Difference between revisions of "En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/01/26/0617"
(Created page with '==January 26, 2009 6:17 AM - Mike== {{subpage}}[http://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831 Mike at The Big Stick] said... <p><I><STRONG>"But then compare it to the money…') |
m (moved En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/2009/01/26/0617 to En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/01/26/0617: we'll have "post" for the individual posts, and "posts" for showing them all on one page) |
Latest revision as of 20:29, 28 July 2010
January 26, 2009 6:17 AM - Mike
Mike at The Big Stick said...
"But then compare it to the money saved by transporting good efficiently by heavy rail... and there really is no comparison. The second saves the economy much more money."
I don't understand the basis on which you are making that claim. Are you working from an assumption that our current economy involves more transportation of goods than of people? Or something else?
The money saved by more efficient transportation of goods dwarfs the money saved by offering public transit. Also, if a company saves $5 million a year because transit times are reduced, that is likely going to be money they can spend on other things, like hiring new employees. Basically, there is more ‘bang for the buck’.
You offer Hillary as an exemplar of the pro-war movement? Balderdash. She was being spineless (along with most of the democrats in the 110th) and going along with the neocons in order to seem more Manly and Tough and thereby capture the "but a GURL can't be president!" vote.
How many times did we go to war under Clinton? Somali, Iraq, Bosnia. He had no problem committing thr military to his causes and I think his wife is no different. There were also plenty of Democratic supporters of those missions under Clinton. It seems liberals like war just fine, so long as they are the ones running the show.
(I'll reply to the abortion stuff later today)