Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters

[quote name='confoosious']When I shop, the last thing I think about is what religion the business is. Give me good product, value, service and you can worship the devil for all I care. As long as it's not in my face, I'm fine with it. Cause you know, I'm religiously tolerant, which is more than I can say for some of the religious.[/quote]

I don't ever care about "in your face" - it's the activism that does it for me. Some people might consider bible passages printed on sammich cartons to be "too preachy." I'm not one of them. What Chik-fil-a does with their money is more bothersome to me - that they are religious is not bothersome at all, only how they choose to act on it (hatefully and divisively). Sheesh, I can imagine that some people get bothered by seeing "kosher/parve" on food packages - even though, of course, it's pretty bloody important to make that designation.

As for religious places, this place has the BESSST hummus I've ever had in my fucking life my a goddamned mile: http://www.holylandbrand.com/ I swear they mix some tzaziki sauce in there, because omfg..........and I hate that it's nowhere near me. In other news, of all the food trucks in midtown manhattan, the halal ones always smelled fuckin' crazy good. The rest are more along the lines of "oh, fuck it, I need something to eat."

Anyway, in a more pressing debate:

Hoagiefest vs Double Double.

Sorry man, double double wins.
Click to expand...

I...I...*sigh*. I got nothin'. You win, I think (never had In-n-out, but my west coast friends swear by it).

Can we all agree, at least, that Jack in the Box is among the most repugnant, vile, disgusting, repulsive "food" ever created?
 
[quote name='Spokker']But why? Let's all get into the political debate with our real names, our real job titles, our real lives. Let's mix it up and really let each other know what we think. Why live with this thinly veiled charade of civility, as if informing another person of your political views should even be considered uncivil.

Once we get it out of our systems, we'll be able to get back to work. What we need now more than ever is plain speaking.[/QUOTE]

Because sometimes you get a sermon when all you wanted was a chicken sandwich.

I've got a life, the last thing I need at work is for my coworkers to feel that they can spout off about inane political bullshit (that's what the internet is for). When you're on the clock, know your role and do your damn job.
 
[quote name='Strell']
It's like you don't know how society works, and has always worked, and that if we were to just change a setting in a SocietyConfig.ini file, suddenly everyone would be an enlightened, open-minded individual and we would sail toward a utopia of unfettered philosophical discussion.[/QUOTE]

Oh, please. Advocating a change in thinking does not imply I do not know the situation is hopeless and we'll always be this way. Don't worry, I know how it is.
 
[quote name='camoor']
I've got a life, the last thing I need at work is for my coworkers to feel that they can spout off about inane political bullshit (that's what the internet is for). When you're on the clock, know your role and do your damn job.[/QUOTE]

I am advocating that most of this happen off the clock, but when it does happen on the clock, to breath slowly and not go hysterical. I've always been of the mindset that people argue and people fight over things. As long as things do not come to blows and people can step back, calm down and get back to work, I think this is a part of human nature that we can manage.

In other words, I can go out and have a friendly beer with doughdoh if he wants, even though we fight like jerkoffs on the Internet. Though we might have to get him a fake ID.
 
[quote name='Spokker']But why? Let's all get into the political debate with our real names, our real job titles, our real lives. Let's mix it up and really let each other know what we think. Why live with this thinly veiled charade of civility, as if informing another person of your political views should even be considered uncivil.

Once we get it out of our systems, we'll be able to get back to work. What we need now more than ever is plain speaking.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Strell']It's like you can't follow that a company just fired a guy for being an outspoken opinionated douche.

It's like you don't know how society works, and has always worked, and that if we were to just change a setting in a SocietyConfig.ini file, suddenly everyone would be an enlightened, open-minded individual and we would sail toward a utopia of unfettered philosophical discussion.[/QUOTE]

It's not 'like' he can't follow that. He can't follow that.

Spokker, you might be the worst libertarian ever.
 
Wonder how many people going to Chik-Fil-A and supporting them (especially in the media) on freedom of association and free speech grounds opposed the Muslim community center in New York.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Wonder how many people going to Chik-Fil-A and supporting them (especially in the media) on freedom of association and free speech grounds opposed the Muslim community center in New York.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

Well, laugh for a moment - then cry that you're right.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Spokker, you might be the worst libertarian ever.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Wonder how many people going to Chik-Fil-A and supporting them (especially in the media) on freedom of association and free speech grounds opposed the Muslim community center in New York.[/QUOTE]

Two brilliant zingers back-to-back.

Stuff like this makes VS threads worthwhile.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Wonder how many people going to Chik-Fil-A and supporting them (especially in the media) on freedom of association and free speech grounds opposed the Muslim community center in New York.[/QUOTE]
AHAHAHAH...holy shit, you're on point with this one!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdAIt4MgnHc

In case anyone doesn't get it, FtA is the one oozinatoring all over the Chick-fil-A peeps.
 
[quote name='confoosious']Not again with the motherfucking Syria.

It's ok to have a discussion about American issues without complaining about how Americans are ignorant of foreign affairs.[/QUOTE]

That wasn't my point.

My point is the fact that the Chick-fil-a thing is such a big news story... not that every three posts on my Facebook wall is about it.

[quote name='Clak']As usual, whenever someone complains about the government it's always the federal. Never mind that state governments are the ones passing laws about gay marriage left and right. No no, that's state's right.[/QUOTE]

DOMA.

It doesn't matter what laws states pass... as long as the Federal Government fails to recognize the contract and fails to give equal treatment to those who enter into the contract, then it doesn't much matter if it exists.

Besides, one of the purposes of the Federal government is to offer redress to citizens who are wronged by their State/local government. If your state government is discriminating against you based on your gender, you should be able to take it to the Federal level.

[quote name='Strell']WHOOSH, holy shit.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I admit - missed your point completely. I thought you were being sarcastic, posting as a "typical bible thumping right-winger" with a "Why are we even talking about this in the first place" reply... Not a "Dude... why do we *need* to talk about it?"
 
[quote name='IRHari']
Spokker, you might be the worst libertarian ever.[/QUOTE]
7j5Ic.jpg
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Wonder how many people going to Chik-Fil-A and supporting them (especially in the media) on freedom of association and free speech grounds opposed the Muslim community center in New York.[/QUOTE]

You know people are only allowed freedom of speech and religion when the right things are said and people are the right religion.
 
There's an interesting distinction between approaching an issue based on your idealized world or the way things actually are. In essence, you may carry with you two opinions and they may or may not be similar.

1. Your personal opinion, conditional on current law, cultural norms, etc.
2. Your personal opinion, conditional on the way you wish the world were. If the world is already your ideal or close to it then 1 and 2 are going to be very similar.

Since the NY mosque issue was brought up I was curious to see what I have posted about it in the past so I did a Google search for "spokker mosque" without quotations. It appears that I simply joked about it and offered no serious discussion, however they were pro-Mosque jokes.

More interesting than that, which means not at all, I came across an LA Times article in which I defended an employee at Disneyland who was essentially fired for refusing to come to work without her hijab, an Islamic headscarf.

In the comments section I expressed two primary opinions.

1. My personal opinion, conditional on current law, cultural norms, etc.: I argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act forbade Disney from firing her and that her style of dress was protected under the religious protections in the law. At the very least, I said, she had a case. I expressed this opinion.

2. My personal opinion, conditional on the way I wish the world were. I made it very clear that her headscarf did not bother me personally and that it did not intrude on theme. However, I do believe Disney, in a perfect world, should have the right to make theme such a priority that they would fire anyone who deviated from the dress code for any reason, including religious reasons. I did not express this opinion at that time.

Looking back, it's probably random as to which opinion I decided to argue, though I don't remember what mindset I was in back then. Debates get pretty sticky when you try to do both 1 and 2. "Oh, I think this way, based on this, but if it's this, I think this, and if it were like this, then I would think like this." Too complicated. But I suspect there are many disagreements based solely on one person arguing from their ideal and another person arguing about how the way things are based on current law, norms, whatever. And then there is the extent to which you are willing to compromise and so on. I'll gladly take a health care mandate if we end the wars, to give one example.

The actual outcome of the issue was mixed. Her job ended up being reinstated because she agreed to wear the Disney-provided headscarf instead of her own, which I believe she had every right to under current law, but not in my evil, bigoted utopia in which I would say, "Just let her wear the damn headscarf."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']hijab, an Islamic headscarf.[/QUOTE]

Not to be confused with the other kind of hijab?

Look, I'm glad you can cover your own personal tracks, but I'm not concerned about that - the point is very well made and the point still stands. When this was an issue, the matter of "free speech" was nowhere to be found among those demanding it today, showing selective interests in protecting universally American rights.
 
Well when you question that Islam is even a religion you can get away with not supporting that center in NY and still supporting chik fil a. You just deny the legitimacy of anything you don't agree with.
 
[quote name='Spokker']There's an interesting distinction between approaching an issue based on your idealized world or the way things actually are. In essence, you may carry with you two opinions and they may or may not be similar.

1. Your personal opinion, conditional on current law, cultural norms, etc.
2. Your personal opinion, conditional on the way you wish the world were. If the world is already your ideal or close to it then 1 and 2 are going to be very similar.

Since the NY mosque issue was brought up I was curious to see what I have posted about it in the past so I did a Google search for "spokker mosque" without quotations. It appears that I simply joked about it and offered no serious discussion, however they were pro-Mosque jokes.

More interesting than that, which means not at all, I came across an LA Times article in which I defended an employee at Disneyland who was essentially fired for refusing to come to work without her hijab, an Islamic headscarf.

In the comments section I expressed two primary opinions.

1. My personal opinion, conditional on current law, cultural norms, etc.: I argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act forbade Disney from firing her and that her style of dress was protected under the religious protections in the law. At the very least, I said, she had a case. I expressed this opinion.

2. My personal opinion, conditional on the way I wish the world were. I made it very clear that her headscarf did not bother me personally and that it did not intrude on theme. However, I do believe Disney, in a perfect world, should have the right to make theme such a priority that they would fire anyone who deviated from the dress code for any reason, including religious reasons. I did not express this opinion at that time.

Looking back, it's probably random as to which opinion I decided to argue, though I don't remember what mindset I was in back then. Debates get pretty sticky when you try to do both 1 and 2. "Oh, I think this way, based on this, but if it's this, I think this, and if it were like this, then I would think like this." Too complicated. But I suspect there are many disagreements based solely on one person arguing from their ideal and another person arguing about how the way things are based on current law, norms, whatever. And then there is the extent to which you are willing to compromise and so on. I'll gladly take a health care mandate if we end the wars, to give one example.

The actual outcome of the issue was mixed. Her job ended up being reinstated because she agreed to wear the Disney-provided headscarf instead of her own, which I believe she had every right to under current law, but not in my evil, bigoted utopia in which I would say, "Just let her wear the damn headscarf."[/QUOTE]

As a Muslim, I can tell you she had zero leverage in that case. THe majority of the woman wearing hijabs have to because it's an automatic guarantee to hell if they don't, looked at as 'unpious' and draws disapproving nods in that culture, and they're taught to wear them as 8-9 year old girls. She couldn't go, oh well I'll abandon that, it was basically,
'GTFO'. I was pretty fumed when the Muslim mosque thing went down because a while ago this old guy in our neighborhood got pissed when this kid was giving out Islamic books/mini-sermons and he took it to our subdivision's appeal, when I've been pestered dozens of times by those Jehovah fucking Witnesses. And he actually GOT like 30% or so of our community's votes. SMH :hot:
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Wonder how many people going to Chik-Fil-A and supporting them (especially in the media) on freedom of association and free speech grounds opposed the Muslim community center in New York.[/QUOTE]

Agreed - and brought up this same exact point on another forum.

On the other hand, I wonder if those who are going against CFA (which, to some extent, includes me) on the grounds that CFA funds groups that push for horrible agendas are also planning to start boycotting, say, gasoline because the companies who get paid from the oil are so intrenched with the government in countries that have policies like killing gay people and such.

Or if they'll start boycotting paying taxes because our own government then, in turn, uses the money for the horrific things it does.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Agreed - and brought up this same exact point on another forum.

On the other hand, I wonder if those who are going against CFA (which, to some extent, includes me) on the grounds that CFA funds groups that push for horrible agendas are also planning to start boycotting, say, gasoline because the companies who get paid from the oil are so intrenched with the government in countries that have policies like killing gay people and such.

Or if they'll start boycotting paying taxes because our own government then, in turn, uses the money for the horrific things it does.[/QUOTE]

Boycotting CFA, boycotting gasoline, boycotting paying taxes. Two of these three things are easier to do because they're....legal.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Boycotting CFA, boycotting gasoline, boycotting paying taxes. Two of these three things are easier to do because they're....legal.[/QUOTE]
Boycotting is boycotting...herp derp!:booty:

And why is it that conservative fucks always like to bring up MLK like he was some lone peacenik that spread messages of love and peace as if that was the only thing that got anything done? He was vilified and labelled a fucking commie back in the day. Not only that, but he was losing relevancy before he was killed. If he was alive today, he'd be minstrelized like Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, AND Farrakhan.
 
MLK did it *all* by himself.

Duh, don't you know that? If there was no violence, the Civil Rights Act would have been passed sooner.

Everyone knows that.

;)
 
[quote name='IRHari']Boycotting CFA, boycotting gasoline, boycotting paying taxes. Two of these three things are easier to do because they're....legal.[/QUOTE]

Ah. Well, when trying to make sweeping social and political change, one must always obey the law. Always, with no exceptions. Ever.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Agreed - and brought up this same exact point on another forum.

On the other hand, I wonder if those who are going against CFA (which, to some extent, includes me) on the grounds that CFA funds groups that push for horrible agendas are also planning to start boycotting, say, gasoline because the companies who get paid from the oil are so intrenched with the government in countries that have policies like killing gay people and such.

Or if they'll start boycotting paying taxes because our own government then, in turn, uses the money for the horrific things it does.[/QUOTE]

It is impossible to live in the United States and not either (a) purchase gasoline yourself or (b) avail yourself to goods/services from people who do.

It is, however, extraordinarily easy to either (a) forgo fast-food fried chicken sandwiches entirely or (b) purchase them from people who don't donate to hate groups.
 
Yeah, there are very few places you can realistically live with out a car. Best most can do is minimize the amount of gas they use by buying a higher MPG car, living close to work an frequented shopping areas etc.

I'd love to not need a car, but public transit in my city sucks and things are very spread out. If I lived somewhere like NYC I'd definitely not have a car and just rent one when I needed to drive somewhere outside the city. As is I just live 3 miles from work, 1-2 miles from the grocery store etc. and thus drive very little and gas up once a month or less.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, there are very few places you can realistically live with out a car. Best most can do is minimize the amount of gas they use by buying a higher MPG car, living close to work an frequented shopping areas etc.

I'd love to not need a car, but public transit in my city sucks and things are very spread out. If I lived somewhere like NYC I'd definitely not have a car and just rent one when I needed to drive somewhere outside the city. As is I just live 3 miles from work, 1-2 miles from the grocery store etc. and thus drive very little and gas up once a month or less.[/QUOTE]

I know. It pisses me off when the mayor of my local city (DC) declares a war on cars. For some jobs you just have no choice, I can't waste an extra 2 hours a day just to take public transportation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you serious? Metro is nice and hella efficient. dmaul can probably back me up on that, too.[/QUOTE]

LMAO spoken like someone who never rode the red line. "Track maintenance means you can expect up to half hour days" 'Up to a half hour' yeah right more like add another 15 at least

Anyway metro is ok if you work near a metro station. If you're not working for the Fed there's a good chance you don't.

They ripped out light rail (aka electric street cars) a long time ago and the buses run like shit. Nova is getting smarter and introducing light rail back but it's going to take some time to get that system going.

But fuck DC. You don't live here so I'll forgive you for not knowing much about the situation, but local DC govt manages to fuck everything up (most notably transportation and education). These days looks like corruption is back as well.
 
[quote name='camoor']LMAO spoken like someone who never rode the red line. "Track maintenance means you can expect up to half hour days" 'Up to a half hour' yeah right more like add another 15 at least

Anyway metro is ok if you work near a metro station. If you're not working for the Fed there's a good chance you don't.

They ripped out light rail (aka electric street cars) a long time ago and the buses run like shit. Nova is getting smarter and introducing light rail back but it's going to take some time to get that system going.

But fuck DC. You don't live here so I'll forgive you for not knowing much about the situation, but local DC govt manages to fuck everything up (most notably transportation and education). These days looks like corruption is back as well.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry man. When we shrink the government to eliminate waste and privatize everything, everything will be so much more efficient because R FREEDUMZ.
 
DC Metro beats the hell out of the MARTA system in Atlanta in terms of covering a lot of the city (MARTA is just a plus sign through the city basically). It's also just a lot cleaner and nicer as it's better upkept, more used by professionals rather than just working class folk, homeless etc.

But DC is still tough to do without a car as it's pretty spread out. Honestly, there are very few cities where you can get to home, work and shopping easily with public transit. By easily I mean not fucking with buses.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']DC Metro beats the hell out of the MARTA system in Atlanta in terms of covering a lot of the city (MARTA is just a plus sign through the city basically). It's also just a lot cleaner and nicer as it's better upkept, more used by professionals rather than just working class folk, homeless etc.

But DC is still tough to do without a car as it's pretty spread out. Honestly, there are very few cities where you can get to home, work and shopping easily with public transit. By easily I mean not fucking with buses.[/QUOTE]

I think it's better then most, I think DC probably has the #2 public transportation system in America. And having used it I can tell you that's fucking pathetic.

In my book, NYC is the only city where a car is still a luxury. A subway system that's always on, a bus system that works due to a heavily regulated taxi policy (a policy that has the added benefit of making money for the city) - that's a city that despite overwhelming odds is doing everything right.

DC's system is to red light and speed light camera everything in a transparent cash grab. We need home rule to clean up the gypsy cab problem, as long as asshole Republicans dictate DC policy the only folks getting home on time will be the ones walking out of the Capitol building.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think it's better then most, I think DC probably has the #2 public transportation system in America.[/QUOTE]

Heh. So you want to beat on it as sooo terrible, yet you can only think of one system that's superior?

I've been on red line, my friend. Not an everyday thing, mind, but I've spent my fair share on it.

"OMG, it doesn't work 100% all the time every time" is a silly excuse.

At any rate, your whinging speaks to why public transit is a problem - people want stops to show up at their front door or it's an "inconvenience." As if walking 10-15 blocks is the worst thing ever, and reason enough to declare an entire system inefficient and a necessary reason for getting a car. That kind of mentality is what I consider problematic. Maybe we can buy you a hoveround to carry your carcass to the station, too? Sheesh.

(I mean, if you're gonna go from zero-to-fuckin'-asshole just because I disagree with you on something, that is.)

BART is a great system, but filthy. MTA is the most intimidating in terms of size and scope, but it's great too (and while still filthy, far cleaner than in the past). Hell, I'm even a huge fan of SEPTA.

Metro is still nice, IMO - but there are far more than just one system that is superior to it. If you want to say that Metro stinks and is still the second best in the nation, you're really trying to have it both ways.

But if we think that public transit is an inconvenience because it doesn't come directly to our front door and give us handjobs, well, yeah, we're gonna be disappointed. It shows what level of entitlement we expect when it comes to transportation.

(actually, it kinda reminds me of Louis CK's bit on people who complain about airplane transportation.)

So, yeah. Chicken Sammiches.
 
Ah. Well, when trying to make sweeping social and political change, it most always be easy and convenient. Always, with no exceptions. Ever.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Heh. So you want to beat on it as sooo terrible, yet you can only think of one system that's superior?

I've been on red line, my friend. Not an everyday thing, mind, but I've spent my fair share on it.

"OMG, it doesn't work 100% all the time every time" is a silly excuse.

At any rate, your whinging speaks to why public transit is a problem - people want stops to show up at their front door or it's an "inconvenience." As if walking 10-15 blocks is the worst thing ever, and reason enough to declare an entire system inefficient and a necessary reason for getting a car. That kind of mentality is what I consider problematic. Maybe we can buy you a hoveround to carry your carcass to the station, too? Sheesh.

(I mean, if you're gonna go from zero-to-fuckin'-asshole just because I disagree with you on something, that is.)

BART is a great system, but filthy. MTA is the most intimidating in terms of size and scope, but it's great too (and while still filthy, far cleaner than in the past). Hell, I'm even a huge fan of SEPTA.

Metro is still nice, IMO - but there are far more than just one system that is superior to it. If you want to say that Metro stinks and is still the second best in the nation, you're really trying to have it both ways.

But if we think that public transit is an inconvenience because it doesn't come directly to our front door and give us handjobs, well, yeah, we're gonna be disappointed. It shows what level of entitlement we expect when it comes to transportation.

(actually, it kinda reminds me of Louis CK's bit on people who complain about airplane transportation.)

So, yeah. Chicken Sammiches.[/QUOTE]

One system in America. The rest of the industrialized world has public transportation far superior to that of the DC metro area.

And as a consultant in a recession I don't always have the luxury of choosing where I work, thus public transportation is not always an option. You think 2 hours extra commute just to take public transportation is worth it - fuck YOU. Waste your own damn time, I have a life.

PS If you ever decide to leave the ivory tower and have to work to earn a buck, you might find life is not so mind-numbingly simple. Just a thought ;)
 
Double down on the ad hominems, throw in a dash of international vagaries, and you have a camoor response.

For fuck's sake, son, I'm sorry you didn't take home any trim from last night's pub crawl - but seriously, can you disagree with someone without immediately turning into a complete fucking bastard? At least I take 2-3 posts.

Don't get on the internet with a hangover, willyeh?
 
Yeah, that was a pretty assholish response. :roll:

The convenience factor is relevant. The problem in the US is urban sprawl. Most of our cites are just huge and spread out all over the place and thus aren't very walkable. Where as in Europe public transit works well as the cities are more compact and dense and most anywhere you want to get is a few blocks from a train/subway stop. Where as here we tend to have a lot of places you can only get to with a rail/bus combo which just isn't worth the hassle IMO.

Thus in the US you get stuff where it would take someone like Camoor a couple hours extra to use transit instead of driving to work. Or myself who can drive to work in about 15 minutes, where as the train (counting walking) takes at least 45 if its on time etc.

It's just not a viable in most cities. If its going to involve those kind of commute times, might as well live in a nicer suburb in a bigger place rather than in a city condo etc. Some people are going to care enough about the environment, or just not want the expense of gas, car insurance etc., enough to put up with the hassles. But most, myself included, aren't going to. There aren't enough hours in the day as is to waste more time commuting, on top of the hassles of having to walk to and from stations in shitty weather, be annoyed by people etc. that come with public transit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, that was a pretty assholish response. :roll:

The convenience factor is relevant. The problem in the US is urban sprawl. Most of our cites are just huge and spread out all over the place and thus aren't very walkable. Where as in Europe public transit works well as the cities are more compact and dense and most anywhere you want to get is a few blocks from a train/subway stop. Where as here we tend to have a lot of places you can only get to with a rail/bus combo which just isn't worth the hassle IMO.

Thus in the US you get stuff where it would take someone like Camoor a couple hours extra to use transit instead of driving to work. Or myself who can drive to work in about 15 minutes, where as the train (counting walking) takes at least 45 if its on time etc.

It's just not a viable in most cities. If its going to involve those kind of commute times, might as well live in a nicer suburb in a bigger place rather than in a city condo etc. Some people are going to care enough about the environment, or just not want the expense of gas, car insurance etc., enough to put up with the hassles. But most, myself included, aren't going to. There aren't enough hours in the day as is to waste more time commuting, on top of the hassles of having to walk to and from stations in shitty weather, be annoyed by people etc. that come with public transit.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but we could be introducing more public transportation options to get folks who can take it off the road. Replacing buses with light rail is a no-brainer in my book.

Also I don't see it doing anyone any good when there are regularly traffic delays every day and the city's solution is a "war on cars". People are going to continue to drive because they have to get to work and make a buck, and more and more time is going to be wasted in traffic. Wasted time is wasted time - it's a drain on the economy.

And this is for Myke - I'm not your son and I'm not one of your students. You can't bully me with flames so bring your a-game or go home.
 
Yeah, they are putting in a limited light rail in Atlanta that will help some.

Those are tough though. With streets packed with traffic it's hard to take away lanes for light rails in most cities. It works somewhere like Atlanta that's really spread out and traffic on local streets isn't very bad (with few exceptions). But would be hard to do in denser cities like DC with streets always full of traffic.

It's just hard to turn cities that were built around car transportation into public transit dominated cities like in Europe. Expanding subways with more lines is probably the most feasible, but is super expensive to build.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, they are putting in a limited light rail in Atlanta that will help some.

Those are tough though. With streets packed with traffic it's hard to take away lanes for light rails in most cities. It works somewhere like Atlanta that's really spread out and traffic on local streets isn't very bad (with few exceptions). But would be hard to do in denser cities like DC with streets always full of traffic.

It's just hard to turn cities that were built around car transportation into public transit dominated cities like in Europe. Expanding subways with more lines is probably the most feasible, but is super expensive to build.[/QUOTE]

DC actually used to light rail over a half century ago but they ripped it out. The former station control house is now a preppy bar #-o

I don't know why it wouldn't work today - we have streets full of traffic in Arlington and the traffic experts say that the light rail solution will alleviate that problem if the county can find a way to pony up the dough.
 
I'm skeptical that enough people would use the light rail instead of driving to reduce the traffic enough that losing a lane wouldn't lead to more congestion.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm skeptical that enough people would use the light rail instead of driving to reduce the traffic enough that losing a lane wouldn't lead to more congestion.[/QUOTE]

Right now they are cherry-picking routes with extremely high bus action. The bus action is so fast and furious that the erratic bus system is often slow and out-of-space, especially in off-hours which is when alot of folks in lower-income areas goto work.

Plus the streetcars will mostly be in mixed traffic lanes, not dedicated lanes.

http://www.piketransit.com/download...equently_Asked_Questions_(FAQs)-June_2012.pdf
 
In that case it would be fine probably

Bus service here in ATL is pretty sparse, so there aren't many places with dedicated bus lanes/mixed lanes etc. So the light rail is just connected some cut off lower income neighborhoods currently, with some talk of doing a rail around the perimeter of the city too. Both are fine as they're not putting them on major thoroughfares etc. But it would be a nightmare if they tried to put one down say Peachtree St or Piedmont Ave since it's only dedicated traffic lanes and are fairly busy streets.
 
They'd have to expand MARTA an awful lot to reduce congestion. They'd ideally need a route that goes around the entire city along with outward-branching routes to really reduce traffic as is. And the rest of the state isn't willingly going to give one portion, albeit a large portion of the state money where they'll see little or nothing from it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']seriously, can you disagree with someone without immediately turning into a complete fucking bastard?[/QUOTE]

Clearly the answer is 'no.' You can't be bothered to explain inherent contradictions in your post (Metro is pathetic, yet the #2 transit system in the US), but you are more than happy to go out of your way to call people names and launch into personal tirades.

I'm not sure what is causing your dysfunction, but being a jerk doesn't enhance your argument - particularly when you completely ignore opportunity after opportunity to refine your argument, preferring to jump right into internet smack talk. Pretty cool of you, dude. Pretty cool.

dmaul has a point w/r/t sprawl - compare the sprawl of Denver with the containment of Portland, and the compare the timeliness and effectiveness of their public transit systems. You'll have anomalies like Minneapolis' bus system (which is frighteningly accurate in their timeliness), but for the most part sprawl is related to poorly functioning public transit systems.

That all said, I'm still pretty skeptical of the "you need a car" argument unless you commute more than 5 miles each way every day. If it's under that, you can get by with a bicycle or scooter - combine that w/ public transit and you're golden. Now, if you have kids that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
 
Bicycle or scooter is a big hassle though. Sucks in rain or snow. Tough to grocery shop etc. and a lot of cities are like ATL and lack safe bike lanes on most roads which is a shame.

Need a car is too strong for my situation as I physically could get by with public transit and a bike if I had to given where I live. But it would be a big pain in the ass with added commute time, ATL heat etc.
 
See, I think that's part of the disagreement - I don't think a bicycle or scooter is a "big hassle."

There certainly are cons to it (pretty much exactly what you note - though I would beg to differ on groceries, I'm not gonna push that) that you don't get with cars, but I simply don't see them as "big hassles." It's just what you sacrifice by forgoing an automobile.

I'm sure some here will bristle and throw a fit at the comparison (I'll also bet you can figure out who I'm talking about) - but the idea that a car is an absolute necessity, at least for someone who lives and works in an urban environment - simply, that rings as hollow to me as people who buy fast food and microwave meals, explaining away the idea of cooking meals fresh at home because they're "too tired" or "too busy."

Having a car is almost totally a luxury, and there are certainly downsides to using public transit. All I'm trying to say is that most people who argue "necessity" are really making "convenience" arguments while thinking they're arguing "necessity." Your arguments about weather and storage space are a matter of comfort rather than possibility; that's really all I'm trying to convey. That doesn't make you a bad person who owning or using a car (as you certainly realize), and that's something I'm not saying at all.

You don't have to agree with me, so at least you're doing so respectfully.
 
Oh I agree totally and that's what I was getting at.

I don't need a car. I'm just not willing to go without one. I don't want to hassle with multiple trips to the grocery story a week on a bike or bus vs. going once every week or two and loading up. Or getting to work all sweaty from biking in, or taking three times as long on the subway--and still getting sweaty as hell from the walks and hot platforms in the summer and so on.

None of that is necessity though. Just luxury I'm not willing to do without personally. :D
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That all said, I'm still pretty skeptical of the "you need a car" argument unless you commute more than 5 miles each way every day.[/QUOTE]

I do.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh I agree totally and that's what I was getting at.

I don't need a car. I'm just not willing to go without one. I don't want to hassle with multiple trips to the grocery story a week on a bike or bus vs. going once every week or two and loading up. Or getting to work all sweaty from biking in, or taking three times as long on the subway--and still getting sweaty as hell from the walks and hot platforms in the summer and so on.

None of that is necessity though. Just luxury I'm not willing to do without personally. :D[/QUOTE]

Sure. Even if you call cars a luxury, I still see no justification in a city leader saying he's declaring war on them. Declaring a war on cars is not innovative policy - it's idiocy.
 
Lol, I feel for you guys that put up with poor public transit systems. In the suburbs of Chicago, everyone just uses the Metra/local Amtrak lines that are spread out every two to three cities. Most people I know just park their cars in the lots (my city added almost 3000 extra spaces last year :hot:) and use the train to work, use the buses that go practically everywhere throughout the city, and train back with their car still waiting there. Not completely abstaining from car use, but, hey ;) Now, going to and from the spreadout and still developing suburbs via public transit, is nearly impossible :whistle2:#
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top