If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
In article <1deke.3194$gl1.2627@trnddc09>,
Bernard farquart > wrote: > >I hear they have this new spray you put on your license plate and >it makes it impossible for the photo radar to work. Undetectable! I have an anti-photo-radar spray that really DOES work, except that last word. http://www.krylon.com/main/product_t...roduct_details -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>But even more important, the US treasures its rule of law. Here, even >>presidents bow down to the law. > > Even the Governor of Pennsylvania violates the speed limit. During the waning days of California governor Gray Davis, his motorcade was stopped in the Central Valley going 90 mph. I've driven that stretch of road before, and during many times of the day 90 mph is not unsafe. Still, it was an example of the blatant disregard for the law that Davis and his cronies often displayed during their time. -- Bob |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
In article <1deke.3194$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. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message ... > In article <amAje.293$4F1.162@trnddc06>, > Bernard farquart > wrote: >> >>"DTJ" > wrote in message . .. >> >>> <devils advocate> >>> >>> Brent, you know that this is unfair. The will of the people is only a >>> portion of what matters. If it were all that mattered, we would still >>> have slavery. >> >><other devil's advocate> >> >>If the above were true, wouldn't Douglass >>have beaten Lincoln? > > He did. On Tuesday, November 6th, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected the sixteenth President of the United States, with Hannibal Hamlin of Maine his Vice-President. Lincoln and Hamlin received 1,866,452 popular votes and 180 electoral votes in 17 of the 33 states. The Northern Democratic ticket of Douglas and Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia drew 1,376,957 popular votes, but only 12 electoral votes (9 from Missouri and 3 from New Jersey). The Southern Democratic ticket of Breckinridge and Joseph Lane of Oregon received 849,781 popular votes from 11 of the 15 slave states, for 72 electoral votes. The Constitutional Unionists Bell and John Everett of Massachusetts received 588,879 popular votes and 39 electoral votes (Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia). What am I missing? Bernard |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Brent P" > wrote in message ... > In article <1deke.3194$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. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message ... > In article <1deke.3194$gl1.2627@trnddc09>, > Bernard farquart > wrote: >> > >>I hear they have this new spray you put on your license plate and >>it makes it impossible for the photo radar to work. Undetectable! > > I have an anti-photo-radar spray that really DOES work, except that last > word. > > http://www.krylon.com/main/product_t...roduct_details > > -- Perhaps I will make a new sign in the paint section at work. Bernard |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
In article <gZxke.3935$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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LIDAR Trial this Week | [email protected] | Driving | 17 | April 9th 06 02:44 AM |
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info | [email protected] | Driving | 40 | January 3rd 05 07:10 AM |
PATROL CAR CRASHES AFTER CHP PURSUIT IN PALO ALTO | Garth Almgren | Driving | 2 | December 24th 04 08:39 PM |