 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / October 2005Why do we coddle highway speeders???
They kill and maim innocent people constantly in this country. Speeding is the commonest violent crime in america and yet they still get off with fines!!!!!!! > They kill and maim innocent people constantly in this country. > Speeding is the commonest violent crime in america and yet they still > get off with fines!!!!!!! Dear Sir or Madam, I regret to inform you that the item you requested, our Premiere Soup Mix gift box (#3324SDR378), is currently sold out for the remainder of the holiday season. Due to a smaller than expected shipment of the aforesaid item, and overwhelming, unforseen demand, we are unable to provide this product for the remainder of the year. We apologize for any inconvience this has caused you. As a token of our appreciation towards you, our customer, for thinking of us for your holiday gift planning needs, however, I am more than happy to extend an invitation to 5% off any other regularly priced item in our Old Country Family Gifts and Novelties catalog, until December 31, 2005 or while supplies last. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience this shortage has caused you, but I look forward to you continuing to choose us for your gift shopping needs this year, so that we may provide you the utmost in customer care and satisfaction. May you have a happy holiday season! Sincerely, John R. Farnsworth CEO, Old Country Family, Inc. On 1 Oct 2005 23:46:08 -0700, It is totally awesome to have really long nicknames <IllustriousPotentate@gmail.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... <judy's crap sent to a hazardous waste facility> <snip> > John R. Farnsworth > CEO, Old Country Family, Inc. Well, this poast makes more sense than anything that "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" / "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," ever said...  SignaturePaul. Self appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving > They kill and maim innocent people constantly in this country. > Speeding is the commonest violent crime in america and yet they still > get off with fines!!!!!!! I agree. All speeding violations should include a 24 hour stay in jail, and 20 MPH or over should include at least a 3 day stay in jail. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== > > They kill and maim innocent people constantly in this country. > > Speeding is the commonest violent crime in america and yet they still [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stay in jail, and 20 MPH or over should include at least a > 3 day stay in jail. I think 20 mph over the limit should be a felony with a mandatory year in prison. I'm not into coddling murderers. The severity of the penalty makes no difference unless we have the guts to stop these people in the first place-- which simply is not the case. The vast majority of speeders are totally ignored by police. Politicians don't have the nerve or the resources or both to take even the simplest of measures, such as pace cars. Finally, almost everyone speeds. Try adhering to almost any posted speed limit anywhere and see what happens. Changing this will take a massive change of attitude. I think we'd rather kill ourselves first; we're speed junkies who just can't stop. > > > They kill and maim innocent people constantly in this country. > > > Speeding is the commonest violent crime in america and yet they still [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think 20 mph over the limit should be a felony with a mandatory year > in prison. I'm not into coddling murderers. > The severity of the penalty makes no difference unless we have the > guts to stop these people in the first place-- which simply is not the case. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this will take a massive change of attitude. I think we'd rather kill > ourselves first; we're speed junkies who just can't stop. Perhaps its because speed limits have very little to do with safety and the police know it. We have a school zone near where I live. The speed limit in front of the elementary school is 35 MPH, 20 MPH 'when children are present'. About a block further away, the residents[1] of one development petitioned the county to have the speed permanently dropped to 20 MPH and its being enforced by radar traps. Visibility and sidewalks aren't problems since its a new development and the road has been brought up to the latest specs. In front of the school, its still 35, or 20 kids are around, but there is no enforcement. Its pure politics. [1] Actually, its a brand new development and I think the developers leaned on the county to get it lowered. Once all the houses are sold, they'll probably raise it back to 35. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bureaucrat, n.: A person who cuts red tape sideways. -- J. McCabe > . Finally, almost everyone speeds. Try adhering > to almost any posted speed limit anywhere and see what happens. Changing > this will take a massive change of attitude. I think we'd rather kill > ourselves first; we're speed junkies who just can't stop. I've been driving the speed limit or less all my life. Don't tell me it can't be done. And yes, we do need a change of attitude and that's gonna be tough. The american people have been brainwashed into thinking criminal driving is cool and if you kill someone it's just an "accident". > > . Finally, almost everyone speeds. Try adhering > > to almost any posted speed limit anywhere and see what happens. Changing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thinking criminal driving is cool and if you kill someone it's just an > "accident". You're a liar. You've admitted exceeding the speed limit, and I would bet heavily that you exceed it on a regular basis. But even if what you say is true, how do you square the fact that the highways are just as safe with the SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > . Finally, almost everyone speeds. Try adhering > > to almost any posted speed limit anywhere and see what happens. Changing > > this will take a massive change of attitude. I think we'd rather kill > > ourselves first; we're speed junkies who just can't stop. > > I've been driving the speed limit or less all my life. Don't tell me it Liar. > can't be done. And yes, we do need a change of attitude and that's You're too stupid to recognize the truth. That's why you hang in alt.conspiracy and read David Icke's fiction and treat both as fact. > gonna be tough. The american people have been brainwashed into > thinking criminal driving is cool and if you kill someone it's just an > "accident". The American people is a demonstration of the failure of an educational system in which the dimocrats have had too heavy of a hand. You know what, though? All those highway accidents that result in deaths are just natural selection in action. Fortunately the members of my family tree know to teach their offspring how to drive, as well as how to stay out of the street when walking. Too bad your mother was too busy turning tricks to teach you the same thing. > > > They kill and maim innocent people constantly in this country. > > > Speeding is the commonest violent crime in america and yet they still [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think 20 mph over the limit should be a felony with a mandatory year > in prison. I'm not into coddling murderers. You seem to be a big supporter of Ted Kennedy. > > > They kill and maim innocent people constantly in this country. > > > Speeding is the commonest violent crime in america and yet they still [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think 20 mph over the limit should be a felony with a mandatory year > in prison. I'm not into coddling murderers. Hardly anyone who goes that fast ever has an accident that kills anybody. If nobody dies, there is no way that there can be any murder. > They kill and maim innocent people constantly in this country. > Speeding is the commonest violent crime in america and yet they still > get off with fines!!!!!!! It doesn't kill, it's not a crime, that's why. nate > laura bush wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It doesn't kill, it's not a crime, that's why. Speeding only kills in combination with Reckless Driving. But, Reckless Driving kills even without speeding. A person can carefully speed every day of their life, and never kill anyone. Another person can drive Recklessly within the speed limits and kill someone every day. Those are the undeniable facts. > > laura bush wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > anyone. Another person can drive Recklessly within the speed limits > and kill someone every day. HAHA. Another loony who thinks it's okay for HIM to break the law. Laura Bush wrote: > > > laura bush wrote: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > HAHA. Another loony who thinks it's okay for HIM to break the law. Hahahaha! Another loony who can't refute what I said, so they fabricate a Strawman and thrash about on it. See if you can address what I actually said, instead of your strawman. A person CAN carefully speed every day of their life, and never kill anyone. Do you deny this? Another person can drive Recklessly within the speed limits and kill someone every day. Do you deny this? > A person CAN carefully speed every day of their life, and never kill > anyone. Do you deny this? So what? He got lucky. He's still an irresponsible driver and should be pulled off the road. Careful drivers don't speed. >>A person CAN carefully speed every day of their life, and never kill >>anyone. Do you deny this? > > So what? He got lucky. He's still an irresponsible driver and > should be pulled off the road. Careful drivers don't speed. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are a funny man. I'm astonished that anyone can make it to adulthood and still be so naive as to believe that speed limits have anything at all to do with safety. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>A person CAN carefully speed every day of their life, and never kill >>>anyone. Do you deny this? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > naive as to believe that speed limits have anything at all to do with > safety. They have been brainwashed. Their brain automatically accepts the mantra and refuses to analyse it because of a subconscious fear that it might be wrong and then their world will fall apart. > > A person CAN carefully speed every day of their life, and never > > kill anyone. Do you deny this? > > So what? He got lucky. So, you admit a person can carefully speed every day of their life, and never kill anyone. > He's still an irresponsible driver Irresponsible people don't meet up to their responsibilities. If a person has been careful and hasn't harmed any others, what are they responsible for to not have meet up to? > Laura Bush wrote: > > > > laura bush wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > A person CAN carefully speed every day of their life, and never kill > anyone. Do you deny this? Same can be said about drunk driving. YOu want that legalized? Laura Bush wrote: > > Laura Bush wrote: > > > > > laura bush wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Same can be said about drunk driving. So, you don't deny it. > YOu want that legalized? No such thing as "legalized". Things are either outlawed, or their not outlawed. All I want outlawed is the Endangerment or Harm of others. I don't care what somebody is doing, as long as they aren't actually Endangering or Harming others. >I don't care what somebody is doing, as long as they aren't actually >Endangering or Harming others. Now that's a stupid thing to say. Everybody on the highways is to some extent endangering others. On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 03:36:25 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... > Now that's a stupid thing to say. Everybody on the highways is to > some extent endangering others. Then by that "logic," of yours, everyone who merely operates a motorvehicle should be thrown in jail. As such, I hereby accuse you of wreckless endangerment and attmepted murder. My evidence: every one of your posts where you indicate that you have driven an automobile. SignaturePaul. Self appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving > laura bush wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then by that "logic," of yours, everyone who merely operates a > motorvehicle should be thrown in jail. Exactly! You've probably avoided my other thread "Right to Drive", where I argue that driving isn't a privilege, but instead that we all have a Right to Drive (safely). It is often argued that driving a 2 ton vehicle down our highways poses such a level of endangerment as to justify the denial of any Right to Drive. But, then they turn around and claim that Driving is a privilege! But, if driving poses such a level of endangerment as to not be acceptable as a Right, then NOBODY should be allowed to drive. One can not obtain a License to Endanger others. laura bush wrote: > > I don't care what somebody is doing, as long as they aren't actually > > Endangering or Harming others. > > Now that's a stupid thing to say. Just because my sense of value is different from you doesn't make what I say, or me, stupid. There is nothing stupid in what I said. You really should consider what I said very carefully. I know I carefully consider everything I say. If anything is stupid, it is those who accuse others of being stupid simply because they have a different sense of value. I value our Rights more than I value our Safety. Somebody (Thomas Jefferson?) once said: "Those who would surrender their Rights for Security deserve and get neither." If I valued my Safety more than I did our Rights, I would demand everybody be locked away for the sake of my safety, and to hell with their Rights. > Everybody on the highways is to some extent endangering others. It is entirely possible for one to pose a far greater endangerment to others while remaining within the speed limits than another who is carefully exceeding those speed limits. You weren't able to deny it, and you can't deny it. We all pose some level of danger, in everything we do, to others. Even our mere existence poses a level of danger to others. Simply by existing, we pose the risk of passing along some highly contagious and deadly disease. But, under normal circumstances, we all pretty much pose the same level of risk to each other. So, in order to live our own lives with Liberty, we must trade off the risks, and allow others to live their lives. Two safe drivers pose pretty much the same levels of risk to each other when they meet on the highway. Does one say the other can't drive because he poses a risk, does the other say the one can't drive because he poses a risk, or do they both accept the trade of risk and allow each other to drive? As long as someone isn't doing something to excessively exceed the level of trade off of risk they pose to the other, I really don't give a flying fickle f.ck what their doing. If the speed limit on a lonely stretch of highway were 60 mph, and somebody were doing 120 mph, but not endangering the lives or property of anybody, I couldn't care less. But, if the speed limit were 40 mph on a crowded stretch of highway with a paraid in progress, and somebody were doing 35 mph, dispite the fact their within the posted speed limit, they'd still be endangering the lives of all those paraid goers, and should be prosecuted. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it. > >I don't care what somebody is doing, as long as they aren't actually > >Endangering or Harming others. > > Now that's a stupid thing to say. Everybody on the highways is to > some extent endangering others. Not to those of us who know how to drive. > > Laura Bush wrote: > > > > > laura bush wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Same can be said about drunk driving. YOu want that legalized? Ted Kennedy doesn't care if DUI is legalized or not. Of course, he's a senator, so it doesn't really matter. You know, a guy could get away with murder if they were a dimocrapic sinator. On 2 Oct 2005 11:59:13 -0700, proffsl <proffsl@my-deja.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... > A person CAN carefully speed every day of their life, and never kill > anyone. Define "speeding." In the legal sense, it is exceeding a number on a sign. That number being set artifically low inorder to maximise revenue. > Do you deny this? Judy denies the Holocost, so this is no stretch for it. SignaturePaul. Self appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving "There's not a shred of evidence that the jerries murdered anything close to 7 million jooz. Another monstrous lie just like the 9-11 official story. " -- Laura Bush nurdered her boyfriend, 12/01/2004 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9oog5 Message-ID: <780ea958.0411302101.5ef25456@posting.google.com> > > A person CAN carefully speed every day of their life, and never > > kill anyone. > > Define "speeding." In the legal sense, it is exceeding a number on > a sign. That number being set artifically low inorder to maximise > revenue. Exactly! I like the way you think. You don't appear to let the propaganda and bull sh.t cloud your thoughts. > > Do you deny this? > > Judy denies the Holocost, so this is no stretch for it. There are a lot of people out there who simply can not form a logical thought. They are driven by emotions and propaganda. They can't form a rational thought of their own, and rely totally on what the government tells them to think. It sickens and disgusts me to no end. >> > laura bush wrote: >> > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > HAHA. Another loony who thinks it's okay for HIM to break the law. The law doesn't give a sh.t about reckless driving, stupid person... A reckless drivers can kill or maim or permanently injure another person - a driver or pedestrian crossing the road on green light. Moreover, an insurance corporation can successfully overturn award in favor of the victim, and turn the table against a victim of reckless drivers with help of the very same law, forcing him to pay in favor of a reckless driver through losing all of his own life-long saving assets he or she earned by hard work of previous able existence throughout employment before the "accident."... You should direct your rage against completely corrupt Judicial System, not the speed, or even the drunk drivers... Because it's the completely corrupt Judicial System that being misused by the dishonest agents of the greedy stockholders of corporations, in order to perpetuate the damaging effect of the reckless driving, to further victimize all of the victims of reckless driving and the totally corrupt ongoing Judicial System... Signature_____________________________________________________ I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~ ___________________________________________________ -- >>>laura bush wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > HAHA. Another loony who thinks it's okay for HIM to break the law. He's 100% right, in most places in the US. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 05:10:51 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... > They kill and maim innocent people constantly in this country. > Speeding is the commonest violent crime in america and yet they still > get off with fines!!!!!!! Why do we even tolerate and allow to live sloths like you who create unsafe speed differentials with illmaintained beaters that are a disaster waiting to happen? SignatureGet back under your bridge, troll! -- "Hey stupid - I've tried to fix it and i can't. The cable adjusting nuts are rusted solid." --Laura Bush - Vehicular Homicide (a.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, Pride of America, aunt millie and Judy Dairya, among others. See: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj), 6 Apr 2005 11:05:54 -0700 Ref: or9851dpb7a4s8fduf7bf83gab02t9u...@4ax.com Ref: http://tinyurl.com/8exv3 Usual blather. > They kill and maim innocent people constantly in this country. > Speeding is the commonest violent crime in america and yet they still > get off with fines!!!!!!! It's done just to piss you off. I drive for a living and generally cover 200 miles a day on interstate and secondary roads around my city..Reckless (Mistakenly called "aggressive" driving) is the main problem I see..Speed combined with several other bad driving traits..Speed in and of itself is not a problem IF the driver has some degree of skill and experience and doesn`t combine it with other bad habits AND the road conditions are normal...The fact is most interstates were engineered for speeds up into the 70`s and that was for larger cars with poorer steering and suspension than we have today..The speed limits were lowered long ago in an effort to reduce gas consumption >The fact is most interstates were engineered for speeds up > into the 70`s and that was for larger cars with poorer steering and > suspension than we have today What makes you think they were engineered for 70 mph???? Where's your evidence for that preposterous statement? > >The fact is most interstates were engineered for speeds up > > into the 70`s and that was for larger cars with poorer steering and > > suspension than we have today > > What makes you think they were engineered for 70 mph???? Where's your > evidence for that preposterous statement? Let me help you: <http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Interstate_highway> "Speed limits Speed limits vary according to location. By initial planning, the Interstate system was designed to be able to move traffic at speeds of 75 to 80 miles per hour (120 to 130 km/h) except in limited stretches (such as steep mountain passes) where many vehicles cannot maintain such speeds." SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." >> >The fact is most interstates were engineered for speeds up >> > into the 70`s and that was for larger cars with poorer steering and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >(such as steep mountain passes) where many vehicles cannot maintain such >speeds." You blithering idiot. That doesn't mean you HAVE to do 75 or the damn freeway explodes. 55 works just fine. THINK On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 03:40:40 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... > On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:35:47 GMT, > You blithering idiot. That doesn't mean you HAVE to do 75 or the damn > freeway explodes. 55 works just fine. THINK Why 55. Why not 35 like they did in WWII? SignaturePaul. Self appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving > >> >The fact is most interstates were engineered for speeds up > >> > into the 70`s and that was for larger cars with poorer steering and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You blithering idiot. That doesn't mean you HAVE to do 75 or the damn > freeway explodes. 55 works just fine. THINK You asked for a reference to the speed for which they were engineered, and now that you've got it, you'd rather you hadn't asked... SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > >> >The fact is most interstates were engineered for speeds up > >> > into the 70`s and that was for larger cars with poorer steering and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You blithering idiot. That doesn't mean you HAVE to do 75 or the damn > freeway explodes. 55 works just fine. THINK Think? You first. Oops, I'm sorry, I forgot you were from Colorado. >>>What makes you think they were engineered for 70 mph???? Where's your evidence for that preposterous statement? <<< Umm..Maybe the FACT that they WERE???..Can you say..Duh! >>The fact is most interstates were engineered for speeds up >>into the 70`s and that was for larger cars with poorer steering and >>suspension than we have today > > What makes you think they were engineered for 70 mph???? Where's your > evidence for that preposterous statement? Preposterous? they WERE. google "design speed interstate" or similar. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel I was walking on the sidewalk in my neighborhood last week. Due to 'speeding problems', the homeowners association had the county install some of those radar operated 'actual speed' displays. The limit along this road is 25 MPH, but as I was walking toward the sign, it indicated '35 MPH'. A moment later, a county sheriff's car went by. No emergency, no flashing lights. Probably just on a donut run. So much for 'the law'. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ There are only 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't. > I was walking on the sidewalk in my neighborhood last week. Due to > 'speeding problems', the homeowners association had the county install [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So much for 'the law'. Those stupid radar displays suck. You want to slow down the speeders, throw them in the can. Let's stop this criminal coddling. On 2 Oct 2005 20:31:30 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... > Those stupid radar displays suck. You want to slow down the speeders, > throw them in the can. Let's stop this criminal coddling. Do you really want to get people to slow down or do you just have a prison fetish?? SignaturePaul. Self appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving >On 2 Oct 2005 20:31:30 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend ><xeton2001@yahoo.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Do you really want to get people to slow down or do you just have a >prison fetish?? You rw loonies are the ones with the prison fetish. You're thrown literally millions of americans in prison for harmless drug possession. laura bush wrote: > Paul wrote: > > laura bush wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You rw loonies are the ones with the prison fetish. There you go again, accusing somebody of being a loonie simply because they hold a different sense of value than yourself. Using that as measure of another lunacy, as you hold a different sense of value than myself, I could equally call you a loonie. > You're thrown literally millions of americans in prison for harmless > drug possession. I don't know about Paul, but I have vocally and publically opposed the War on Drugs as an Abomination against Humanity and Justice for more than 2 decades. Drug Warriors, Narcs, DEA Agents, and the such ARE ALL War Criminals, and WILL be brought to Justice for their Crimes against Humanity and Individuals. Many of them WILL be EXECUTED for their Crimes. The remainder of them WILL ROT their miserable excuse for a Life out in the same dark dank prison cell they would have put a Victimless Drug User. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it. >>Do you really want to get people to slow down or do you just have a >>prison fetish?? > > You rw loonies are the ones with the prison fetish. You're > thrown literally millions of americans in prison for harmless > drug possession. Hah! Drugs kill 1000x more people than speeding does. You are just coddling the drug criminals. > Hah! Drugs kill 1000x more people than speeding does. Are you equating drug use to murder? Damn! I sure hope you and laura never get together and procreate! > >>Do you really want to get people to slow down or do you just have a > >>prison fetish?? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hah! Drugs kill 1000x more people than speeding does. You are just > coddling the drug criminals. Drug possession is a victimless crime, you loonybird. Speeding sometimes is but often is not. Next question. >>>>Do you really want to get people to slow down or do you just have a >>>>prison fetish?? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Drug possession is a victimless crime, you loonybird. Speeding > sometimes is but often is not. Next question. I would venture to say that while *both* are often victimless crimes, drug use is far more harmful to society. Most people speed, and there rarely is a victim, and even more rarely is the victim a victim *because of* speeding. ...and that is from someone who thinks the "war on drugs" is ludicrous and most drugs should be legalized. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel It is the War on Drugs which is the source of any harm to society. Drug Warriors, Narcs, DEA Agents, and the such, are ALL War Criminals, and WILL be brought to Justice for their Crimes against Humanity and Individuals. Many WILL be EXECUTED for their Crimes. The remainder WILL ROT their miserable excuse for a life out in the same dark dank prison cell they would have put a Victimless Drug User. >>>>>Do you really want to get people to slow down or do you just have a >>>>>prison fetish?? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >rarely is a victim, and even more rarely is the victim a victim *because >of* speeding. Liar. Thousands of innocent americans are killed every year by speeders. Speeders are the worst criminals in america. > >>>>>Do you really want to get people to slow down or do you just have a > >>>>>prison fetish?? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Liar. Thousands of innocent americans are killed every year by > speeders. Speeders are the worst criminals in america. Cite, please, for your utterly baseless assertion? nate > >>>>>Do you really want to get people to slow down or do you just have a > >>>>>prison fetish?? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Liar. Thousands of innocent americans are killed every year by > speeders. Speeders are the worst criminals in america. Teach people how to drive, and watch the vehicular deaths plummet. Or don't teach 'em how to drive, and let the morons die. Really doesn't matter much to me; it's the way natural selection works. On 4 Oct 2005 15:21:00 -0700, <TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... > Teach people how to drive, and watch the vehicular deaths plummet. Heaven forbid... > Or don't teach 'em how to drive, and let the morons die. Darwin at work. Its a beautiful thing... > Really doesn't matter much to me; it's the way natural selection works. Like I said, Darwin at work... SignaturePaul. Self appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving > On 4 Oct 2005 15:21:00 -0700, > <TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com> said the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Heaven forbid... I know, I know; it's not the librul way. > > Or don't teach 'em how to drive, and let the morons die. > > Darwin at work. Its a beautiful thing... It is. > > Really doesn't matter much to me; it's the way natural selection works. > > Like I said, Darwin at work... Darwin was an optimist. :-D > >>>>>Do you really want to get people to slow down or do you just have a > >>>>>prison fetish?? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Liar. Thousands of innocent americans are killed every year by > speeders. Speeders are the worst criminals in america. Thousands of people die on the highways. Exceeding the speed limit is usually *not* the cause. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:24:13 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> said the following in rec.autos.driving... > Thousands of people die on the highways. Exceeding the speed limit is > usually *not* the cause. Makes me curious: how many of those deaths are due to a vehicle with faulty equipment such as... lets see... bald tires, tires with holes in them full of "tire in a can," to plug the holes, no emergency brake... SignaturePaul. Self appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving On 3 Oct 2005 18:25:11 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... > Drug possession is a victimless crime, you loonybird. Speeding > sometimes is but often is not. Next question. So what if someone gets high, decides to drive a car and kills someone in an accident cause by his impairment. Does that make it OK with you? Oh, yeah, that's what your buddy kennedy did. SignaturePaul. Self appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving > On 3 Oct 2005 18:25:11 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend > <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > an accident cause by his impairment. Does that make it OK with you? Oh, > yeah, that's what your buddy kennedy did. You have no evidence for any of that. Teddy drove off a single lane bridge that had no guard rail. It was the bridge builder who was impaired. > > On 3 Oct 2005 18:25:11 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend > > <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bridge that had no guard rail. It was the bridge builder who was > impaired. Evidence? ROTFLMAO. Since when have you required evidence, faggot? > > On 3 Oct 2005 18:25:11 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend > > <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bridge that had no guard rail. It was the bridge builder who was > impaired. Odd; there were witnesses stating Teddy was drinking the day (and night) of the incident. How many witnesses do you have stating the bridge builder was impaired? Of course, you realize that the bridge would most likely have been built to specifications set forth by the DOT. As Teddy was so connected with the DOT (he had to be in order to drive without a lisence) it would have been very trivial for him to make sure the bridge was constructed with low guard rails as to further support his statement that it was "an accident." So there's your proof of premeditation. Just unfortunate for Mary Jo that she got pregnant by fat-boy Kennedy at the same time Kennedy's wife did. > Laura Bush wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So what if someone gets high, decides to drive a car and kills someone > in an accident cause by his impairment. Does that make it OK with you? What if someone gets tired, decides to drive a car and kills someone in an accident caused by their impairment? Should we then outlaw getting tired, then claim being tired is not a victimless crime? You have taken two separate behaviors, each which can occur without the other, and artificially joined them as if inseparable, then assigned the guilt of one to the innocence of the other. As you can see above, that trick can be played with almost anything. You ask: "Does that make it OK with you?" I must ask what IT? "[getting] high" or "deciding to drive a car and kills someone in an accident cause by his impairment"? One is okay. The other is not. Can you guess which is which? > > >>Do you really want to get people to slow down or do you just have a > > >>prison fetish?? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Drug possession is a victimless crime, you loonybird. Speeding > sometimes is but often is not. Next question. Drug possesion isn't a victimless crime, you retard. Your mother possessed drugs, and you're the victim of the business she conducted to pay for them. Damned, you guys from Colorado are so retarded. On 4 Oct 2005 10:24:43 -0700, Aunt Judy likes it in the rear <Xeton2001IsATurdTampee.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... > Drug possesion isn't a victimless crime, you retard. Your mother > possessed drugs, and you're the victim of the business she conducted to > pay for them. Damned, you guys from Colorado are so retarded. Actually, we are the victims as we have to put up with judy's bullshit on usenet among other things. SignaturePaul. Self appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving > On 4 Oct 2005 10:24:43 -0700, Aunt Judy likes it in the rear > <Xeton2001IsATurdTampee.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com> said the following in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Actually, we are the victims as we have to put up with judy's bullshit on > usenet among other things. Good point. I'm just glad I don't have to put up with LBMHBF's unsafe driving. >>>Drug possession is a victimless crime, you loonybird.<<< Oh so all the drug related murders..overdoses..robberies and burglaries..trillions of dollars in lost production and increased taxes..None of that produces any "victims"????..I`ll tell you what..Come to where I live and stay for a few weeks and you`ll see nothing but poverty,destruction,despair and a whole culture of violence,gangs,prostitution,AIDS,filth and boarded up homes in what used to be a nice middle class city ALL because of this "harmless drug possession."..You show yourself to be a bigger moron with each post. program wrote: > > > Drug possession is a victimless crime, you loonybird.<<< > > Oh so all the drug related murders..overdoses..robberies and > burglaries..trillions of dollars in lost production and increased > taxes..None of that produces any "victims"????.. Once again, we have somebody who would take two seperate behaviors (one being Drug use, and the other being Violent Crimes), each which can occur without the other, and artificially joined them as if inseparable, then assigned the guilt of one to the innocence of the other. How about poverty related murders, robberies and burglaries? Should we outlaw poverty, and imprison all the poor? Drug use, in and of itself, produces no innocent victims. And, I can prove this with one simple question: Who is the victim when someone uses a drug and victimizes nobody in the process? > I`ll tell you what..Come to where I live and stay for a few weeks and > you`ll see nothing but poverty,destruction,despair and a whole culture > of violence,gangs,prostitution,AIDS,filth and boarded up homes in what > used to be a nice middle class city ALL because of this "harmless drug > possession."..You show yourself to be a bigger moron with each post. Actually, your post displays a moronic aspect. And, observing this, I'm sure you'll never understand the moronic nature of what you say. Actually, one primary cause for many of the above is the War on Drugs itself. The More likely a Drug is to be Abused, the MORE that Drug's production and sale should be REGULATED. The War on Drugs CAN NOT prevent either the production or the sale of Drugs. In fact, the ONLY thing the War on Drugs CAN Prevent IS the Regulation of their production and sale. And, by preventing Regulation, the ONLY thing the War on Drugs accomplishes is to Empower Criminal Black Markets. Criminal Black Markets make Drugs More Dangerous. Criminal Black Markets make those More Dangerous Drugs MORE Accessable to Children. Criminal Black Markets will even Employ Children to Deal Drugs. The War on Drugs IS Counter Productive to Reducing Drug Abuse and Crime. >>>Drug use, in and of itself, produces no innocent victims.<<< Ummm..I have news for you pinhead..Drug use DOESN`T occur in and of itself..To think so shows a primative thought process unable to rationalize or see 5 moves ahead or interconnect associated but seemingly unrelated subjects PS: There is NO "War on Drugs"..That is simply a Madison Ave marketing campaign program...@aol.com wrote: > > Drug use, in and of itself, produces no innocent victims. > > Ummm..I have news for you pinhead.. Drug use DOESN`T occur > in and of itself..To think so shows a primative thought process > unable to rationalize or see 5 moves ahead or interconnect > associated but seemingly unrelated subjects May I call you fuckwit? Thanks! For your information, fuckwit, rationalization has nothing to do with fact, nor does IMAGINING 5 moves ahead, nor does interconnecting unrelated subjects. Every "thought process" you mention here are completely contrary to fact. Using such creative imaginations as yourself, seeing "5 moves ahead", I could Imagine anything you did would result in a henious crime. After you factually drank a glass of water, "seeing" 5 moves ahead, I can IMAGINE you then 1) break the glass over the counter, then 2) run out of your home like a wildman, then 3) burst into your neighbor's house, then 4) slice their daughter's throat with the broken glass, then 5) have sex with their dog. Damn! Using such IMAGINATIONS, 5 moves ahead, I could Rationalize that you should be shot dead right now. Or, after you factually got into your car, "seeing" 13 (YES! I said 13) moves ahead, I can IMAGINE you then 1) forget which key works the ignition, then 2) run from of your car like a madman, then 3) kidnap the driver at the stop light, then 4) force them to drive you to the nearest rock quary, then 5) take their car and throw them out, then 6) drive back and forth over them seventeen times, then 7) drive their car back into town, then 8) kidnap three young girls from grade school, then 9) take them back to the rock quary, then 10) molest them on top of your first victim's mangled body, then 11) bash each child's skull in with a rock, then 12) hide their bodies under a pile of rocks, then 13) uncover their bodies and eat their flesh. You are one sick mother f.cker, and the world would be a better place without your sort of scum. You want me to continue IMAGINING 5 (or more) moves ahead, fuckwit? You want me to rationalize your elimination from the face of this earth based on those IMAGINATIONS, fuckwit? NO? Why not? Because such IMAGINATIONS have NOTHING to do with Fact? > PS: There is NO "War on Drugs"..That is simply a Madison > Ave marketing campaign Tell that to the half a million victimless drug users currently in prison merely for drug use, FUCKWIT. Drug Warriors, Narcs, DEA Agents, and other such FUCKWITS, are ALL War Criminals, and WILL be brought to Justice for their Crimes against Humanity and Individuals. Many of them WILL BE EXECUTED. The remainder of these scum WILL Rot their Miserable excuse for a Life out in the same dank dark prison cell they would have put a victimless drug user. Thank you for proving my point so completely..When confronted with facts the unintelligent resort to hysterics or throw a temper tandrum...A million victimless drug users????...Where are these unemployed crack addicts getting the $200 a day to buy their dope???...Which street gang is controlling the drug distribution in what specific area???..How many AIDS clinics are full of people who shared needles with a drug user and then spread it to their spouse,child,etc???..Regulation and sale???..Even if crack cocaine was completely legal and cost $5 a vile where are these crack addicts going to get their $50 a day to buy it?..They aren`t working so they`d still have to be stealing or robbing or tricking..And then their would be street dealers still under cutting the legal crack by selling their illegal crack for $3 a vile which would result in drug wars or intimidation of the stores selling the legal version...I`m not the one using "Imaginations"..You are..I said "see" 5 moves ahead..Not "imagine" 5 moves ahead..Another example of your inability to use logic or rational thought and another example of the mindset that created all these problems we have because they were to short-sighted to see what the road they led us down led to..But alas such minds are unable to see the error of their ways and will blindly defend their reckless policies despite a mountain of evidence of their failure program...@aol.com wrote: > Thank you for proving my point so completely..When confronted > with facts the unintelligent resort to hysterics or throw a temper > tandrum... You are the one who initiated hysterical temper tantrums via your personal assaults ("pinhead"). And, you are the one who utilized irrational reasoning, such as your 5-step imagination. > A million victimless drug users????... I said, Half a million, you ignorant fuckwit. > Where are these unemployed crack addicts getting the $200 a day > to buy their dope???... The majority of crack users are employed, fuckwit. > Which street gang is controlling the drug distribution in what specific > area???.. I wouldn't know, as there is no Regulation of the production and sale of drugs. You can thank the War on Drugs for the de-Regulation of the production and sale of drugs. If it weren't for the War on Drugs PROHIBITING the Regulation of the production and sale of drugs, we would know where drugs are being produced and sold, and we would be able to make sure they weren't sold to children. Q1) Which can we BEST prevent from selling drugs to Children? Criminal Black Markets or Licensed Dealers? What? You say children are going to get drugs anyway? On to Question 2). Q2) Which drugs would you prefer children obtain? Drugs produced by Criminal Black Markets or Licensed Producers? What? You say children shouldn't obtain drugs to begin with? Back to Question 1). > How many AIDS clinics are full of people who shared needles with > a drug user and then spread it to their spouse,child,etc???.. You can thank the War on Drugs for that too, as they made even the obtaining of clean needles illegal. Talk about f.cking Absurdly Stupid. DUH!!! > Regulation and sale???..Even if crack cocaine was completely legal > and cost $5 a vile where are these crack addicts going to get their > $50 a day to buy it?.. Some nicotine users steal money to obtain their tobacco. As is, they currently need only steal maybe $2 or $3 per day. If one of you fanatical outlaw drug zealots ever get tobacco outlawed, and it's blackmarket price soars from $2 or $3 per pack to $50 a pack, those original theives will have to steal $50 a day, and other currently working tobacco users may be forced out of employment and into stealing to obtain tobacco as well. The majority of crack users are employed. Fact is, many marijuana smokers were prompted to move to crack because it couldn't be tested for after about 2 days. Marijuana shows up for up to a month after use. Again, you can thank the War on Drugs for that too. > They aren`t working so they`d still have to be stealing or robbing > or tricking.. Fact is, many of them are working, fuckwit. > And then their would be street dealers still under cutting the legal > crack by selling their illegal crack for $3 a vile which would result > in drug wars or intimidation of the stores selling the legal version... Show me anywhere where alcohol is sold by Licensed Dealers where the exist any significant alcohol black markets. They simply DO NOT exist. They simply can not compete with licensed dealers, Except where the product is PROHIBITIVLY TAXED. And, the same will apply to other drugs as well. And, you're a f.cking idiot if you don't understand this. > I`m not the one using "Imaginations"..You are..I said "see" 5 moves > ahead..Not "imagine" 5 moves ahead.. You are a liar when you claim to be able to SEE 5 moves ahead. Nobody has that power, you ignorant fuckwit. > Another example of your inability to use logic or rational thought and > another example of the mindset that created all these problems we > have because they were to short-sighted to see what the road they > led us down led to.. You are the example of an inability to use logic or rational though, and yet another example of the mindset that created all these problems we have because you are too short-sighted to see where the road they led us down was headed. LOGIC: The more likely a drug is to be abused, the MORE that Drug's Production and Sale should be REGULATED. FACT: The War on Drugs CAN NOT Prevent either the production or the sale of Drugs. FACT: The ONLY thing the War on Drugs CAN Prevent IS the REGULATION of their production and sale. FACT: By preventing Regulation, the ONLY thing the War on Drugs Accomplishes is to Empower Criminal Black Markets. FACT: Criminal Black Markets make Drugs more Dangerous. FACT: Criminal Black Markets make these More Dangerous Drugs MORE Accessable to Children. FACT: Criminal Black Markets will even EMPLOY Children to Deal Drugs. FACT: The War on Drugs is Counter Productive to Reducing Drug Abuse. > But alas such minds are unable to see the error of their ways and will > blindly defend their reckless policies despite a mountain of evidence of > their failure Hahahahahaha!!! Your War on Drugs is the dismal failure, yet you blindly defend this reckless policy and are unable to see the error of your ways. proffsl wrote:>>>Hahahahahaha!!! Your War on Drugs is the dismal failure, yet you blindly defend this reckless policy and are unable to see the error of your ways.<<< There is not now nor has there EVER been a "War on Drugs" in this country (Beyond just as an advertising slogan)..Trust me if I had complete power to do as I wished I would rid this country of drugs in 5 years even if it meant piling bodies up to the sky program...@aol.com wrote: > > Hahahahahaha!!! Your War on Drugs is the dismal failure, > > yet you blindly defend this reckless policy and are unable > > to see the error of your ways. > > There is not now nor has there EVER been a "War on Drugs" > in this country (Beyond just as an advertising slogan).. Talk about being in denial. As I said before, tell that to the Half a Million people in prison for Victimless Drug Offenses. Our prisons are literally bulging at the seams due to mandatory sentences and being filled with half a million drug users who are in prison for no other crime than drug use. REAL Theives and Murderers are receiving shorter sentences than these victimless drug users. > Trust me if I had complete power to do as I wished I would rid this > country of drugs in 5 years even if it meant piling bodies up to the > sky Oh yea! Another wannabe murderer, who claims one thing "drug use" is another thing "murder", simply to excuse their own Murderous Tendencies. You come in here claiming, due to your magical ability to SEE 5 moves ahead, that mere drug use is really murder. And, your solution is to Really Murder those who Merely Use Drugs. Drug Warriors, such as yourself, are terminally addicted to a far more pernicious and repugnant thing than any drug user, that being the misery and death they can inflict upon others. You're a disgusting and repugnant fuckbrain, which brings me back to my original posture. Drug Warriors, Narcs, DEA Agents, and other such disgusting and repugnant fuckbrains, are ALL War Criminals, and WILL be brought to Justice for their Crimes against Humanity and Individuals. Many of them WILL be EXECUTED for their Crimes. The remainder of them WILL ROT their miserable excuse for a Life out in the same dark dank prison cell they would have put a victimless drug user. The War on Drugs is Counter productive to Reducing Drug Abuse. The More likely a Drug is to be Abused, the MORE that Drug's Production and Sale should be Regulated. The War on Drugs CAN NOT prevent either the Production or the Sale of Drugs. In fact, the ONLY thing the War on Drugs CAN Prevent IS the Regulation of their Production and Sale. And, by Preventing Regulation, the ONLY thing the War on Drugs accomplishes is to Empower Criminal Black Markets. Criminal Black Markets make Drugs More Dangerous. Criminal Black Markets make those More Dangerous Drugs MORE Accessable to Children. Criminal Black Markets will evem EMPLOY Children to Deal Drugs. The War on Drugs IS Counter Productive to Reducing Drug Abuse. Now, I asked you a few questions in my last post, which you totally IGNORED. See if you can answer one of them now. Which can we BEST Prevent from selling drugs to children? Criminal Black Markets or Licensed Dealers? >>>Which can we BEST Prevent from selling drugs to children? Criminal Black Markets or Licensed Dealers?<<< I stand by my statement that legalizing drugs won`t stop the sale of illegal drugs..You don`t seem to know much about these people or this lifestyle > >>>Which can we BEST Prevent from selling drugs to children? Criminal Black > >>>Markets or Licensed Dealers?<<< > > I stand by my statement that legalizing drugs won`t stop the sale of > illegal drugs..You don`t seem to know much about these people or this > lifestyle How much illegal alcohol is sold these days? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." program...@aol.com wrote: > > Which can we BEST Prevent from selling drugs to children? > > Criminal Black Markets or Licensed Dealers? > > I stand by my statement that legalizing drugs won`t stop the > sale of illegal drugs.. You didn't answer my question. Typical of your kind. Your statement is absurdly oxymornoic. If drugs are "legalized", their no longer "illegal drugs". I am going to assume you mean the Regulation of the sale of drugs won't STOP Black Market Dealers from selling them. Well, NOTHING is perfect. But, that only means that there is always room for improvement. But, I suppose improvement isn't something you wish for. You like things the way they are, hoping it will one day provide you the excuse to go on your Mass Murder rampage. So, you'll refuse improvement which can be delivered, and continue to demand for perfection when you know full well it can't be delivered. Black market drug producers don't provide delivery systems, such as needles. The production of injected drugs could require they all be sold in single delivery devices. There is no way in hell you could claim that Regulating the production of injected drugs would not lower the spread of AIDS. Black market prices are 100 times their fair market value. There is no way in hell you could claim Regulating the sale of drugs would not lower the number of people who would need to steal to support their addiction. AND, there is no way in hell you could claim they would need to steal anywhere near as much to support their addictions. Where alcohol is sold by Regulated dealers, there are no significant black market alcohol dealers. There is no way in hell you could claim that Regulating the sale of drugs would not significantly decrase the number of black market dealers. Where alcohol is sold by Regulated dealers, Violence IS NOT used to maintain their market share. There is no way in hell you could claim that Regulating the sale of drugs would not significantly decrease the amount of drug sale violence. Where alcohol is sold by Regulated dealers, those dealers have everything to loose by selling to children and can easily be watched. There is no way in hell you could claim that Regulating the sale of drugs would not significantly decrease the sale of Drugs to Children. Where alcohol is sold by Regulated dealers, those dealers do not employ children to deal their alcohol. There is no way in hell you could claim that Regulating the sale of drugs would not significantly decrease the number of Child Drug Dealers. > You don`t seem to know much about these people or this lifestyle You are the one who speaks nonsense, and who refuses to answer any of my questions, or address any of my points. program...@aol.com wrote: > > Which can we BEST Prevent from selling drugs to children? Criminal Black > > Markets or Licensed Dealers? > > I stand by my statement that legalizing drugs won`t stop the sale of > illegal drugs..You don`t seem to know much about these people or > this lifestyle Standing by something, and actually providing reasonable arguments in support of something are two entirely different things. There are people who stood by their assertion that the world was flat. There are people who still stand by their assertion that the US didn't go to the moon. You speak from irrational emotion, devoid of thought or reason. > program...@aol.com wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > There are people who still stand by their assertion that the US didn't > go to the moon. And you think we did??? I suppose you also think saddam had nukes because the govt said so. > > program...@aol.com wrote: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And you think we did??? Yes. I do. It's undeniable that we have hundreds of satalites in stationary orbit about the earth. Satalite dishes about the world testify to that fact. A stationary orbit is about 22,300 miles above the surface of |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message