Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto

In article <1deke.3194$gl1.2627@trnddc09>,
Bernard farquart > wrote:
>

>I hear they have this new spray you put on your license plate and
>it makes it impossible for the photo radar to work. Undetectable!

I have an anti-photo-radar spray that really DOES work, except that last word.

http://www.krylon.com/main/product_t...roduct_details

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>But even more important, the US treasures its rule of law. Here, even
>>presidents bow down to the law.
>
> Even the Governor of Pennsylvania violates the speed limit.

During the waning days of California governor Gray Davis, his motorcade
was stopped in the Central Valley going 90 mph. I've driven that stretch
of road before, and during many times of the day 90 mph is not unsafe.
Still, it was an example of the blatant disregard for the law that Davis
and his cronies often displayed during their time.

--
Bob

In article <1deke.3194$gl1.2627@trnddc09>, Bernard farquart wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Let me give you just one event when I chose to follow the speed limit
>> yesterday on an interstate. The calumet expressway (AKA bishop ford) is
>> under construction. Before the lane actually closes the speed limit goes
>> to the construction zone 45mph. normal speed of traffic is more like
>> 75mph. When this lane closure on a weekend doesn't cause a backup (like
>> yesterday) traffic doesn't slow at all. (no work being done) So I slow to
>> 45mph because of the photo radar they have out now.
>
> I hear they have this new spray you put on your license plate and
> it makes it impossible for the photo radar to work. Undetectable!

And slick 50 reduces engine wear to zero.... snake oil.

On Sun, 22 May 2005 06:28:41 GMT, "Bernard farquart"
> wrote:

>"DTJ" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 06:15:34 GMT, "Bernard farquart"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> 1) Well you beat me at history, I don't recall what platform Douglas
>> ran on. Based on your comment, may I assume he was pro slavery?
>>
>"states rights"
>http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy980232.html

Wow, very interesting. Now I recall some of that from school. Should
have paid more attention...

I actually agree with them both, except I think Douglas went too far.
State's rights should be paramount, until they infringe on the rights
of people.

>> 2) However, my comment was based on what the people in the South
>> wanted. If the will of the people were all that mattered, the SOUTH
>> would still have slavery while the North would not.
>
>Splitting the south off of the rest of the country didn't work
>out so well for them though, did it?
> http://www.civilwarhome.com/PetersAppo.htm

Didn't get this one...

>> 3) Actual point - there are lots of things that have changed because
>> of laws in spite of what the public wanted. Some of them have been
>> for the good.
>
>Only when the people we elect to govern actually do thier
>job and govern, instead of take polls, see which way the wind is
>blowing or sent it back to the people though ballot measures on
>issues that should be decided in the legislature.

Clinton isn't president anymore, and that doesn't happen nearly as
much anymore. Whether you like Bush or not, you have to agree that he
actually tries to change the minds of people as opposed to changing
his opinion to fit what he perceives people want.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article <amAje.293$4F1.162@trnddc06>,
> Bernard farquart > wrote:
>>
>>"DTJ" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>> <devils advocate>
>>>
>>> Brent, you know that this is unfair. The will of the people is only a
>>> portion of what matters. If it were all that mattered, we would still
>>> have slavery.
>>
>><other devil's advocate>
>>
>>If the above were true, wouldn't Douglass
>>have beaten Lincoln?
>
> He did.

On Tuesday, November 6th, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected the sixteenth
President of the United States, with Hannibal Hamlin of Maine his
Vice-President. Lincoln and Hamlin received 1,866,452 popular votes and 180
electoral votes in 17 of the 33 states. The Northern Democratic ticket of
Douglas and Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia drew 1,376,957 popular votes, but
only 12 electoral votes (9 from Missouri and 3 from New Jersey). The
Southern Democratic ticket of Breckinridge and Joseph Lane of Oregon
received 849,781 popular votes from 11 of the 15 slave states, for 72
electoral votes. The Constitutional Unionists Bell and John Everett of
Massachusetts received 588,879 popular votes and 39 electoral votes
(Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia).





What am I missing?



Bernard

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1deke.3194$gl1.2627@trnddc09>, Bernard farquart wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Let me give you just one event when I chose to follow the speed limit
>>> yesterday on an interstate. The calumet expressway (AKA bishop ford) is
>>> under construction. Before the lane actually closes the speed limit goes
>>> to the construction zone 45mph. normal speed of traffic is more like
>>> 75mph. When this lane closure on a weekend doesn't cause a backup (like
>>> yesterday) traffic doesn't slow at all. (no work being done) So I slow
>>> to
>>> 45mph because of the photo radar they have out now.
>>
>> I hear they have this new spray you put on your license plate and
>> it makes it impossible for the photo radar to work. Undetectable!
>
> And slick 50 reduces engine wear to zero.... snake oil.
>
>
I joke.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1deke.3194$gl1.2627@trnddc09>,
> Bernard farquart > wrote:
>>
>
>>I hear they have this new spray you put on your license plate and
>>it makes it impossible for the photo radar to work. Undetectable!
>
> I have an anti-photo-radar spray that really DOES work, except that last
> word.
>
> http://www.krylon.com/main/product_t...roduct_details
>
> --
Perhaps I will make a new sign in the paint section
at work.

Bernard

In article <gZxke.3935$gl1.2588@trnddc09>,
Bernard farquart > wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>> In article <amAje.293$4F1.162@trnddc06>,
>> Bernard farquart > wrote:
>>>
>>>"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>> <devils advocate>
>>>>
>>>> Brent, you know that this is unfair. The will of the people is only a
>>>> portion of what matters. If it were all that mattered, we would still
>>>> have slavery.
>>>
>>><other devil's advocate>
>>>
>>>If the above were true, wouldn't Douglass
>>>have beaten Lincoln?
>>
>> He did.
>
[...]
>
>What am I missing?

The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates weren't over the presidency; they
were for US Senate; Douglas won. The presidential election was a
four-way contest, with the Republicans on one side and their
opposition divided against itself.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> > My question is why so many people think that everyone has to drive
at
> > the speed limit? Why aren't they free to drive 5 to 10 mph below
it?
> >
> > If the speed limit was posted at 85 mph, then people who are
capable of
> > safely driving at that speed can drive legally. Those who can't
are
> > free to to legally drive slower.
>
> That's a good point, Arif. But doesn't it assume that people know
their
> limitations? If the speed limit is 85, everyone is allowed to drive
that
> fast - even the teenager who doesn't realize he doesn't have the
necessary
> experience. True, he can drive slower, but will he?

Does he *NOW?*

>
> I think many more people are capable of going 55 and 60 - especially
on a
> fast-moving crowded highway - than they are of going 85 or 90. But
when you
> raise limits, you raise them for everyone. I'm not sure even a
majority of
> drivers would support that, even if raising the limit might have
little
> effect on how fast people actually go.

Cite? Besides "I think," I mean.

>
> So I wonder ... put to a referendum, I think a lot of people would
vote yes
> to the question: Should the speed limit be raised to 85 for you and
other
> good drivers, including all those who post on rec.autos.driving. But
I'm not
> sure they'd do the same if the question we Should the speed limit
be
> raised to 85 for everyone, including the 17-year-old who has had his
license
> for six months, the 95-year-old guy who doesn't want to admit that
age is
> taking a toll on his reflexes and the guy with bald tires who hasn't
done a
> stitch of maintenance on his car since 1967. I think I want the cop
pulling
> over those guys when they're going that fast.

Cite? Besides "I think," that is. Seems to me you're pulling opinions
out of your ass with nothing to back them up, in the face of years of
research detailing the safety and efficiency benefits of properly set
speed limits.

nate

In article .com>,
says...

>If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
>posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
>to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
>you want.

Sure, I'll do my part if the idiots putting up the signs will do their part.
That means they should be properly setting the speed limit. That the majority
of traffic is travelling well above the limit is evidence that they are not
setting the limits properly.
-----------
Alex