Should Scott Walker Become creditable & give up his & the legislatures pensions?

[Arragonis]

Why do the kids travel, to better schools ? If so you have your investment and 'improvement' targets defined.

If not, why ?

I suspect even with this the "miles per person" for a smoky school bus is probably < 0.1% of the "miles per person" of the regulated population on a daily basis.

The leftie in me says spend on education because that means more opportunities for kids in bad situations.

The rightie in me says spend on education because under the system in the UK those kids will be paying my pension.

Assuming the spend is effective of course.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Again, my point is that school buses ARE exempt and remain so. The Leftie Greenies are the ones who lobbied that cars have to have stringent pollution controls, but it didn't apply to school buses. That's a political fact and it smacks of hypocrisy, as school buses have continued to stink for many decades and still do today.

Call it the stench of public education, if you like.

People have called me far left many times but this issue I could care less about. Emissions is one area were it is just shades of gray, certain FAR out there levels of pollution should be tackled in regards to transport.(mostly racers and ideots) But the reality is most every vehicle is within the ballpark and penalizing one percentage of this or that is well stupid. The volume of pollution to me is the most important and always will be. A car getting 50mpg with dirty exhaust is still less polluting than one that only gets 22mpg but has "clean" exhaust just by volume emitted.

Also diesel stinks due to particulate and the material burning and always will (my folks tdi jetta stinks horrible). Its level of pollution though compared to how many its transporting is likely quite small. Many bus's get the same fuel economy as a typical 4wd Dodge RAM for example.

Which means a little smell goes a long way and just because it offends you doesn't mean it should change to a gasser.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

Which scenario seems more reasonable to you: a bunch of hated leftist greenies hypocritically and purposely exempt school buses from the Clean Air Act for some conspiratorial under-the-table agreement with their leftist civil rights co-conspirators?

You Leftists are so predictable in your tactics. No one mentioned civil rights except YOU. No one mentioned any conspiracy but YOU. (The Left always drags the word "conspiracy" into any discussion at the first opportunity.) As usual, you try to put your own words in the mouths of those with whom you disagree. Your proposed scenario is straw man argument #1.

Or, heaven forbid: big right wing business lobbyists whine to their congressmen that those leftist clean air requirements are going to bankrupt them, put American workers out of work, and cripple the economy so we can't compete with yellow-skinned/brown-skinned cheap foreign competitors?

Another Leftist fantasy scenario. That's your straw man argument #2. So the only two choices we have are your concocted straw man scenarios? Of course, you think someone will take the bait and argue against your contrived garbage. Wow. You knocked down your own straw man. How impressive. Only your buddies will find this entertaining.

Anyone can play this game: "Is it true you are still beating your wife?" Answer yes or no.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Anyone can play this game: "Is it true you are still beating your wife?" Answer yes or no.

I can't answer that question, I don't have a wife.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

People have called me far left many times but this issue I could care less about.

That's the hypocrisy. If it's not politically correct, you don't care about it.

Emissions is one area were it is just shades of gray, certain FAR out there levels of pollution should be tackled in regards to transport.(mostly racers and ideots) But the reality is most every vehicle is within the ballpark and penalizing one percentage of this or that is well stupid. The volume of pollution to me is the most important and always will be. A car getting 50mpg with dirty exhaust is still less polluting than one that only gets 22mpg but has "clean" exhaust just by volume emitted.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Orwell

"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."
— Leon Trotsky

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

That's the hypocrisy. If it's not politically correct, you don't care about it.

But I do anyway

Hmm, you say if it is pollitically correct I do care? Them is fighting words.

Actually, It depends on the subject, not whether it is politically correct, I am actually not very liberal in many regards, though I have been accused of being one.

I also am not very pollitically correct, at all. Which is why I don't tend to enjoy people trying to be overly correct on what seems to be non-issues.

I tend to believe in people having more freedom, but also hope they use that freedom to better everyone and themselves by having enough common sense to see past the dogma and mantra of the current law and leaders. I also hope people can see through an agenda.

If a law requires a very complex, specific set of circumstances and is said to be for a specific goal of society, I tend to disagree with it. Much like banning rain barrels (I don't know is banning rain barrels pollitically correct? I tend to have strong feelings on that regard also)
Many times the reason is more important than what we are told the effect is supposed to be.

Much like this current budget law, the reason is more important than what the effect is said to be.

Pollitically correct or not I do care on these regards.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

I can't answer that question, I don't have a wife.

Okay, then I'm willing to play the game of 'politically correct terminology' enough to make my point. Instead let's call it your "partner" or your "significant other". If you don't have one, pretend that you do. Now you have no other excuses, so answer the question: yes or no.

See? You don't want to answer the question. Who would? Because no matter how you answer it's "damned if you do, and damned if you don't". And that was the same underhanded setup as the slick tactic of the contrived scenarios, presented earlier.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

But I do anyway

Hmm, you say if it is pollitically correct I do care? Them is fighting words.

What are "fighting words". PLEASE TELL US. (I know the concept, but I want to hear your definition of what that phrase means and where it came from.)

Do words make you fight? Or do you make yourself fight in response to words?

Actually, It depends on the subject, not whether it is politically correct, I am actually not very liberal in many regards, though I have been accused of being one.

It's easy to see why.

I also am not very pollitically correct, at all. Which is why I don't tend to enjoy people trying to be overly correct on what seems to be non-issues.

I tend to believe in people having more freedom, but also hope they use that freedom to better everyone and themselves by having enough common sense to see past the dogma and mantra of the current law and leaders. I also hope people can see through an agenda.

That's very vague and nebulous. You could have a career as a politician (if you could garner enough money and enough votes to become one).

If a law requires a very complex, specific set of circumstances and is said to be for a specific goal of society, I tend to disagree with it. Much like banning rain barrels (I don't know is banning rain barrels pollitically correct? I tend to have strong feelings on that regard also)
Many times the reason is more important than what we are told the effect is supposed to be.

What on earth do rain barrels have to do with this discussion? That's another creative tactic: when persuasive argument fails, the best hope you have is to create a diversion.

Much like this current budget law, the reason is more important than what the effect is said to be.

Pollitically correct or not I do care on these regards.

You have a natural talent for political doublespeak!

"If you can't 'rouse 'em with rhetoric, baffle 'em with bullsh*t."

[Frank Lee]

Crashing and burning in 3...2...1...

[Jim-Bob]

One of the things that everyone seems to have missed is just where the teachers get their benefits from. The contract forces the state to buy heath insurance from their union.This becomes another source of revenue for the union which is then put into political donations. Thus, the taxpayers of Wisconsin are being forced to donate to political candidates that they may not agree with. Eliminating this and letting the state find the best deal on coverage will defund the union which is why they are so vocal about it. This is another reason I oppose public sector unions entirely. The state does not need to feed into a system that funds one political party over another. It needs to be neutral and the existence of these unions voids neutrality. If an individual teacher wishes to donate to one party or the other that's one thing but the union does not give them a choice as to where their dues will go.