Originally posted by: jphelan
Is it narcissists or psychopaths who always need to have the last word? Someone remind as I forgot.
Having the Last Word
Originally posted by: jphelan
Is it narcissists or psychopaths who always need to have the last word? Someone remind as I forgot.
Having the Last Word
I've been highly amused when people, here and elsewhere, criticize other people's supposed need to get in the last word---in a post wherein they're getting the last word in themselves.
It's a transparent little trick. I'll get in the last word, while simultaneously saying that if you reply, it's because you're pathologically obsessed with getting the last word in yourself. It's a win-win: if you don't respond, then I got in the last word, and I "win"; if you respond, you've "proved" that you're a (insert mental condition).
Just from my observations of these boards alone, I've seen every stupid little internet trick that exists. This one ain't even remotely original.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Infrastructure improvements. And yeah yeah yeah, I know the mantra is that Biden's bill contains things they don't consider infrastructure, and/or things they object to. That's all smoke and mirrors. They don't want it because Biden does want it. That's the beginning and the end of it.
Only a nasty old white man who grew up in the 1950s would consider high-speed broadband internet to not be infrastructure, because, uh, you can't drive a truck on it. And as far as stuff being in the bill that's not infrastructure per se--well, that's what you do when you're on the winning side, as Moscow Mitch reminded us so many times during the Trump Horror. You push through legislative priorities, and the RepubliQ calls it "the liberal agenda," as though they didn't have one themselves.
There's a major practical consideration, too---despite literally decades of bleating for infrastructure improvements, it's a certainty that no RepubliQs will vote for this. So it would have to go through budget reconciliation to be filibuster-proof, and there's only so many times that can be done in a given year (the recent ruling of the parliamentarian makes it somewhat easier). So it's "go big or go home." That's just the way things work in Washington, and if the RepubliQs don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, they have only themselves to blame.
Kevin, the intranet has done well without government's involvement and will continue to do well if government stays the hell out of the way. There is no reason for goverment to spend money or get involved.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Kevin, the intranet has done well without government's involvement and will continue to do well if government stays the hell out of the way. There is no reason for goverment to spend money or get involved.
No reason that you can perceive, which is not the same as no reason.
Internet access isn't a luxury any more--it's a necessity, and very similar to water or electricity. When poor people couldn't get access to utilities, districts were created, infrastructure was built, and those necessities became affordable. But back then, just like you're saying now, people said that private enterprise would do the job. Except...it didn't. Thus the necessity for government involvement.
It IS a matter of whether you think that poor people not having access to necessities is a problem or not. And yeah, there would have to be subsidies, and those would have to come out of tax revenues and/or be added to people's utility bills. My power bill for this month contains a tax of twenty-three cents to subsidize low-income electricity rates. Those goddamn SOOOOCIALISTS!!!! I could have bought SO much with that 23 cents!!!!
