Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, more gibberish, incoherence. In simple words: one can choose to drive on toll roads. One can choose to drive less (or more). Case closed.
Considering your ability to comprehend, I DID say that behavioral control is a part of it. The problem is, you only got (and will stick to) only one half of it. The least I can try is to give you another example. The water reservoirs your city gets water from is running low in the middle of summer. Water use restriction is enforced. Behavioral control? You bet.
Maybe you could help me out with my problem this new regulation method would create for me. Tomorrow my wife wants to go to the nearest Walmart store. The problem is that it is 55 miles away. Our other choices are 70, 66, and 90 as far as under 100 miles is concerned. Already we have been restricted by the price of gasoline and they want to go further with more regulation that would be used to slap new taxes on those of us who can't afford to move to more populated areas.
Have you seen anything from the UN's Agenda 21? Yep, they want to rack and stack people in high population areas while cutting out farming and turning the land back to wildlife, etc. Every time this administration comes up with another idea like this one I wonder if they aren't being controlled by some international organization already in existence.
I am to be taxed because I like living in more remote areas without having to fight traffic and so forth. While we are at it, my two sons drive 40 miles one way each day to work. Neither of them makes anything very near the $250,000 that Obama talked about but they will be forced to find other employment, in a rural area, or move to the city of employment. Yep, Cass and Obama's other boys really do want to regulate us way too much.
Or use funds for what they are supposed to be spent. For example, the feds gave Texas a lot of money for education. Perry chose to spend it on other things.
Money from the federal government comes from the General Fund where all Social Security taxes considered surplus goes and always has strings attached to it.
Can you explain why tax money doesn't have any strings attached but when they pay it out they do attach strings? I seriously want to know about that.
Okay, more gibberish, incoherence. In simple words: one can choose to drive on toll roads. One can choose to drive less (or more). Case closed.
Considering your ability to comprehend, I DID say that behavioral control is a part of it. The problem is, you only got (and will stick to) only one half of it. The least I can try is to give you another example. The water reservoirs your city gets water from is running low in the middle of summer. Water use restriction is enforced. Behavioral control? You bet.
Translation: I have no coherent argument, so I call you names, and then want you to SHUT UP.
Your example is stupid. More water is needed because of nature. That's not behavioral control. But to explain the difference to an ideologue is useless.
The role of govt is to protect private property rights and the free flow of commerce. Nothing else.
Stop reading that Constitution that was written so long ago. Unless you can interpret it with liberal or progressive eyes you are just too old fashioned for the progs.
Telling THEM is a waste of time because THEY are busy following the leader.
There was a local newspaper article where a guy with an electric car says the electricity costs him about 1.5 cents a mile.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.