IDBillzFan Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 I am sure you are, as usual, being sarcastic, but... Big Cat usually doesn't say he's being sarcastic until his line of thinking has been roundly beaten by everyone but Conner, at which point it becomes "Hey. Sarcasm. Look it up". or "I was only joking when I said that if a two-year-old Downs child can't defend himself, then no one should defend him because that just means he's weak."
Magox Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Big Cat usually doesn't say he's being sarcastic until his line of thinking has been roundly beaten by everyone but Conner, at which point it becomes "Hey. Sarcasm. Look it up". or "I was only joking when I said that if a two-year-old Downs child can't defend himself, then no one should defend him because that just means he's weak." You should check out his interpretation of Irony....
The Big Cat Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Big Cat usually doesn't say he's being sarcastic until his line of thinking has been roundly beaten by everyone but Conner, at which point it becomes "Hey. Sarcasm. Look it up". or "I was only joking when I said that if a two-year-old Downs child can't defend himself, then no one should defend him because that just means he's weak." Yeah, that's it. Go ahead and start the pile-on now. There wasn't a shred of sarcasm in the line that featured a word previously unknown to the responder, but please, call me the idiot.
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Yeah, that's it. Go ahead and start the pile-on now. There wasn't a shred of sarcasm in the line that featured a word previously unknown to the responder, but please, call me the idiot. Sounds like someone's taking offense...
erynthered Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Sounds like someone's taking offense... It was only a mater of time.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 I mean, I'm sure the boosted transport expenses costs communities hundreds of non-budgeted dollars, but aside from that...? Each tank of diesel alone costs taxpayers hundreds. We in the burbs bay higher taxes to keep our kids in good schools, not to shuttle them to the inner city. Bussing is not only wrong, it's un-American. If the people living in the city want their kids to attend our schools, let 'em move here, or, at the very least, let 'em pay the tax burden to have their kids attend here. Our schools are already crowded. Don't need other kids attending, thanks.
The Big Cat Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Each tank of diesel alone costs taxpayers hundreds. Then taxpayers should demand green buses. We in the burbs bay higher taxes to keep our kids in good schools, not to shuttle them to the inner city. I don't think there's anyone here arguing in favor of that program's idiocy, unless it's also happening where you are, in which you case you should demand they stop doing that. Bussing is not only wrong, it's un-American. If the people living in the city want their kids to attend our schools, let 'em move here, or, at the very least, let 'em pay the tax burden to have their kids attend here. Our schools are already crowded. Don't need other kids attending, thanks. Are there kids being brought into your district?
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Then taxpayers should demand green buses. "Green" refers to environmental friendliness, not cost.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 I don't think there's anyone here arguing in favor of that program's idiocy, unless it's also happening where you are, in which you case you should demand they stop doing that. I'm quite sure that bussing isn't happening in PA, my wife works in an inner-city school, and she doesn't have any students who end up being shipped to the burbs. But I do know it is happening elsewhere in the country, and it's wrong.
John Adams Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 I'm quite sure that bussing isn't happening in PA, my wife works in an inner-city school, and she doesn't have any students who end up being shipped to the burbs. But I do know it is happening elsewhere in the country, and it's wrong. Yeah, god forbid kids in the inner city be given a chance at a better school. As a side note, no one should send their kids to public schools.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 "Green" refers to environmental friendliness, not cost. Don't the two usaully go hand-in-hand most of the time? Like those "green" squiggly bulbs Al Gore hawks... Aren't they supposed to be enviro friendly (which I don't really believe becuse they contain Hg... Which has to be manufactured somewhere (China) and then disposed of "properly.") AND cost a whole heck of lot less to run. So yes, they entice people to go "green" and save costs. ??
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Don't the two usaully go hand-in-hand most of the time? Like those "green" squiggly bulbs Al Gore hawks... Aren't they supposed to be enviro friendly (which I don't really believe becuse they contain Hg... Which has to be manufactured somewhere (China) and then disposed of "properly.") AND cost a whole heck of lot less to run. So yes, they entice people to go "green" and save costs. ?? They usually don't, in fact. "Green" technology usually costs quite a bit more, even when economies of scale are introduced. Particularly true of vehicles. Also true of power generation (wind turbines, for example, are expensive to maintain. Solar panels still haven't achieved a cost-effective level of efficiency.) It doesn't help, either, that "green" has been hijacked to mean "carbon-efficient operation", which is such a narrow definition it's almost total bull ****. Twenty years ago, CFL's (the light bulbs you speak of) probably would have been illegal because of worries about mercury contamination in landfills. As I've said before, hybrid cars are notoriously environmentally damaging to produce. "Biofuels" - ethanol-laced gasoline - is environmentally unfriendly and expensive when produced by processes used in the US (i.e. from corn - land-use costs are prohibitive for distilling ethanol from corn for large scale fuel use. Brazil can run on ethanol because they have a large sugar crop they can apply to it - even then, the land-use cost is prohibitive, with as much as they need to clear-cut the Amazon for agricultural purposes). But the last thing "green" usually is, is cost-effective.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Yeah, god forbid kids in the inner city be given a chance at a better school. I have no problem with that, so long as their parents pay their share. I pay HUGE tax bills each and every year. Why the hell should their kids get the benefits of my tax dollar while their parents share in none of the burden? So much for taxation without representation.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 They usually don't, in fact. "Green" technology usually costs quite a bit more, even when economies of scale are introduced. Particularly true of vehicles. Also true of power generation (wind turbines, for example, are expensive to maintain. Solar panels still haven't achieved a cost-effective level of efficiency.) It doesn't help, either, that "green" has been hijacked to mean "carbon-efficient operation", which is such a narrow definition it's almost total bull ****. Twenty years ago, CFL's (the light bulbs you speak of) probably would have been illegal because of worries about mercury contamination in landfills. As I've said before, hybrid cars are notoriously environmentally damaging to produce. "Biofuels" - ethanol-laced gasoline - is environmentally unfriendly and expensive when produced by processes used in the US (i.e. from corn - land-use costs are prohibitive for distilling ethanol from corn for large scale fuel use. Brazil can run on ethanol because they have a large sugar crop they can apply to it - even then, the land-use cost is prohibitive, with as much as they need to clear-cut the Amazon for agricultural purposes). But the last thing "green" usually is, is cost-effective. Thanks! Things are so totally !@#$ed up with regard to this. Not to get on my carp thing... Ahhh, I will just let it go...
John Adams Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 I have no problem with that, so long as their parents pay their share. I pay HUGE tax bills each and every year. Why the hell should their kids get the benefits of my tax dollar while their parents share in none of the burden? So much for taxation without representation. Stop: That ship sailed a million years ago. You don't care about the taxes. You just don't want inner city kids in your Macungie school system.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Stop: That ship sailed a million years ago. You don't care about the taxes. You just don't want inner city kids in your Macungie school system. Try again. I took my daughter out of the public schools because she was in a class with 26 other first graders, DESPITE the fact we have the second-highest school tax burden in the Lehigh Valley. So, if the schools are already overcrowded and the taxes sky high, why the HELL should I want kids to get bussed in when their parents are contributing NOTHING to the school district to improve infrastructure?
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Yeah, that's it. Go ahead and start the pile-on now. There wasn't a shred of sarcasm in the line that featured a word previously unknown to the responder, but please, call me the idiot. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, apparently incorrectly. If it wasn't sarcastic then it was profoundly ignorant. Feel better?
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Try again. I took my daughter out of the public schools because she was in a class with 26 other first graders, DESPITE the fact we have the second-highest school tax burden in the Lehigh Valley. So, if the schools are already overcrowded and the taxes sky high, why the HELL should I want kids to get bussed in when their parents are contributing NOTHING to the school district to improve infrastructure? 26 children overcrowded? What is to be said abouth the good old days in the 1960's and 1950's...
The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2010 Posted February 26, 2010 I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, apparently incorrectly. If it wasn't sarcastic then it was profoundly ignorant.Feel better? So you didn't look up unmitigated?
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2010 Posted February 26, 2010 So you didn't look up unmitigated? I'm starting to wonder if you know what it means...
Recommended Posts