On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:55:44 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:21:05 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:38:57 -0800, wrote:

In good economic times, I would agree that projects should "stand on
their own" financially and without gov't backing. But these are not
good times, and it seems to me that most anything that creates or
preserves jobs right now is better than continued unemployment and all
the attendant consequences.

Building unneeded/unwanted infrastructure with public funds is not
good policy, good times or bad. There are plenty of worthwhile
projects that need funding.

All of which are opposed by Republicans, unless it's in their
district. Then, they're opposed to it before they're for it.

The pork barrel is no stranger to either side of the aisle. Just as
an FYI, I do no consider myself to be a Republican or a Democrat.
They have both become way too polarized and polarizing for my taste.
We need someone who can pull the country back together and I don't see
much of that on the horizon.

So how are you and Wilbur getting on?

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:21:05 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:38:57 -0800, wrote:

In good economic times, I would agree that projects should "stand on
their own" financially and without gov't backing. But these are not
good times, and it seems to me that most anything that creates or
preserves jobs right now is better than continued unemployment and all
the attendant consequences.

Building unneeded/unwanted infrastructure with public funds is not
good policy, good times or bad. There are plenty of worthwhile
projects that need funding.

All of which are opposed by Republicans, unless it's in their
district. Then, they're opposed to it before they're for it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Righties, righties, righties.. But you don't have an
idea of your own...

On 3/13/2011 4:50 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:21:05 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:38:57 -0800, wrote:

In good economic times, I would agree that projects should "stand on
their own" financially and without gov't backing. But these are not
good times, and it seems to me that most anything that creates or
preserves jobs right now is better than continued unemployment and all
the attendant consequences.

Building unneeded/unwanted infrastructure with public funds is not
good policy, good times or bad. There are plenty of worthwhile
projects that need funding.

All of which are opposed by Republicans, unless it's in their
district. Then, they're opposed to it before they're for it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Righties, righties, righties.. But you don't have an
idea of your own...

She took a colon cleanse and that's what came out.

On 3/13/2011 2:04 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleV5SdnacwvZJS5ubQnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/12/11 8:52 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleAZudnfBksIiQfOfQnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

Landing fees don't tell the whole story. It is *considerably* cheaper
to fly to Tampa rather than Orlando and hotels in Tampa are about half
the price of Orlando.

Yeah, but who the hell wants to fly to Tampa? There is nothing there.

Busch Gardens and prostitutes!



At least Tampa will have Harry as a customer.



Why? Are the females in your family setting up shop there, to service
the latest generation of marines?

You wish.

Ahh. You've seen what he's saddled with. No wonder he's checking out the
new mares.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:46:09 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:55:44 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:21:05 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:38:57 -0800, wrote:

In good economic times, I would agree that projects should "stand on
their own" financially and without gov't backing. But these are not
good times, and it seems to me that most anything that creates or
preserves jobs right now is better than continued unemployment and all
the attendant consequences.

Building unneeded/unwanted infrastructure with public funds is not
good policy, good times or bad. There are plenty of worthwhile
projects that need funding.

All of which are opposed by Republicans, unless it's in their
district. Then, they're opposed to it before they're for it.

The pork barrel is no stranger to either side of the aisle. Just as
an FYI, I do no consider myself to be a Republican or a Democrat.
They have both become way too polarized and polarizing for my taste.
We need someone who can pull the country back together and I don't see
much of that on the horizon.

So how are you and Wilbur getting on?

FYI, you're the one who claimed that there are "worthwhile" projects.
All of them have been opposed by Republicans as I said.

Who the heck is Wilbur?

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:03:25 -0400, Ernie wrote:

On 3/13/2011 4:50 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:21:05 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:38:57 -0800, wrote:

In good economic times, I would agree that projects should "stand on
their own" financially and without gov't backing. But these are not
good times, and it seems to me that most anything that creates or
preserves jobs right now is better than continued unemployment and all
the attendant consequences.

Building unneeded/unwanted infrastructure with public funds is not
good policy, good times or bad. There are plenty of worthwhile
projects that need funding.

All of which are opposed by Republicans, unless it's in their
district. Then, they're opposed to it before they're for it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Righties, righties, righties.. But you don't have an
idea of your own...

She took a colon cleanse and that's what came out.

Looks like you have a lot of experience with what comes out.

On 3/13/2011 6:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:03:25 -0400, wrote:

On 3/13/2011 4:50 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:21:05 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:38:57 -0800, wrote:

In good economic times, I would agree that projects should "stand on
their own" financially and without gov't backing. But these are not
good times, and it seems to me that most anything that creates or
preserves jobs right now is better than continued unemployment and all
the attendant consequences.

Building unneeded/unwanted infrastructure with public funds is not
good policy, good times or bad. There are plenty of worthwhile
projects that need funding.

All of which are opposed by Republicans, unless it's in their
district. Then, they're opposed to it before they're for it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Righties, righties, righties.. But you don't have an
idea of your own...

She took a colon cleanse and that's what came out.

Looks like you have a lot of experience with what comes out.

GFY

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:24:40 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:57:12 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:44:10 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:17:00 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

I hate to say it because I do love the state, but
Florida seems to elect one idiot after another for governor.

"Three weeks after Gov. Rick Scott put the brakes on high-speed rail,
the Florida Department of Transportation on Wednesday released a study
showing the line connecting Tampa to Orlando would have had a $10.2
million operating surplus in 2015, its first year of operation.

The study showed the line would have had a $28.6 million surplus in its
10th year."

I'd guess Governor Scott nixed the project because he couldn't figure
out a way to personally benefit from it.

That was based on the wild assertion that 3 million people would ride
on it. That is what the Acela gets, with 50 times the number of people
within 50 miles of the stations.

3 million was a low-ball..... Acela doesn't serve Mickey World....

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/mar...-made-more-mo/

That is a bogus number. Are you really saying the meager populations
of Tampa and Orlando would match the ridership of a train between
Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York metro and Boston?

Who would fly to Tampa to take a train to Orlando when Orlando has a
nicer airport with lower landing fees (cheaper tickets)

That is particularly true when you figure out it only takes about an
hour to an hour and a half to drive it. You are not going to be able
to do much in either town without a car anyway.
If these cities want a commuter rail line, let them build it but don't
confuse that with a cross state train line that will run empty most of
the time.

If half the population of Tampa, Clearwater, and St. Petersburg went to Disney
World every day, they would easily meet that 3 million number. I can't
understand why anyone would doubt that.

I lived in Tampa for two years, with relatives in Cocoa. It's about a two hour
drive to Cocoa, and an hour and a half or so to Orlando. It would probably take
a lot more time to drive to the train station, park, wait for the train, get
seated, take off, get there, get transportation, and arrive at a destination -
like Disney World. Of course, Disney would have a bus at the train station to
pick up the 3 million arrivals daily.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:57:12 -0500, L G wrote:

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:24:40 -0500, wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:57:12 -0500, Gene
wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:44:10 -0500, wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:17:00 -0500,
wrote:


I hate to say it because I do love the state, but
Florida seems to elect one idiot after another for governor.

"Three weeks after Gov. Rick Scott put the brakes on high-speed rail,
the Florida Department of Transportation on Wednesday released a study
showing the line connecting Tampa to Orlando would have had a $10.2
million operating surplus in 2015, its first year of operation.

The study showed the line would have had a $28.6 million surplus in its
10th year."

I'd guess Governor Scott nixed the project because he couldn't figure
out a way to personally benefit from it.

That was based on the wild assertion that 3 million people would ride
on it. That is what the Acela gets, with 50 times the number of people
within 50 miles of the stations.

3 million was a low-ball..... Acela doesn't serve Mickey World....

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/mar...-made-more-mo/

That is a bogus number. Are you really saying the meager populations
of Tampa and Orlando would match the ridership of a train between
Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York metro and Boston?

Who would fly to Tampa to take a train to Orlando when Orlando has a
nicer airport with lower landing fees (cheaper tickets)

That is particularly true when you figure out it only takes about an
hour to an hour and a half to drive it. You are not going to be able
to do much in either town without a car anyway.
If these cities want a commuter rail line, let them build it but don't
confuse that with a cross state train line that will run empty most of
the time.

Landing fees don't tell the whole story. It is *considerably* cheaper
to fly to Tampa rather than Orlando and hotels in Tampa are about half
the price of Orlando.

Yeah, but who the hell wants to fly to Tampa? There is nothing there.

Busch Gardens and prostitutes!

And my alma mater, don't forget.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:21:14 -0400, Ernie wrote:

On 3/13/2011 6:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:03:25 -0400, wrote:

On 3/13/2011 4:50 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:21:05 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:38:57 -0800, wrote:

In good economic times, I would agree that projects should "stand on
their own" financially and without gov't backing. But these are not
good times, and it seems to me that most anything that creates or
preserves jobs right now is better than continued unemployment and all
the attendant consequences.

Building unneeded/unwanted infrastructure with public funds is not
good policy, good times or bad. There are plenty of worthwhile
projects that need funding.

All of which are opposed by Republicans, unless it's in their
district. Then, they're opposed to it before they're for it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Righties, righties, righties.. But you don't have an
idea of your own...

She took a colon cleanse and that's what came out.

Looks like you have a lot of experience with what comes out.

GFY

Poor baby... you can dish it but you can't take it. Typical little
boy.