On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:53:22 -0500, Forrest Hodge
wrote:

On 12/1/2010 7:28 AM, Opus wrote:
On Nov 30, 8:02 pm, Forrest wrote:
snip
My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.

Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
take the vehicle in the subway.

No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.

Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
necessary for ****heads like you remains available.

****heads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
to name calling?

People that drive vehicles with a decimal order of magnitude more
power than they need to move their butts with fossil fuels, because
they haven't learned to use public transportation and refuse to ride a
bicycle to move their butts using their butts. Is that elaborate
enough for you?

And just to be precise, the war in Iraq cost a billion dollars a DAY
for 6 years, do the math. That doesn't even begin to tackle the cost
of the war in Afghanistan, and both of those wars were "off-budget"
items during the Bush administration, roughly $3 trillion added to the
deficit that wasn't even counted until 2008.


Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
steep hill and if you can't you're a "****head".

Yes, there are places where public transit sucks, very true. But that
isn't the way you phrased it. If available, you would not use it
because it can never be as convenient as leaving just when you want
to.