gbaji wrote:
At the risk of plumbing the depths here, while I agree that Alma's explanations are somewhat torturous, you're also engaging in some pretty selective silliness here.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What's Justice Worth?
What's Justice Worth?Follow
Been holding in your "While I don't agree with varus I agree with varus" line?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of plumbing the depths here, while I agree that Alma's explanations are somewhat torturous, you're also engaging in some pretty selective silliness here.
If that's what makes you feel better, sure. At the end of the day, did you agree or disagree with what I actually said? Isn't that what really matters here?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of plumbing the depths here, while I agree that Alma's explanations are somewhat torturous, you're also engaging in some pretty selective silliness here.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Alma plenty of people in that thread explained why they thought the military was overspending. Your response was "You can't say it's overspending if you don't understand it."
You're a ****** hypocrite.
You're a ****** hypocrite.
#106Almalieque,
Posted: Jun 09 2012 at 1:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) There was no trigger of the US military running into financial problems. There is a difference in an organization having to alter their methods due to financial issues vs a bunch of people stating that the said organization is overspending.
Almalieque wrote:
There was no trigger of the US military running into financial problems.
Of course not. They get too much money to have "financial problems." Instead, they just re-carpet lolgaxe's office every year whether it needs it or not so as to not jeopardize receiving those funds...
Almalieque wrote:
There is a difference in an organization having to alter their methods due to financial issues vs a bunch of people stating that the said organization is overspending.
Translation: Alma believes that one is justified and the other is not.
Damn it Belk, you called him a word he didn't know and now he's going to repeat it over and over again like a three year old.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Alma plenty of people in that thread explained why they thought the military was overspending. Your response was "You can't say it's overspending if you don't understand it."
You're a @#%^in hypocrite.
You're a @#%^in hypocrite.
There was no trigger of the US military running into financial problems.
There has been for years you dunce. It's called the federal @#%^ing budget. I'd love to sit here and say "God damn, you can't REALLY be that @#%^ing stupid", but that would be an exercise in futility and redundancy.
Edited, Jun 9th 2012 7:45pm by BrownDuck
Why do you people insist on talking to it??
Seriously. I don't understand how this is fun or entertaining.
Nadenu wrote:
Why do you people insist on talking to it??
Good point! Let's change the subject.
Let's start with this: Texas is considering raising the speed limit to 85 to alleviate congestion on a stretch of highway. I foresee an increase in fatal accidents. Raising the speed limit because a road is crowded just seems... odd, to me. On the other hand, Texans start driving when they're approximately six years old, so maybe they can handle it.
The other problem I can see is that this particular stretch of road is between San Antonio and Austin, which seems like it would be rife with party goers.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Let's start with this: Texas is considering raising the speed limit to 85 to alleviate congestion on a stretch of highway. I foresee an increase in fatal accidents. Raising the speed limit because a road is crowded just seems... odd, to me. On the other hand, Texans start driving when they're approximately six years old, so maybe they can handle it.
The other problem I can see is that this particular stretch of road is between San Antonio and Austin, which seems like it would be rife with party goers.
Planned obsolescence?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I hope one snowflake doesn't show up somewhere in Texas and completely decimates that stretch of highway.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Belkira wrote:
Of course not. They get too much money to have "financial problems." Instead, they just re-carpet lolgaxe's office every year whether it needs it or not so as to not jeopardize receiving those funds...
There's definitely not "too much money". As I mentioned in the previous thread, the Army will waste money on carpeting offices, but then take the lowest bidder on desktop computers. Even though that money was wasted in one area, that doesn't mean that the overall budget is at danger. I've seen plenty of cuts on lower levels and I don't necessarily disagree with any of them. I don't know of any triggers, but I'm also not making a blanket comment of spending and budget cuts with no solutions.
Belkira wrote:
Translation: Alma believes that one is justified and the other is not.
Of course, because they are two totally different scenarios. If they were the same, then you might would have a point.
Brown Duck wrote:
There has been for years you dunce. It's called the federal @#%^ing budget. I'd love to sit here and say "God damn, you can't REALLY be that @#%^ing stupid", but that would be an exercise in futility and redundancy.
"Futility and redundancy"? More like platitudinous.
The federal budget is at least two echelons above the Army's budget. A trigger at the federal level doesn't automatically constitute a financial trigger at the Army level. That money can be cut from several locations, to include or exclude the Army.
Even if all of the money is being cut from the military as a whole, due to federal financial problems, that doesn't mean the military is wasting too much money. It can just as easily be that the federal government can not financially support the military needs. In that scenario, you aren't necessarily looking to reduce spending, but to maintain it possibly by cutting other areas.
Samira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Why do you people insist on talking to it??
Good point! Let's change the subject.
Let's start with this: Texas is considering raising the speed limit to 85 to alleviate congestion on a stretch of highway. I foresee an increase in fatal accidents. Raising the speed limit because a road is crowded just seems... odd, to me. On the other hand, Texans start driving when they're approximately six years old, so maybe they can handle it.
The other problem I can see is that this particular stretch of road is between San Antonio and Austin, which seems like it would be rife with party goers.
http://www.livescience.com/3870-higher-speed-limits-deaths-study-finds.html
In 2005, Live Science wrote:
A new study of changing speed limits in the United States finds no evidence that higher limits fuel more deaths.
[...]
While limits ranged from 75 mph to 55 and back again, no significant increase in fatalities per mile driven are evident.
[...]
While limits ranged from 75 mph to 55 and back again, no significant increase in fatalities per mile driven are evident.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Demea wrote:
Samira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Why do you people insist on talking to it??
Good point! Let's change the subject.
Let's start with this: Texas is considering raising the speed limit to 85 to alleviate congestion on a stretch of highway. I foresee an increase in fatal accidents. Raising the speed limit because a road is crowded just seems... odd, to me. On the other hand, Texans start driving when they're approximately six years old, so maybe they can handle it.
The other problem I can see is that this particular stretch of road is between San Antonio and Austin, which seems like it would be rife with party goers.
http://www.livescience.com/3870-higher-speed-limits-deaths-study-finds.html
In 2005, Live Science wrote:
A new study of changing speed limits in the United States finds no evidence that higher limits fuel more deaths.
[...]
While limits ranged from 75 mph to 55 and back again, no significant increase in fatalities per mile driven are evident.
[...]
While limits ranged from 75 mph to 55 and back again, no significant increase in fatalities per mile driven are evident.
Obviously there is a correlation on high speeds and deaths in residential areas, but, I can't see how 85 MPH would increase deaths on an Interstate from 65 MPH.
Almalieque wrote:
Obviously there is a correlation on high speeds and deaths in residential areas, but, I can't see how 85 MPH would increase deaths on an Interstate from 65 MPH.
Thanks for that prescient insight.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Almalieque wrote:
Obviously there is a correlation on high speeds and deaths in residential areas, but, I can't see how 85 MPH would increase deaths on an Interstate from 65 MPH.
I hate to have to be the one to state the obvious, your speed is directly related to the distance you travel before you can stop (brake time). So, if the moose runs out into the road, you're more likely to not be able to stop before it stops you. If you're talking on the phone, changing your radio station, trying to blot up the coffee that just splashed on your jacket, texting, or fapping or what -have-you, you will travel further before you can compensate for any change in traffic flow.
I did a quick check on facts. It seems the biggest factor speed has on road-way accidents is when people are going variable speeds. The slow driver in the fast lane is a hazard. Still, over-all there are more fatalities at highways speeds than residential speeds (census 2009). It could be that there are more accidents at slower speeds but it's less likely to make people dead.
The dotcom link you provided (I had to click a fricken survey question to 'proceed'!) really only states that highway fatalities have declined over-all. This is true - they have.
Edited, Jun 11th 2012 4:57pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
The dotcom link you provided (I had to click a fricken survey question to 'proceed'!) really only states that highway fatalities have declined over-all. This is true - they have.
If you read it carefully, you would have noted that while it states that there is an overall decline due to increased safety features (long-term trend), it also stated that based on historic changes in speed limit within states there is no evidence of a statistical correlation between changing speed limits and increased/decreased fatalities (short-term trends).
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Demea wrote:
Elinda wrote:
The dotcom link you provided (I had to click a fricken survey question to 'proceed'!) really only states that highway fatalities have declined over-all. This is true - they have.
If you read it carefully, you would have noted that while it states that there is an overall decline due to increased safety features (long-term trend), it also stated that based on historic changes in speed limit within states there is no evidence of a statistical correlation between changing speed limits and increased/decreased fatalities (short-term trends).
I'm not sure if there's some holes in the data, or the person who wrote this is just not very bright, but I found this part interesting:
Quote:
"Automobile safety features and enforcement emerge as important factors in increasing highway safety," Yowell contends in the July issue of Review of Policy Research. "Speed limits are far less important."
Research from Kansas State University earlier this year would seem to support Yowell's claim. Civil engineer Sunanda Dissanayake found four factors that were consistently most significant in contributing to fatalities in rural highway crashes:
* Driving under the influence
* Driving at higher than the posted speed limit
* Not using a seat belt
* Being ejected from the vehicle
Research from Kansas State University earlier this year would seem to support Yowell's claim. Civil engineer Sunanda Dissanayake found four factors that were consistently most significant in contributing to fatalities in rural highway crashes:
* Driving under the influence
* Driving at higher than the posted speed limit
* Not using a seat belt
* Being ejected from the vehicle
Yeah yeah, I get the whole "driving faster than the folks around you" angle on this, but it still just came off wrong. Seems like if you were looking for something which you're labeling as supporting evidence for something else, shouldn't you avoid listing off something that even kinda appears to contradict the first bit?
Also, I paid them for their survey questions by answering with deliberately false data. Seemed like the right thing to do!
Edited, Jun 11th 2012 2:07pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 313
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (313)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What's Justice Worth?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC