Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 09:12 PM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 07:12 PM #76 of 101
You're right. Spending several million to repair or replace a bridge would be just like setting us back to to the stone age, before the discovery of fire.
I didn't say it would be just like it. But you told me I'm not allowed to justify fatalities amd you just did. So which is it? Are we just not allowed to justify fatalities that pose a direct threat to you? It's OK to drive cars, we need them!, even if tens of thousands of people die every year but it's definitely not OK to have a faulty bridge!, twenty people die every couple decades on those!

My point is that Congress (and you) are more than willing to open the checkbook -- DAMN THE COSTS! -- when an extremely rare and very vivid tragedy happens, but the every day shit you (and Congress) just don't care about. Not enough to do anything about it, certainly less than you'd do about the bridges.

You are perfectly fine with acceptable deaths, thousands of them, as long as it doesn't set us back in to the stone age (which is apparently when cars were invented). But if it doesn't set you back at all, we should open the floodgates to the budget to save even one life!

Making a law to fix bridges saves almost no lives and costs an extremely high amount of money to save the very few people who would die from accidents.

Quote:
No, there is not enough money to prevent all infrastructure failure, because oftentimes it is unexpected or unforseen. It's not like, oh, say, being declared unstable for 17 goddamn years.
If a bridge survives for 17 years after being declared unstable, how reliable is that report? Not to mention all the other bridges that were surely declared the same thing but haven't fallen down yet.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
and Brandy does her best to understand
How Unfortunate
Ghost


Member 4460

Level 13.04

Apr 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 09:33 PM 1 #77 of 101
Brady/Mikey, quit arguing about this shit. If you had a time machine, any rational person would've spent the money to repair that bridge. In addition to saving lives (and I think economists estimated people are willing to spend ~$1mill/American life to protect), repairing the bridge would be cheaper than replacing it will be. Plus, there's the opportunity cost from having the bridge out: people spending longer commuting, things delayed, etc. etc.

Don't chase safety pies in the sky, point taken. But Brady's not even asking for any more effort looking for problems! You spend on the best practicable technology, and make the effort to meet your own maintenance and safety standards and generally keep an eye out.

I was speaking idiomatically.
RacinReaver
Never Forget


Member 7

Level 44.22

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 12:00 AM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 10:00 PM 1 #78 of 101
Do you believe drunk driving presents an elevated risk?


As a note, I was reading a USA Today the other week and there was a letter sent in by some civil engineering PhD at a university that talked about how the safety of bridges are rated. Apparently there's a whole slew of actual safety factors, then it's modified by the cost of repair, cost of detours, difficulty of detours, loss to business during detours, how critical the piece of infrastructure is, and how reliable the report actually is.

Also, a few years ago they had done a study on how well bridge inspectors could find various defects in bridges. Apparently even the experienced ones could only do around 5% detection of propagating cracks through the concrete. What they said was really needed was new methods of trying to detect faults and newer field tests methods that would find cracks that were typically missed by inspectors.

Most amazing jew boots
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 08:00 AM Local time: Aug 11, 2007, 08:00 AM #79 of 101
Quote:
You are telling me that governments don't compete because they have unlimited wealth (but doesn't eliminate all taxes with all this unlimited wealth and defecit spending that they do).
You've never payed any goddamn attention. Governments do not have unlimited wealth, they just don't have to work for their revenue, they do not create. Because governments do not create, there is no incentive for them to maintain assets, because the loss is made up by levying a tax. It does not mean that the government has unlimited resources it means that the heads of government do not think that far ahead.

Quote:
AND, that we should build one Corporation
We've already got passed that.

Quote:
that is unelected
Appointed by shareholders (everybody).

Quote:
and without oversight
It's overseen by the shareholders who actually use the roads.

Stop trolling this thread.


Quote:
You are perfectly fine with acceptable deaths, thousands of them, as long as it doesn't set us back in to the stone age (which is apparently when cars were invented). But if it doesn't set you back at all, we should open the floodgates to the budget to save even one life!
As soon as man invented fire we were polluting the air with toxins. Man accepted fire because it kept him warm and extended his lifespan despite the potential harm of the smoke.

Cars provide the same benefit, while a bridge does not. Bridges present an avoidable risk because they are a predictable liability, whereas the damage caused by car exhaust is unpredictable.

If the report states that a bridge is unstable, and it eventually collapses, then the report is reliable. It doesn't matter how long it took the bridge to collapse, it did so by virtue of its being unstable. Following your logic, it's not worth repairing any bridges because there's no point in avoiding the risk.

Also, please don't be a faggot. The viaduct collapse killed 41 people, this recent collapse killed maybe more than 20. This isn't about saving one life.

FELIPE NO
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 12:46 PM Local time: Aug 11, 2007, 10:46 AM #80 of 101
But the bridge obviously wasn't a predictable liability! It remained standing 17 years after they said it was unstable! Reread RR's post.

I didn't say it wasn't worth repairing any bridges, I never said that. I also never said it wasn't worth trying to avoid risk. You have to find the trade-off between fixing bridges and the cost of fixing bridges. You've been sitting here telling me that there is NO trade off, that fixing bridges always comes first no matter what!

Let's say for the sake of argument bridges are 99% reliable. To make it 99.9% reliable, it will take X dollars. Every 9 you add on after that grows the cost exponentially.

(Or if they are 50%, go to 75%, then 85%, then 90%, etc. etc.)

We could spend $50 trillion dollars and make it so the bridges are 99.9999999999% safe, probably. Do you consider that worth it? Since we obviously aren't allowed to justify the loss of life, we should spend an infinite amount of money on fixing the infrastructure.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
and Brandy does her best to understand
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 02:16 PM 2 #81 of 101
You've never payed
I let it go the first time since everyone's entitled to a typo, but packrat asked me to tell you it's spelt 'paid'. Just passing the word along brah.

Quote:
Governments do not have unlimited wealth,

[...]

there is no incentive for them to maintain assets, because the loss is made up by levying a tax.


Originally Posted by a lurker
Do you believe drunk driving presents an elevated risk?
Originally Posted by Bradylama
Simply being drunk does not make one a danger to others, despite the impact on their motor skills.
One would say that you are not a good judge of predictable liabilities!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Last edited by Sarag; Aug 11, 2007 at 07:43 PM.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 05:09 PM Local time: Aug 11, 2007, 05:09 PM #82 of 101
Quote:
One would say that you are not a good judge of predictable liabilities!
Do I have to explain this to you again? Being drunk does not make one a danger. Driving a car does. Whether one is drunk or not can elevate the risk but you are not a danger by virtue of being drunk.

Stop trolling this thread or I will ban you from it.

Quote:
Brady why do you think a retrofit would have saved the viaduct which wasn't built well to withstand Earthquakes in the first place?
Weren't the retrofits designed to help the bridge withstand the earthquakes, or did I misread something?

Quote:
But the bridge obviously wasn't a predictable liability! It remained standing 17 years after they said it was unstable! Reread RR's post.
Alright, you got me there.

Quote:
You have to find the trade-off between fixing bridges and the cost of fixing bridges. You've been sitting here telling me that there is NO trade off, that fixing bridges always comes first no matter what!
Well we're clearly going to have to make these kind of value judgements, and defective bridges which carry the greatest amount of traffic will receive priority.

Some bridges simply cannot be fixed, and in those cases one has to wait until a proper time at which they can be fixed.

Claiming that it would take an infinite amount of money, however, is a bit shortsighted. Do we even have any figures yet concerning how much it would cost to fix unstable bridges?

You're right that it was wrong for me to make the blanket statement that maintaining infrastructure should take priority over everything else, I wasn't really thinking. Though I still believe that maintenance of infrastructure should be government's number one priority and that the necessary funds should always be appropriated towards it before wasting our money on subsidies and various other claptrap.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 05:22 PM Local time: Aug 11, 2007, 03:22 PM #83 of 101
Stop trolling this thread or I will ban you from it.
You will do no such thing. She's not trolling because you disagree.

Additional Spam:
Claiming that it would take an infinite amount of money, however, is a bit shortsighted.
But that's the thing. 100% reliability is impossible, which means it would take an infinite amount of money to reach it.

So, define "fix". Works for 10 more years? 50 more years? Works forever?

How about it's reliability? 80% stable for 10 years? 70% stable for 50 years?

You have to find where your acceptable loss point is. My point is that whatever it is that got us to here isn't too bad.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
and Brandy does her best to understand

Last edited by BlueMikey; Aug 11, 2007 at 05:28 PM. Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 06:34 PM 50 #84 of 101
Stop trolling this thread or I will ban you from it.
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.



you are a traitor




you have a fetish for the Man



damn LIEburls



go anarchy




you think governments have unlimited funds

damn LIEburls

Ritalinal: you seen those 7chan shota pics?
Ritalinal: JOEY?

Col Jacen Solo: No. Don't look at shota.
Ritalinal: u should!
Ritalinal: its cool =D
Col Jacen Solo: meh. I fap on my own, porn helps, but I enjoy my own adventures...
Ritalinal: wanna see which one i'm looking at?

Ritalinal: HUH?
Col Jacen Solo: Not really Alex...
Ritalinal: it's one of zelda, and link =D



you have a fetish for the Man






non political non political non political non political non-profit corporation owned by the people

damn LIEburls

tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (tolls everywhere aren't tho~)




damn LIEburls free rush

[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

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE

go anarchy :love:

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE

Ritalinal: you seen those 7chan shota pics?
Ritalinal: JOEY?
Col Jacen Solo: No. Don't look at shota.


Ritalinal: u should!

Ritalinal: its cool =D
Col Jacen Solo: meh. I fap on my own, porn helps, but I enjoy my own adventures...
Ritalinal: wanna see which one i'm looking at?
Ritalinal: HUH?
Col Jacen Solo: Not really Alex...
Ritalinal: it's one of zelda, and link =D


GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE



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"

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE




(only the first three episodes of season one)

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE




GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE


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

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE






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




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




damn LIEburls

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.













tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (tolls everywhere aren't tho~)

you have a fetish for the Man



non political non political non political non political non-profit corporation owned by the people

Ritalinal: you seen those 7chan shota pics?
Ritalinal: JOEY?
Col Jacen Solo: No. Don't look at shota.
Ritalinal: u should!
Ritalinal: its cool =D
Col Jacen Solo: meh. I fap on my own, porn helps, but I enjoy my own adventures...
Ritalinal: wanna see which one i'm looking at?
Ritalinal: HUH?


Col Jacen Solo: Not really Alex...
Ritalinal: it's one of zelda, and link =D









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.



how DARE the gub'mint take my money

shit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got real hackers on steroids hackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroids hackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroids hackers on steroidshackers on steroids



[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

tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (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)

how DARE the gub'mint take my money

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

tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (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


GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE


how DARE the gub'mint take my money



cocks

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Last edited by Sarag; Aug 11, 2007 at 07:43 PM.
Xardion
CAT JUMP


Member 67

Level 18.44

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 06:42 PM Local time: Aug 11, 2007, 05:42 PM 4 1 #85 of 101
SHIT JUST GOT LURKER

I was speaking idiomatically.

[ Patrick James "PJ" Beckett ]
UltimaIchijouji
Gold Chocobo


Member 789

Level 28.86

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 08:06 PM #86 of 101
Owned to death.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 09:36 PM Local time: Aug 11, 2007, 09:36 PM #87 of 101
Well now we're getting somewhere.

FELIPE NO
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 09:48 PM #88 of 101
I nominate lurker's explosion of genius for PP Post of the year. Hell, GFF Post of the year.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 10:23 PM Local time: Aug 11, 2007, 10:23 PM 1 #89 of 101
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.
Point taken.

Quote:
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.
The issue of the viaduct is not to demonstrate an issue that was avoidable (I know I misrepresented this so my mistake), it was supposed to represent a case where the government failed to act in regards to what was considered a reasonable danger. The benefit derived from the actual collapse isn't as important as the demonstration of government action. The government has no real interest in fixing or even seriously investigating the bridge by virtue of its divided attention. Unless alarms are raised or appropriate attention is called to the issue, government will be slow to act.

Whether the retrofits would have failed is still an uncertainty, the point is to illustrate that the government failed to act under means that were considered to be reasonable at the time.

Quote:
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.
Point taken.

Quote:
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.
I think there was some misunderstanding there, since I was talking about competition between transit, and that multiple corporations for modes of transit would cause the road corporation to compete for its use.

Quote:
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.
Point taken.

Quote:
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.
Point taken.

Quote:
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.
A private team demanding taxpayer money under the threat that they would leave is not free market bargaining, it is rentseeking. Free market bargaining involves the distribution of information, so that all parties determine price by virtue of supply and demand. Voters don't have to be aware of why a team needs new facilities, they only know that if the demands of the team isn't met they will move elsewhere. Regardless of how unreasonable the demand may be, the team owner can cow voters into accepting their demands under threat.

It is practically extortion.

Quote:
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.
Point taken.

Quote:
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.
Point taken.

Quote:
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.
I said that drunk driving elevates a risk, but that being drunk does not make oneself a danger to others. One can be drunk and not be a danger to others, it's once you put them behind of the wheel of a car that they present a real danger.

Quote:
You claim taxes are theft. This is incorrect.
You're gonna have to do better than that.

Quote:
You support the gold standard. This has nothing to do with the thread but jesus.
And thank you for not harping on it again.

Quote:
You support anarchy. This has everything to do with your thread. Jesus.
Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.

Quote:
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
It was wrong for me to give Mikey shit without going into detail. In general it's wrong of me to give Mikey shit.

There's no parallel between repairing bridges, and banning carcinogens, because while the latter would end deaths caused by carcinogens it would in effect lower life expectancies and make people die from causes before they could die from carcinogens. A collapsed bridge doesn't raise life expectancies.

This doesn't mean that Mikey is wrong in spirit, it means that I'm being a bitch and playing word games.

Quote:
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.
No better way to deal with fear than to make fun of it. My intent is not to mock others but to mock the state of the system.

Quote:
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?
Point taken.

Quote:
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.
The nature of the Oliver Twist cook is that he does feed starving children but not enough. When he's asked for a suitable amount of food, the reaction is to shout and issue a savage beating.

You are leaving me information starved. I cannot argue your points if all you're doing is yelling at me and spamming gold standard.

Quote:
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.
Where the Hell did you get that? Paying taxes lacks consent because the taxes are extracted regardless of whether you've agreed to have the funds taken by government. You can consent to pay a toll because otherwise you would not be using the road. You can't consent to pay a tax, because you'll be paying regardless of whether or not you have rendered use.

Quote:
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.
One doesn't have to conspire to murder in order to remain negligent. If the collapse of a bridge costs the state nothing, then it lacks incentive to keep the bridge sufficiently maintained. It's not because the state has conspired to get on the Federal dole, it's because the incentive isn't there to issue a priority.

Quote:
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.
Granted.

Quote:
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.
The point I was trying to make is that the government does not truly create, because the means of creation (tax dollars) is not rightfully possessed by the government. It's taxpayers who create the services that the government provides, because without those means there would be nothing. Since the government cannot rightfully claim the money as its own by virtue of the lack of trade, it has not truly created by virtue of its own labor.

Quote:
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!
Point taken.

Quote:
Even though you say that the government has a steady income due to tax
I never said this.

Quote:
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.
I never claimed that they did. Governments will distribute funds according to their perceived need, and because there is a lack of revenue incentive for the maintenance of a bridge (revenue is extracted regardless of whether or not there is a bridge) and because of the lack of that incentive, maintenance loses priority.

Quote:
I asked you several times to no avail about this.
I thought I had answered this, but I guess I misunderstood the question. I hope this answers it.

Honestly, thank you for actually explaining your viewpoint as opposed to issuing statements.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2007, 10:28 PM #90 of 101
Nicely played, Brady.

Most amazing jew boots
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.