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Post Count
    28,727
    This has already been explained as a bad argument.

    A guy selling you a radiation suit before you take a tour of Chernobyl is not lying about the dangers of radiation.

    If you can't say why specifically they are wrong about their assessment, you should ask yourself why that is. If they really are playing up the danger to promote their own interests, it should be fairly easy to show how that is.

    You could also tell me who would tell us if our infrastructure was in bad shape? Businesses that depend on canals and so forth from shipping certainly are feeling the effects of the delays.

    Are you saying that somehow the engineers are wrong about the hundreds of millions of dollars in extra costs to the shippers that depend on functioning canal locks?
    I'm saying that the engineers have a vested interest in exaggerating their claims.

  22. #97
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I'm saying that the engineers have a vested interest in exaggerating their claims.
    So? Have they exaggerated their claims?

    If you take the time to read what it is they are saying they provide some readily verifiable evidence to support them.

  23. #98
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,592
    Yeah, civil engineers are known for lying about infrastructure since they are so hard up for work.

  24. #99
    License to Lillard tlongII's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trail Blazers
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Post Count
    28,727
    So? Have they exaggerated their claims?

    If you take the time to read what it is they are saying they provide some readily verifiable evidence to support them.
    All I have to do is read the following quote and I know they have...

    The greatest threats to the performance of the nation’s inland waterway system are delays caused by insufficient funds for proper operation and maintenance of the facilities.

  25. #100
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I will call bull . The parties are not equal in that regard.

    Name a Democratic equivalent to Ted Cruz.

    There is a vast gulf between the parties. The crazies have stormed the battlements of the GOP, and it shows.

    Moderates of all sorts have been handed their heads in GOP primaries.

    Dems have their faults, and demagogues, but you can't say they are equivalent. No way.
    I said there's a lot of demagoguery going around in both parties, and in the macro there is. Analyzing the "degrees of demagoguery" on each individual politico is an exercise in futility, IMO.

    Guys like Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, etc are as much full of as the Cruz, Christie, etc on the right. You might not hear about them as much because they're not seeking higher office, but when they had to act, their actions spoke loudly for them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •