B. Max

Even if they're incompetent, uneducated and can barely speak English, right? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's the canadian way.

The current funding mechanisms do not charge people in their cars to true cost of the infrastructure so drivers are getting a free ride. If you believe that transit riders should pay the full cost of the service then people who drive cars should also pay the full cost. That would require much higher gas taxes and tolls on many roads. If you agree then at least you are consistent in your views, otherwise, you are advocating that relatively poorer transit riders should pay more so relatively rich commuters can drive to work and back. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wrong, drivers are already over charged with the feds being the best example. Only and small fraction of the 10 cent a liter gas tax is spent on roads. A tax that they said was going to be spent on roads, and now a tax which they refuse to spend on roads or let anyone else spend on roads. A tax which now must be spent on public transit. To jail with the whole damn works of them and let those that want to be hauled around like human cattle pay for their ride.

Why is providing an eloborate network of roads at zero cost to snobbish commuters an example of government 'doing its job'? A gov't that was doing its job would provide a public transportation system that meets the needs of the vast majority of commuters and let the snobs who think public transport is beneath them pay the the true cost of using thier vehicle. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you slow. People with private vehicles are paying their own ride and someone elses too. There is no such right to a free ride. That is communist thinking.

Ultimately this is a gigantic subsidy to the to car owners and are part of the true costs of operating a vehicle. That is why the accounting profession and economists are a farce as the real costs are never shown on balance sheets.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nonsense, the only thing subsidized are the public cattle liners paid for by private auto owners who have to pay for their ride and someone elses too.

In other words, you are in favour of taxpayer funded social programs as a long as they benefit you (roads and bridges to provide personal mobility == social program). Not everyone shares your opinion of public transportation, more importantly, not everyone can afford the cost of running a vehicle required to take advantage of subsidized roadways. Transit should not be free (because nothing should be free since it encourages abuse), however, it deserves more subsidies than the private automobile. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No i'm in favor of government doing its job. Which is building roads and bridges paid for through the money it now collects to do that. Not running subsidized human cattle cars that take monies away from what it was intended for. Let private business buy build and operate buses and subways and let the cost of a ticket reflect that cost including the cost of building the roads the buses run on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pure nonsense. There is nothing more subsidized than public transit with little or no benifit. Governments provide no subsidizes to oil companies what soever. In fact, for years, governments have been doing almost the opposite; they've been encouraging us to stick with the car by heavily subsidizing its operation, providing billions of dollars annually to build and maintain highways, roads, bridges and traffic signals. This is exactly what governments job is. Not to herd everyone into what is nothing less than human cattle trucks. People who value their freedom of mobility which has been at the center of building the country are not going to trade it for anything, or hand it over to the government. The true cost of public tranist should be reflected in the price of ticket. At that point it would cease to exist as its true value would be exposed. One has to remeber that government has no money of its own. Only that which they extort from our pockets through gas taxes license plate fees and the like and it should be spent on the roads as was intended. Not to subsidize public transist.

Well done. The politics of envy is a one way street.

I wasn't wrong about anything. I never said anything about the levees not being upgradded properly. The government responded as best they could. What are you suppose to do when those that are suppose respond, are in many cases those who have to be responded to.

Does anyone else get the feeling that this may become our "hot button" issue this Fall? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I heard layton say that. What nonsense. Prices are just as high in PEI as the rest of the country if not higher.

Why blame bush, when it is state officials who have authority and jurisdiction. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because FEMA is responsible for disasters of this magnitude. Obviously the state was overwhelmed by it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Obviously, but FEMA is only a coordinating body. If those that they are to direct and coordinte are rendered out of service for the most part it's game over.

A lot of the problem here and in the US is that people have forgotten that it is they themselves that are ultimately responsible for their own. However we have become nations of entitlements and government do this and government do that, and whine if the government doesn't supply a host of tear catchers and nose wipers.

Why blame bush, when it is state officials who have authority and jurisdiction.

You're correct. These are also the same people who forbid the building of power plants and oil refineries, but complain about the price of electricity and gasoline. Mirror, you resembale those remarks incuding your own. Why they didn't rescue those poor people right away is beyond comprehension. Who is they. Do you have any comprehension of the scale of what's going on there.

Tell me about it. I am sure there's people naif enough to think there's no connection between the breach of the levees and the Bush adminisration's decision to cut the funds to fix those same levees, in order to divert that specific funding to Iraq. Or the decision to cancel open up parts of the wetland buffer zone between New Orleans and the gulf for development. All this despite warnings from the Federal Emergency Management Agency that in the event of a "New Orleans hurricane scenario...the city's less-than-adequate evacuation routes would strand 250,000 people or more, and probably kill one of 10 left behind as the city drowned under 20 feet of water. Thousands of refugees could land in Houston. Economically, the toll would be shattering. Southern Louisiana produces one-third of the country's seafood, one-fifth of its oil and one-quarter of its natural gas. The city's tourism, lifeblood of the French Quarter, would cease to exist. The Big Easy might never recover." (Link) Yet some people are still naive or ignorant enough to make statements like: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As i understand it, in the US leftist treehugger law forbids anyone from making dry land out of wet lands. How could bush divert money from the levees to the war when all the money for the war was borrowed and at the time the war was far more important with the war being a certainty and a class five hurricane with a direct hit in that area not a certainty. Of course clinton was in there for 8 years and never built them higher either. Which is what they needed to be, not repaired.

All leftists have one guiding principle that they share, and that is to reward failure by punishing success, and to some extent they all practice the politics of envey. Although the further left you go the more obvious it becomes.

How naive some people are.

The usaul suspects have had to reel this one in from the outer edge of the lunatic fringe to blame it on bush. They've been studying this since the sixties to come up with a plan for new orleans, just for this kind of an event. Would another ten years and 50 million do it. The time for study was over years ago and something if anything should have long ago been in place. The dough headed germans blaming bush because he and the senate wouldn't sign onto kyoto. As if signing kyoto would have made any difference goes to show how stupid the people that did, and what a farce the whole thing is. There have been several climatologists in the media over the last couple of days debunking the crackpot nonsense about the storm and global warming too.

Nah, pat has his sights set on lefty pinko these days.

The fact is there was nothing to counter, just as your military assessments you have contributed nothing. I thought you were going to cut and run.

I'm surprised someone hasn't blamed it on bush.

Yes, you are patheticly naive. I've already told you and i won't tell you again. No you haven't, actually. But whatever: I'm not really interested. With drawing in this case would be surrender. What else would it be. Where do you want to fight the terrorists. Main street amaerica. I suppose the fact that there are more "terrorists" in Iraq now than there ever were under Saddam Hussein has escaped your notice? besides, I thought the goal was to build a democracy in Iraq and bring freedom and such to Iraqis: how is that compatable with the flypaper strategy, given that strategy pretty much guarantees Iraq will remain unstable? They're clearinghouses for GOP talking points, as reliable as unbiased as the World Socialist News or the Heritage Front. Funny that you'd claim that, given that the process I described is known as "freeping", which is derived from the right-wing discussion board Free Republic and the tendancy of its members to vote en masse in online polls with the intended goal of significantly affecting the final outcome. False dichotomy. It is possible to support the troops and not support the mission, just as it's possible to support the mission and not support the troops (for example, by not putting enough of them in so as to make their job easier, or by denying them adequate body armour or cutting their medical benefits...) Leaving Iarq would solve the problem of being in Iraq, would it not? I don't really see much point in continuing this discussion (such as it is), as it's clear you're not capable of producing anything original, interesting or even logical. Time to get a new schtick. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If i were you i would get out too. You have spewed nothing but the usual appeasement nonsense. Leaving iraq would solve nothing. It would however appease the islamic terrorists and undermine the war effort which is what treason is usually about and in this case is about. It would not end the war.

Yes, you are patheticly naive. I've already told you and i won't tell you again. With drawing in this case would be surrender. What else would it be. Where do you want to fight the terrorists. Main street amaerica. newsmax and WN are two of the best sources there is. No leftwing nonsense. No doubt that is exactly the way the left operates. Sixty percent support the mission which is how you support the troops. If you don't support the mission you don't support the troops which is what the left is famous for. No surprise there. The left would leave iraq, then what. They can't answer that, because all it is about for them is hating bush for winning the election in the first place. They would rather side with the enemy. Traitors.

If you can't understand the most basic of basics then i can't help you. Looks like whatever polls you're talking about can be tossed out the window as a result of these traitors actions. As most people now see them for what they are. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/20/222659.shtml

To bad we've got ottawa's song and dance man in charge in alberta. I wonder what deals klien has already made with martin to sell us down the road. http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Lev...192351-sun.html

Tell that to the Mahdi Army, the Badr Brigade, the Wolf Brigade, the peshmerga, Jaish-e-Mohammad, the Iraqi National Islamic Resistance Front, Al-Awdah, the Al-Haqq Army, and teh rest of the groups fighting amongst themselves for control of their destiny and that of post-Saddam Iraq. Tell it to Iyad Allawi and the experts who are proclaiming that civil war is a fact of life in Iraq. But I suppose considering that reality would require looking outside of Newsmax and WingNut Daily... Again, you fail to explain why their views are traitorous and how the expression of such dissenting opinions actually harms the U.S. cause in Iraq. No, they are not traitorous by any stretch of the imagination. They are not calling for the overthrow of the government of destruction of the state. they are calling for an end to a ill-conceived, poorly planned and shoddily executed foreign entanglement, a view shared by an ever-increasing number of Americans (or haven't you noticed the poll numbers lately?) I'll say this much though: I don't believe for a second that support for the war would be so low if the U.S. was winning. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't you even read what you post. It says facing civil war, it doesn't say there is a civil war. The ones who are behind all the trouble are again saddams bunch. They are traitors. What they are calling for is for the US to surrender to the killer islamics who, they, we, are at war with who want to kill us all for christ sakes. What hell is wrong people. That is treason. They are saying to the terrorists just wait we'll do in the streets of america what you haven't been able to do on the battle field. Hang about four or five of these traitors and that will be the end of them.