Now you are catching onnefarious101 » 10 Dec 2023, 5:44 pm » wrote: ↑ It's the end of the world!!...We are all going to die!!...
nazi-types are worse than the "global warmers" or the "vegans"....maybe it's because they are considerably dumber?...what do you think?....leave a comment
Mrkelly » 10 Dec 2023, 5:51 pm » wrote: ↑ Now you are catching on
Ukraine is dumb for supporting Nazis

Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2023, 4:54 pm » wrote: ↑ Spending and pork barrel are the REASON for the crumbling, dummy.
I see we have a bright one, here.![]()
U.S. Where do you live?Mrkelly » 10 Dec 2023, 5:10 pm » wrote: ↑ Where is the crumbling infrastructure?
where in the hell do you live?
If I get you stats, are you going to admit that our infrastructure is crumbling?
Other countries have oligarchs.Sumela » 10 Dec 2023, 5:05 pm » wrote: ↑ Every day here confirms how each lockstep side hides and huddles
behind their specific cliches and myths and paradigms as intended
by the Oligarchs.
Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2023, 6:06 pm » wrote: ↑ If I get you stats, are you going to admit that our infrastructure is crumbling?
It's a yes or no, son.
In other words, you are a coward, boy - afraid to commit.
What do you prefer we look at next, assey?There are more than 617,000 bridges across the United States. Currently, 42% of all bridges are at least 50 years old, and 46,154, or 7.5% of the nation’s bridges, are considered structurally deficient, meaning they are in “poor” condition. Unfortunately, 178 million trips are taken across these structurally deficient bridges every day. In recent years, though, as the average age of America’s bridges increases to 44 years, the number of structurally deficient bridges has continued to decline; however, the rate of improvements has slowed.
A recent estimate for the nation’s backlog of bridge repair needs is $125 billion. We need to increase spending on bridge rehabilitation from $14.4 billion annually to $22.7 billion annually, or by 58%, if we are to improve the condition. At the current rate of investment, it will take until 2071 to make all of the repairs that are currently necessary, and the additional deterioration over the next 50 years will become overwhelming. The nation needs a systematic program for bridge preservation like that embraced by many states, whereby existing deterioration is prioritized and the focus is on preventive maintenance.

What do you think george soros and bill gates are, you pathetic hunchback?
And you stick with rooting for tranny culture, wee homo.nefarious101 » 10 Dec 2023, 6:00 pm » wrote: ↑ at least you're not screaming about QAnon or the Boogaloo boys...stick with what you "think" you know
You need to look at your own source.Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2023, 6:09 pm » wrote: ↑ In other words, you are a coward, boy - afraid to commit.
Let us start with the nation's bridges, fruitcake. https://infrastructurereportcard.org/ca ... structure/
What do you prefer we look at next, assey?
In recent years, though, as the average age of America’s bridges increases to 44 years, the number of structurally deficient bridges has continued to decline;
I don't know. People?Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2023, 6:11 pm » wrote: ↑ What do you think george soros and bill gates are, you pathetic hunchback?
Like warren buffet and the koch borthers, they are oligachs, stupid.
Other countries don't have them? Is this something new?Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2023, 6:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Like warren buffet and the koch borthers, they are oligachs, stupid.![]()
You can cherry pick, but the point was made - crumbling infrastructure, insufficient investment to stem the tide. Your cherry pick notwithstanding, the OUTLOOK at current spending levels is the CERTAINTY of continued and worsening decay.
Cherry pick? It's cited by the people you quoted, the ASCE. Did you look at it? I did.Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2023, 6:19 pm » wrote: ↑ You can cherry pick, but the point was made - crumbling infrastructure, insufficient investment to stem the tide. Your cherry pick notwithstanding, the OUTLOOK at current spending levels is the CERTAINTY of continued and worsening decay.
Our water used to be trustworthy in virtualy every hamlet. I remember as a young man being told that one day we would BUY water at the store in bottles. I laughed, and I asked why we would do that when we have good water at our homes? The fellow told me the oligarchs wanted to sell us water, and their employees were going to degrade our water systems so that they could do it.
I was doubtful - but here we are, stupe.
Let's check in with the state of the nation's dams. We have a goodly number of high hazard dams (dams whose failure would result in major catastrophes) that are aging and not being kept up properly.
Okay - find something to cherry pick so you can jut out your little jaw and pretend you were not given proof of the OP's thesis.There are over 91,000 dams in the country that serve many purposes. Dams are classified by hazard potential. A high-hazard-potential rating does not imply that a dam has an increased risk for failure; it simply means that if failure were to occur, the resulting consequences would likely be a direct loss of human life and extensive property damage.
Over the last 20 years, the number of high-hazard-potential dams has more than doubled as development steadily encroaches on once-rural dams and reservoirs. Although the number of high-hazard-potential dams has increased, the overall percentage of these dams protected by an Emergency Action Plan has increased as well. As of 2018, 81% of such dams had a plan on file, up 5% from 2015.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of investment, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimates the number of deficient high-hazard-potential dams now exceeds 2,300. Meanwhile, approximately 3% of dams supply households and businesses with hydroelectric power, and many of these dams are privately owned by utilities and follow a rigorous operations and maintenance schedule.
Cannonpointer » 10 Dec 2023, 6:12 pm » wrote: ↑ And you stick with rooting for tranny culture, wee homo.

They don't?