Replies

Just a bit more. There has been some Clintonian-type usage of the English language in some of this discussion. This next example I'll use, and I honestly don't think you meant to sound Clintonian, but it can be read that way. The two examples after that, I think are deliberate Clintonian-style statements...

(from Post 101)
BobL: "It's a leap of faith that true alternatives will exist."

Palmer: "No, they exist now."

What could make this Clintonian in style (although I am convinced you did not intend it) is that you are taking the present case, and projecting it to the future, with no knowledge of what degree of monopolistic protection will be given to Cintra (that've you've disclosed, at least - and again, I'm not trying to impugn you, I'm just covering my bases, in case you have more info). In other words my concern is about the future, not the present. You may well wind up being right, but there's been no evidence produced (that I've seen) to support that outcome.

The next statement (not by you), in my strong opinion, was intended to deceive. It went something like this (on a different thread):

"There are NO plans to convert any existing free lanes of traffic to tolling"

This may be true now, but certainly wasn't true at least twice last year, when attempts were made to impose tolling on SH 249 (Houston area), and I-10 near El Paso. There was a somewhat similar situation in Austin where tolling was proposed to be added to a stretch of freeway that was nearly completed and fully financed. All three were stopped - but it clearly indicated a plan to toll at least some of our existing freeways.

And finally you have this statement by Ric Williamson last year. If you ask a hundred people what this means, you'll get the same answer - conversion of the majority of freeways to toll roads:

"in your lifetime most existing roads will have tolls"

There is nothing Clintonian about that statement, but some toll roads supporters are saying that it is Clintonian, in the sense that he is saying that most existing roads will have "added lanes which are tolled". Sorry, but I just buy that as the meaning of the above statement. I think that this was simply an honest statement from a man totally out of touch with reality.

That's a nice bit of interpretation you got going there. I am guilty of projection and perhaps Clinton-speak. But you must surely realize that your accusations that the governor is giving away monopolistic protection are projective and phrased in a guilty-until-proven-innocent manner. We don't know how much the governor has beaten his wife, but we certainly know that we can't trust him to protect her. He is just a politician after all.