“Reasonable facsimile” if you don’t mind paying through the nose for a slow trip on a smelly train to a filthy station that you have to wait a hundred yards outside owing to a points failure, like about the last time I tried to travel from Norwich to York and left myself a couple of hours’ slack time for a meeting I eventually made with a minute to spare and no post-trip shower like I’d been pining for.
We have a shit public transportation system. It’s just, as far as I can tell, the Government wants us to use it anyway, so they have to make private transport less attractive by comparison through confiscatory fuel taxes, a speed camera every hundred yards, and so-called “traffic calming” measures that reduces vehicular progress to below walking speed and would rip the sump out of a Humvee. Fortunately I’m not bitter.
You’re right. I don’t “know” what the media response would be in the sense that I know how many fingers I have. But come on. After the huge media assault on Clinton during his Presidency, it’s no effort to figure out that the conservative media would be howling at the moon and barking themselves into a froth over high gas prices if a Democrat were in power. Absolutely trivial effort required there…
No problem, I was just saying “west coast” != LA. It’s easy to live in the Bay Area without a car. But you are very right in that as a whole, this country’s severely lacking.
Nope. You keep harping about the “conservative media” as though that were a generally accepted fact. t isn’t. The proper venue for venting at Bush about this is the Editorial Page (and I mean that page, not the Op Ed page). Are you going to tell us that the Editorial Pages of the NYTimes, WashPost, LATimes, SF Chronicle, etc are conservative?
The WaPo? Darn tootin’ their editorial page is conservative, aside from the occasional issues regarding either the First Amendment or race/gender equity.
A blast from the past, from the Good Old Days when the government was running surpluses, and oil at $28/barrel was considered expensive enough to give the Arabs a talking-to over.
Sorry for talking out of my ass. I was in Europe many years ago. I did not need to rely on public transportation to get anywhere important. I had a blast getting on a train going anywhere and did not really care when I got there. I guess in those happy hazey pre-employment days I was more focused on the trip than the destination.
Are you sure you’re not talking about the Washington Times? I’ll see if I can find what there Republican/Democrat endorsement ratio was in the last election.
Nope, I’m talking about the Post. Wanna count with me where they stand on actual issues over the next few days, just for kicks?
Sure, they endorse Dems, by and large. But that’s because about half the Dems these days are about where moderate Republicans used to be in the 1970s, and most of the Republicans wouldn’t say a word against Pat Robertson if they had a mouthful.
It’s also interesting to note that some large conglomerates have only recently allowed their individual newspapers to endorse whoever they want, instead of having their choice dictated to them:
But it really doesn’t matter. If you don’t like the Post, then substitute another big city newpaper with a liberal editorial page-- there are plenty. My point still stands, and that is that there are PLENTY of liberal (or leftish or anti-Bush, whatever term you want to use) editorial pages out there. If they aren’t bashing Bush on the price of oil, then maybe that’s because to do so would have no merit.
Note: I’m not arguing with you on that subject, but with the OP. You just happend to have challenged my statement about the Post.
So what’s the point? Ranting that the WaPo has a liberal bias (in your delusional mind, anyway) is as meaningless as ranting that the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page has a conservative bias, or that the Weekly World News keeps supporting Bat-Boy in his ongoing election career.
However, this exchange…
…speaks for itself. Keep wallowing in that denial there, son.
