So your saying that faster transit, in a more comfy seat, that is safer and provides affordable transit to everyone.
Is bad?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple, Google Shuttles to Pay to Use Public Bus Stops in San Francisco
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So your saying that faster transit, in a more comfy seat, that is safer and provides affordable transit to everyone.
Is bad?
Since when have people been born with a fleece on their backs? I thought people came out of the womb wearing no clothes. Did I miss something in science class?
No - for those who wish to use it.
----------
Not very good with analogy, are you?
So inversely, public transportation is bad for those who do not wish to use it?
I'm quite good at analogies and abstract thinking. These allow me to be able to look forward and try to progress in life, not regress and yearn for the days when rooms were lit by candlelight.
However, I was also quite good in the sciences and I would still like to know if I missed something in my biology and human anatomy courses where they talked about humans being born with a fleece on their backs.
Tax payers money. The income & property taxes that Google/Apple employees pay. The taxes that these corporations pay to their locality, the taxes they paid when they purchased these buses and the fuel that runs them.
Besides, these are private citizens who live in these municipalities who are using these stops. If you think it costs money for a private citizen to use a bus stop, go and sit at one for a few hours. Get back to me when someone tries to charge you money for sitting there.
The only sheeple I see are those who blindly follow what they hear from the likes of Faux and Drudge and want to live in a world where there's no electricity.
Pretty simple, really. Having either personal financial means to underwrite his own medical costs, or being financially viable enough to pay for his own, private insurance to cover the costs of childbirth, new child care, and pre and post natal care for the mother. Having children is not an inalienable right...
Since you want to insinuate yourself in a conversation between the two of us, I believe it would be incumbent upon you to find the specific post in which he clearly said that having the child was a matter of choice, even though he did not have a means of paying for it at the time that did not involve a government entitlement program. Do your own research.
No, just those drinkers who become a nuisance when under the influence.
----------
Oh, the irony!
You want to talk irony, here's a video of the kind of person I think of when I hear "rugged individual". This guy probably is probably a conservative/Libertarian/Republican in terms of politics and is all about doing it all by himself.
I just love the eloquence when he speaks, "Git! Git!"
Ahhh, so simple, and exactly the response I expected. I am not supporting his apparent decision to have children early or to not be able to afford or to not have insurance for whatever reason. That is on him. And as for your accusation of "insinuating" myself into your conversation, have it in a PM and not on a public board if you don't want any comments made.
That being said, there is no "I can afford to have children" unless you are extremely wealthy. If you will re-read his post, the child would have died in the birth canal, and the wife died likely as well. Even if he had personal insurance, this could have likely set him back thousands or more out of pocket that were not expected.
Also, you can only predict costs to a point. I could afford to have children with no problem. Complications from his birth, however, made quite an unexpected dent. Even though we had full insurance, we got stuck with many thousands of dollars of unexpected costs. We have also recently found out our child has special needs. Insurance only covers so much. Some of the recommended therapies cost more than the top 5% make in a year, and are only partially covered by insurance. And you better believe that we have applied to government programs that help special needs kids where insurance doesn't (of course, I pay my share in taxes). Even with that, we will still pay many thousands per year, which I am working out. But, I guess in your peachy world, I should have fully planned for any and every scenario that could possibly happen before having children.
Not everything is as cut-and-dry as so many conservatives like to believe.
Anyway, this is way off topic.
Getting a little tired of your ageism and personal attacks on members of this forum.
Slow it up.
None of your long diatribe was to the point. It's not a matter of being wealthy. Way to take a simple truth and bend it to fit your needs. Just like a liberal...
The simple fact is he chose to have a baby when he didn't have the means to pay for it himself, or his own private insurance to cover expenses. Instead, he chose to rely on a government program to cover his expenses, thereby shifting the cost of WANTING to have a child onto other taxpayers. It is, as cut and dry as that, indeed.
Just like a liberal.... blah blah blah, quack quack quack. You need to stop parroting what you hear from the conservative media.
If you want to talk about twisting reality to fit an ideology, conservatives are notorious at doing this. 2+2≠5 as it does in the conservative realm.
And, just like a conservative, you ignored every other point I made because it doesn't fit your tunnel-vision world view. You still haven't pointed out how some things can come up which don't fit into the "afford to have a child" talking point. His singular story might be one thing, but there are plenty of variables to "having a child".
Are you going to disparage me for using a government program for special needs children because my insurance, which is an upper-level policy I pay a metric ass-ton for, will only cover some of it? Was it my choice to have a special needs child? Should I have not had children because of the simple possibility that at some point down the road there could be massive medical bills I could maybe not afford for said child? At what point can you "afford to have a child" on paper?
Again, I am not supporting this guy. I don't think anyone without insurance should have children. But you can't just say "you need to be able to afford children". Because that is a cut-and-dry statement that doesn't apply in many situations. It would be so much better if we just didn't have to deal with all this crap like every other industrialized nation on earth.
Again off topic...
Putting words in my mouth. Just like a liberal. My statement to THIS PERSON was specific to him. His posts indicated that he chose to have a child while he was uninsured. I told him it was irresponsible and inconsiderate to do so. Period. Nothing in my posts communicating with him addressed special needs children, etc.
----------
I've read your previous posts, and decided you were not intellectually worthy of my time. Thus, I am ignoring you. This will be the only response you will get from me.
Personal attacks have no place, of course. However, I firmly believe that the USA is not going to find any peace until: 1. those who came of age during the civil rights era are dead and gone. They simply have too much hatred for black people and nothing can or will change their minds. 2. Those who came of age or were raised by people who came of age during the Great Depression are dead and gone. The Great Depression, the insane paranoia during WWII, McCarthyism and the Vietnam War were enormously polarizing issues. To be honest, nothing has inflamed subsequent generations to the same degree.
Back during the Bush era, I remember reading that 40% of all NASA employees would retire within the next decade. NASA was founded by young idealists and much of the reason it has failed to thrive is that those in charge are old and ready for retirement. All they care about is securing their pensions, not about the future of space travel. Look at any industry today and you'll see much the same situation. People born from the late 20s to the late 50s are living longer than any generation before them. That's why the demographics are so lopsided. That is why the USA is so messed up today, there's simply no balance.