IdaBriggs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-11-11 06:17 AM
Original message |
| Anybody know who is behind this "Bridge to Nowhere" stuff? |
|
And what's the story - I just don't understand why someone concerned with saving "taxpayer dollars" would spend this much money advertising *against it* unless they have something to gain - or am I being cynical?
Anyone know the "real" story? :)
|
| blue_onyx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-11-11 09:41 AM
Response to Original message |
|
The Detroit International Bridge Company (owners of the Ambassador Bridge) is behind the ads against the new bridge. They don't want competition for their own bridge. They say we don't need another bridge yet plan to build another bridge of their own. It has nothing to do with saving taxpayer money.
|
| SharonRB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-11-11 11:24 AM
Response to Original message |
| 2. Matty Maroun is paying for the ads |
|
He wants to build his own bridge.
|
| Bozita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-11-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. The Koch Bros. have joined Maroun in his battle for the new bridge. |
|
The sparsely attended Teabagger demonstration in Lansing two weeks ago showed folks carrying prepared signs against the public bridge.
Why else would Teabaggers even care?
|
| JustABozoOnThisBus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-11-11 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 4. Yep, he doesn't want competition |
|
he likes his monopoly on the Ambassador Bridge, and he'll grease Lansing politicians generously in order to keep it.
At least the ads are open about who's paying for the ads. Not hiding behind an ad-hoc new group name like "people who like detroit" or something dumb like that. So many political ads are paid for by groups with names so obscure you can't tell who bought them. This one sort of says "I'm Matty. This is my bridge. You can't have a bridge."
Another bridge is fine, as long as it's another "Matty's bridge".
|
| GKirk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-25-11 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 5. Not truly a monopoly... |
|
...there is a tunnel, too.
|
| wobblie
(19 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-29-11 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 10. tunnel is not competition |
|
you can't drive an 18 wheeler through the tunnel. The real money is in all the truck traffic between the US and Canada. They get backed up for miles waiting to cross his bridge.
|
| maddogesq
(915 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-11 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 8. All kinds of nice fellas trying to sell us bridges. |
|
Isn't life just grand? And one way or the other, you and I will get stuck paying for another bridge we don't need at all. And does anyone talk about environmental impact? No, they don't need no stinkin' environment!
This whole bridge thing is an ad campaign between two evil forces. This is clear, living proof that private ownership of public roadways and bridges is a really, really bad idea.
|
| mk2guy7355
(50 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-02-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
| Crowman1979
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-30-11 09:29 AM
Response to Original message |
| 6. We need a constitutional amendment against the private ownership of public infrastructure. |
| maddogesq
(915 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-10-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
| 9. Right on, right on, right on. |
|
This cannot be stated enough!
|
| demmiblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-07-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message |
| 7. Americans for Prosperity are in on the act: |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Tue Jan 19th 2021, 04:58 AM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
