Grover Norquist advocates power to the people

[BT]

The "war on drugs" is paid for with tax dollars, and I have no way to tell the government not to use my taxes for the "war on drugs", so I am therefore essentially made to support the "war on drugs".

Saying we are forced to support the war on drugs is akin to saying we are forced to support the bill of rights since both are prosecuted and or defended with taxpayer money.

So you are correct that we disagree, i think that your justification for your statement, that because taxpayers funds are involved,  we are forced to support a program, is flimsy at best. There is no penalty for lack of support.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Rooundabouts are expensive to build. I see nothing wrong with them, but there is often not enough land at the intersection to build them...unless they seize it from the homeowners via the law of eminent domain.

[Universe Prince]

Rooundabouts are expensive to build. I see nothing wrong with them, but there is often not enough land at the intersection to build them...unless they seize it from the homeowners via the law of eminent domain.

Most places there is enough space for a four or five lane intersection there is room for a roundabout. And usually those are not surrounded by houses.

[Universe Prince]

So you are correct that we disagree, i think that your justification for your statement, that because taxpayers funds are involved,  we are forced to support a program, is flimsy at best. There is no penalty for lack of support.

Tell that to Wesley Snipes.

[BT]

Tell that to Wesley Snipes.

Wesley Snipes was not penalized because he did not support the war on drugs.

He was penalized for income tax evasion.

But you knew that.

[Universe Prince]

Wesley Snipes was not penalized because he did not support the war on drugs.

He was penalized for income tax evasion.

Yes. And...?

[BT]

Being penalized for tax evasion is different than being penalized for being against a govt program such as the war on drugs.

And again you knew that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Roundabouts are expensive to build. I see nothing wrong with them, but there is often not enough land at the intersection to build them...unless they seize it from the homeowners via the law of eminent domain.


Most places there is enough space for a four or five lane intersection there is room for a roundabout. And usually those are not surrounded by houses.
============================================
Not here, and weren't we talking about stop signs, which you find oppressive.
Stop---look both ways=== proceed. OPRESSION!

I think signals are more oppressive, as they oblige you to wait when there is no traffic that could pose a danger.


Stop signs are usually where two two-lane streets intersect, at least here.

The fact is that there is rarely a way to abolish one type of government regulation without replacing it with another.

Phil Gramm helped remove a number of regulations, and that gave us Enron, followed by the Mortgage crisis. Now thousands are impoverished, and Gramm has this cushy lobbyist's job, the old thief. I think he was some sort of pal to Grover Norquist, too.



So that leaves only the problem of taxing people against their will to build them, except where you don't live and they have to take land and money away from citizens.

[Universe Prince]

Not here, and weren't we talking about stop signs, which you find oppressive.
Stop---look both ways=== proceed. OPRESSION!

Now you're just making up nonsense. I never said stop signs were oppressive.

Stop signs are usually where two two-lane streets intersect, at least here.

Yep. Not sure why one would need a roundabout at a simple intersection of two lane streets.

So that leaves only the problem of taxing people against their will to build them, except where you don't live and they have to take land and money away from citizens.

You still haven't demonstrated that land would need to be taken from anyone. And I'm actually advocating something that is more efficient in terms of traffic and use of tax dollars, and would require less taxes in the long run. So I'm comfortable with this. I've never said I expect to abolish taxes, at least, not any time in the foreseeable future. Why you're so uncomfortable with doing away with stop signs, I don't know.

[Universe Prince]

Being penalized for tax evasion is different than being penalized for being against a govt program such as the war on drugs.

I did not say a word about being for or against the "war on drugs". I did not say people are forced to endorse it. I said people are forced to support it. Support in this case, and in context, meaning to sustain or maintain by providing something necessary for existence.

But you knew that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So that leaves only the problem of taxing people against their will to build them, except where you don't live and they have to take land and money away from citizens.


You still haven't demonstrated that land would need to be taken from anyone. And I'm actually advocating something that is more efficient in terms of traffic and use of tax dollars, and would require less taxes in the long run. So I'm comfortable with this. I've never said I expect to abolish taxes, at least, not any time in the foreseeable future. Why you're so uncomfortable with doing away with stop signs, I don't know.

==========================================

Your assumption that everything you advocate is best, and needs no proof, while any reason that I give to the contrary should be assumed to be illogical and must be proved otherwise.

Most stop signs are used where two, two lane streets intersect. I find it a logical manner to avoid accidents. You are the one who wants to do away with all stop signs and traffic lights.

As usual, this is yet another discussion that goes nowhere, because you assume that you are always right in every case, and if I propose that your "solution" is not practical (doing away with all stop signs), then you make it my proposal and claim that it was not your proposal, or you ask for proof about something hypothetical, such as the cost of building a roundabout in a hypothetical location, which is impossible.

[Universe Prince]

Your assumption that everything you advocate is best, and needs no proof, while any reason that I give to the contrary should be assumed to be illogical and must be proved otherwise.

Not at all true. I have, in point of fact, supported my argument in favor of doing away with traffic signs by providing links to articles about places where it has been tried and in fact works. You have provided nothing but a contrary opinion.

As usual, this is yet another discussion that goes nowhere, because you assume that you are always right in every case, and if I propose that your "solution" is not practical (doing away with all stop signs), then you make it my proposal and claim that it was not your proposal, or you ask for proof about something hypothetical, such as the cost of building a roundabout in a hypothetical location, which is impossible.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have not said you advocated doing away with stop signs or advocated roundabouts. What I did was challenge your assertion that roundabouts were necessarily going to involve taking land away from homeowners. And so far, I have not said a word about "the cost of building a roundabout in a hypothetical location". So if the discussion goes nowhere, that would be your fault. If your argument is weak, that would your fault as well. Next time, try not making up nonsense. That will avoid your weaker arguments and eliminate you trying to shift to me the blame for your nonsense. Then the discussion will have a great deal more traction.

[BT]

Support in this case, and in context, meaning to sustain or maintain by providing something necessary for existence.

When a program expires are your taxes lowered automatically? Because if they aren't then your taxes are not linked to specific programs per se. And therefore support for specific programs is not required.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They raise taxes all the time for specific purposes, and rarely lower them. This does not suggest that the specific tax hike was not for a specific purpose, only that those doing the taxing are taking advantage of the situation.

As for the discussion about roundabouts vs stop signs, it began with a discussion about health care. I find it impossible to discuss such things with UP, who prefers to muddy the waters more than to agree with anyone about anything.

[Universe Prince]

When a program expires are your taxes lowered automatically? Because if they aren't then your taxes are not linked to specific programs per se. And therefore support for specific programs is not required.

I believe that to be, as I pointed out before, a flimsy argument at best. You claim my argument is flimsy. So, gosh, I guess we are just going to disagree.