>>How about even some evidence that it's liberals who support HOV lanes and conservatives (other than you) don't? Anecdotal evidence doesn't and shouldn't count for decision-making.
>>
>>>>>In a nutshell, from my perspective, that is the difference. with the exception of the libs who will cling to a lie, even when they know it isn't true.
>
>Here's one:
>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/03/study-san-franciscos-hov-lanes-increase-traffic-congestion/
>
>haha from SF of all places. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, if you force people to use three lanes, when they were using four, traffic is going to congest. duh!

The link doesn't actually provide enough data, in my view, to evaluate the situation. They point out that the HOV lanes are only active certain hours (presumably rush hours), and then, at least in this article, seem to be comparing traffic at those times with traffic outside of those times. That said, I suspect it's the article that's so confused, not the study.

So, the question is, assuming the study really does show what the article says and that the math has been re-crunched to confirm the results, has there been any discussion about changing the HOV lanes?


>>>I can't say ALL dems are evil, but dang I'd like to see just a few stand up for the truth, rather than see them snickering about all this. One of the things I do best is read people. I learned that from the streets. Like most other cops, I assess and reassess people - constantly. I knew when Clinton was lying under oath that he was lying because I could read it in his answers and his non verbal communications. Now, all of a sudden, many of the same people who knew he was lying and doing all the stuff he denied, are coming out of the woodwork. They are only telling the truth now, because it suits their agenda, which is to get right back in those positions of oversight. That is the CHANGE Obama is really talking about. He wants to change the people who are running things back to the Clintonistas.
>>
>>That's hilarious. Did you notice that he was running _against_ Hillary Clinton?
>>
>
>Yes, I did by the way. My point is about all those who were saying the Clintons were so wonderful, and now they are backing Obama and they finally come clean about the Clintons, especially slick willie.

You're putting words in my mouth again. I never liked Clinton, just thought he was the lesser of two evils when he ran. I doubt you'll find anything from me in here ever suggesting otherwise.

>>>Here is another example of liberal v conservative thinking. You may recall my comment a few years ago, when I railed against the Israeli leadership giving the Palestinians the Golan Heights. I said it was insane to give someone, who had been an enemy for thousands of years, the high ground above you. I think you said it was a good move. What do you thing now? The rockets come raining down on Israel from where?
>>
>>If you think I supported returning the Golan Heights, you're out of your mind. I've been there. I think there's no way Israel can be secure if that land is in the hands of an enemy.
>>
>I could have sworn you got on me for saying Israeal was crazy for giving that up? Oh well, I feel better now! Glad you've come around to my way of thinking on this situation!<g>

Yeah, right. <s> I've been pro-Israel all my life and always have supported defensible borders. Do I think the Israeli government is always right? No.

Of course, you won't be surprised to learn that most of my Israeli relatives are members of the Labor party.

Tamar