| Author |
|
Matthew McCallum
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2711
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 5:56pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I would not complain about this if my state had real public transportation or even sidewalks. Almost ever city/town except for the largest ones is designed for traveling by cars. Even if you walk every where you are risking getting mowed down. Not to worry, Victor! HR 1443 and S 584 are The Complete Streets Act of 2009 which are slowly working their way through the House and the Senate respectively. These bills will require all federally-funded projects to comply with complete streets principles (i.e. roads have to be designed for automobile, bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity safety, particularly where they interact). California passed Complete Streets at the state level last year, and we're waiting for the regulations from the Governor's Office so we can adopt our municipal Complete Streets Ordinance. (Boy, I never realized the knowledge I had to pick up while drafting the Redding Bikeway Action Plan would ever be useful outside my narrow cyclist confines...)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Victor Rodgers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 December 2004
Posts: 3508
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 6:25pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Matthew that would be great.
QUOTE:
| And Victor - I agree with you - there are a lot of laws designed tokeep the peasants in their place. I'm not on the same page with you onthe HealthCare, but I like where you're coming from. I like the cut of your jib, sir! |
|
|
Thank you Mike. It is appreciated.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 7:24pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Where I used to live, the supermarket was merely a five minute walk away. I made that walk only a handful of times, only when my car was in the shop.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
William McCormick
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 February 2006
Posts: 3297
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 8:14pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
If the state considers car insurance that essential they should foot the bill.
We have been in wrecks where the other person was uninsured and dirt poor. Unless they were drunk or wasted or otherwise incapacitated it falls under shit happens.
********* The reason the state considers car insurance important, is to protect the other driver. Why the hell should I lose my car and not be able to replace it because you chose to drive without insurance and hit me? That's just fucking stupid. That seems even remotely fair to you?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 8:33pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Matthew if you are working on getting bike paths/lanes, good for you, my husband is a big bike guy and we have no bike lanes around here.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18100
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 8:35pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
It was the Washington Post who quoted Gingrich, which he later claimed as mischaracterization. ----------- And Rush Limbaugh's calling Chelsea Clinton the White House dog was an innocent mistake, too. Yeah, Gingrich is fucking lying.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Victor Rodgers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 December 2004
Posts: 3508
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 8:40pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
The reason the state considers car insurance important, is to protectthe other driver. Why the hell should I lose my car and not be able toreplace it because you chose to drive without insurance and hit me?That's just fucking stupid. That seems even remotely fair to you?
******
Why the hell should I not be able to get to work because I cant afford insurance? If its that important then they should foot the bill or have real public transportation. Why is it fair is only considered when the middle class or the wealthy are involved?
Edited by Victor Rodgers on 23 March 2010 at 8:41pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paul Kimball
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2207
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 8:46pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Why the hell should I not be able to get to work because I cant afford
insurance?
++++++++++++++
I agree that public transportation is a must in most major cities but if you hit
someone else, how will you be able to help them replace their car since if
you can't afford insurance you probably couldn't pay for any repairs?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Victor Rodgers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 December 2004
Posts: 3508
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 8:49pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
In any case I have been in car wrecks with people without insurance and placed it in the shit happens file.
I can't drive period because im legally blind. I just resent that these laws are passed and insurance companies are still basically unregulated.
Edited by Victor Rodgers on 23 March 2010 at 8:50pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Official JB Historian
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10934
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 9:20pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
That gives me an idea...!As much as I'm usually against Religion in the public square... we hear so much from the bat-guana insane faction about how we such a religious nation and all... well... isn't there something in the bible against usury? Can't we use the bible to defeat credit cards and lenders and insurers? I know, I know, it's not good to use that kind of power - it's like when the human dude wanted to take the ring from Frodo, but... think of the power that book weilds! Plus, the fun of using their own book against them!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Victor Rodgers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 December 2004
Posts: 3508
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 9:25pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Down here the churchies go ballistic about gambling. To the point they are harrassing blue hairs about bingo. Their standards about gambling are so narrow that all insurance would qualify.
It amazes me how a minority is able to bully a majority. They are the only ones who care about gambling at all. But thats the power of voting. The schlubs don't bother and a minority get to bully us all.
I apologise for these tangents. But in the last month I have been stepped on by giants and am now swinging blind.
Edited by Victor Rodgers on 23 March 2010 at 9:26pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4649
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 11:41pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Michael Penn wrote:
| >> The Paul Krugman column on Monday, about the health care bill, quoted Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation. The quotation originally appeared in The Washington Post,which reported after the column went to press that Mr. Gingrich said itreferred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 CivilRights Act. << |
|
|
That correction is not really correct. As far as I can discern from the clarification at the Washington Post, Gingrich does not deny that he made the comment that Johnson "shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years" by passing civil rights legislation. What he objects to is the implication (in the original article) that he believes the passing of civil rights legislation was wrong. In the clarification, Gingrich goes on to expand his views, saying that he believes civil rights legislation was necessary and right, and that Johnson's errors were in his Great Society programs and Viet Nam, and these inflicted greater damage on the Democratic Party.
Gingrich's original comment is arguably correct. The passage of Civil Rights legislation did have a highly negative effect on the Democrats, as the south deserted them in droves, and Republicans dominated the Presidency for much of the next 40 years. Whether health care will have a similar effect remains to be seen (I think not, but I suppose I could be wrong). At any rate it was a very poorly-chosen analogy, because comparing something you agree with to something you disagree with makes no sense, and puts you at risk of being misinterpreted as Gingrich has been. I don't believe Gingrich disagrees with civil rights legislation, and if he did I don't believe he would be stupid enough to say so in public.
On the other hand, Gingrich's attempt to claim his comment was really intended to be more about the Great Society makes no sense. I can't see how the Great Society had much of any negative impact on Democrats. Certainly it didn't shatter the party.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
