There is also not in Canada. No happy face for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Printable View
There is also not in Canada. No happy face for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
If that's the efficiency you require before using it, then no wonder you got poor mass transit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Well, give me a nice market solution with any realistical hope of succeeding... While taxes by itself is about as effective as massive tax cuts, the state is about the only organisation that will ever go close to a long term project with long payback time with undirect profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Subventions for bus companies willing to expand on that market? Or tax cuts below 0% tax if you prefer that. :laugh4:
That helps mass transit how? :inquisitive: And light-wight, relativly cars is going to be soo selling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
The alternative energy solutions are more interesting, but it'll probably take a few decades for it to develop fully.
As I have said previously on these boards, the biggest criticism that people could level at Chavez, if they open their eyes and ignore their dogmatic hatred, is his relationship with FARC. It seems fairly clear - and I have read a fair bit about it from varying sources - that Chavez is to some degree involved with FARC. I say some degree because depending where you read it goes from indifference, to tolerance to and further to active help of, FARC.
You won't find me defending Chavez for his relationship with FARC, it is an organisation which uses methods which I cannot agree with and is so far away from its founding principles it might as well be called what it really is, a drug cartel. However, when people point fingers at me or call me names - or demand to 'know where I am' - I would simply say that people here defend and agree with various organisations and governments who themselves have questionable - to say the least - relationships with certain organisations. This is politics and in terms of the situation in South America, it is drastically important politics, just like US support of dictators during the cold war was morally justified by it's supporters, by the necessity of the task at hand.
Let us get some things clear - Chavez's relationship with FARC does in no way reduce or dampen his great achievements domestically for the people of his nation, nor does it also do the same to his achievements internationally, to put South America back on the map and not an extended piece of the US. Whatever you say about the relationship with FARC, this does not change.
Furthermore, it is also apparent that people are ignoring the fact that Columbia, in effect, invaded a neighboring country. It is not acceptable, full stop. You cannot unilaterally invade another nation, for whatever reason and I think it is fair - if not being done for posturing reasons - for the neighboring states to send their troops to the borders. It is exactly what any nation on this planet would do when attacked. It doesn't matter nor should even come into anybody's thinking as to why it was done, it simply does not make any difference, a nation was invaded and is taking appropriate measures to defend itself in future. If we ignore international law, precedent and diplomacy like Columbia has done in the past week, then what we have is deepening anarchy in an international system which has only been getting out of the 'natural' state of anarchy, over the last 60 years.
And I would like to point out, lastly that it is quite coincidental, is it not, that Columbia have found in the very same computers information not only implicating Chavez and Venezuela but also Ecuador! Wow, who would have thought it! Information implicating the two nations pissed that the Columbian government unilaterally invaded a nation! Italy have condemned the attack too, maybe they were involved as well - give it time. It is too convenient and I try and shy away from convenient 'facts' that arise to demonise opponents on a subject.
Anyway, it is quite easy to support Chavez and the great things he has done for his nation and others in the region - as well as mine and London in particular, with the cheap oil deal - and salute a great man, while still stating that he and his nations policies are not perfect - much like many people here do with certain Presidents of a certain nation, of the past - a certain privatising, murdering scum bad starting with Rea.. springs to mind. I forget his name though.
If you want to criticize one then thats fine , but if you criticize one for being really really bad when the other is just as bad then what you write is ...errrrr...BUNK .Quote:
If I criticize one I need to criticize the other? BUNK
Consider it an application of that Negroponte doctrine that your government likes so much , speaking of which when your government doesn't invade countries , finance terrorists and deploy military forces to exert pressure then perhaps you can criticize other countries actions more freely and with more conviction .
Really ? thats funny .Quote:
Your opinions regarding Uribe seem to be baseless
Tell you what Tuff , you say you get your information from Wiki and the BBC , have you ever considered following links from those places to see the full selection of information that they are only giving you snippets of ?
All of the scandals involving Uribes ties and US government (and business)terrorist funding in Columbia can be gathered with a few quick clicks .
Now what is a really funny development in this story is Uribe wanting to send Chavez to the international court , doesn't the muppet know that his puppet masters don't like that court .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What is even funnier is that if the allegations before the Columbian courts about him come to fruition then he himself might be joining his old buddies on the growing list of dodgy Columbian characters wanted for extradition to the US .:yes:
So whats your point? Canadians have every reason to gripe about their high energy costs, even more so than Americans due to the putative taxes their government adds to the cost of fuel. Hell, everyone has the right to gripe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Not quite sure what you mean. Should I expect half ass transportation run by the state?Quote:
If that's the efficiency you require before using it, then no wonder you got poor mass transit.
How about tax cuts by say 10% or even more?Quote:
Well, give me a nice market solution with any realistical hope of succeeding... While taxes by itself is about as effective as massive tax cuts, the state is about the only organisation that will ever go close to a long term project with long payback time with undirect profit.
Subventions for bus companies willing to expand on that market? Or tax cuts below 0% tax if you prefer that.
I forgot though, the market is evil, the state must solve all! :yes:
I never said it would help mass transit. My point was it would get us off our addiction to oil and the corrupt governments of the Middle East, while costing a hell of a lot less.Quote:
That helps mass transit how? And light-wight, relativly cars is going to be soo selling.
I'm not sure what you mean by light weight relativity cars.
Hence, there needs to be greater incentive, which higher oil prices and tax breaks from the government will yield.Quote:
The alternative energy solutions are more interesting, but it'll probably take a few decades for it to develop fully.
Yu0 d0nt understand or is that sarcasm?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
cH3@ how many miles/kilo's do you drive to work? last time I checked europeans dont depend on car as much a Americans do. What with closer locations and availibilty of various transport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Note on Ice's car that since he's in college that car is t3H important to him, with lack of money, he is most likely barely keeping up with g@s prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Do you agree that the ramifications of Uribe's referendum are very different from the possible ramifications of Chavez's failed attempt? That should be a simple answer, but I'm sure that you will complicate it.
Still; PHD in regional politics? Major? What makes your understanding so superior to those of us who see the forest for the trees? That you follow links? So do we.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
I'm glad that you condemn FARC.
The Colombian government made an incursion 1.9 miles into Ecuadorian rain forest and killed a terrorist who was orchestrating murders, drug transportations and kidnappings in their country. They promptly apologized to the Ecuadorian government for the necessity of the act, but claim that the situation wasn't being addressed. Since Ecuador and Venezuela seem to be in cahoots with FARC, telling them about the intelligence would have been a sure-fire way to get the FARC to re-locate.
There are plenty of international precedents. As much as I consistently disagree with Israel, they do this stuff constantly. The U.S. does this stuff. Turkey just did this. The examples of others doing this are many.
The fact is that the U.S. broke down the walls regarding the harboring of terrorists with impunity. Good. "International law" is a sham if it is used to harbor terrorists.
All of the Presidential candidates support Uribe in this action. I know, I know, "evil American Imperialist dogs want to eat our children", but it says a little bit when their answers are unanimous.
As much as I consistently disagree with Israel, they do this stuff constantly. The U.S. does this stuff. Turkey just did this. The examples of others doing this are many.
Most of the people who do this are "on your side" would you be so casual if it happened to your country or an ally ?
I really hope you're talking about Afghanistan, and not Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
It reminds me of the Israeli 'Operation Entebbe', where terrorists hijacked a civilian airplane and held them ransom. The Israelis promptly responded with a anti-terrorists raid into Uganda, rescuing many of the hostages. Even though they violated international law launching this attack, they did save lives. Whether is was right or wrong is your judgment, but the Israelis did it and saved lives. That's what matters to me, and I'll give them kudos for it.
I'm supporting Colombia in this attack since they destroyed a key FARC commander and struck a blow for law and order. While you can argue that it was an invasion and that it wasn't the right thing to do, I believe that it was a step in destroying the guerrilla force that is FARC. It will produce results that will lead to the downfall of this terrorist force.
If they want to be legitimate, why do they need hostages and threats to maintain their legitimacy?
Do we harbor terrorists? OH yea, that's right, we ARE terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
No. If they harbor terrorists, not only would they most likely not be our allies, but I wouldn't feel bad if someone made a quick incursion. An exception to this is Pakistan. I wouldn't be pissed if Afghan (or U.S.) forces made an incursion, but I would question the pragmatism of such a move given the situation in the country and its tenuous hold to our alliance.
I was talking about Afghanistan in particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Just curious. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Israel does. The murderers of a completely innocent man in Lillehammer fled from justice to hide in Israel. Would you support an air strike against Israel?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
if you could see the forest for the trees you would understsnd , it is you that are calling well publicised things "baseless" and you whose only opinion on these issues seems to be Uribe isn't Chavez and Uribe likes American policies .Quote:
What makes your understanding so superior to those of us who see the forest for the trees? That you follow links? So do we.
Correct , America does commit terrorism and does support terrorists , it also harbours terrorists . So you fall flat on your face there Tuff .Quote:
Do we harbor terrorists? OH yea, that's right, we ARE terrorists.
For a recent example , can you name the person accused of killing European tourists by bombing hotels ? is it the same person accused of blowing up civilian airliners killing all the passengers ?
Where is that persn now ?
How many countries have had their attempts at bringing the terrorist to justice blocked by the country that supported , financed ,trained and now harbours him ?
Now then would all those countries be "justified" in bombing that country ?
“You cannot unilaterally invade another nation,”: Well, de facto you can. Then, you can declare a part of the territory you invaded independent… Was done from Panama and more recently for Kosovo…:beam:
“Uribe wanting to send Chavez to the international court”. Yep. Chavezovic, I told you.:2thumbsup:
“Do you agree that the ramifications of Uribe's referendum are very different from the possible ramifications of Chavez's failed attempt”
No. In France we have no limitation of the number of mandates. The principal is every body is equal in front of the law, and if somebody is good enough to be elected 3 times, well, it is good for the country…
Or you can go for the Putin’s solution…:beam:
A lot of democratic countries (if fact, the majority of) don’t know a system limiting the right of voters to decide who they want as President…
Yeah, I've never seen the need for a limit, when it can be bypassed very easily by putting a puppet in charge...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Forgive me for butting in, but I have trouble detecting the sarcasm in said post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Somehow, I think building up a reliable, extensive bus network will take much less money and time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I agree. Otherwise any belligerent nation could just use the terrorist excuse to invade another country.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
My dad has to drive an hour each day to get to his work. My mom has to drive for 25 minutes or something like that(not including traffic jams). She mostly uses public transport though, but that means an hour on the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Pot, meet Kettle. :laugh4:
Car's will always have the benefit of being faster (unless the mass transit can bypass traffic jams or having high speed trains) and not needing to wait for the transport to arrive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
You can develop a profitable system that aren't taking much longer, has quite dense transports and is cheap, but that's about it.
Well, the market cannot do it by itself (I still haven't seen you suggest anything different), and even your suggestion demands that the state will have to tax all other companies to make the tax cut an incentative. :bounce:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
One of the flaws of the market is that if there's an expensive and long gap between the first investment and the income it's highly unlikely for the market to develop in that way, even if it's beneficial in the long term.
Or to put it differently, what's the odds for evolution to create a kentaur?
And don't you tax profits over there (aka you'll need to make a profit in the first palce to earn on a tax cut)? :inquisitive:
So by cutting off oil dependence you'll get an efficient national wide bus system that can quickly get me from point A to point B? Missed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Solving oil dependance is an entierly different matter.
Missed a slow there :oops: . More energy efficient cars need either a new kind of engine or becoming lighter and cutting down on horse powers, if driven on oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
And it will still take decades. BTW, waiting for the oil prices to be painfully high is also most likely lead to a painful transition period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
And it cannot be fully solved until there's some source of cheap and aboundant energy.
relativity cars??Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
that will be fast!! :burnout:
j00r m0$+ likely the minority of the people who drive that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
Quirinus- excuse me?
Uh huhQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
How exactly?Quote:
You can develop a profitable system that aren't taking much longer, has quite dense transports and is cheap, but that's about it.
The state already tax companies.Quote:
Well, the market cannot do it by itself (I still haven't seen you suggest anything different), and even your suggestion demands that the state will have to tax all other companies to make the tax cut an incentative. :bounce:
You think that developing a mass transit system capable of serving the needs of 300 million Americans efficiently and safely will be easier?Quote:
One of the flaws of the market is that if there's an expensive and long gap between the first investment and the income it's highly unlikely for the market to develop in that way, even if it's beneficial in the long term.
We tax income, yes. The point being, as the company makes major breakthroughs and starts to become successful they will be able to keep more of the income.Quote:
And don't you tax profits over there (aka you'll need to make a profit in the first palce to earn on a tax cut)? :inquisitive:
I never said that. The point I was making is this is one way of getting around the painful gas prices.Quote:
So by cutting off oil dependence you'll get an efficient national wide bus system that can quickly get me from point A to point B? Missed that.
Solving oil dependance is an entierly different matter.
Yes, that's what currently is happening/developing. I'm for accelerating the research.Quote:
Missed a slow there :oops: . More energy efficient cars need either a new kind of engine or becoming lighter and cutting down on horse powers, if driven on oil.
...and somehow you believe that taxing gasoline to 6 dollars a gallon and trying to develop a mass transit system that is actually capable of serving people's needs is going to be more timely and less painful?Quote:
And it will still take decades. BTW, waiting for the oil prices to be painfully high is also most likely lead to a painful transition period.
Yes, hence the research.Quote:
And it cannot be fully solved until there's some source of cheap and aboundant energy.
Do share you plan on how to accomplish this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Firstly, heavily subsidise public transportation-- it's not going to be an attractive means of transport (as compared to cars) unless it's significantly cheaper. How about a dollar or fifty-cent day-pass? Instead of paying $50-100 per week for transport, only five dollars (or even $2.50) a week is needed for transport. For those who are tight on cash, that's a great incentive.
Of course, without the right infranstructure, even a free bus service would lack constant support. Map out a system of bus routes that is reasonably dense, and make them modular so as to be able to expand them at a later date. I understand that expecting a nationwide network is unreasonable due to the size of the US, but start with the urban areas-- New York, Washington DC, San Francisco, etc. etc. Don't skimp on anything-- good, punctual service is very important.
On the flip side of the coin, tax the purchase of cars heavily, and enforce measures that make purchasing a car a less attractive and viable investment. This way, people who might have previously drove anyway will at least give the public transportation system a try. Cars won't disappear from use, far from it. Those who can afford it will still buy it, and in the meantime the nation's coffers are filled, the same way they are filled by cigarette and liquor taxes.
I understand that it does take a whole lot of money, and it is difficult to change the mindset of an entire nation so soon, but it's possible. And I think it can be accomplished sooner than your plan of adopting alternative fuel and encourage research on them. My plan might take a decade or so, but what you're proposing (as I understand it) could possibly take a generation, maybe two, while in the meantime we have merciless traffic snarls and oil dependence on volatile, politically unstable regions. Your solution solves the latter, but not the former.
Boyar Son, you posted this:
CountArach made this observation about your post:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
And you replied by saying:Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
So I pointed out your first post and indicated my skepticism that you were being sarcastic, unless your sense of irony is so refined that your sarcasm is undetectable by us common mortals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Hope this clears things up. :yes:
About everyone I can think of spends atleast an hour on the road each day getting to and coming from his work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Topics had ADHD
I personally can't understand what the heck public vs. private transportation has to do with Venezuelan threats against Colombia. Now can we pleeeaaassseee get back on topic. If this concerns you that much, make another thread, you can make as many as you like, but don't turn this into something it's not.
I think Colombia is in the wrong on this one. They violated Ecuador's sovereignty. Who's against me?
Let me try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Venezuelans are commies, commies use public transportation.
Good capitalists have their own SUVs, take Texans for example.
Having your own car is an expression of your freedom(to destroy the environment, cause smog, cancer and death, basically be a darwinistic capitalist).
Venezuelans use tanks, tanks are owned by the commie government which is run by the commie public.
Therefore and because more than two people fit into tanks, tanks equal public transportation.
So basically the evil Venezuelan commie public transportation tank platoons near the border of Colombia, which uses mainly SUVs and is thus a capitalistic country of freedom and democracy and the American way, are a direct threat to world piece!
Therefore it is important to discuss the evils of the commie invention of public transportation to make sure that more people buy SUVs, stop supporting Venezuela and start buying Microsoft products to support capitalism, world piece, Texans, iraqi oil corporations(they use SUVs) and Bill Gates' american dream! :smash:
I have to go now or I'll miss my train later. ~D
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat