CA Considers HOT Lanes

In article .com>, js wrote:

> Problem? Texas wants a road (assuming that's even true) and has
> figured out how to do it. They borrow a lot of money and priomise to
> pay it back with tolls. They just happen to have borrowed it from
> someone in Spain.

Means are important, and in this case the ends are suspicious as well.

>> I would wager that you would object to a similiar plan if it were for
>> healthcare and you had no other choice but to use the government's
>> contractor.

> Huh? What has healthcare got to do with it?

Thought it might be somewhere you were against government forcing you to
do business with a specific company.

>> You get service per the contract and the contractor is out to
>> make a profit.

> How about that.

In a monopoly enforced by government.

>> So if the government forgot some detail and the contractor
>> can then use that to profit you get to die because of the government's
>> oversight in the contract.

> So, for your argument to stand you need to posit that the State of
> Texas attorneys are idiots. Hmmmm....

I need do no such thing.

> If one were to extend this argument to include all state officials,
> wouldn't outsourcing the management of the toll road make even more
> sense?

So that they can miss things there too?

>> The same will apply with these road contracts. Holes in the contract will
>> be used for profit. Some may cause safety issues and people may be
>> harmed. As if a contractor has never used substandard concrete in road
>> building before..... now they have the whole ball of wax to find ways to
>> cheat here and there and make a little more money.

> Sorry - but the State of Texas is not in the road building business.
> The current contractor for is a Texas firm (Zacharry). Regardless of
> how fiancing happens, the building of the road is contracted out. If
> you believe the State of Texas government is incapable of executing on
> the building of a road then theproblem has nothing to do with how its
> being paid for.

I'll repeat it, since you missed the point: Given what occurs in road
building there is no reason to suspect road management would fair any
better.

>> Sure, for now, we could use other roads that have yet to be placed under
>> such plans. But if we don't take a stand, even the backwoods road that
>> hasn't been upgraded since 1932 will eventually be 'leased'.

> So you are aqgainst ANY privatization of any government "service"?

I can tell that you are in favor of constructing strawmen.

>> Not to mention that the government will allow other roads to decay to
>> advance this sort of thing.

> Once again, the nefarious conspiracy.

It's a conspiracy to think that government will act towards the
enrichment of those in office and their friends/backers? That's what
government does all the time.

>> In the end, it's just another form of theft from the people.

> No, it isn't but nothing I say will convince you.

Government hides the contract details from the people because everything
is honest and on the up and up.... yeah right.

> Your arguments boil down to this:

> The government is inept.

Corrupt, not inept. Inept is the excuse we hear.

> Private enterprise cheats

When dealing with corrupt government.

> Therefore, we can't allow inept government to manage cheating
> contractors.

Um, no. We cannot allow government power to put the corporate
interests of friends and buddies and owners of those in office in charge
of something as vital as roads for many decades at a time.

> Seems to me that you have a very negative view of the worls.

I don't trust government. That's what the United States of America was
founded on. That government by it's very nature is not to be trusted and
must be severely limited and only big enough to function and no more.

> My argument boils down to one very simple thing:
> The economic motive of the private sector is clear, open, and
> manageable. The entire world economy is based on this.

The people be damned.

>> > The contract determines the conditionals, responsibilities, and
>> > remedies for breach. Its a business deal. These deals happen all over
>> > the world for all sorts of things. I applaud the State for its
>> > creativity, though they weren't the first to think of it.

>> You mean the one that government tried to keep secret (and still is in
>> some part), from the people.

> See - there's that conspiracy theory crap again. You have no evidence
> to support the claim of inpropriety but it is a necessary condition for
> your argument to hold.

Well why don't you go read what it took to get the release of these
important documents. They were being kept from the people. That's a fact.
Government cannot be trusted and must not operate in secret. Only a
complete moron would consider it "conspiracy theory crap" to object to
government crafting multi-billon dollar contracts including taking land
from the people in secret.

> Just like nefosucker - you need a fallacious premise to make your
> argument.

There is no false premise, the government did not want those documents
public. That's called a fact.

>> The only creativity here is coming up with
>> new ways to fleece the people for their own enrichment and get around
>> pesky things like the treaty process with regards to the spp.

> I'm talking about a road. I don't do politics.

Then you don't do roads either.

> I guess that leaves us with little to discuss.

Especially since you don't seem to think roads and politics go together.

If you don't see how transportation effects politics and how politics
aims to effect transportation, then it's no wonder you don't grasp the
issues involved.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, js wrote:
>
> > Problem? Texas wants a road (assuming that's even true) and has
> > figured out how to do it. They borrow a lot of money and priomise to
> > pay it back with tolls. They just happen to have borrowed it from
> > someone in Spain.
>
> Means are important, and in this case the ends are suspicious as well.

Then perhaps we ought to have Washington stop selling t-bills to
Chinese investors.

> >> I would wager that you would object to a similiar plan if it were for
> >> healthcare and you had no other choice but to use the government's
> >> contractor.
>
> > Huh? What has healthcare got to do with it?
>
> Thought it might be somewhere you were against government forcing you to
> do business with a specific company.

Strawman noted. Here's a solution. Instead of one 5-lane highway,
lets build 5 one-lane roads and then YOU can decide which one to drive
on.

> >> You get service per the contract and the contractor is out to
> >> make a profit.
>
> > How about that.
>
> In a monopoly enforced by government.

Like I said - let's build 5 one lane roads. Make sense?

Or perhpas you'd like to propose an alternative?

> >> So if the government forgot some detail and the contractor
> >> can then use that to profit you get to die because of the government's
> >> oversight in the contract.
>
> > So, for your argument to stand you need to posit that the State of
> > Texas attorneys are idiots. Hmmmm....
>
> I need do no such thing.

Whether you need it or not is no longer a question. You did.
Remember, it wasn't me that wrote, "...So if the government forgot some
detail..."

> > If one were to extend this argument to include all state officials,
> > wouldn't outsourcing the management of the toll road make even more
> > sense?
>
> So that they can miss things there too?

So their own ineptitude wouldn't get n the way?

> >> The same will apply with these road contracts. Holes in the contract will
> >> be used for profit. Some may cause safety issues and people may be
> >> harmed. As if a contractor has never used substandard concrete in road
> >> building before..... now they have the whole ball of wax to find ways to
> >> cheat here and there and make a little more money.
>
> > Sorry - but the State of Texas is not in the road building business.
> > The current contractor for is a Texas firm (Zacharry). Regardless of
> > how fiancing happens, the building of the road is contracted out. If
> > you believe the State of Texas government is incapable of executing on
> > the building of a road then theproblem has nothing to do with how its
> > being paid for.
>
> I'll repeat it, since you missed the point: Given what occurs in road
> building there is no reason to suspect road management would fair any
> better.

I don't believe private enterprise is incapable of producing results.
I have a 12 trillion dollar economy that is growing as evidence of
that. You?

> >> Sure, for now, we could use other roads that have yet to be placed under
> >> such plans. But if we don't take a stand, even the backwoods road that
> >> hasn't been upgraded since 1932 will eventually be 'leased'.
>
> > So you are aqgainst ANY privatization of any government "service"?
>
> I can tell that you are in favor of constructing strawmen.

It was a question. Are you opposed to privatization of public
services?

> >> Not to mention that the government will allow other roads to decay to
> >> advance this sort of thing.
>
> > Once again, the nefarious conspiracy.
>
> It's a conspiracy to think that government will act towards the
> enrichment of those in office and their friends/backers? That's what
> government does all the time.

Not in my state.

> >> In the end, it's just another form of theft from the people.
>
> > No, it isn't but nothing I say will convince you.
>
> Government hides the contract details from the people because everything
> is honest and on the up and up.... yeah right.

Conspiracy theary - sorry, no evidence, no basis.

> > Your arguments boil down to this:
>
> > The government is inept.
>
> Corrupt, not inept. Inept is the excuse we hear.
>
> > Private enterprise cheats
>
> When dealing with corrupt government.
>
> > Therefore, we can't allow inept government to manage cheating
> > contractors.
>
> Um, no. We cannot allow government power to put the corporate
> interests of friends and buddies and owners of those in office in charge
> of something as vital as roads for many decades at a time.
>
> > Seems to me that you have a very negative view of the worls.
>
> I don't trust government. That's what the United States of America was
> founded on. That government by it's very nature is not to be trusted and
> must be severely limited and only big enough to function and no more.

Yet you want them to build roads and operate them...my my. I'm sorry,
but I am having a real problem in keeping up with your contradictions.

> > My argument boils down to one very simple thing:
> > The economic motive of the private sector is clear, open, and
> > manageable. The entire world economy is based on this.
>
> The people be damned.

The people ARE the private sector.

> >> > The contract determines the conditionals, responsibilities, and
> >> > remedies for breach. Its a business deal. These deals happen all over
> >> > the world for all sorts of things. I applaud the State for its
> >> > creativity, though they weren't the first to think of it.
>
> >> You mean the one that government tried to keep secret (and still is in
> >> some part), from the people.
>
> > See - there's that conspiracy theory crap again. You have no evidence
> > to support the claim of inpropriety but it is a necessary condition for
> > your argument to hold.
>
> Well why don't you go read what it took to get the release of these
> important documents.

How many miles of road have been built?

> They were being kept from the people.

No - the "people" never bothered. Here - the list of PPPs and the
methods used to executre on them. Everything is open and published.

> That's a fact.

No, it isn't a fact at all.

> Government cannot be trusted and must not operate in secret. Only a
> complete moron would consider it "conspiracy theory crap" to object to
> government crafting multi-billon dollar contracts including taking land
> from the people in secret.

There wasn't a secret. It was all published and out in the open. Just
because you weren't bothered to look for the information doesn't mean
it didn't exist and wasn't available.


> > Just like nefosucker - you need a fallacious premise to make your
> > argument.
>
> There is no false premise, the government did not want those documents
> public. That's called a fact.

So, where is this smoking gun? Which document exactly is it that the
State tried to hide regarding TTC-35. And how did it become public.
And was it kept "secret" illegally?

Just curious - I'd like the specifics. You seem to have all sorts of
innuendo - now produce the specifics, please.

> >> The only creativity here is coming up with
> >> new ways to fleece the people for their own enrichment and get around
> >> pesky things like the treaty process with regards to the spp.
>
> > I'm talking about a road. I don't do politics.
>
> Then you don't do roads either.

I don't do politics in NGs. I do facts and data.

> > I guess that leaves us with little to discuss.
>
> Especially since you don't seem to think roads and politics go together.

No - roads and economics go together.

> If you don't see how transportation effects politics and how politics
> aims to effect transportation, then it's no wonder you don't grasp the
> issues involved.

You change yur mind so often you are probably pretty close to the
truth. I have no grasp what you believe the issues to be. First it's
the bity about foreigners owning roads. Then its about WMD coming up
the road from Mexico on the Spanish highway. Then you switch to the
Government can't be trusted and private industry cheats. Then its back
to the Styatye ought to build roads and run them because somehow they
are not inept? Sorry - but your circularity has me dizzy.

And I know the perfect solution.

js

In article . com>, js wrote:

> Brent P wrote:

> Then perhaps we ought to have Washington stop selling t-bills to
> Chinese investors.

Yes, the US government should stop overspending. 9 trillion in debt and
much more in obligations due in the future is not good for the nation.

And putting China in a posisition where it can just make the dollar tank
isn't good either.


>> Thought it might be somewhere you were against government forcing you to
>> do business with a specific company.

> Strawman noted.

It's not a strawman, it's an anology.

> Here's a solution. Instead of one 5-lane highway,
> lets build 5 one-lane roads and then YOU can decide which one to drive
> on.

That's a strawman.

How if roads are going to be private businesses, have them aquire the
land in the marketplace. Or have leases where the company can be tossed
out on their ass if they go against the people's wishes instead of the
people being stuck with them for many decades.

>> > So, for your argument to stand you need to posit that the State of
>> > Texas attorneys are idiots. Hmmmm....

>> I need do no such thing.

> Whether you need it or not is no longer a question. You did.
> Remember, it wasn't me that wrote, "...So if the government forgot some
> detail..."

Government has in the past. It's nothing new. You seem to want to make
the ordinary extraordinary because of your blind trust in government.

>> I'll repeat it, since you missed the point: Given what occurs in road
>> building there is no reason to suspect road management would fair any
>> better.

> I don't believe private enterprise is incapable of producing results.

Implied strawman noted.

> I have a 12 trillion dollar economy that is growing as evidence of
> that. You?

And we got here without making the roads a for profit private venture!

>> > So you are aqgainst ANY privatization of any government "service"?

>> I can tell that you are in favor of constructing strawmen.

> It was a question. Are you opposed to privatization of public
> services?

So is 'when did you stop beating your wife?'.

>> > Once again, the nefarious conspiracy.

>> It's a conspiracy to think that government will act towards the
>> enrichment of those in office and their friends/backers? That's what
>> government does all the time.

> Not in my state.

Look closer. And what state would that be?

>> >> In the end, it's just another form of theft from the people.

>> > No, it isn't but nothing I say will convince you.

>> Government hides the contract details from the people because everything
>> is honest and on the up and up.... yeah right.

> Conspiracy theary - sorry, no evidence, no basis.

There's no theory here... one has to go to court to get the details. Why
is that? Because government is honest, upfront, and transparent? All
those would mean that the government would have the information available
by default.

>> Um, no. We cannot allow government power to put the corporate
>> interests of friends and buddies and owners of those in office in charge
>> of something as vital as roads for many decades at a time.
>>
>> > Seems to me that you have a very negative view of the worls.
>>
>> I don't trust government. That's what the United States of America was
>> founded on. That government by it's very nature is not to be trusted and
>> must be severely limited and only big enough to function and no more.

> Yet you want them to build roads and operate them...my my. I'm sorry,
> but I am having a real problem in keeping up with your contradictions.

Roads are one of the things a small government is supposed to take care
of. If roads were private for profit ventures the 12 trillion dollar
economy and small business would collaspe.

>> > My argument boils down to one very simple thing:
>> > The economic motive of the private sector is clear, open, and
>> > manageable. The entire world economy is based on this.

>> The people be damned.

> The people ARE the private sector.

Monopolies work so well for the people....

>> Well why don't you go read what it took to get the release of these
>> important documents.

> How many miles of road have been built?

How many angels fit on the head of a pin?

>> They were being kept from the people.

> No - the "people" never bothered. Here - the list of PPPs and the
> methods used to executre on them. Everything is open and published.

They did bother. Used the freedom of information act to get them. The
government had to be forced to be more open. It wanted to be closed.

>> That's a fact.

> No, it isn't a fact at all.

http://corridornews.blogspot.com/200...formation.html
"The Houston Chronicle filed a freedom of information request with the
Texas Department of Transportation seeking secret provisions of a state
contract with a Spanish consortium to build and operate the Trans-Texas
Corridor, a web of tolled transitways across the state.

In response, officials from TxDOT and the consortium, Cintra-Zachry,
appealed to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to allow them to withhold
the documents from the Chronicle and other newspapers that filed
requests. Even after a sweeping rejection of the claims in an opinion
from Abbott on May 31, TxDOT officials are considering going to court to
prevent the release of the information."

Sorry. Fact.


> > Government cannot be trusted and must not operate in secret. Only a
>> complete moron would consider it "conspiracy theory crap" to object to
>> government crafting multi-billon dollar contracts including taking land
>> from the people in secret.

> There wasn't a secret. It was all published and out in the open. Just
> because you weren't bothered to look for the information doesn't mean
> it didn't exist and wasn't available.

See above. Also see: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/15629991.htm

"Transportation Department officials say they.ll likely release financial
documents soon that have been the subject of a freedom of information
lawsuit filed by the Texas attorney general.s office."

Gee... funny one has to file lawsuits to get information you claim is
'available'.

>> > Just like nefosucker - you need a fallacious premise to make your
>> > argument.

>> There is no false premise, the government did not want those documents
>> public. That's called a fact.

> So, where is this smoking gun? Which document exactly is it that the
> State tried to hide regarding TTC-35. And how did it become public.
> And was it kept "secret" illegally?

Strawman. I didn't anything about legality. Lots of things are
technically legal, that doesn't make them right.

> Just curious - I'd like the specifics. You seem to have all sorts of
> innuendo - now produce the specifics, please.

It's not my fault you don't know the subject matter but try to act as if you
do.

Documents released via FOIA:
SPP: http://stopspp.com/stopspp/?page_id=11
TTC: Information was finally released sept 28, 2006, don't have a url if
it has been put on the web.

>> Then you don't do roads either.

> I don't do politics in NGs. I do facts and data.

You're lacking in the later, in the former well not understanding the
relationship is dangerous.

>> > I guess that leaves us with little to discuss.

>> Especially since you don't seem to think roads and politics go together.

> No - roads and economics go together.

Roads, politics, and economics go together. The politics shape the roads
and the economics. Do you think all those interstates meeting in Chicago
happened all on 'facts and data'? I happened because of politics.

>> If you don't see how transportation effects politics and how politics
>> aims to effect transportation, then it's no wonder you don't grasp the
>> issues involved.

> You change yur mind so often you are probably pretty close to the
> truth.

I haven't changed my mind one bit.

> I have no grasp what you believe the issues to be.

That's not my problem.

> First it's the bity about foreigners owning roads.

One of many problems.

> Then its about WMD coming up
> the road from Mexico on the Spanish highway.

You must have gotten that from someone else.

> Then you switch to the
> Government can't be trusted and private industry cheats.

That's another problem, and I didn't 'switch' to it.

> Then its back
> to the Styatye ought to build roads and run them because somehow they
> are not inept? Sorry - but your circularity has me dizzy.

That's your creation.

> And I know the perfect solution.

I doubt it.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
rec.autos.driving:
>
> necromancer wrote:
> > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
> > rec.autos.driving:
>
> In spite of my best efforts, you are incorrigable.

And why is that? Because I dare to form my own opinions on things and
don't let shrill people like yourself force your opinions on me? The
simple fact is that I regard foreign ownership (and yes, I know its a
lease, but a 99 year lease may as well be a sale from our point of view)
of vital US infrastructure like this highway to be BAD, period.

> Your underlying
> premise is faulty because you haven't a clue and you didn't make the
> effort to educate yourself. I won't waste any more time with you.
>
> Here is your fallacious premise. Since the rest of the argument is
> solely dependent on this fallacy, it has no merit.
>
> > Which makes it foreign owned as far as I am concerned....
>
> > They could do that and more. As the owners of the road (which AFAIC will
> > be foreign soil) they can do as they damn well please.
>
> The agreement is one of lessee and lessor. There is a second
> management contract for operations. The road is owned by the State of
> Texas. The financing for building the road comes from a consortium of
> investors from around the world. The road is managed by the
> consortium. The consortium gets paid back its investment and interst
> from the tolls collected.
>
> The contract determines the conditionals, responsibilities, and
> remedies for breach. Its a business deal. These deals happen all over
> the world for all sorts of things. I applaud the State for its
> creativity, though they weren't the first to think of it.

And when it all blows up in your faces, don't come crying to me or to
Brent or to others who think like we do. We tried to warn you and you
let your greed and shortsightedness get the better of you.


--
Sincerely,

The New World Order.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
rec.autos.driving:
> In article .com>, js wrote:
>
> > The agreement is one of lessee and lessor. There is a second
> > management contract for operations. The road is owned by the State of
> > Texas. The financing for building the road comes from a consortium of
> > investors from around the world. The road is managed by the
> > consortium. The consortium gets paid back its investment and interst
> > from the tolls collected.
>
> And there lies the problem.
>
> I would wager that you would object to a similiar plan if it were for
> healthcare and you had no other choice but to use the government's
> contractor. You get service per the contract and the contractor is out to
> make a profit. So if the government forgot some detail and the contractor
> can then use that to profit you get to die because of the government's
> oversight in the contract.

Brent, you may as well as give up on this guy. All he sees are the short
term $$$ from the deal. He probablly is one of the NWO types who will
benefit hugely from this highway at our expense.


--
"If a pastor buys meth, does that make
him a Methodist?"
--Jay Leno

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
rec.autos.driving:
> The government is inept.

Just look at the bush admin.

> Private enterprise cheats

Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia.....

> Therefore, we can't allow inept government to manage cheating
> contractors.
>
> Seems to me that you have a very negative view of the worls.

No, he refuses to let people like you force him to look at a distorted
world through rose colored glasses.

> My argument boils down to one very simple thing:
>
> The economic motive of the private sector is clear, open, and
> manageable. The entire world economy is based on this.

ROTFLMAO! You're kidding, right????

> > > The contract determines the conditionals, responsibilities, and
> > > remedies for breach. Its a business deal. These deals happen all over
> > > the world for all sorts of things. I applaud the State for its
> > > creativity, though they weren't the first to think of it.
> >
> > You mean the one that government tried to keep secret (and still is in
> > some part), from the people.
>
> See - there's that conspiracy theory crap again. You have no evidence
> to support the claim of inpropriety but it is a necessary condition for
> your argument to hold.
>
> Just like nefosucker - you need a fallacious premise to make your
> argument.

Ah, yes, name calling. The true sign that you have lost the arguement.



--
Sincerely,

The New World Order.

In article et>, necromancer wrote:

> Brent, you may as well as give up on this guy. All he sees are the short
> term $$$ from the deal. He probablly is one of the NWO types who will
> benefit hugely from this highway at our expense.

As of the last posts where he 'doesn't do politics' makes me think he
just another naive trusting soul who thinks government wouldn't screw us.
It simply doesn't occur to him that government and corporations would
sell us all out for the personal gain (power and money) of individuals there
in and sponsoring it.

There are people who've lived their entire lives in chicago and can't
grasp that the city,county,and state governments corrupted despite the
constant uncovering of it and some going to prison. There's practically
always a news story on the pending conviction or sentancing of some
government office holder (appointed or elected).

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
rec.autos.driving:
> How if roads are going to be private businesses, have them aquire the
> land in the marketplace. Or have leases where the company can be tossed
> out on their ass if they go against the people's wishes instead of the
> people being stuck with them for many decades.

And even if we did have such provisions, possession is 9/10 of the law.
What's to stop Cintra (or a future owner) from bringing in armed guards
to enforce their possession of the road if TX were to try to enforce the
contract?

--
Sincerely,

The New World Order.

In article et>, necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>> How if roads are going to be private businesses, have them aquire the
>> land in the marketplace. Or have leases where the company can be tossed
>> out on their ass if they go against the people's wishes instead of the
>> people being stuck with them for many decades.
>
> And even if we did have such provisions, possession is 9/10 of the law.
> What's to stop Cintra (or a future owner) from bringing in armed guards
> to enforce their possession of the road if TX were to try to enforce the
> contract?

Considering that government is part of the problem, the TX government
would likely do nothing. However, with a properly functioning government
the people would make their wishes known and the government would
terminate their lease and use military force if need be.

Of course there's a reason why the people have the right to be armed in this
nation, and that is for the final trump card against a government that
decides it rules people rather than being of the people, for the people.

necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
> rec.autos.driving:
> > The government is inept.
>
> Just look at the bush admin.

You bet - and Pelosi is no sharp knife either. Doesn't that scare you
just a little bit allowing government to grow and grow....

> > Private enterprise cheats
>
> Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia.....

And they're in jail. Seems it works pretty well.

> > Therefore, we can't allow inept government to manage cheating
> > contractors.
> >
> > Seems to me that you have a very negative view of the worls.
>
> No, he refuses to let people like you force him to look at a distorted
> world through rose colored glasses.

But you don't have a solution that changes anything. That, and you
started out with a fallacy (ownership). The State of Texas will own
the land and road. The State of Texas will not be required to use tax
dollars to pay for the building the road. The State of Texas will not
be required to sell bonds to finance the construction of the road. User
fees based on actual use will be the source of revenue to pay for the
road's construction.

Now, you give me a solution that accomplishes that and meets your
ethics criteria. Remember, niether the government or the private
sector can be involved in the funding or running of the road. Perhaps
a not-for-profit foundation funded by charitable contributions? Ooops,
that won't work - a 501(C) costs the taxpayers lost revenue....hmmmm

Solution?

> > My argument boils down to one very simple thing:
> >
> > The economic motive of the private sector is clear, open, and
> > manageable. The entire world economy is based on this.
>
> ROTFLMAO! You're kidding, right????

Not at all. Other than profit, what motivates the firm? What
motivates bureaucrats?

> > > > The contract determines the conditionals, responsibilities, and
> > > > remedies for breach. Its a business deal. These deals happen all over
> > > > the world for all sorts of things. I applaud the State for its
> > > > creativity, though they weren't the first to think of it.
> > >
> > > You mean the one that government tried to keep secret (and still is in
> > > some part), from the people.
> >
> > See - there's that conspiracy theory crap again. You have no evidence
> > to support the claim of inpropriety but it is a necessary condition for
> > your argument to hold.
> >
> > Just like nefosucker - you need a fallacious premise to make your
> > argument.
>
> Ah, yes, name calling. The true sign that you have lost the arguement.

Sorry - but isn't that the name you use? At least I use my name when I
post.

And as I pointed out to your equally naive colleague, you bring no
solutions but all sorts of arguments why the road is a bad idea. None
of the reasons have merit because they are based on fallacy.

Sorry - but that pretty much ends it for me. Have fun.

js