More than a few people (usually of the radical Green variety, sometimes residents of the City of Takoma Park, Maryland) have incorrectly assumed that I am conservative and Republican because I favor more and better highways and am a skeptic of most fixed-guideway transit projects, and even more of a skeptic of purported congestion relief benefits of some very expensive transit proposals.
shitstorm incoming.
Anyway yeah I think it's okay.
Being "Liberal" or "Conservative" isn't 100% black and white. There are liberals who are against gun control and conservatives who support gay rights (these are examples of what I'm talking about).
It's 100% okay to be a liberal and like the things that you mentioned.
I'm a socialist and I'm in favour of both highways and public transit. Transit only has so many use cases and private vehicles are there to fill the gap. Neither is the panacea. Plus, highway capacity is needed for both in many cases (e.g., Quebec City's public transit is entirely bus-based; Montreal's is also highly bus-based as soon as you leave the subway's immediate vincinity). It shows when cities grow and only attempt to improve transit and not roadway capacity. It only slows down the congestion's progress; it doesn't stabilize or fix it. As far as tearing down freeways goes, I think it's nonsense.
Regarding suburbia, I'll say that moving into a dense city can only affect my mood negatively, not to mention the higher rent and property values. If you like the city, move there. I don't, and I shouldn't have to. This is one of my slight libertarian leanings.
Better roads, yes. Suburbia, no. Suburbia as we know it should be largely scrapped.
It's all right to be in favor of these. I'd think liberals would be more inclined toward better executions of these concepts than we currently have, though.
When I say better roads, I don't necessarily mean more roads. Better means better.
Instead of inefficient suburbs, we should have urban/rural hybrid areas, where the urban build-up suddenly seems to drop off into rural. It would look something like the Babb Alley area on the east side of Cincinnati. I'd like to see urban front yards with rural back yards - or vice versa.
As long as I don't have to share a wall with anyone, I'm happy.
But given my choice, I'll live in a remote, rural area, forested area of the North. It's where I grew up and it's where I'm happiest.
Both parties want better highways, it's just how to fund them that is the center of debate.
As for the exact initial question, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee (D) wants to see the completion (http://goo.gl/vc7WHx) of some local unfinished freeway segments.
Quote
TACOMA, Wash. -- Governor Jay Inlsee chose a distribution center near the Port of Tacoma Friday to push two transportation projects he says will boost trade and economic growth. The governor told workers and lawmakers gathered at Americold that finishing SR 509 and SR 167 is crucial to creating and maintaining jobs.
The first phase would cost about $1.8 billion to finish SR-509 south of SeaTac Airport and SR-167 between Puyallup and the Port of Tacoma. The legislature has proposed paying for the so-called Puget Sound Gateway project by tolling the new highway segments and charging solo drivers to use the HOVlanes on I-5 between Tacoma and Seattle.
Inslee also says a commitment must be made this year to qualify for $850 million in federal construction dollars.
We're going to build jet airplanes, said Inslee. And if we're going to build jet airplanes, we're going to have to move those jet engines up and down I-5, 405 and everywhere else in this state.
House Transportation Chair Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island) has also proposed increasing the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon to help fund the entire transportation budget which includes $1 billion for the Puget Sound Gateway.
I'm a liberal and favor better highways. More roads are OK, but should also be in tandem with better public transportation options.
That is the problem today, you have people worked up by social media, radio, and talk personalities including Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. that you are branded a name. All you need to to do is be a Conservative who does not like the Death Penalty and you will be called a "Liberal" by the one you argue with. The same with Health Care, there are plenty of Democrats that hate it, yet many Libs will say that they cannot be one of them.
On here we have one person who says that toll road haters in Central Florida are all Republicans and that all Orlando area Democrats are all behind collecting tolls. IMO, I have found that both sides of the spectrum hate the tolls and consider them too expensive and back in the 1990's the FL 408 was knicknamed the East West Ripoff by all people.
Also back in the 1980's no one used their party affiliation to determine who should serve in office. People hated either Ford or Carter, or even Reagan for what they have done as individuals not because they were either Republican nor Democrat. Even when Brendan Byrne was Governor of New Jersey most people at the time hated the man. I never heard anyone say it was because he was liberal or that it was Democrats who sucked at the time, it was because of he himself. The same for Keane, who was Republican was hated for bringing NJ into a hole, which his successor Jim Florio had to raise taxes to cover the loss, which led to hatred of him by all for raising the taxes!
Adults when I grew up as a kid never said what party they supported in general talk. It was the man that made him bad or worse and not the party beliefs at the time. Even Rush gets it wrong when he knocks the New Deal by Roosevelt! He makes it sound like FDR was as liberal as Obama was, but ask any old timer including Chuch Norris ( who is Conservative) they will tell you that the FDR Democrats were conservative by today's standards.
You're no liberal.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2015, 04:32:36 PM
He makes it sound like FDR was as liberal as Obama was, but ask any old timer including Chuch Norris ( who is Conservative) they will tell you that the FDR Democrats were conservative by today's standards.
I'm not so sure, especially on economic issues. The Democrats are more conservative now than they were when I was growing up in the '80s. I first registered to vote as a Democrat, but they drove me off from the party by running so far to the right in 1996.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 16, 2015, 02:04:11 PM
When I say better roads, I don't necessarily mean more roads. Better means better.
Instead of inefficient suburbs, we should have urban/rural hybrid areas, where the urban build-up suddenly seems to drop off into rural. It would look something like the Babb Alley area on the east side of Cincinnati. I'd like to see urban front yards with rural back yards - or vice versa.
It would be nice, IMHO, to see denser development and denser infill development as well. We should try to make accommodations for all forms of transport from walking to driving. In other words, we should have narrow, but deep lots with alleys at the back. I don't mind an HOA in charge of maintaining the alleys. This would allow for people to drive as they need, and walk as they want. It also provides the density needed for public transportation to work well. I'm probably an oddball in thinking that a grid, or a modified grid, is the best way to go for such development.
Quote from: Brandon on February 16, 2015, 05:18:28 PM
It would be nice, IMHO, to see denser development and denser infill development as well. We should try to make accommodations for all forms of transport from walking to driving. In other words, we should have narrow, but deep lots with alleys at the back. I don't mind an HOA in charge of maintaining the alleys.
I'm generally against HOA's. Just have the city, township, or county maintain the alleys.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 16, 2015, 05:26:05 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 16, 2015, 05:18:28 PM
It would be nice, IMHO, to see denser development and denser infill development as well. We should try to make accommodations for all forms of transport from walking to driving. In other words, we should have narrow, but deep lots with alleys at the back. I don't mind an HOA in charge of maintaining the alleys.
I'm generally against HOA's. Just have the city, township, or county maintain the alleys.
Around here, they refuse to plow the alleys, even though they are used for garages and garbage removal. Hence my thoughts on a limited HOA to maintain them, or at least plow them. BTW, I am on the board of my condo HOA. We limit ourselves to maintenance only, rather than dictating anything to anyone.
I am for roads as long as they're pro active and not retro active as Orlando has become due to their development all around except for the Wekiva River area, which when in an airplane you can tell distinctly due to large green area with no roads or buildings.
I think that before an area is allowed to be zoned for business or residential development, that the roads need to be brought up to handle it. I am not even talking about leaving ROW's either, I mean widened already before the impact hits. Hoagland Boulevard for one should be widened already being they allowed for developers to build on the cattle lands near the Carroll Street transition in NW Kissimmee. Right now Shunpikers are avoiding the $2 toll on the Osceola Parkway by using Dyer Boulevard SB from Osceola Parkway to WB Carroll Street into SB Hoagland Boulevard to US 192 W Bound to get to the Disney area. When the new homes finally get occupied in the next year or so, that road will be totally unpassable as it is near that already. And yes, people will not budge from avoiding the tolls either! Already there is a massive slow downs at three school zones along the shunpiked route, and a three light wait at US 192 with 5 mph maximum speed along Carrol/ Hoagland with guaranteed stops at the school crosswalks at two locations during school transit hours. Yet people, spending more than the $2 already in gas and added time, will not pay the dammed tolls!
To get back on point urban planners and suburban planners should see people's driving habits and if they are not ready to confront them just yet, then building should be halted. I do not know if this is liberal or conservative or moderate thinking, I know that this is truth that needs addressing as past mistakes have proven over developing to be disasterous for commuters thus in the high rate of accidents and increasing road rage. I believe this is right no matter where it puts me politically.
While a discussion on the desired density of development is certainly a topic that is within the remit of the off-topic forum, the question of how it fits into a liberal/conservative dichotomy is not, as political discussion is against the rules of this forum.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 16, 2015, 05:54:12 PM
While a discussion on the desired density of development is certainly a topic that is within the remit of the off-topic forum, the question of how it fits into a liberal/conservative dichotomy is not, as political discussion is against the rules of this forum.
It's not against the rules of the forum if it is directly related to roads. Let's watch the thread closely, but it can remain unlocked for now.
I don't know what you mean by "better suburbia." I'm in favor of improving our infrastructure, but I don't see why that is a liberal/conservative issue. I do think mass transit has a lot more of a place than you do, and that is a more "liberal" issue. Spending money in this country vs. overseas USED to be a conservative issue, but now conservatives want more money spent on military, while liberals want more money spent on foreign aid, and only Libertarians want to pull that spending back (but also on infrastructure). The ever-changing political landscape has led to people supporting our infrastructure on both sides of the aisle.
Part of the politics of transportation has been the shift on the left from a union focus to a green focus.
Good roads used to be something both parties could by and large find agreement on - they're good for business, good for economic growth, create jobs directly, and support jobs.
The left's shift away to the greens (who never met a road they don't want plowed under) has laregly coincided with the right's shift to a "tax nothing" philosophy, which leaves localities with little funding to pay for roads and little political will to build them, much less repair the existing ones.
Really it comes down to the fact that neither party represents the middle class - they're more concerned with the poor (growing in numbers) and the very rich (growing in wealth) than the financially and numerically withering middle.
I support improved transportation infrastructure ,good planning and technologies that reduce GHG emissions and I think all these thing help improve the standard of living and the economy. by their very nature this will involve various levels of government . If that makes me a ,lefty( or righty) I guess I am one
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 16, 2015, 12:42:15 PM
More than a few people (usually of the radical Green variety, sometimes residents of the City of Takoma Park, Maryland) have incorrectly assumed that I am conservative and Republican because I favor more and better highways and am a skeptic of most fixed-guideway transit projects, and even more of a skeptic of purported congestion relief benefits of some very expensive transit proposals.
CP, based on
most of your posts both here and on FB; you seem to come off as more
libertarian in your views vs. a liberal. I hope you don't take that as an insult (it wasn't intended to be such). Does that automatically make you a Republican, no; but such does seem to run contrary with the
overall mission of the
current Democratic party & platform. That's probably why you even started this thread.
When I first met you at the Portsmouth, NH meet (two(?) years ago); you mentioned to those that attended of an upcoming transportation seminar in the DC area hosted by the CATO Institute. Trust me when I say this, the CATO Institute's goals and mission are
not in synch with what most liberals today want in terms of transportation issues.
I think you may be in similar boat that both former-Senator Joe Lieberman and the late-former-PA Governor Bob Casey, Sr. were in. When they both dared to go against the grain of their party's platform (in separate areas); they were either condemmed and/or ostracized by/from their party for such.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2015, 04:32:36 PM
That is the problem today, you have people worked up by social media, radio, and talk personalities including Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. that you are branded a name. All you need to to do is be a Conservative who does not like the Death Penalty and you will be called a "Liberal" by the one you argue with. The same with Health Care, there are plenty of Democrats that hate it, yet many Libs will say that they cannot be one of them.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2015, 04:32:36 PM
On here we have one person who says that toll road haters in Central Florida are all Republicans and that all Orlando area Democrats are all behind collecting tolls. IMO, I have found that both sides of the spectrum hate the tolls and consider them too expensive and back in the 1990's the FL 408 was knicknamed the East West Ripoff by all people.
Orlando would not have those expressways (how I dislike that term to describe what are freeways) without the tolls (or, alternatively, much higher taxes on something).
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2015, 04:32:36 PM
Also back in the 1980's no one used their party affiliation to determine who should serve in office. People hated either Ford or Carter, or even Reagan for what they have done as individuals not because they were either Republican nor Democrat. Even when Brendan Byrne was Governor of New Jersey most people at the time hated the man. I never heard anyone say it was because he was liberal or that it was Democrats who sucked at the time, it was because of he himself. The same for Keane, who was Republican was hated for bringing NJ into a hole, which his successor Jim Florio had to raise taxes to cover the loss, which led to hatred of him by all for raising the taxes!
Agreed on those points.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2015, 04:32:36 PM
Adults when I grew up as a kid never said what party they supported in general talk. It was the man that made him bad or worse and not the party beliefs at the time. Even Rush gets it wrong when he knocks the New Deal by Roosevelt! He makes it sound like FDR was as liberal as Obama was, but ask any old timer including Chuch Norris ( who is Conservative) they will tell you that the FDR Democrats were conservative by today's standards.
Ronald Reagan thought F.D. Roosevelt was a great President of the United States.
I thought Ike was a great President - the Interstate Highway System is an amazing legacy of his.
Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2015, 06:22:17 PM
I don't know what you mean by "better suburbia." I'm in favor of improving our infrastructure, but I don't see why that is a liberal/conservative issue.
I wish it was not.
Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2015, 06:22:17 PM
I do think mass transit has a lot more of a place than you do, and that is a more "liberal" issue.
And
this is why I favor pricing of "free" roads where there is already a toll in the form of recurring congestion, since it allows buses to serve people that do not wish to pay that toll but want a fast trip anyway.
Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2015, 06:22:17 PM
Spending money in this country vs. overseas USED to be a conservative issue, but now conservatives want more money spent on military, while liberals want more money spent on foreign aid, and only Libertarians want to pull that spending back (but also on infrastructure). The ever-changing political landscape has led to people supporting our infrastructure on both sides of the aisle.
Agreed.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 16, 2015, 02:04:11 PM
When I say better roads, I don't necessarily mean more roads. Better means better.
Better means a few things to me:
(1) No recurring congestion;
(2) High(er) speeds;
(3) Less (or no) environmental impact on waterways (especially), but also wildlife, surrounding areas and air quality; and
(4) (Usually) some public transportation at those high(er) speeds.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 16, 2015, 02:04:11 PM
Instead of inefficient suburbs, we should have urban/rural hybrid areas, where the urban build-up suddenly seems to drop off into rural. It would look something like the Babb Alley area on the east side of Cincinnati. I'd like to see urban front yards with rural back yards - or vice versa.
Regarding a drop-off to rural (and vice versa), the starkest example I have ever seen in the U.S. is approaching Denver, Colorado from the east (e.g. Limon) on I-70. One minute you are in a very rural area, the next you are in suburban sprawl. Another (though less-stark) example is crossing Camp Pendleton (Marine Corps base) on I-5 from San Diego County heading north. All of a sudden, there's Orange County and metropolitan Los Angeles.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
I thought Ike was a great President - the Interstate Highway System is an amazing legacy of his.
We should do a list of the positive roadly accomplishments of each President. Though I admit that some recent Presidents have none.
Here's some accomplishments by Democrats and Republicans alike...
Truman - Started his political career by bringing better roads to Jackson County, Mo.
Eisenhower - Signed the Interstates into law.
Carter - As governor, canceled an unpopular and needless freeway project in Atlanta.
Obama - Gave other modes of transport equal footing with highways (for the first time in 50 years).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2015, 10:22:57 AM
Regarding a drop-off to rural (and vice versa), the starkest example I have ever seen in the U.S. is approaching Denver, Colorado from the east (e.g. Limon) on I-70. One minute you are in a very rural area, the next you are in suburban sprawl. Another (though less-stark) example is crossing Camp Pendleton (Marine Corps base) on I-5 from San Diego County heading north. All of a sudden, there's Orange County and metropoliran Los Angeles.
KY 8 heading east in Dayton, Ky., appears to have a real drop-off from urban to rural, without really a suburban buildup in-between.
It's like how I love living in a laid-back community, so I chose Austin, but that also means living around tons and tons of liberals. The trade-off!
Quote from: bandit957 on February 17, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
I thought Ike was a great President - the Interstate Highway System is an amazing legacy of his.
We should do a list of the positive roadly accomplishments of each President. Though I admit that some recent Presidents have none.
Here's some accomplishments by Democrats and Republicans alike...
Truman - Started his political career by bringing better roads to Jackson County, Mo.
Eisenhower - Signed the Interstates into law.
Carter - As governor, canceled an unpopular and needless freeway project in Atlanta.
Obama - Gave other modes of transport equal footing with highways (for the first time in 50 years).
Clinton - repealed the 55 (or 65/55) NMSL.
I think all Presidents have done good things for us...as well as bad things. It all depends how you benefited or didn't benefit.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2015, 10:03:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 16, 2015, 12:42:15 PM
More than a few people (usually of the radical Green variety, sometimes residents of the City of Takoma Park, Maryland) have incorrectly assumed that I am conservative and Republican because I favor more and better highways and am a skeptic of most fixed-guideway transit projects, and even more of a skeptic of purported congestion relief benefits of some very expensive transit proposals.
CP, based on most of your posts both here and on FB; you seem to come off as more libertarian in your views vs. a liberal. I hope you don't take that as an insult (it wasn't intended to be such). Does that automatically make you a Republican, no; but such does seem to run contrary with the overall mission of the current Democratic party & platform. That's probably why you even started this thread.
All correct. I am a Democrat with Libertarian leanings!
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2015, 10:03:27 AM
When I first met you at the Portsmouth, NH meet (two(?) years ago); you mentioned to those that attended of an upcoming transportation seminar in the DC area hosted by the CATO Institute. Trust me when I say this, the CATO Institute's goals and mission are not in sync;h with what most liberals today want in terms of transportation issues.
Correct! And it gets better - I regard Cato's Randal O'Toole (who runs the Antiplanner blog (http://ti.org/antiplanner/) among other things) as a personal friend, though there are times when I disagree with him, though I still respect him very much.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2015, 10:03:27 AM
I think you may be in similar boat that both former-Senator Joe Lieberman and the late-former-PA Governor Bob Casey, Sr. were in. When they both dared to go against the grain of their party's platform (in separate areas); they were either condemmed and/or ostracized by/from their party for such.
I got
plenty of that for having the temerity to favor the construction of Maryland's Route 200 (ICC) toll road for many, many years, which enraged more than a few of Montgomery County, Maryland's usual suspects in its (very active) civic, Smart Growth and environmental movements (though there is a lot of overlap between them).
Quote from: bandit957 on February 16, 2015, 02:04:11 PM
When I say better roads, I don't necessarily mean more roads. Better means better.
Instead of inefficient suburbs, we should have urban/rural hybrid areas, where the urban build-up suddenly seems to drop off into rural. It would look something like the Babb Alley area on the east side of Cincinnati. I'd like to see urban front yards with rural back yards - or vice versa.
You'll like the outer rim suburbs of Chicago. Very common to have urban front yards and a big cornfield in the backyard in towns like Oswego, Sugar Grove, even parts of Aurora
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2015, 12:54:40 PMClinton - repealed the 55 (or 65/55) NMSL.
Not so fast there. President Clinton didn't repeal it on his own. The NMSL was an Act of Congress and any ammendments and/or repeals to/of such had to pass through the House & Senate
prior to reaching the President's desk for approval or veto.
With the above in mind, the full NMSL repeal originated in the House under then-newly minted Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Trust me, had Tom Foley still been Speaker of the House following the 1994 elections; the full repeal of the NMSL would've never made it to the Senate let alone President Clinton's desk for his signature.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 17, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
We should do a list of the positive roadly accomplishments of each President. Though I admit that some recent Presidents have none.
Obama - Gave other modes of transport equal footing with highways (for the first time in 50 years).
That's a positive thing for roads? Hardly.
It's a positive thing wrt roads. It's not a positive thing for those who think roads are a goal in themselves.
"Liberal" is just a general label which can mean any number of things depending on who you ask. So the question isn't whether supporting roads is inconsistent with being "liberal", the question is whether it is inconsistent with one's other particular beliefs.
Especially when you consider that these things can get quite nuanced. I like old-growth, medium-density suburbs where some things may be reasonably walked to and there is some availability of transit, but where it is also relatively easy to find a parking space and to go drive places if you see fit. I despise newer, lower density suburbs where transportation begins and ends with cars, all the houses look the same, and all shopping is done in strip malls buried behind parking lots large enough to host Woodstock.
Meanwhile I will argue in favor both of useful highway projects and useful transit projects, and I get annoyed at the idea that only one of the two deserves investment.
The way I see it is both sides want better road infrastructure, so you cannot really put a label on which party is more for it than the other. It is the way both go about and if you feel that you are against your own ideals by being in roads, you should not. You are what you are and there is no label on that.
My earlier post has to do with what we have become over 30 years going from our own identity to having to be one of two ways of general belief.
I'm not a fan of endless, mindless or pointless suburban sprawl and not interested to live in high-density major cities. I'm for smaller towns surrounded by open space: wilderness or agricultural. I find important to have sufficient roads connecting from town to town when it's important. I see the need for freeways in higher populated metro areas, but I'm for support in improvements in local mass transit and bike trails for those who don't drive. City and county governments can back projects for pedestrians and bicyclists as much they back highways and motorists. This isn't really a liberal vs. conservative issue, but the label "liberal" is thrown at those who see it from a different angle than the "conservative" idea of mid-(20th) century freeway systems.
This thread needed a bump.
It's okay to be whatever you are and to be in favor of whatever you're in favor of. To believe otherwise is, to me, closed minded, anti-freedom, and anti-American. There is no liberty, no American ideal, in being bound to a political ideal that you don't believe in.
It's OK to be a Nazi and in favor of forced conversion to Judaism for all?
It's OK to be American and in favor of it not being "okay to be whatever you are and to be in favor of whatever you're in favor of"?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 17, 2015, 09:50:41 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on February 17, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
We should do a list of the positive roadly accomplishments of each President. Though I admit that some recent Presidents have none.
Obama - Gave other modes of transport equal footing with highways (for the first time in 50 years).
That's a positive thing for roads? Hardly.
If it gets rid of some traffic, then it's a good thing.
Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2015, 03:42:23 AM
It's OK to be a Nazi and in favor of forced conversion to Judaism for all?
End thread, Godwin's Law has been violated.
Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2015, 03:42:23 AM
It's OK to be a Nazi and in favor of forced conversion to Judaism for all?
It's OK to be American and in favor of it not being "okay to be whatever you are and to be in favor of whatever you're in favor of"?
Yes, the value of ideological consistency is smaller than the value of the freedom to consider and evaluate differing ideas. Even if we don't hold this to be true, who then decides when an idea is "too different" from the ideology to be worthy of consideration? Any suppression of the freedom to have thoughts is destructive of human potential, even the suppression of the freedom to think that people should not have freedom of thought.
I'm not addressing the merits of certain thoughts, but only the freedom to have them. And I'm not referring to the accommodation of evil thoughts. Thoughts have to be judged based on their merits, which is not our topic here. In our example, whether suburbia is good is based entirely on its nature and effects, not on whether a certain person holds certain political views. I'm a liberal who hates cities (not that they exist, but just the idea of living in one) and loves rural areas and supports responsible gun-toting hunters (I don't want to hunt, but I know people who really enjoy it). I don't want anyone telling me I can't hold those views, but I welcome challenges to them based on their merits.
It's OK for me to be in favor of whatever damn well I want to be in favor of. I am not nor ever have been a member of any political party. I don't agree with a whole lot of either parties' agendas. I don't choose a political party and toe the party line and agree with them on literally everything. I pick and choose my opinions on every issue and don't allow a one size fits all party affiliation to affect my politics. I do vote Democratic usually. Frankly I can't stand the Democrats but the Republicans are movie villain scary so I vote for the lesser of two evils. But I'm not voting for Hillary. Some of my political views might be labelled as "extreme" to somebody who is ignorant of politics. So what I'm saying is that you can't be a true Democrat if you're for better highways because to be a true Democrat you must toe the party line on every issue. You obviously disagree with the DNC on a lot of things and I wouldn't consider you a Democrat. A liberal with a lowercase L, sure, you're liberal in that sense. I am too.
Quote from: bugo on April 23, 2015, 01:05:53 PM
It's OK for me to be in favor of whatever damn well I want to be in favor of. I am not nor ever have been a member of any political party. I don't agree with a whole lot of either parties' agendas. I don't choose a political party and toe the party line and agree with them on literally everything. I pick and choose my opinions on every issue and don't allow a one size fits all party affiliation to affect my politics. I do vote Democratic usually. Frankly I can't stand the Democrats but the Republicans are movie villain scary so I vote for the lesser of two evils. But I'm not voting for Hillary. Some of my political views might be labelled as "extreme" to somebody who is ignorant of politics. So what I'm saying is that you can't be a true Democrat if you're for better highways because to be a true Democrat you must toe the party line on every issue. You obviously disagree with the DNC on a lot of things and I wouldn't consider you a Democrat. A liberal with a lowercase L, sure, you're liberal in that sense. I am too.
Holy crap, I thought I was the only one who thought like this. I'm liberal because I believe being conservative is going to set the country back, but I don't associate with Democrats. To be honest - politics bore me. It'd be
super if I could go read some news article on the Internet without everyone in the comments section inserting politics into it one way or another.
Quote from: Zeffy on April 23, 2015, 03:16:30 PM
It'd be super if I could go read some news article on the Internet without everyone in the comments section inserting politics into it one way or another.
I don't mind the politics, but I tire of the insults. It's nice to see "so and so believes in X and believes his/her idea will help make things better". I get so sick of "our opponents eat kittens for breakfast and thus they are far more evil than us". Most of the Facebook political postings, unfortunately, fall in the latter category. Thus, I hide the groups so that I cannot see them when a FB friend posts such stuff.
Repubs are evil.
Quote from: NE2 on April 23, 2015, 04:35:06 PM
Repubs are evil.
Case in point of insults over any actual substance.
Quote from: Brandon on April 23, 2015, 04:36:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 23, 2015, 04:35:06 PM
Repubs are evil.
Case in point of insults over any actual substance.
NE2 is still trying to shut this thread down.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 17, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
I thought Ike was a great President - the Interstate Highway System is an amazing legacy of his.
We should do a list of the positive roadly accomplishments of each President. Though I admit that some recent Presidents have none.
Here's some accomplishments by Democrats and Republicans alike...
Truman - Started his political career by bringing better roads to Jackson County, Mo.
Eisenhower - Signed the Interstates into law.
Carter - As governor, canceled an unpopular and needless freeway project in Atlanta.
Obama - Gave other modes of transport equal footing with highways (for the first time in 50 years).
I know the project you're talking about, but another project Carter and his infamous lieutenant Bert Lance played a role in fixing wasn't in Atlanta proper but was I-75 over Allatoona Lake near, ironically, Cartersville. That gap in the highway was still there in 1977 when I was a kid.
Quote from: Road Hog on April 24, 2015, 05:57:05 PM
I know the project you're talking about, but another project Carter and his infamous lieutenant Bert Lance played a role in fixing wasn't in Atlanta proper but was I-75 over Allatoona Lake near, ironically, Cartersville. That gap in the highway was still there in 1977 when I was a kid.
There was a gap in a freeway years ago in Georgia that drew national media attention (I think it was featured in a "60 Minutes" segment) -
may have been this one.