calling an entire state full of people fascists isn’t funny

you're not answering my question: why are Vermonters such miserable people, as you've proven yourself to be?

"wow you must be fun at parties" then "you don't understand the joy that comes with shitting on people from [insert neighboring state containing human beings exactly like Vermonters]"

news flash: every big mountain in the state costs a shitload. you know a killington pass is like $1200 nowadays? there's plenty of ridiculously priced shit everywhere. plenty of vermonters are raking in shitloads of money, you don't need to point out of state for that

im not fun at parties I don't get invited to them

even if they do, faking it is easy. they won't actually watch you take a leak.

i doubt they do though

as someone born and raised in vermont, why are vermonters such miserable people

this is just xenophobia/no true scotsman for literally no reason. "dae people from somewhere 50 miles south of here suck?!?!? aren't we so much better?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

> I never mentioned anything about Caledonia and that is your own singleminded idea that the development I am talking about refers to what is in your mind. There are multiple projects throughout the state that take place over many years of time.

what are you talking about then? direct quote:

> Oh yeah, he was fired for that after the 5000 ft runway was denied and he was exposed.

northeast kingdom's 5,000 ft runway went through, it was never in doubt. caledonia is the only one with a short runway that was considered to be expanded, and that's a current problem.

> The previous Vtrans aviation director was fired

direct from your article, he resigned

> Oh yeah, he was fired for that after the 5000 ft runway was denied and he was exposed.

lol what are you talking about? this happened in 2016-2017. i just linked you VTrans' report that specifically mentions extending the runway for Caledonia in 2020.

you have a weird mishmash of beliefs that are based on half-truths. you should not be nearly so confident. this article does more to prove you wrong than right.

evidence?

"a large developer" wanted to expand the runway... meaning VTrans proposed expanding it... something tells me you didn't get this news straight from the horses mouth:

https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/aviation/documents/VASP_Draft_020421.pdf

and also:

> The runway was totally unnecessary for the planes he was bringing in.

bullshit. it's a 3,300 foot runway. that's too short for 99% of jets and many turboprops to safely land and takeoff from. those airplanes bring in far, far more money than the tiny little bugsmashers that can currently land there. for example, you could fly a little cessna 172 for ten hours a day and you'd maybe burn 80 gallons of fuel. most jets burn hundreds of gallons an HOUR, plus there's generally other services they'd need that small piston singles wouldn't. literally one single jet landing there one time per week will be the majority of your business lol.

I don't think you're very well educated on this subject, and that casts doubt on the rest of your claims as well.

dae liberals and nonbinary people bad

I think your client and the rest of the world have different opinions on the word "modest"

> Around me a big developer wanted to expand a airport runway which would have destroyed over 12 vernal pools and wetlands. The runway was totally unnecessary for the planes he was bringing in. Luckily Act 250 stopped that expansion.

wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. neat.

been posted multiple times already.

sure, if you swerve into their lane and slam the brakes. that's not the premise of 99.99% of brake checks, in which the person you're following is already in your lane. fair enough on swerving in first though

and finally I'm not trying to le reddit you but *brakes

lol ok bud next time someone has to slam the brakes because a moose ran in the road and you slam into them because your dumb ass was following too close, let me know what the insurance agent says

Because what if they slam on the brakes because there's a child running into the road? What if there's an animal? Or any other of a billion reasons to slam on the brakes. You need to give adequate distance to the person in front of you.

> In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

in fact in 100% of the world if you rear end someone insurance will place you at fault. really weird you looked up where I live, too. reddit is creepy

Because what if they slam on the brakes because there's a child running into the road? What if there's an animal? Or any other of a billion reasons to slam on the brakes. You need to give adequate distance to the person in front of you.

> In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

in fact in 100% of the world if you rear end someone insurance will place you at fault. really weird you looked up where I live, too. reddit is creepy

Because what if they slam on the brakes because there's a child running into the road? What if there's an animal? Or any other of a billion reasons to slam on the brakes. You need to give adequate distance to the person in front of you.

> In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

in fact in 100% of the world if you rear end someone insurance will place you at fault. really weird you looked up where I live, too. reddit is creepy

Because what if they slam on the brakes because there's a child running into the road? What if there's an animal? Or any other of a billion reasons to slam on the brakes. You need to give adequate distance to the person in front of you.

> In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

in fact in 100% of the world if you rear end someone insurance will place you at fault

Because what if they slam on the brakes because there's a child running into the road? What if there's an animal? Or any other of a billion reasons to slam on the brakes. You need to give adequate distance to the person in front of you.

> In fact in The rest of non Rutland Vermont you are considered the victim of road rage and the person who intentionally caused an accident can be charged with reckless driving.

in fact in 100% of the world if you rear end someone insurance will place you at fault

No. Absolutely not. It is 100% the fault of the following driver, every time. What if a moose runs in the road, or any of a billion situations you can imagine emergency braking being necessary? If you're that far up someone's ass that then slamming on the brakes ends up with you rear ending them, give some more fucking following distance.

3 seconds absolute minimum.

If someone brake checks you and you smash into them, it's your fault. You need to leave enough space to safely come to a stop regardless of the situation.

What if a deer runs across the road or some other situation requiring emergency braking? You are 100% in the wrong if you read end someone. Three seconds minimum following distance

wow! you did it! you've solved road rage, congratulations!

everyone who would have acted like an ass on the highway has read this and realized the error of their ways! great job!

consumables > knicknacks

get em a big thing of real vermont maple syrup, so they can say how much they hate it and go back to their corn syrup >:l

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39_Albatros

Might be one of these, which would lend credence to your "rich local" hypothesis. Still, these burn hundreds of gallons of jet fuel/hour (at like $8/gal), not to mention maintenance costs. so definitely not just normal rich person, lol. but if it was one of these, it'll definitely show up on flightradar24. sometimes military jets don't. if it doesn't show up, that doesn't mean it's definitely military (down low, radar coverage gets sketchy - generally I can't establish contact with Boston til ~3,500 ft or so).

also, legality wise, for uncongested/rural areas you just need to be 500 ft from any person or structure, so pretty lax. that doesn't mean it's smart to do, though, unless it's a training exercise where you have to take that risk.