Comments

1

"Comment below with what musical themes you want to here next week!"

Hear here? Ok.
Da BLUES.
Baby!

2

Sawant is right;
stop the sweeps and build more sidewalks.
That the homeless can defecate on.

Puerto Rico's infrastructure was shit before the storm hit,
funding 'improvements' under the guise of storm relief is a scam.
Independence for PR, stat-
they are a financial drain we don't need...

3

Politico had an article about Seattle traffic yesterday and it mentioned that, according to City Hall, traffic has actually stayed flat and even declined a little since 2006 thanks to our investment in mass transit. Not that we must choose one over the other, it would be interesting to see if congestion pricing has had similar success

5

No, but our tax dollars have...

6

"...outlined the best practices in implementing congestion pricing without hurting low-income drivers and people of color."

What the what? Why should a government try to carve out an exemption for middle and upper income people of color? Unless you meant the terms interchangeably

8

Sadly, passage of the $19B diaster relief bill through the House was held up by one of Trump's waterboys, who insisted that the bill should include a "modest" $4.4B for "border security."

9

@2 may not have been to Puerto Rico, but I have, and it's true.

They're going to build stuff for the 1960s instead of stuff they actually need.

10

I should also mention the same Politico article also claims that delays on I-5 are up by two-thirds within the past several years. Unfortunately, I don't think congestion pricing will help much whenever a truck full of fish overturns.

11

"Just like traffic infractions should be, the price you pay should be tied to the value of the car you're driving."

What if you have a 20 year old Cadillac with $4,000 rims, $5,000 hydraulics and a $2000 sound system?

12

"I’m just a few weeks away from buying my first car". How will you bear the shaming from Graham and the tut-tutting from mudede?

13

As Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, asked: ""When you say it's not a man and a woman anymore, then why not have three men and one woman or four women and one man?"..."Or why not, you know, somebody has a love for an animal or-? There is no clear place to draw a line once you eliminate the traditional marriage."

He was so wrong about same-sex marriage, but was he right about pot in California? Next Republicans will shout for "traditional" pot smoking in California. What's next: getting your pot-bellied pig high? Cats don't count because they're already high on catnip and better at hiding it.

15

@14

I feel like he might be trying to say something indirectly, perhaps suggest something about the person driving the car he describes?

I can't figure it out though, whatever it is it's far too subtle for me.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.