Government in action...

[ctg]

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/22/bike_paths/index_np.html

Chris

[news.verizon.net]

"Chris Phillipo" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> says...
> > http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/22/bike_paths/index_np.html
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
>
> They probably needed the money for Segway paths through the Sierras.
> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com

If there is a demand locally, that is where it should be funded. Why should
people in alaska pay taxes for bike trails in the lower 48...

[Stephen Baker]

>Why should
>people in alaska pay taxes for bike trails in the lower 48...

Because otherwise you get the "we paid for it, so only we can use it"
mentality. If it's federally funded, then it's open to everyone.

Steve's 2-cents.

[Cameron]

"Stephen Baker" > wrote in message ...
> >Why should
> >people in alaska pay taxes for bike trails in the lower 48...
>
> Because otherwise you get the "we paid for it, so only we can use it"
> mentality. If it's federally funded, then it's open to everyone.
>
> Steve's 2-cents.

However, "federally funded" is a misnomer. It really means that it is
funded by tax payers. Is it fair that people in Alaska and Hawaii should
be required to pay for trails in North Carolina? Of course not. It's up to
each state to determine what area's are open to bikes/horses/motos/etc.
(with the exception of federally protected lands). Why should someone
be forced to 'buy' something they with most likely never see? In the free
market that is referred to as 'consumer fraud'. And remember, in the US
Constitution, amendment 10, "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved
to the states respectively, or to the people." 'Nough said.

Just my 2.5 cents.

--
Cameron

[Stephen Baker]

Cameron says:

>However, "federally funded" is a misnomer. It really means that it is
>funded by tax payers.

Yo - Duh!

>Is it fair that people in Alaska and Hawaii should
>be required to pay for trails in North Carolina?

Is it fair for someone who lives in NC to pay for stuff in Hawaii or Alaska?
Are you really that naive, Cam?

>(with the exception of federally protected lands)

But those are paid for by the taxpayer - they should be open to anyone. Earth
to Cam.......

>Why should someone
>be forced to 'buy' something they with most likely never see?

THen stoip paying those taxes right now, Cam, coz some of your tax dollars just
re-paved part of Route 95 in RI.

>Just my 2.5 cents.

You got gypped. Inflation again ;-)

Steve

[Cameron]

"Stephen Baker" > wrote in message ...
> Cameron says:
>
> >However, "federally funded" is a misnomer. It really means that it is
> >funded by tax payers.
>
> Yo - Duh!
>

So why did you imply that it was a good thing? Hence:

>> >Why should
>> >people in alaska pay taxes for bike trails in the lower 48...
>>
>> Because otherwise you get the "we paid for it, so only we can use it"
>> mentality. If it's federally funded, then it's open to everyone.
>>
>> Steve's 2-cents.

[Pasted in because Steve cut it out :-) ]

> >Is it fair that people in Alaska and Hawaii should
> >be required to pay for trails in North Carolina?
>
> Is it fair for someone who lives in NC to pay for stuff in Hawaii or Alaska?
> Are you really that naive, Cam?

Naive? Do you even know what the word means? You're making my point for
me, thank you. I owe you a beer.

>
> >(with the exception of federally protected lands)
>
> But those are paid for by the taxpayer - they should be open to anyone. Earth
> to Cam.......
>

Err, reality to Steve....

Federally protected lands have a variety of use restrictions on them. They are most
definitely not open to everyone. Just because my taxes goes to them doesn't mean
I can use the land in any way I wish. And yes, I do support the idea that some lands
should be protected; i.e. Yellowstone National Park. But that doesn't mean that some
suit in NY that has never lifted more than 20lbs in his life should be required to fund
my desire to ride in western WA.

> >Why should someone
> >be forced to 'buy' something they with most likely never see?
>
> THen stoip paying those taxes right now, Cam, coz some of your tax dollars just
> re-paved part of Route 95 in RI.

For starters, going to prison has never been a goal in my life.

As for R95 RI, I can't say. But the Fed's do have a role in highways; since they are
authorized to handle interstate commerce.

--
If I crashed into a tree and nobody was around
to hear me scream, did I really make a sound?

Cameron

[Raptor]

ctg wrote:
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/22/bike_paths/index_np.html
>
> Chris

Depending on what else was cut, this may not be bad. Well, not any
worse than the usual we can expect from a conservative Congress. :-)
Bikes belong on roads (or trails). OTOH since on-road bike lanes are
frequently(?) counted as "bike paths," this sucks.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

"news.verizon.net" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris Phillipo" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/22/bike_paths/index_np.html
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > They probably needed the money for Segway paths through the Sierras.
> > --
> > _________________________
> > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> > http://www.ramsays-online.com
>
> If there is a demand locally, that is where it should be funded. Why
should
> people in alaska pay taxes for bike trails in the lower 48...

Because AK residents receive a $1500 stipend per resident each year for OIL!

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[Slash]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:19:41 GMT, "Phil, Squid-in-Training" >
scribbled:

>"news.verizon.net" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Chris Phillipo" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> > > http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/22/bike_paths/index_np.html
>> > >
>> > > Chris
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > They probably needed the money for Segway paths through the Sierras.
>> > --
>> > _________________________
>> > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
>> > http://www.ramsays-online.com
>>
>> If there is a demand locally, that is where it should be funded. Why
>should
>> people in alaska pay taxes for bike trails in the lower 48...
>
>Because AK residents receive a $1500 stipend per resident each year for OIL!

Which almost makes up for our higher cost of living. Doh.

-Slash
--
"Ebert Victorious"
-The Onion

[Cameron]

"Stephen Baker" > spewed forth in message ...
> Cameron says:
>
> >As for R95 RI, I can't say. But the Fed's do have a role in highways; since
> >they are
> >authorized to handle interstate commerce.
> >
>
> My point, Cam, is that you (wherever you live)

Everett, Washington.

are paying taxes that help keep
> MY roads in good shape. By your own admission, this is what you would like to
> see stop.
>
> Steve
>

Uh, Steve, you just quoted me as saying that the Fed's *do* have a role in roads..........

My point is simply that the government should do it's job and obey the constitution. Please
show me where the constitution requires the fed's to support mountain biking.

--
Cameron

[ctg]

"news.verizon.net" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris Phillipo" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/22/bike_paths/index_np.html
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > They probably needed the money for Segway paths through the Sierras.
> > --
> > _________________________
> > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> > http://www.ramsays-online.com
>
> If there is a demand locally, that is where it should be funded. Why
should
> people in alaska pay taxes for bike trails in the lower 48...
>
>

Then does the converse make sense? Should Alaska forgo federal funds for
road construction and other improvements that only Alaskans and tourists
would use? Federal taxes pay for Federal projects. Nobody is taking local
taxes from Alaskans to fund a bike path in Georgia. It's a silly argument.

Chris

[BB]

On 24 Jul 2003 19:04:39 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:

> And....... I think they are removing funding from bike paths - not
> singletrack.

Its kind of sad, really...I recently got back from Europe and one of the
cooler thing was the enormous network of (mostly paved) bike paths in
Bavaria. They were all over the place, wandering through fields and woods
just off the highways, and bikers were everywhere. They could ride for
miles without having to get on a road with cars. It was obvious that
people were visiting there just to ride around.

Most Americans probably have no idea what a joy it can be to ride around
without SUVs blasting past you.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

[Super Slinky]

Cameron said...

> Same difference. My point is simply that they should be funded properly: at the
> state and/or local level. And you still haven't answered my challenge. Why should
> some guy in Manhattan who only sees grass and tree's during his monthly visit to
> Central Park have to pay so I can ride the Sammamish River trail?
>
> (patiently waiting........)

Because we all breathe the same air.
Because we all pay the price for depending on imported oil.
Because we all share in the health care costs related to lack of
exercise and obesity.

Glad I could help.

[Stephen Baker]

Cameron says:

>Article I, section 8. Haha!

Well, without wishing to prolong the ****ing match, here is Article I, Section
8, at least the part I think you're thinking of:

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall
be uniform throughout the United States; "

- Please not the "excises shall be uniform" part

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States; "

- Uh-huh! We all know where that's gone.....

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and
with the Indian tribes; "

- That would read "Regulate", Cameron, not "promote". Biiigggg difference.

Steve (haha)

[supabonbon]

"Cameron" > wrote in message >...
> "Stephen Baker" > wrote in message ...
> > Cameron says:
> >
> > >Please
> > >show me where the constitution requires the fed's to support mountain biking.
> >
> > I'll show you that _after_ you show me where the Constitution shows that they
> > have to support building and maintaining Interstate Highways ;-)
>
> Article I, section 8. Haha!
>
> >
> > And....... I think they are removing funding from bike paths - not
> > singletrack.
>
> Same difference. My point is simply that they should be funded properly: at the
> state and/or local level. And you still haven't answered my challenge. Why should
> some guy in Manhattan who only sees grass and tree's during his monthly visit to
> Central Park have to pay so I can ride the Sammamish River trail?
>
> (patiently waiting........)
>
> :-)

This NYer is happy to pay for that Sammish River trail. My travel
choices often involve getting a ride in somewhere I've never been.
Manhattan doesn't offer ANY mountain biking to speak of -- in fact,
going offroad is illegal in Central Park and could get your bike
confiscated. So when I get to ride in Vermont or Arizona or Idaho, I'm
pleased as punch. I'm not sure if the dollars for it are coming from
the Fed or State government, but nonetheless, I'm bringing my tourist
dollars to certain areas that have tax-supported trails.
/s

[Cameron]

"Super Slinky" > wrote in message t...
> Cameron said...
>
> > Same difference. My point is simply that they should be funded properly: at the
> > state and/or local level. And you still haven't answered my challenge. Why should
> > some guy in Manhattan who only sees grass and tree's during his monthly visit to
> > Central Park have to pay so I can ride the Sammamish River trail?
> >
> > (patiently waiting........)
>
> Because we all breathe the same air.

If I breath the same air as some guy in NY, then he must breath the same air as
someone in the UK. Therefore Rimmer owes us alot of back taxes!!

> Because we all share in the health care costs related to lack of
> exercise and obesity.

Eh? How is federally funded trails going to force my obese neighbors to exercise?
They won't even walk a short block to the corner market.

>
> Glad I could help.

Thank you. :-)

--
Cameron

[Cameron]

"Stephen Baker" > wrote in message ...
> Cameron says:
>
> >"To establish post offices and post roads; "
>
> It all goes by air - so highways cease to be applicable.

My research found that the lastest supreme court test upheld that it is still valid.
Of course, it's there job to uphold the law. And yet others disagree...

>
> Any anyway......... ;-P
>
> Go riding - I will as soon as my doctor says I can ;-))

Heal quickly.
I'm going riding (solo) this weekend, but I think I'll keep it mild. Not only am I out
of shape, while replacing my chain I notice a missing tooth.......on my chainring....
>
> Steve

--
Cameron

[Cameron]

"Super Slinky" > wrote in message t...
> Cameron said...
>
> > > Because we all breathe the same air.
> >
> > If I breath the same air as some guy in NY, then he must breath the same air as
> > someone in the UK. Therefore Rimmer owes us alot of back taxes!!
>
> Hah, you skirt the issue with a joke, because you know that one is hard
> to refute. Come on, man, be flexible. It won't kill you to say that at
> least this is a valid point.

It's called satire. And no, that is not a valid point. Yet I survive...

Perhaps you weren't following the thread. My main point is that there are different
responsibilities between the federal goverment and state/local goverments. It sounds
like you believe we live in a socialist society. We don't.

>
> > > Because we all share in the health care costs related to lack of
> > > exercise and obesity.
> >
> > Eh? How is federally funded trails going to force my obese neighbors to exercise?
> > They won't even walk a short block to the corner market.
>
> Nobody will be forced to do anything, of course, but remember the old
> saying 'build it and they will come'. If you make pedestrian and bike
> paths available, they will be used. Just look at the Lakeshore Drive
> path in Chicago and you will see what I mean.
>

Never been to Chicago.

So what you are saying is, if the federal government pays for a bike path all my lazy
neighbors' will suddenly decide to exercise? Excuse me, but from my observation of
other people I have concluded that mountain bikers, roadies, walkers, joggers, speed
walkers, runners, inline skaters, rock climbers, weight lifters, hikers, etc. will exercise
regardless of what the fed's fund. Lazy people won't.

--
Cameron

[Shaun Rimmer]

Cameron > wrote in message
...
>
> "Super Slinky" > wrote in message
t...
> > Cameron said...
> >
> > > Same difference. My point is simply that they should be funded
properly: at the
> > > state and/or local level. And you still haven't answered my challenge.
Why should
> > > some guy in Manhattan who only sees grass and tree's during his
monthly visit to
> > > Central Park have to pay so I can ride the Sammamish River trail?
> > >
> > > (patiently waiting........)
> >
> > Because we all breathe the same air.
>
> If I breath the same air as some guy in NY, then he must breath the same
air as
> someone in the UK. Therefore Rimmer owes us alot of back taxes!!

I owe nothing to the world but myself. The world has me, and is a better
place for it - you owe me 10 dollah.


Shaun aRe

[Stephen Baker]

Shaun R says:

>I owe nothing to the world but myself.

And noboby is asking for repayment yet........ ;-)

>The world has me, and is a better
>place for it

That may be going a bit far - but at least we aren't any the _worse_ for it.
At least on this side of the pond.

>you owe me 10 dollah.

Come and get it. ;-P

Steve

[Shaun Rimmer]

Stephen Baker > wrote in message
...
> Shaun R says:
>
> >I owe nothing to the world but myself.
>
> And noboby is asking for repayment yet........ ;-)

People often don't know what they have until it's gone.

> >The world has me, and is a better
> >place for it
>
> That may be going a bit far

No - that's going the exact correct distance.

>- but at least we aren't any the _worse_ for it.
> At least on this side of the pond.

Now you're being silly.

> >you owe me 10 dollah.
>
> Come and get it. ;-P

Come and give it.

> Steve

Shaun aRe - 4 days of single
left.................heheheh.............whooooooo ! Ahem.

[Cameron]

"Shaun Rimmer" > wrote in message ...
>
> Stephen Baker > wrote in message
> ...
> > Shaun R says:
> >
> > >I owe nothing to the world but myself.
> >
> > And noboby is asking for repayment yet........ ;-)
>
> People often don't know what they have until it's gone.

Kinda like melanoma?

>
> > >The world has me, and is a better
> > >place for it
> >
> > That may be going a bit far
>
> No - that's going the exact correct distance.

"exact correct"? You are totally absolutely mistaken wrong.

>
> >- but at least we aren't any the _worse_ for it.
> > At least on this side of the pond.
>
> Now you're being silly.

That coming from YOU???

>
> > >you owe me 10 dollah.
> >
> > Come and get it. ;-P
>
> Come and give it.
>

I would pay more than ten dollars to see Steve give you some....

> Shaun aRe - 4 days of single
> left.................heheheh.............whooooooo ! Ahem.

Got your h'moon all squared away? (BTW: Congrats)

--
Cameron

[Super Slinky]

Cameron said...

> It's called satire. And no, that is not a valid point. Yet I survive...
>
> Perhaps you weren't following the thread. My main point is that there are different
> responsibilities between the federal goverment and state/local goverments. It sounds
> like you believe we live in a socialist society. We don't.

What is this, the Rush Limbaugh show? You may not think that the federal
government should redistribute tax dollars, but I am sure you are quite
aware that they do all the time. If you don't like it, I suggest you
take it to the Supreme Court, but I'll bet you 1¢ to $100 that they have
heard it all before and the precedent has been set. The Articles of
Confederation were dumped over 200 years ago. We need a strong central
government. If we didn't have one, we wouldn't have a country.

> Never been to Chicago.
>
> So what you are saying is, if the federal government pays for a bike path all my lazy
> neighbors' will suddenly decide to exercise? Excuse me, but from my observation of
> other people I have concluded that mountain bikers, roadies, walkers, joggers, speed
> walkers, runners, inline skaters, rock climbers, weight lifters, hikers, etc. will exercise
> regardless of what the fed's fund. Lazy people won't.

I strongly disagree. The urban sprawl that we are undergoing now
couldn't be any more bicycle and pedestrian unfriendly. Have you ever
tried to ride a bike through exurbia? I have. No sidewalks, no bike
lanes, not even a shoulder so that you can get out of the way of
traffic. It is torture trying to get through these places without a car.
The largest commercial district in this corner of my state sits right
next to a large and prestigious university. The campus is lousy with
bicycles, but I defy you to see anyone biking or walking to any of the
shopping centers. It just isn't made for it. I could go on, but I will
leave you to your right wing platitudes and move on. Believe me, I know
all about this subject, because I am an avid cyclist and I live in an
urban area. The growing dependence on cars is a disgrace and if you
don't see it, then you just aren't paying attention.

[Stephen Baker]

Shaun R says:

>Steve ain't got what it takes, dude, unless he grew breasts
>lately.........OK, as you were then.

Go back to sleep, Shaun. I'm cute, but I ain't _that_ cute.

Steve

[Shaun Rimmer]

Stephen Baker > wrote in message
...
> Shaun R says:
>
> >Steve ain't got what it takes, dude, unless he grew breasts
> >lately.........OK, as you were then.
>
> Go back to sleep, Shaun.

Like I've even been asleep...........

> I'm cute, but I ain't _that_ cute.

Huh - no **** bright spark.........



Shaun aRe - Ahhh, I remember sleep! Such bliss............

[Cameron]

"Super Slinky" > wrote in message t...
> Cameron said...
>
> > It's called satire. And no, that is not a valid point. Yet I survive...
> >
> > Perhaps you weren't following the thread. My main point is that there are different
> > responsibilities between the federal goverment and state/local goverments. It sounds
> > like you believe we live in a socialist society. We don't.
>
> What is this, the Rush Limbaugh show?

Gee, how cute. Is that supposed to be funny?

You may not think that the federal
> government should redistribute tax dollars, but I am sure you are quite
> aware that they do all the time. If you don't like it, I suggest you
> take it to the Supreme Court, but I'll bet you 1¢ to $100 that they have
> heard it all before and the precedent has been set.

Yes, I'm aware that they do. But neither you nor anyone else has explained
where federally funded recreation is constitutionally legal.

The Articles of
> Confederation were dumped over 200 years ago.

Duh, it was rewritten to the US Constitution in 1778. Aside from that, what
the heck is your point?

We need a strong central
> government. If we didn't have one, we wouldn't have a country.

Wrong. In a way. Our ferderal goverment is charged with *national*
security; currency; import/export tariff's, etc.

The strength of our country comes from individuals, working hard to provide
for their families, communities, etc.

So why has every country that has a centralized goverment failed?

--
Cameron

>
> > Never been to Chicago.
> >
> > So what you are saying is, if the federal government pays for a bike path all my lazy
> > neighbors' will suddenly decide to exercise? Excuse me, but from my observation of
> > other people I have concluded that mountain bikers, roadies, walkers, joggers, speed
> > walkers, runners, inline skaters, rock climbers, weight lifters, hikers, etc. will exercise
> > regardless of what the fed's fund. Lazy people won't.
>
> I strongly disagree. The urban sprawl that we are undergoing now
> couldn't be any more bicycle and pedestrian unfriendly. Have you ever
> tried to ride a bike through exurbia? I have. No sidewalks, no bike
> lanes, not even a shoulder so that you can get out of the way of
> traffic. It is torture trying to get through these places without a car.
> The largest commercial district in this corner of my state sits right
> next to a large and prestigious university. The campus is lousy with
> bicycles, but I defy you to see anyone biking or walking to any of the
> shopping centers. It just isn't made for it. I could go on, but I will
> leave you to your right wing platitudes and move on. Believe me, I know
> all about this subject, because I am an avid cyclist and I live in an
> urban area. The growing dependence on cars is a disgrace and if you
> don't see it, then you just aren't paying attention.