Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience.” -- Mark Twain

"Everything is easy if somebody else is the one doing it." -- Me

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Stuff


And this, which you can never unsee;
(h/t)
There is not a single Republican or a single conservative who has the moral basis for complaining how unaccompanied children at the border are being treated. They didn't speak up when TFG was running things, they have no standing to complain, now, as long as the Biden Administration isn't selling the kids for their organs.

If I had the money, I'd run an ad that had images of bridges falling down, trains derailing (and burning) and heaviy potholed highways. The voiceover would be along the lines of "if you don't like what you see and don't want things to get worse, then call your congressman and senator and tell them to support the infrastructure bill."

3 comments:

Pigpen51 said...

Comrade Misfit,
I know that I said I would leave you alone, but I had to point out that this huge tax funded bill should not really be called an infrastructure bill, since only 6% of the money is going to actually fund repair roads and bridges. There is money for helping businesses, also known as corporations. There is money to try and develop a system to make electric cars a reality, when the cost of buying one of those cars is so high that the average American could not afford to buy one. There is even money to combat climate change, R and D, ports and waterways.
My question is simply why can't either party send a clean bill, in this case an infrastructure bill, to the president, and deal with the other parts of what they want in another bill? I will post a link to Newsweek, which had an article about this, and they were quite fair, showing both sides opinions of the bill, with supporters saying that 75% of the money would eventually be spent on infrastructure.
Once again, I will leave you alone, I do follow your blog, but try to avoid commenting on things, since I tend to cause anger, and I don't wish to do that.
https://www.newsweek.com/just-under-6-percent-bidens-infrastructure-plan-goes-roads-bridges-1580783

Comrade Misfit said...

Nobody passes "clean bills", PP51. All of them have lots of stuff in them.

Broadband internet isn't infrastructure? Improved ports aren't infrastructure (how do you think most imported goods get here, by pipelines? Fairies?)? Improved railroads aren't infrastructure (tell that to Abe Lincoln in 1863)? Subways and other forms of mass transit aren't infrastructure?

Defining infrastructure as merely roads and bridges is exceedingly narrow. And, yes, partisan AF.

pigpen51 said...

Spend in money on helping unions is not infrastructure, more is giving money to teaçhers unions. Money for a number of things is not related to infrastructure. In CA, the proposal had been made to state a guaranteed income.
Those have a very hard stretch to make one of those fit. We could do the roads and bridges first, and then finish this later.
Is that a promise? He said yes. Then he disappeared. That is why we are here. Defining infrastructure as childcare, and financial aid is also as partisan AF. Spending about 7 trillion dollars in the first 100 days in office is an albatross that will hang around our future generations forever. I find such a premise an untenable thing, and will do what I, as one person, can do to stop such a horrific mistake.