you really want me to hold your hand here?
You brought up the stadium and the tax increase several times in connection to misspending by the homogenized government (I will get to this in a moment). Given that no one who controls this sort of thing knew that the bridge was in danger of
imminent collapse, it is doubtful that this tax increase would instead have paid for a repair of the bridge even if that was within the realm of possibility; even still, it would not have saved the bridge. You were being intellectually dishonest by bringing it up.
It is often cheaper and more economical to replace infractructure (bridges, roads etc) than to repair them. In fact, with the viaduct that fell during the earthquake, they had to rethink the entire design of viaducts after that disaster. Repairing it and retrofitting it would have been an expensive bandaid. You are wrong in this account.
Also, you feel that repair of
the entire road system should come before new projects. I'm sure that you practice this philosophy in your personal life, making sure your credit card bills are paid before you go to to see The Bourne Ultimatum, but personal finance doesn't scale up to match the finances of an entire country. Frequently new road works are
more necessary than filling potholes in your neighbourhood. You show a distressing lack of scale in thought.
You suggest a corporation will
take the politics out of infrastructure. This is ridiculous but I will get to it in a moment. You tell me that we have "already gotten over" the one company business, but a quick scan of the thread shows you haven't really addressed it. So you are lying again.
Even still, due to the nature of the business, infrastructure companies really couldn't compete with each other, since everyone needs efficient roads that get them where they want to go. You have several times said that the very nature of corporations is that they
compete, and that they produce the most effective use of funds due to this competition, but this competition within the infrastructure business couldn't
exist. You are wrong on this account.
you suggest that anonymous 'shareholders' who have done nothing to earn their place in a corporation would have more interest in the goings-on of that corporation than the voters who have done nothing except gain citizenship to earn that right to vote. This shows a willfull ignorance of the behavior of people.
You say that 'politics' would be taken out of the equasion when we move to a corporate-based system, but then admit that the 'shareholders' would elect board members. that sounds like politics to any thinking man, and shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
You say that the corporation would compete with itself because no one would use shitty roads. This is obviously false. The corporation would still exact tolls, of the same price as would be for the road when it was new and perfect, for roads that were in serious disrepair. There is no incentive for the corporation to improve the road until it is undriveable. You are wrong.
You accuse sports teams of 'extortion' for threatning to leave if they don't get a new ballpark. But yet, this is free market bargaining. If a sports team is too prima-donna, no city will want them. let the market sort it out. You are betraying your free market ideals because it's crazy moon-man logic.
You believe in crazy moon-man logic.
You hold the government responsible for not forseeing the bridge collapse. "17years known deficient, how dare they!" you say. RR already explained how human engineers can only predict 5% of cracks in bridges, but nevermind that. How dare you claim 20/20 hindsight on something that happened a week ago; not only is this a liberal trait, but most people have the decency to put a few months between themselves and the event before claiming they "knew it all along." The fact is, it was declared deficient 17 years ago, but there was a survey of the bridge not a few years ago and they saw nothing outstanding. Your company would not do a better job, since your company would be using the same people and techniques to judge bridges as the government does, and would not throw money on bridges unless it had to. You hold a naive, idealized view of corporations and it has made you wrong yet again.
You tell Styphon that people don't
have to drive on roads, that they can use alternate forms of transportation. Most of those forms of transportation require the use of roads. Once again you are proven mistaken, and you dropped the point so rapidly I dare say you
knew it.
You say
being drunk doesn't present an elevated risk in and of itself (which is wrong: aside from the health risks of over drinking, you lose motor skills and impair your judgement which can lead to picking fights with bad dudes which
is risky) while driving in and of itself is a risk; therefore, drunk driving is no additional risk. You play word games on the level of Gumby, who in the journals has been insisting that driving is a right and not a privilege. You should look in on that, that might be more up your alley.
You claim taxes are
theft. This is incorrect.
You
support the gold standard. This has nothing to do with the thread but jesus.
You support anarchy. This has everything to do with your thread. Jesus.
You give Mikey shit for rationalizing deaths when you do the very same. You care nothing for your fellow man but
we already knew that, Oklahoma Sexy Patrol
You mock the concept of 'theft of liberty' in regards to breaking the law as theft (something that came out of your mouth and not mine), but then you say you would
much rather suffer serious, debilitating bodily harm rather than suffer theft of freedom. you're the worst coward there is; you shit bricks when it's your turn to suffer, but you mock the fear of others who suffer the same.
You think that roads that are not bridges don't matter because they're not under the threat of falling down. You show a disturbing lack of imagination in that crumbling roads are
still unsafe to drive. Will your corporation demonstrate the same lack of imagination?
You accuse my liberalism as being akin to the cook in Oliver Twist. Does this mean I don't feed starving poor children? That is nothing
like bleeding heart liberalism. You don't know what a metaphor is.
You feel that paying tolls is consentual, but that driving on roads paid by your tax dollars (
you already paid the tolls due to the virtue of being a tax payer) is non-consentual because you're not aware that
accidents can happen. This is crazy moon-man logic again.
You suggest coyly that Minnesota was negligent (perhaps conspiring to do so?) and say that that is a conflict of interest. I asked you to elaborate but you never did. I can only assume you brought it up to, like I said before, accuse a state of conspiracy to murder in order to get sweet fundzzz.
You constantly whine about people not addressing the things you're discussing, but you dropped questions I have asked at least three times. You're a prima-donna with a short memory span.
You admit that the government produces services, but don't create. You also admit that companies that produce services create. You admit that both recieve revenue for their products. You have a difficult time with applying concepts in different contexts.
You have said many times that governments are non-competitive in any real meaningful sense of the word. I assume you're talking about federal governments, but the thing you haven't admitted at all is that the 'government' is not a homogenous entity. There are many different agencies within the federal government! There are state and local governments that jockey with each other for funds! There are many lobbyists all trying to get their cut!
Even though you say that the government has a steady income due to tax (laughable since taxes change
all the time and affect different groups of varying wealth; additionally the government has different outgoing expenses that change from year to year, such as the Iraq war) this income is not infinite; even though the US government spends outside of its means frequently, it doesn't mean it hands blank checks to everyone with their hands out.
This is all stuff children know. The end result is that the government within the realm of
itself is competing for funds for the road system as a whole, and that state and local governments
within this sytem compete with each other for funds.
I asked you several times to no avail about this. I thought that you were trolling, at first, since this is your MO, but now I think you genuinely believe this shit, and you're just exaggerating for funs.
YOU ARE EDUCATED RETARDED.
go anarchy
(tolls everywhere aren't tho~) 
Alright fagts. Listen up, I'm not doing this for my health, I have other things do to than to put up with anonymous, but as a back up, I decided I'd make use of myself. Wuori and I became 'Friends.' And I've learned he is far sicker than you can imagine. This kid is obessed with /b/, I have my own personal vendetta, and problems with Anon. This kid makes that look like issues on a playground, what the fuck did you do to this fucking psycho. I have never met someone to hateful towards /b/, I broke off with him, and pity the poor bastard a lot. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how much you guys hate Shiahgo, or Humane Weapons. That's not my biggest issue, my issue is this fuck harassing me. Now. NEW INFORMATION REGARDING WUORI.
1. Wuori is a Runescaper. Account name Ritalina.
2. Wuori is a Gaiauser, Account name is unknown.
3. Wuori is so obessed with /b/, he is texting me at least 100 times a day with plans on revenage.
4. Wuori created an operation called 'Chanfire' planning on causing an inner chan war.
(tolls everywhere aren't tho~)
Alright fagts. Listen up, I'm not doing this for my health, I have other things do to than to put up with anonymous, but as a back up, I decided I'd make use of myself. Wuori and I became 'Friends.' And I've learned he is far sicker than you can imagine. This kid is obessed with /b/, I have my own personal vendetta, and problems with Anon. This kid makes that look like issues on a playground, what the fuck did you do to this fucking psycho. I have never met someone to hateful towards /b/, I broke off with him, and pity the poor bastard a lot. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how much you guys hate Shiahgo, or Humane Weapons. That's not my biggest issue, my issue is this fuck harassing me. Now. NEW INFORMATION REGARDING WUORI.
1. Wuori is a Runescaper. Account name Ritalina.
[img]
http://www.charitableirishsociety.org/images/AMERICAN%20FLAG.gif[/img]
2. Wuori is a Gaiauser, Account name is unknown.
3. Wuori is so obessed with /b/, he is texting me at least 100 times a day with plans on revenage.
4. Wuori created an operation called 'Chanfire' planning on causing an inner chan war.
[b]
Now this is the story all about how
My life got flipped, turned upside down
And I’d like to take a minute just sit right there
I’ll tell you how I became the prince of a town called bel-air
(tolls everywhere aren't tho~)
In west philadelfia born and raised
On the playground where I spent most of my days
Chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool
And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school
When a couple of guys said "we’re up in no good"
Started making trouble in my neighbourhood
I got in one little fight and my mom got scared
And said "you’re moving with your aunte and uncle in bel-air"
(only the first three episodes of season one)
I begged and pleaded with her the other day
But she packed my suitcase and sent me on my way
She gave me a kissin’ and she gave me my ticket
I put my walkman on and said I might aswell kick it
First class, yo this is bad,
Drinking orange juice out of a champagne glass
Is this what the people of bel-air livin’ like,
Hmm this might be alright!
I whistled for a cab and when it came near the
Licensplate said "fresh" and had a dice in the mirror
If anything I could say that this cab was rare
But I thought now forget it, yo home to bel-air
(tolls everywhere aren't tho~)
I pulled up to a house about seven or eight
And I yelled to the cabby "yo, home smell you later"
Looked at my kingdom I was finally there
To settle my throne as the prince of bel-air
cocks
Response to:
what
