Je me souviens indeed. You seem to have trouble remembering you lost, and thus are part of Canada, not New France.
We didn't lose. We were dumped by the french monarchy that has been screwing the french nation for nearly a millenium, but, don't worry, the french nation rose and fixed the monarchy once for all. One day, hopefully, the britshit will do the same and will fix the patheric bunch of inbred morons that claim godly title upon half the fucking planet (thanks to spineless suckers like you who think nothing at having a fucking FOREIGN unelected monarch as their head of state).
Despite a quarter millenium of being shat upon by the britshit and treated like the blacks are treated in the US, we steadfastly refuse to be assimilated (unlike blacks who can't become whites "oreos" don't count the french can be turned into english) and are more determined than ever to remain french, and the best way to achieve that is by leaving that Canada that has been trying so much to assimilate and eliminate us.
If you want to be sovereign, I have no problem with that, as long as you come up with your own currency, rather than use the Canadian dollar, sever all ties to Ottawa immediately, including all financial transfers, and don't come asking for foreign aid when you find out it's a tough slog.
We can use any goddammed fucking currency we want, and there is sweet fuck-all you can do about it, not any more what the USA can do against Cuba using US dollars.
As of the financial transfers, they are actually on the level of $325 per year per capita (this is not even half my monthly rent), so we can very well afford that, thank-you very much, and as of the foreign aid, we won't need any as we are perfectly capable of running our own business ourselves, like we already control 35% of CANADIAN industrial equity (which is 10% more than our demographic weight).
So, if you show that you believe all the stupid lies peddled by the Moronto-based incompetent family compact of Ontario, you will not have much credibility. So, next time, do your homework and prepare for the inevitable: the next referendum will be winning.
That said, I would love to have the cost of road use for the trucking industry vs. private motorists be proportional to the cost of damage to the roads inflicted by each for an entirely different reason. Under such a tax system, the costs of shipping things by road would be pushed on to the consumer in such a way that it is tagged to the product they are buying. It would put companies in a situation where they could reduce the shelf prices of their products greatly by shipping by rail instead of by truck, and would all but force them to start shipping more of their stuff by (much more environmentally-friendly) trains.
So? Either way, you still pay the price of truck transportation that truckers don't pay, thanks to heavy subsidies or high product prices. The reason why truckers will fight against fair road use pricing is that their cost will no longer be invisible, and this will make people DEMAND cheaper shipping alternatives such as rail, for example.
The fact is that many urban school systems are terrible. If you are a parent with school-age children, you can either move to the suburbs or put your children in private schools. Many families can't afford to live in the city and send their children to private schools. Forced busing accelerated the process in some cities by destroying what was left of the public school system.
Here's another racist honky (or an oreo) blaming the niggers for the problems THEY caused for cowardly fleeing the city.
You contradicted yourself in your own post. Not to mention, you're still wrong.
The US has lots of privately owned highways. They're called turnpikes. And they're some of the best maintained roads in the nation.
Do they charge trucks 10,000 more than they charge cars? Because a big rig does to the road 10,000 times the damage of a car. If not, when you pay your turnpike toll, you subsidize the truckers who are the biggest free-lunching industry.
Also, my car, and all of the other SUVs that Slashdot likes to berate, are specifically built *not* to rely on the "socialist" road infrastructure.
So, basically, you're advocating trespassing on private land, you vandal? Honestly, let's see how far you will fare on a trail because I'll bet your ass that you don't ever venture on a trail with that SUV - too afraid of scratching the paint...
You know why? Because our roads suck. We don't want to continue paying our corrupt governments money for roads, only to have it spent on social programs.
What's wrong with social programs? At the very least, they keep the poor from mugging the rich...
And this is coming from somebody who used to drive a car that was *very* dependent on good roads. Guess what? It didn't work. I could barely drive around lots of places. I was run off the road by some idiot in a giant truck who couldn't see me.
Perhaps you should learn to drive properly, that is, not hang in the giant truck blind spot? Car drivers are extremely stupid when they're around big rigs. They don't realize that the big rigs just don't handle like cars (they're stupid enough not to realize that SUVs, too, don't handle like cars either - it's a wonder that your stupidity does not cause your insurance premium to soar up in the first place) and they take chances around rigs, most likely like you did. You're lucky to have escaped with your life, because you most probably didn't deserve it...
I'm not going to make either of those mistakes again. My lower insurance rates and not paying any ridiculous taxes to fix our crappy roads is just icing on the cake.
Just wait until you take another chance with a big rig... It's only a matter of time, given your extremely stupid mindset as demonstrated with your extremely assinine and stupid post.
Might as well point out that in the US, you're also paying an arm and a
leg to use the roads. It's just hidden in the form of taxes.
Not everyone is charged the same. If there ever is a free-luncher industry sucking the public teat, it's the trucking industry. Trucks will **NEVER** pay the true cost they inflict on society.
A truck will do 10,000 times the damage to a road that a car does. Yet, truck licences do not cost 10,000 times what a car license costs. So, this means that motorists are subsidizing the trucking industry by paying more than what their licenses are worth... Given the deteriorating state of too many roads in the US, the taxes paid by everybody do not start to properly pay for the very basic road mantenance needed by roads badly mangled by trucks growing heavier and bigger with time.
If there ever is a free-luncher industry sucking the public teat, it's the trucking industry. Trucks will **NEVER** pay the true cost they inflict on society.
A truck will do 10,000 times the damage to a road that a car does. Yet, truck licences do not cost 10,000 times what a car license costs. So, this means that motorists are subsidizing the trucking industry by paying more than what their licenses are worth... Go to any trucker bar, and casually mention that fact. You'll be lucky to die quickly and painlessly...
Start charging trucks their true road-use costs and you'll see them dwindle like crack users in a subway station that starts to play Wagner opera music on the muzak. At least, railroads have always paid the full cost for the maintenance of their roads...
I don't think so. What sent Americans to the suburbs is social engineering run amok in the form of forced bussing. Of course American cities are lousy - local tax bases still haven't recovered from that blow.
Forced busing? My, I never thought that there's still be jim-crow racists alive today, and on slashdot?
By the way, wouldn't you consider Great Britain to be "anglo-saxon"? And don't they have a different attitude toward cities?
Not at all; they started the exodus to the suburbs when railroads were developped 150 years ago...
Cars are the ultimate anti-socialist hyper-libertarian thing: they allow you to go where you want, when you want. None of those commie-fascist train schedules!
Cars are very socialist. They depend on the very socialist roads built by the State, because no private company will ever touch that!
Oddly enough, though, in France, which is hardly a parangon of private entreprise, highways are owned by private companies (and they charge an arm an a leg to travel on them, too)...
By contrast, Europeans find it more natural to tax themselves to build humungous train systems like the French TGV. That particular system doesn't just serve established population centers -- it creates new ones. I'm told that millions of French people now commute to city jobs, living in remote locations that were almost unpopulated before the TGV came.
The TGV was built without a single cent coming from the government. It was paid for with money borrowed from financial institutions and bonds. And after only 8 years of operations, not only the cost of the totally new rail line was fully paid-up, but the cost of the trains, AS WELL AS the cost of almost 30 years of research & development that was necessary to develop routine high-speed rail operation.
TGVs have been running for almost 25 years. Minus the initial 8 years, it's been a solid gravy train for the last 17 years.
The flight is 1.5 hours, you need to show up over an hour earlier, and wait a half hour for your baggage; plus all that walking between terminals. The 3 hour train would be faster.
Don't worry. Amtrak is moronic enough to hire people from the airline industry, and those jerks will make sure that taking a train is just as inconvenient as taking a plane; they'll gladly institute all sorts of byzantine fares, reservations and make sure your ticket is checked 5 times before you even see the goddammed train, all adding up to infuriation.
Its the old population density issue.
Trains work great for medium distances, which describes all of Japan, and any single country in Europe.
And it also describes all of the area between New-York and Washington too, where there is already rail service...
And you don't care about density; you don't care if the land between city A and city B is filled to the brim with people (like New-York_Boston) or empty like a desert (like Los-Angeles_Las-Vegas), because, be it in Japan, Europe or in the US, high-speed trains don't stop when they go between cities A and B.
I live in Minneapolis, there is no place for it to go.
Amtrak should get NOTHING. A big fat fucking ZERO!!! Ya mod me down. But Amtrak has never been profitable. Just like it die like the wilted industry it is. Why should my tax dollars be funding a failed business???!!
How profitable roads are? How much money those roads are bringing in? How many privately-owned highways are there? None at all... That's because no private company will touch that. So why are you accepting that your tax dollars fund a stillborn business???
Trains will only catch on if they can actually get you there in an acceptable amount of time for an acceptable price. Even with government subsidies, they weren't doing that.
That's the idea of "high-speed rail", which happens to be the subject of conversation here.
There are whole industries which will fight tooth and nail the idea of high-speed rail, because they know very well that if people are given transportation choices, the car and the airline will not win all the time.
This is the first rule of business: kill competition. Rails are competing against planes and cars, so airlines and car makers are making sure they keep passenger rail killed.
Most people I know go to suburbia because it is where they can afford to live. In cities like Boston, NY, Chicago (one I've lived in), etc - the cost of living in the city itself is outrageous. Living in suburbia and going to the city is much cheaper. So real estate cost is another reason for suburban sprawl.
Those people are pretty stupid when it comes to manage their finances. Say in the suburbs, a house costs $200,000 as opposed to $400,000 in the city.
In the city, you can make do with only one car, or none at all.
A car will cost $10,000 per year, all inclusive (AAA figures). So, in 20 years (10 years if you have no car at all), you'll spend the same amount for the car as the price difference for a city house. And when you'll retire, the extra money you will have spent in your house will be in your equity, whereas the money you would have spent in a car would simply be gone up in smoke...
No need to RTFA. Americans love the independence their automobiles give them.
What independence? From rising gas prices? From insurance companies who will gladly cut your coverage because you claimed one more ding on your fender? From mechanics who will charge you an arm and a leg for unnecessary repairs they didn't do anyways? From delays in traffic? From DMW interference who will suspend your license if you don't pay alimony, mow your grass or return library books on time?
Brainwashed? Do you have any frickin idea how big this country is?
You have no idea about what a big country is, pal. I live in a country that's1¼ times bigger than yours, with only 10% of the population. So, don't say I don't know about "big".
Have you ever lived out in the boonies?
People have lived in the boonies since the Mayflower, and they managed to live without cars for centuries.
What you call brainwashed I call common sense. Yeesh, this from the site that always talks about the USA's difficulty in getting broadband to rural areas.
That's because you leave everything to private companies. Do you think that if roads were built by private entreprise you could use cars like you do right now?
I don't think anyone sees cities as "sinful, bad evil that should be fled at all cost". I would imagine that most people just dislike them because of what they are: polluted, crowded, smelly, noisy, dirty, ugly, expensive, unsafe things that should be fled at all cost.
Suburbs are also polluted, thanks to all those car exhaust fumes, crowded (look at how crowded the roads and the strip malls are), noisy (those lawnmovers should have better mufflers), smelly (that pig farm next to the subdivision is a killer!!!), dirty (have a good look behind the stores in that strip mall), ugly (just look at the strip mall), expensive (how much does running all those four cars in your household really costs, compared to a more expensive house near public transit, because more expensive house = more financial equity), unsafe (look at how those loons are driving like crazy, and look at all that road rage!).
For more than 50 years, the average american has been brainwashed by car and petroleum companies into believing that their car-centric "life" is the best thing since industrial bakeries have invented sliced bread.
They are very happy squandering more and more money into bigger and bigger trucks so any proposition to do otherwise is viewed as communist. Also, there is an anglo-saxon cultural trait that sees the city as something sinful, bad, evil that should be fled at all cost, hence the popularity of suburbia.
Well, they can tax all thety want, but...
on
Dutch Pass iPod Tax
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, they can tax all thety want, but how are they gonna collect the taxes?
I mean, there's no more customs between countries in "Europe" so what's to prevent people from having their iPods shipped from Belgium or Germany or Dänmark???
Slashdot Mirror
Despite a quarter millenium of being shat upon by the britshit and treated like the blacks are treated in the US, we steadfastly refuse to be assimilated (unlike blacks who can't become whites "oreos" don't count the french can be turned into english) and are more determined than ever to remain french, and the best way to achieve that is by leaving that Canada that has been trying so much to assimilate and eliminate us.
As of the financial transfers, they are actually on the level of $325 per year per capita (this is not even half my monthly rent), so we can very well afford that, thank-you very much, and as of the foreign aid, we won't need any as we are perfectly capable of running our own business ourselves, like we already control 35% of CANADIAN industrial equity (which is 10% more than our demographic weight).
So, if you show that you believe all the stupid lies peddled by the Moronto-based incompetent family compact of Ontario, you will not have much credibility. So, next time, do your homework and prepare for the inevitable: the next referendum will be winning.
Dear yankees, regarding your rejection of our rejection of your DMCA, please click here.
A truck will do 10,000 times the damage to a road that a car does. Yet, truck licences do not cost 10,000 times what a car license costs. So, this means that motorists are subsidizing the trucking industry by paying more than what their licenses are worth... Given the deteriorating state of too many roads in the US, the taxes paid by everybody do not start to properly pay for the very basic road mantenance needed by roads badly mangled by trucks growing heavier and bigger with time.
A truck will do 10,000 times the damage to a road that a car does. Yet, truck licences do not cost 10,000 times what a car license costs. So, this means that motorists are subsidizing the trucking industry by paying more than what their licenses are worth... Go to any trucker bar, and casually mention that fact. You'll be lucky to die quickly and painlessly...
Start charging trucks their true road-use costs and you'll see them dwindle like crack users in a subway station that starts to play Wagner opera music on the muzak. At least, railroads have always paid the full cost for the maintenance of their roads...
I was joking! Sheesh... :)
Oddly enough, though, in France, which is hardly a parangon of private entreprise, highways are owned by private companies (and they charge an arm an a leg to travel on them, too)...
TGVs have been running for almost 25 years. Minus the initial 8 years, it's been a solid gravy train for the last 17 years.
And you don't care about density; you don't care if the land between city A and city B is filled to the brim with people (like New-York_Boston) or empty like a desert (like Los-Angeles_Las-Vegas), because, be it in Japan, Europe or in the US, high-speed trains don't stop when they go between cities A and B. How about St-Paul???
There are whole industries which will fight tooth and nail the idea of high-speed rail, because they know very well that if people are given transportation choices, the car and the airline will not win all the time.
This is the first rule of business: kill competition. Rails are competing against planes and cars, so airlines and car makers are making sure they keep passenger rail killed.
In the city, you can make do with only one car, or none at all.
A car will cost $10,000 per year, all inclusive (AAA figures). So, in 20 years (10 years if you have no car at all), you'll spend the same amount for the car as the price difference for a city house. And when you'll retire, the extra money you will have spent in your house will be in your equity, whereas the money you would have spent in a car would simply be gone up in smoke...
What independence? From rising gas prices? From insurance companies who will gladly cut your coverage because you claimed one more ding on your fender? From mechanics who will charge you an arm and a leg for unnecessary repairs they didn't do anyways? From delays in traffic? From DMW interference who will suspend your license if you don't pay alimony, mow your grass or return library books on time?
They are very happy squandering more and more money into bigger and bigger trucks so any proposition to do otherwise is viewed as communist. Also, there is an anglo-saxon cultural trait that sees the city as something sinful, bad, evil that should be fled at all cost, hence the popularity of suburbia.
In the same vein, here is a very good explanation of the whole idea of having livable cities.
I mean, there's no more customs between countries in "Europe" so what's to prevent people from having their iPods shipped from Belgium or Germany or Dänmark???
...that crapwoman movie...