Impartial_Observer

Been going on since the summer, they have updated the parental behavior section of their school handbook though.

26 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Rack this post!

Now just waiting for the "but, but rail is better for the environment!  What about climate change?" angle................................

 

Usually when he's got nothing, just the shoot me thingey.

12 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

IO might actually learn something for once in his life.

I disagree with Dean Wormer, fat, drunk, and stupid is a way to go thru life.

Honestly DE, I tried to engage you, I've raised valid business concerns as well as taxpayer concerns, you refuse to answer any of it, you just want me to watch a stupid video. I don't know jack squat about passenger rail, but it's not hard to figure out. In order for mass transit to work, you have to have masses, which do not exist in flyover country. There used to be a bus stop in every little berg and a train station in every other little berg. Seymour was founded on a RR crossroads and named after the engineer who opted to locate the crossroads where it is, instead of in the already established town of Rockford. But those days are gone. Two income homes, an extensive interstate system, cars that become more reliable every day, safe predictable air travel, passenger rail just does not make business or logical sense, regardless of what some youtube video says. 

I ain't going to lie, we are taking advantage of the situation. Mrs IO and myself did some math last night, with college knocked out for the kids, we can shorten our terms at a lower fixed rate and save ourselves a substantial amount over the life of the mortgage, not to mention losing about 3 three years of payments. It's a no brainer.

If we were a little closer to retirement, I'd probably go the full amount and get a little more serious about a house in south Florida.

36 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Sure, if that license is granted by a private, non-government entity.  You still haven't given a good reason why it has to be government in the licensing business.

 

Plenty of studies on the economic impact of licensing, bottom line it costs the consumer more because it restricts the labor pool. Some studies indicate that licensing is particularly harmful to the lower income segment of the population. The OP is certainly an example of this. Young single mom and can't get a job based on some arbitrary law. Licensing comes in all shapes and sizes, for instance look at plumbers, you can have a large plumbing firm all working under the umbrella of the owners license. That doesn't guarantee your crapper isn't going to back up just like it did before they sent a flunkie out to fix it the first time. Then they're marriage licenses.....that panned out well.  

What is really interesting to me is as union membership has fallen dramatically, licensing requirements have risen dramatically. 

20 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

House Votes To Send Impeachment Articles to Senate as New Evidence Comes to Light: https://reason.com/2020/01/15/house-votes-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-as-new-evidence-comes-to-light/

Here we go. Could be interesting, but will probably be another Congressional yawner where all we witness is politicians grandstanding.

 

Political theater. As I have stated since this began, it's all a foregone conclusion. Weren't you paying attention in 1998?

21 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Southern Indiana is served by intercity bus; Amtrak operates several intercity bus routes.

So you agree with the video’s points?

The nearest intercity bus to me is Bedford. Two things, first I still have to hitch a team to the wagon to get maw to Bedford, to catch a bus, to catch the train.  Or instead of driving 40 minutes to Bedford, I could drive 60 minutes to IND or SDF and still be at my destination cheaper and most likely before the bus makes it to Indy to catch the bus to Chicago to get on the train. Why are the taxpayers funding this boondoggle that makes zero business or logical sense.

FTFY and I don't really know, I didn't watch the video.

Yes, Amtrak should operate money making routes in the northeast corridor, where they can be profitable and thus not rely on taxpayer funding or they should just go out of business. 

If government subsidies are the answer, I'm sure you'd have no problem with the government subsidizing my business would you? And I'd only need fractions of pennies on the dollar of what Amtrak gets. Or even better yet, like farmers, perhaps the government would pay me not to produce anything? 

8 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

Amtrak is often the only form of mass transit small rural communities have to the wider USA.

So without Amtrak, we’d have to hitch a team to the wagon to get maw to the doctor in the big city?

What about all the rural areas Amtrak doesn’t serve, what about those poor people, how will they connect to the wider USA. In southern Indiana we have to either get to Indy or Louisville to get on a Greyhound to get to a train. Or you could just stop at the airport and get where you need to go cheaper and before the bus even gets you to the train.

Amtrak in the northeast corridor seems to make sense to me, gets cars off of already congested roads, and they have the masses to support mass transit. This isn’t the 19th century, the US taxpayers don’t need to be supporting people’s travel.

8 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Sorry - for the Palin pic guys, didn't mean to deflect......

No apology necessary....seriously......I'm good.

Edit

23 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Honestly the travel times don't bother me.  Any rational individual should know what they are getting into if they choose rail over plane travel. 

I can see that the romanticism and more leisurely pace of traveling across the country by rail can be an attraction to certain individuals,  but why should the federal government and the taxpayer have to pay for it?

 

 

The other issue with rail is, limited schedules. If I want to fly somewhere there are literally a gazillion options. 

On another note, DD had a teammate in TB who's dad was an investigator with AMTRAK. If there was an accident involving an AMTRAK train east of the Mississippi, he was the man. Spent an afternoon at his office one day. On the bright side of things, it was about the time our kids were starting to drive, it put the fear of god in them regarding trains. I saw some brutal stuff, vid from the trains, crash scene photos, autopsy photos, horrible stuff.  

47 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/amtraks-big-lie

Agreed.  Amtrak needs to be weaned off the taxpayer funded teat and learnt to sink or swim on it's own.

 

The answer being:

IND-ATL Saturday 1-25

AMTRAK $226 8:10

Southwest $199 1:40 gate to gate

Romance is over rated in my opinion. 

Rail freight makes sense, rail passenger no longer does.

It appears even getting the DUI expunged is a racket in PA.

https://jbmartinlaw.com/how-to-get-a-dui-record-expunged-in-pennsylvania/

Admittedly I saw very little of the debate last night, but one thing hit me, regardless of the topic, Joe Biden has already lead the charge on it, i.e., he authored and got passed the first peace of climate change (then global warming) legislation back in like 86 or 87. So if Biden has already done all this stuff, why is it still a problem? 

Nearly 100 years of service at the national level among the six candidates last night. Two of them have 0 experience at the national level. And all I hear from them is what's wrong with the country and they're solutions. So they get a pass on their collective nearly 100 years in creating this mess, and their answer is more of it? Tom Steyer doesn't get a pass either, from what I can gather rich folks are the biggest threat we face, aside from climate change of course, and Tom Steyer made his fortune running a hedge fund that caters to banks and in the words of his Wiki page, "high wealth individuals". So if we believe what we're being told, Steyer IS the problem. 

6 hours ago, Muda69 said:

If "why not" (aka "not Trump")  is you and other socialists primary reason for voting for Mr. Sanders then I fear for the future of our country.

 

Why not, they seem like a reasonable group.

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/project-veritas-video-cops-will-be-beaten-if-bernie-doesn-t-get-nomination-Bc8QfUmU80qTEbz1j1-qFg?fbclid=IwAR1K-mU5R8o9_Nr34oQR5MoJ65x4daj2UIihWRv1pSwfFQGESUyRxJVSMrc

4 hours ago, swordfish said:

No - Rush was not on the show today.  According to his website, Mark Steyn filled in - not sure of the topics.

Just to clarify though, that John Kerry clip was part of my daily updates from the lovely Sarah Palin if you were wondering.....

Is it just me or does she just keep getting hotter the older she gets? @Irishman

3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

If "why not" (aka "not Trump")  is you and other socialists primary reason for voting for Mr. Sanders then I fear for the future of our country.

 

There’s always none of these candidates, finished mid pack in the five horse race in Nevada in 2016.

29 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Yep - everybody sure hates this narcissist......

I mean - poor VInce Vaughn, his Hollywood career is most certainly over.......

https://100percentfedup.com/actor-vince-vaughn-caught-on-video-chatting-with-trump-triggering-the-left-im-very-sorry-to-have-to-share-this-video-with-you/

Why? The game is long enough as it is, lets just play some football and leave all the political crap out of it. Hasn't anyone learned anything from ESPN's mistakes?

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

I’m not sure if you read the links I attached or not. If long term effects include impacts to teens previously not known, that changes the equation. At least in my opinion. 

My original points was that weed was legalized without understanding impacts. I was being facetious about pharmaceuticals. I’m glad we don’t take a similar approach.

Look, at the end of the day, I was just responding to Muda’s postive claim about weed reducing alcohol consumption by proving balanced view of positive and concerning long term impacts. Not making any arguments about legalization. 

I did not read any of the links, I completely missed your point. What can I say, my son brought me a bottle of Vodka Sunday and the Caucasians were going down smooth last night. Hey at least I didn't drunk text anyone! 

2 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Interesting concept. Wonder if that approach could work with pharmaceuticals?  Get it out there on the market and let use determine safety risks.....

Ultimately isn’t that the end of current FDA drug trials?  Edibles aren’t a new discovery.

Look into why Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug. Among some of reasons were because marijuana usage caused black men and white women to have sex, this gem from FDR’s tax scheme. It’s current form has more to do with hippies and the anti-war movement.

Long term affects, we all know long term users, like most people we know there are some winners and some losers.

7 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

My response had nothing to do about government regulation.

You provided a link to an article that provided a supposed positive benefit of legalized weed.  (less alcohol consumption)

I provided articles about negative health benefits and unknowns.

My statement about this issue from the very beginning is that we don't know at this point the magnitude of health impacts...much like tobacco decades ago.  That's all.  I am not talking about anything about regulation.

I think anyone with half a brain understands that smoking any substance probably isn’t good for you. Ingesting edibles, who knows, but I would be willing to bet ingesting edible THC products is probably less harmful to you than lunch at McDonald’s. There’s only one was to gain long term data, and if adults make that decision for themselves, why not?

34 minutes ago, swordfish said:

I totally get the Alfred E. Neuman slant. 

But seriously has anyone ever seen Mayor Pete and Atticus Shaffer (Brick "In The Middle") in the same room. Dude even has the same haircut.

30 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Marianne Williamson Withdraws from the Presidential Race: https://reason.com/2020/01/12/marianne-williamson-withdraws-from-the-presidential-race/

Another one bites the dust.

 

Dayum, I figured she'd start getting some traction by now.