Turn Your Back This Fourth of July

You’re making my head swell far beyond my capacity to bear!

I just get sick and tired of all the garbage thrown at the Wall of Obviousness and Truth.

It can’t stick, but they keep throwing, anyway. Wasting all that time, energy, resources.

And for what? The stinking pile that grows and grows and that they never clean up!

But the Wall stands. Truth stands. Shining, with gates thrown wide open to those who want the freedom and dignity and peace found through them. Strangely closed and impenetrable to those who don’t. So easily seen by all who will see, so invisible to those who will not to see.

It really was fun. We had a Texan reloader. It was great and we learned all the tricks of reloading as well as knowing exactly how much each shot cost. After a couple years, Norma came out with their all plastic shell that really worked well. I still have some. When rains came and flooded, you never knew where we’d be, seining red head minnows in a pasture with a big creek, taking chances with big snapping turtles or just anything. Saddle up the horses and grab our guns and tear off.

Of course any American who switches sides becomes an enemy combatant and as such gives up any rights.

Amen Gil! Sar’uh, whut rights?

I was reading Thomas Sowell the other day. Not perfect, but a brilliant man. Among a collection of scattered thoughts, he said, “I have always been of the opinion that the sight of a pretty woman will lower the IQ of a man 20 points. If he does not have 20 points to spare, he will find himself in trouble.”
So Dan must have been spending too much time at the beach.

Philip, can’t let the old lady see that. She speaks to the vet of getting all of us fixed, says we’ll be smarter. My dog barked, the tomcat smiled and I laughed out loud. I’d go along with Sowell on that too. I’ve seen some guys I thought it halved their intellect. Not sure what box of sand Dan has had his head in.

Eight, Phillip – I have a long standing theory along the lines of Thomas Sowell’s opinion: A normal man does not have enough blood in his body to support an erection and coherent thought at the same time. If you’ve recently given blood, get a little dehydrated and then go to the beach like “eDan” apparently did (What’s that “e” stand for Dan?), it seems you will go into total denial. But don’t worry Dan, at least the money’s sound…

Boothe, Philip, to quote Boothe “the money’s sound”. Is that kinda like the sound Ross Perot spoke of? That giant sucking sound?

Brent, I guess it depends upon your mindset. The absurdity to me is for someone to think that everyone capable of exposing the facts in what would be an earthshaking story is somehow in on the conspiracy. A high ranking elected official ordering the killing of an American citizen on American soil would be the story of the century, easily topping Watergate or any overseas drone killing. We have thousands of reporters, correspondents, paid partisan investigators, would-be whistle-blowers, etc. who would give their right nut for such a story. Yet no credible evidence has ever emerged for any of these alleged “sanctioned killings”.

Are you familiar with Occam’s Razor? Which is easier to believe – that these ordered killings go on all the time, in secret, using some sort of supposed network of assassins working for clandestine organizations within the government, with not a shred of credible evidence managing to emerge from the shadows… or perhaps this particular conspiracy theory is just that, a theory with no evidence? I don’t doubt that such things are possible in countries with no free press and no government oversight; but flawed as ours may be, we do have both, and either would be capable of at least exposing some sort of evidence if such things were really going on here. You may consider me naive for disbelieving a theory based on guesswork and innuendo, but I consider you gullible for starting with a desired conclusion to suit your mindset and working backward to try to fill in the missing links with nonexistent hypotheticals. Which conclusion is more consistent with the known facts?

Dan, the facts have been exposed many times. Over and over again. It might take 50 years but konspiracy kooks who listened to the leakers, whistleblowers, etc and so forth are eventually proven correct.

Let’s pick one 1960s event. A few years ago a tape of E. Howard Hunt is released where he tells for a fact it was a CIA operation to eliminate JFK. Then there were leaks of people close to LBJ that clearly show LBJ was behind it with the help of the CIA… I could go on. The fact is your sort doesn’t want to listen to people who tell the story. Usually by the time the people tell the story decades have passed. It’s rare to see a young person leak anything…

Which brings us to Snowden or Manning. What does the government do to people who tell the secrets? It destroys their character, their lives, puts them in some hole some place if it can physically get at them…. and then your kind says ‘there should be people telling the secrets’. Would you? Let’s say the secret you have is something important, but not important enough for the government to openly go after you because doing so would admit it. This is about the safest secret you can leak. Say you worked on recovered alien spacecraft. Now you go to tell the public? Who puts you on the air? Who covers your story? It’s not NBC. It might be coast to coast am. Nobody listens. You’re another kook.

All the leaks you want and more have happened. The mainstream press doesn’t give two shits about it 99.9% of the time. Read the government press release, move on. Which is why the Snowden thing doesn’t make sense. Everyone in the ‘kook’ community knew the government was capturing just about everything twenty years ago. Snowden didn’t leak anything that people who paid attention didn’t know from countless other people who leaked it. Some the government went after others it didn’t.

The simple fact is that your ‘where’s the leak’ is an argument made by those who are ignorant of the leaks. They happen regularly. Good luck getting anything beyond the audience of coast to coast am or maybe the readers of lewrockwell.com to even notice. It’s damn lucky that a supreme court decision goes further than that these days. The american public cares more about Kim Kardasian’s pregnancy than the supreme court decision that gutted the right to remain silent.

So, now that the mainstream media covered Snowden where’s the apologizes for a decades of insults to those who believed the earlier leakers? No where to be found. Same with everything else that for whatever reason makes it to mainstream media.

That’s how you keep a secret. By making anyone who believes it to be socially maligned, isolated, etc and so forth. Then it doesn’t matter who leaked what. The public won’t act on it because they don’t want to be a ‘kooks’.

You bring up the ‘razor’ again. Another tired old argument that assumes random chance and stupidity is a more simple explanation than intervention. The problem is, if it’s random chance, they should be playing the lottery. The simplest explanation is people are acting in their own best interests and using whatever power they have to leverage outcomes to their advantage. That’s the simple explanation. Not people bumbling through life and by random happenstance the barriers to their wealth and power being removed by chance. It’s oddly enough the same sort of theory practiced by welfare statists…. help for the hapless… how I should pay taxes for the people that bought mcmansions on a mickyD’s fry cook paycheck.

Sorry, life isn’t a string of random events. Most of them are cause and effect from decisions people make. The random shows up mostly in the odds of a certain outcome from a particular string of choices. Choose differently, change the odds. Live on half your salary odds are you aren’t going to lose your home if you lose your job. That sir, is the simple explanation.

I predict this guy will have a clover pasted all over his posts in the near future.

Eric and fellow enlighteknights as I was visiting Lew Rockwell today there was an article about how the Houston FBI was aware of a possible snipering of Occupy Wall Street protestors. Of course the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) provided us this delicious bit of misinformation. Since I’m a natural pessimist on anything the government provides to me in “information” more like “disinformation” here is what I interpret the government saying:

“You who lead in opposition will be snipered in the future so don’t lead or organize again unless you want to be shot dead”

Of course the problem with all reactionary type of threats is that natural law creates forces that are returned to the sender if implmented as the real world does not like rogue out of control forces (Law of Equilibrium). Therefore if they truly thought snipering peaceful leadership was the answer they’d have to know that would eventually all guerilla warfare is returned to sender.

Again not that the won’t try it as they are certainly arrogant and stupid enough to think they really do own this country, but I see it as what it is a blatant threat. If it hadn’t been so “blank” this office “blank” this institution we are aware of “blank” wanting to sniper “blank” leadership then I’d call it act declaration of war against peaceful Americans which in war crimes amounts to treason by very definition. They are crafty and not ballsy enough yet to replace blank with real institution and real person because they understand they really aren’t in control. And you know what they never will be either as God is about to give smack down supernatural powers to his enlightened saints. Evil people are so weak. full of weak threats and even when they make good on them they are still weaker yet!

Happy Fourth!!!!

Actually I don’t believe that Occupy Wall Street was anything more than a fake CIA co-opt color revolution in our own country. The idea of the FBI targeting their own fake leadership in either OWS or co-opted Tea Party organization is an absolute farse and laugh. Clearly the fakely induced FOIA was wholely a subsidiary of the ruling elite and the evil sithe praetorian guard. I’m guessing the fake threats against themselves is meant to chill freedom of expression and organization of real protests. Ho humm… We’ll see how well all their threats hold up when this whole orchestrated symphony hits the carpet under Soviet style central planning collapse, I know they hope and think they’ll reorganize it under a banner more evil but who knows the real God might have some interest in intervening and overthrowing the evil planners at their most opportune and planned trough. Gambling is very scary I imagine when you’re used to owning the world but just want a few more rubies to add to the collection. Before the planned collapse is attained they must first get the sheep to admit their own helplessness and fear and cower at any kind of dissent. Boring bluff and boring disinformation.

The thing with the government is when they make a dirty kills (like an assasination with blood flying about as in Kennedy) its made with an agenda to terrorize all the watchers and send a message to would be future oppositional leaders. There is silent assassination and you have to believe if they want somebody dead of natural causes they can do it. If you are an insignificant other as most of us truly represent to them then the government has much more effective ways to silence opposition. Its called character assasination. This means that they find you guilty of any number of ridiculous police state laws. They use your own documentation you provide them at threat of breaking the law by not providing self incrimination to prove in fact you are breaking the law. The idea is to cause you pain, ridicule, and isolation. This doesn’t work as well with people who aren’t too worried about being socially accepted. If you are employed and lacking capital like in young, they just make sure you have no employment. If you are middle aged they threaten taking your kids. If you are older they threaten to take your possesions and throw you into a senior home for being mental incompetent. Believe me the people on top have more ways to skin a hide then you could imagine so the idea that they’d pass out the assassination of top leaders is nothing more than trying to silence future leadership and BS. OWS was never real nor were the threats to it by so and so unnamed organization of government. The whole thing is beyond obvious and at the same time deplorable, but you know there is a reason why God’s people can’t be fearful and still be Godly (go to heaven). Beyond the all the threats and boogie masks they can put on I’m still not impressed, I know the true power of this universe is very ANGRY at what these evil people are doing to his people. There literally is going to be hell to pay by this people, both those active in it and the sleepers who just doing their jobs taking orders. I’ll watch as God unfolds his miracles right before our eyes and mountains become moe hills with his greatness. First though comes the belief that this world is truly capable of doing this with faith in its intelligence. That is your power.

Agreed on Sherman – but he DID know how to win a war. We should learn from his example.

Admittedly, 8th grade was a long time ago… But IIRC, Southerns sang BHR, too.
John Brown’s Body lies a’mouldrin’ in the grave;
His truth is marching on.

Born in the North, but I’m not much of a Yankee. I’d guess it’s because my grandparents were immigrants… Brooklyn was the world.

Jean wrote, “he DID know how to win a war. We should learn from his example.”

I think perhaps you could use a bit of a refresher:

Making Saints of Monsters

“Sherman would cover the political and media front” and “maintained personal deniability.” […] Sherman’s “religion” was […] All those who “resisted” were “reprobates who deserved death.” […] The fact that he also had to recruit and pay hundreds of thousands of European mercenaries, and invoke conscription, speaks volumes about how popular his war was among Americans of the Northern states. Moreover, it is absurd to label the bombing, pillaging and plundering of the entire South, along with killing its people by the hundreds of thousands, as “law and order” or the protection of life, liberty and property, […]

Sherman’s goal was to commit genocide against the people of Georgia. Remember that his famous “march” was not met by any serious military resistance other than a few cavalry skirmishes. It was almost entirely a campaign of death and destruction of civilians and their property. […]

Europeans, meanwhile, were comparing Sherman to the Marquis de Sade and predicting that future wars outside of America would likely be waged against innocent civilians, once Sherman’s “success” was understood. They also considered Sherman’s war crimes to be the mark of an unsuccessful military man. He did not establish any particularly stellar record as a military commander under fire; his “forte” was the mass murder of civilians and acts of terrorism reigned upon Southern cities with weapons of mass destruction.”…

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo140.html

Sherman the Pyromaniac

“Comments from diaries and letters written during and after the march to the sea show that many of his junior officers and soldiers had lost respect for their Commander-in-Chief.”…

http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis19.html

There’s much more, all quite contrary to what you’ll see on The Discovery Channel, but I don’t want to clog the thread.

Downshift,
You’re correct that I was misinformed overall on Sherman.
At the same time, I said what I emant, and I don’t believe in “plausible denaiability” or such.
Your line, “Sherman’s goal was to commit genocide” is what I was aiming at: Total war. Scorched earth.

THAT is how to deal with DC. Not just the politicians, either: the bureaucrats and lobbyists as well.

>>I<< am NOT a Liberatarian at this point. Also not an anarchist, I'd guess. But I'm not willing to play the "nice" game any more, been alive too long, seen too much: it goes sour for the person who's playing by the rules. I've always been that person, until very recently. (I'm a slow learner – it takes "forever" to realize that it's not just a defective person here or there, it's about 90% or more of the population who'll screw you if they can, let alone whether or not they benefit.)

As to Sherman's capacity under fire – that indicates to me, "worthless" (In military context. Made good fertilizer eventually.)

But I don't pretend Sherman was a saint. To borrow a line from a movie (Lost in space): "Evil knows evil, doctor."

I make no excuse and no justification: sometimes you need to fight fire with fire. Our armed forces (especially Marines, per Eleanor Roosevelt) aren't meant to win hearts and minds, they're meant to stop hearts and splatter minds. We hamstring only ourselves by pretending different. And it matters not a bit whether it's offensive or defensive: a thing's PURPOSE is the same regardless of how it's used. guns, for example: Meant to injure or kill. Good: Self-defense. Bad: Assault and murder of others. Hammers? Tool for shaping metal, driving nails, crushing things. Good: Build house, barn, church; fashion jewelry, pots, armor. Bad: Assaulting someone, destroying buildings, smashing things purely to infict damage.
Fire: good for heating and cooking. Bad when used to burn someone alive.

So – if TSHTF, we'll need to do some ugly things. We'll need to have people who identify with "us" rather than "them" and are willing and able to do violence on our behalf. But because these people will do evil FOR us – assault, murder, arson – we deem their actions (though not always them) as "acceptable." The enemy's people doing the same things? Those are atrocities.

But without those monsters among us – OUR attack dogs, if you will – we are just sheep for the wolves to devour. It stinks, but – I WAS a sheep in that sense, until I realized the wolves WERE among us. I’d better be a wolf myself.

A wolf can still be principled, you see. It doesn’t have to be rabid (indiscriminate). But a sheep cannot be targeted or precise: its only options are to run away or flail around and destroy everything.
I agree with Sherman’s tactics, which might make me a little “rabid.” But we ARE dealing with a long-term insurgency. Depending on definitions and details, the arguments could be from 20 years, to … (2013-1786=227) 227 years, with the coup d’etat of the Constitution. (I’d argue the last few years are merely the start of the coup de grace.)

Rabid types like me will be needed to polarize, to inflame passions, and to get the ball rolling. Most will burn out or burn up – and not make it through anyway. The problem is – the politicos who will stand at the back, and “lead”? Those are the ones that MUST be wiped out. They’ll use people like me, and worse, on both sides. Probably doing it now… A quiet “brake failure” here, a drug bust there, medical malpractice elsewhere.

Maybe we need a little pre-emptive madness, a “backfire” if you will, to staunch the flames and preserve a few things.

_____

As to being principled – here’s a start:
http://www.livingvalues.com/

Summed up: Be in control of yourself. Defend those who cannot defend themselves. show compassion and mercy.
My deviation:
No mercy. If I have to get involved, there’s a problem, and I’m willing to use anything and everything, and fcuk the consequences – your child is your responsibility, for example; by stepping to me and falling, you’ve taught the child to behave far better than by being passive-aggressive (as was my family), or aggressive (my father). It’s an object lesson in the universal principle: Always someone faster, stronger, better. Penalty is death. Aggress at your own risk.

(And I contradict myself sometimes, too. 😛 I’ll be merciful to idiots and old people, for instance – disarm grandma instead of sticking a knife through her heart. Shoot junior in the arm or leg instead of head. But that’s a courtesy, not a mandate. Mandate is, stop the problem. Courtesy is, try to limit the damage.
Like I said above, there people out there, in society, functioning – who are FAR worse than I am. Every “body” has both Cancer and Killer-T cells. I’ll let history figure out which I was, if it even notices.)

Jean wrote, “>>I<< am NOT a Liberatarian at this point. Also not an anarchist, I'd guess."

It looks like you might be a neo-con right now.
Trying to break free, maybe? …Or maybe not.

I'm not sure how to respond to the rest at the moment other than to say, I'm not identifying with you.

Madness is still madness.
Monsters are still monsters.

Jean wrote, "And I contradict myself sometimes, too.”

I noticed.

I thought their drug of choice was “flavour of the moment”, pretty much why all these talent and cooking shows are getting enough air time to force the rest of us running for the hills..

Then again – why can’t they have both? 😉

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N ,
I think perhaps that’s saying the same thing a different way. Compliance = part of the herd = flavor of the moment, if you will.

Ever read Dante’s Inferno? These are the ones in the first level, following the banner through the air, wherever it goes.
😉

Ah yes, Clover – the heady crotch fumes of a “world power.” The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were world powers, too.

Sweden, on the other hand, is not hated by the rest of the world. Hence, no “terrah” problems in Sweden.

He made a desert and called it peace

– Tacitus, on Caesar

PS: I’m prepared to meet you at VIR for an objective test of our relative abilities as drivers. I am certain Brent would welcome the opportunity to stack his skills as a driver up against yours as well.

You have no credentials to comment on driving – or anything else – except perhaps being a good collectivist authoritarian.

Clover, your loving government tells us ‘they hate us because we are free’. Lots of countries as or more free than the USA aren’t attacked. Furthermore, nobody attacks China Why?

China goes around the world looking to secure natural resources as does the USA. China’s government and corporations offer a big pile of cash to develop the natural resources. The US federal Government points a gun and demands bargain prices for insider corporations or else.

Gee… one might wonder what the difference is. People given a way to work their way out of poverty or to work hard and still be impoverished…. that would anger normal people. But you in your clover-mind they have a problem if they get angry for being treated so poorly.

Eric you do not get it! Testing your driving in a controlled environment is nothing like the real world driving. Let us say that Brent could beat me in a controlled test. Who the hell cares if he is constantly within inches of other cars always needing to slam on his brakes and always having near accidents. I never do in real life. You tell me with such facts who should we have on the highway? You are a million times more likely to push someone off the road or have head on collisions than I would because of your law breaking ways. You call yourself a better driver? How could that be? The better driver drives in a way to stay out of confrontations with other vehicles. That is not you or Brent or Dom!

OK Eric I have had no accidents! How about you? How many cars have you totaled? I guess that answers it!

Damn Clover you change directions fast. Does your neck hurt from that?

I don’t understand how the fact you don’t like how I avoid crashing into rude selfish drivers like you has anything to do with terrorism, foreign policy, or anything else that was under discussion in this branch of the thread.

But since you bring it up, all I want you to do Clover, is do exactly to a cops what you’ve defended other drivers doing towards me. Go out and do that. Have a camera facing out your rear window. Share the results.

Yes Brent, I did some research on the great country of Sweden which you say is so good. You are correct. They are working towards zero traffic deaths on their roadways. You can get 2 years in prison for drunk driving. They automatically ticket you if you are traveling 7 kph or more over the speed limit. They have speed limit cameras, tailgating cameras and red light cameras. They have heavy enforcement of tailgating. They have heavy enforcement of aggressive drivers. In other words Brent, you would be in jail there if you drive like you do here. What a great country!

Yes terrorists might not go after a country like Sweden. It is smaller than 10 of our states. It is smaller than the city of New York.

I really don’t see how the driving rules of Sweden have anything to do with why the terrist don’t attack Sweden, but ok.

Isn’t Sweden a communist type nation?

It looks like they are working on advancing the police state there too. And you see that as a good thing. I’m not surprised.
It seems to me you would have been very happy in Austria when it was occupied by the Germans.

Did you also notice in your research the other countries that are doing away with road signs? …How can that be?

And you remember how we talked about how over in the UK somewhere they are discussing lowering the alcohol limit so people can visit the pubs and drink more than a pint? A pint that is way more than a simple glass of beer here in the unitedstate.

No, I think you forgot that conversation.

Anyway, thanks for indirectly answering a question I had years ago, I never understood why people persecuted Hester Prynne

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

I do now.
She was a danger to the community.

Eric,

That comment fits clover to a T.

Never wants to put up – but won’t ever shut up!

Based on Clover’s writing he is bitter towards others and gets joy through passive-aggressive actions towards others.

DownshiftFast5to1, I did some more research. Here is a link to traffic accident and fatality rates by country. I then started looking up the traffic enforcement of the countries that had a far better rate than the US. The thing they had in common is more enforcement. Most of them had random testing for DUI! You can talk signs all you want but go and look at the facts!

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/road-traffic-accidents/by-country/

Does it really matter Eric? I am sure a “a handicapped old lady – or a 14-year-old girl” would be driving better than you on a day to day basis anyway.

There are lies.
There are damn lies.
Then there are statistics.

… Most statistics were made for Clovers and tyrants.

The Moon Is Down.

Now Clover is acting like Rainman.

They hate us because we are big and free…. not because Clover’s loving government is killing their relatives and supporting governments that keep them in poverty. No… it’s because we are big and free… lol.

Germany is safer than the USA, therefore speed limits should be removed from much of the US interstate system. Keep right except to pass should be practiced and enforced. Your cite proves it.

So you say that Germany is safer than the US? I would agree! They do not allow tailgating, weaving through traffic, no speeding in places around cities where there are speed limits, they have red light cameras, tailgating cameras, speeding cameras, and they have strict DUI laws . No passing on the right and no cutting someone off from merging. If you want things like in Germany I say bring it on because many drivers that are here would be in jail if they kept driving like they do now.

Clover, there is no/little tailgating or weaving in Germany because people keep right except to pass. Like most american control freaks you cause your own problems and then demand enforcement to combat the symptoms there from.

You never lived in Germany. There is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE tailgating speeding driving drunk weaving in traffic. The Germans don’t cry about it like the stupid brat American liberal. You do realize that the person merging has to yeild the right of way…Riiiiight? There are sooo mant stupid and weak little liberals that think they gain the right of way just because they signaled.

Will, you say that Germans constantly break the laws? That is not what I hear. I hear they never have a line of cars going 10 to 20 mph over the seed limit! A story I recently heard from a guy that went to visit someone over there. He was driving with them out where there were no speed limits. His friends did call a special police number to turn in a reckless driver who was not only driving fast but switching lanes erratically among other things. Germans do not put up with poor driving! Many on this site who say they are practicing their right to drive dangerously would be in jail there.

Clover, the fastest I’ll ever admit to driving on the internet was done on the German Autobahn. I maxed out the rental car, the only car I’ve ever hit the top speed of. I did this in the presence of a cop. No ticket. Not even a glance.

Bring the uncloverized German driving experience to the USA, I dare you. Go ahead. Driving a 100-120mph on a limited access highway with disciplined drivers is simply wonderful for me. Do it. I’d love it. You’d lose your license. You’d soil your underpants before then.

Clover, what is it about you that makes you think you’re the best driver in the world? Everyone has their own idea about what’s “dangerous”. Risk is a purely subjective thing. I like to skydive because of that risk, but on my motorcycle I have to use tactics some would consider dangerous to avoid being run over.

I only indicate if someone NEEDS to know that I’m turning or changing lanes. That forces me to look around and know where everyone is. I regularly travel well over the limit as a small, fast moving target is very hard to hit. I never tailgate as that’s just asking for one of your brethren to hit the brakes. I get in, and get out. Plain and simple.

My little sister used to drive pretty recklessly, but after 20 years in the country she’s now painfully slow and critical of other drivers to the point of being obnoxious.

I’ll bet that if someone in front of you mimicked your “driving”, for lack of a better word, you’d be the first to call the cops on them.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N, if someone drove like me in front of me then I would be following them by 3 to 5 seconds depending on traffic. I have no problem with someone driving correctly in front of me! Tell me how it would be with people that drive like you in front of you? Would you have the feeling you need to pass them on a curve? Yes, I knew that. Your kind needs to be controlling in a dangerous way!

As for Brent, go move to Germany. Please. We are not stopping you. I could care less if you drove 120 mph in Germany. Who the hell cares? My 14 year old nephew would be able to do that. Yes where there are no speed limits in Germany you are allowed to drive 120 mph. Try driving recklessly like you do here and you would be in jail there. Try driving 120 mph closer to major cities where there are speed limits and you would be in jail! I have no problem with you leaving. As long as you stay here, follow our laws just like you need to follow the laws of Germany when you are there!

Clover,

Can you dive an example in support of your statement:

Your kind needs to be controlling in a dangerous way!

The rest of your post is full of lies, slander and vitriol.

As long as you stay here, follow our laws just like you need to follow the laws of Germany when you are there!

Are you for following all the laws? Based on your writing I find it difficult to believe.

Clover, I should sue you for slander. In person do you get punched in the face often? It would happen a lot if you behave like you do here.

Interesting how you think that the law magically changes the safe into the reckless and vice-versa. What a warped creature you are.

If someone pulled out in front of you, like the drivers you defend, you’d clearly be enraged. I can tell because you project rage on to others, thus it’s what you feel when it happens. Second your impatience appears in your arguments defending the driver pulling out.

“Interesting how you think that the law magically changes the safe into the reckless and vice-versa.”

Not “warped”… A mental child that has been physically and/or spiritually beaten into submission by “authority”. Clover is a common brat.

Mithrandir you only have one law you want everyone to follow and that is get the hell out your way! Drunk driving, tailgating, weaving through traffic at a high rate of speed, speeding up to cut someone off from switching lanes are all things that are fine with you. Make you take your foot off the gas for a second and it is a major crime to you. You want someone to wait for minutes so you do not have to move your foot for a second!

BrentP, I would say sue me! If we took your videos to court and it got into the news you would be in jail with all the laws that you break. You are definitely the worst driver I have ever seen. You make up your own laws and ignore all others.

Clover,

Tell me when you return from the Nile.

Your fabrications can build a village within a week.

You are all talk, but no reason. (The ideal man of the state.)

Clover’s trolling is boring, inane, and vacuous.

Support your accusations Clover.
You can’t do it. Because you’re a liar.

Do you behave like this in person?
Do you get punched in the face often?

I wear clothes when forced to, mainly to avoid all those sticky, pokey things, now and again for decorum. If I have on a shirt and shorts, I’m ready, and everyone else will have to get that way.

Wow!

I guess this is not the site to express a little humor.

Whether to wear shorts or not is a, again, a personal choice, involving the situation.

Here in the NW, men of a certain age, rarely wear shorts, and men, generally don’t wear shorts here.

Environmentally, at the higher altitudes, the sun would put you in the hospital if you expose yourself. Shorts are worn under the protection of a patio cover or a market umbrella, and for tennis or athletic track activities, in a very short term, usually in the early AM or late afternoon when the sun isn’t on high.

A few years back a young friend who was employed to take care of my personal cars and bikes, went with me to the Bonneville Speed Trials to help/crew on my LSR car. He always wore shorts, except in the shop. He grew up in South Africa and in that environment that was the norm. When we got to Bonneville he wore shorts the first day and, though, well tanned, payed dearly for it the rest of the week.

The next year he wore long pants. The first morning I put on a pair of white socks for my casual wear when not slated to make a run. He asked why… I told him, and offered him a pair, and despite what he had went through last year, he declined the offer. By that evening he was in terrible pain, again. That two and a half inches of exposed ankle was severely burned.

While you will see the inexperienced at Bonneville wearing shorts, and even those who know the the dangers, they don’t stay out in the sun very long and , or, only visit the track in the morning. By ten or eleven they have retreated to their motor homes or pit tent for protection.

In the South with its humidity and generally lower altitude, the sun while a factor, just isn’t as dangerous as it is at the higher altitudes.

And when fishing in the NW, you wear bib waders and an inflatable life jacket. The waters are cold and the rivers swift with rocky bottoms. Again… all depends on the environment.

Now you guys all relax and have a good weekend.

Stay comfortable my friends… and mellow out…col!

Cheers …Tre

Check out the the protection of Speed Trials stewards in this video and the white socks on the experienced.

The Bonneville Speed Trials, should be high on the list of ‘must do’ automotive events or participant experiences.

I was running roofing crews during some of the hottest years in recorded history in west Tx. I wore nothing but shorts and fishing shirts from dawn to dark. I’d put on pants when the cold north wind blew. Fishing all day, a no brainer, plenty of 50 SPF and long pants and shirts please, an east Africa hat painted camo mainly to keep it stiff and cut down on the light it let through, dark polarized sunglasses and plenty water, come in looking like a red coon. Texas=brutal sun. That reminds me, a GM rep once told me they painted their vehicles per geography they’d be sold so plenty orange peel on Tx. vehicles to keep the paint.

Thanks for that info about the NW, Tre Deuce. That was interesting to learn.

Also, what eric said:
“No offense taken, Tre!
I hope my post didn’t come across that way”

I have a tendency to come across as abrasive when I don’t intend to. A bit North of mellow, for sure, however; it was all typed in a casual voice.

I capitalized the “L” in Liberal due to the difference in meaning from then to now. -Jean

That’s U.S.-centrism. In most of the world, the meaning has not changed. Here in Australia, there is about to be an election in which the main right wing party will be the Liberal Party – so called because of its classical liberal ideology.

I didn’t mean to suggest that the Australian Liberal Party really were classical liberals any more than any right wing party is, just that they were formed around the propaganda pull of classical liberal ideology and so they show that the word itself still has that meaning here – as it has in most parts of the English speaking world.

Just reporting … DownshiftFast5to1

Common sense and aesthetics should be the guiding modus operandi.

In 1990/91 I had several projects in Belize. A big resort, a beach house, and a project of some mystery for the US government.

On the first project, of some 15 million dollars, I went to school. No permits were required, though the bank had its demands and inspectors.

After several days of construction activity on the project, I was visited by the local head man who first off chastised me for paying the locals to much money, he then cautioned me about leaving him out of the loop. We came to an agreement on his fee and the labor wage and the job went smoothly. So did the next one. The government job was a mess, messed up by the suits from Virginia.

In early 92′ I returned to the US and a job building a bank in Oregon. We were putting the finishing touches on the interior. I went to lunch, and when I returned nobody was there. I had been Red tagged for a low voltage permit. The crews went home setting the project back half a day and costing me and the subs and labor considerable money.

When I had left for Belize, ‘Low Voltage’ permits were not required. It is not a public safety issue, just another way to collect fees, and drive costs up. Made me want to go back and build in the so called third world. There you pay the ‘head man’ a small fee and he controls your labor and labor cost, benefiting him and you. Here, now, fee permits, and inspections and impact studies can contribute as much as 10% of the cost of a job. And so it goes…………

Cool!

The 4th has, indeed, become an inversion of what it once was – because America is now an inverted version of what it once was. It is exactly of a piece with Orwell’s description of “war is peace” (and “freedom is slavery”) in 1984. Things means the opposite of what they previously did – though the outward forms remain the same.

Still, I find it incredible that anyone not literally retarded – Down Syndrome, etc. – could talk seriously about “our freedoms” these days.

The Declaration of Independence is a glorious thing, and its about OVERTHROWING tyranny. That’s what the Revolutionary War was about.

Er, no, it wasn’t. Even then, that was just the propaganda being used to cover putting in a new lot of tyranny with an incubation period.

The War of 1812, which is where the national anthem came from, is similar. Of course, it would have never happened with the kind of high speed communication we have in the 21st century, but Britain was attacking American ships. That was self-defense.

Again, no. You have been deceived by state propaganda on this one as well. The real history is a lot deeper, but here are a few highlights:-

– The U.S.A. welched on the peace treaty of 1783. Britain wasn’t attacking “American” ships at all, but continuing the previous arrangements that were still international law pending compliance with the treaty – that is, legally, the ships weren’t those of a recognised sovereign state but of a rogue state. Matters were resolved by the treaty of 1814, not because it was made but because that one was complied with.

– The U.S.A. had also been enforcing an embargo that undercut the British effort against France, one that looked even-handed but actually only affected the naval supplies Britain needed and not the French ones (even Tom Paine mentions this strategic vulnerability, and deep down he was shallow). Think what’s being done “peacefully” like that these days.

– That reference to slaves in that song is about the hope of freedom Britain was offering the slaves. That was the foot that the boot of tyranny was really on.

David….you are absolutely correct in that Lincoln killed liberty. 1865 was the end of Constitutional America.

OOPS, make that “latest”…

When they play that Lee Greenwood song, all I hear is “Horst Wessel”…

The flag on high! The ranks tightly closed!
The SA march with quiet, steady step.
Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries
March in spirit within our ranks.
Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries
March in spirit within our ranks.

Clear the streets for the brown battalions,
Clear the streets for the stormtrooper!
Millions are looking upon the swastika full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!
Millions are looking upon the swastika full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!

For the last time, the call to arms is sounded!
For the fight, we all stand prepared!
Soon Hitler’s banners will fly over all streets.
The time of bondage will last but a little while now!
Soon Hitler’s banners will fly over all streets.
The time of bondage will last but a little while now.

The flag on high! The ranks tightly closed!
The SA march with quiet, steady step.
Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries
March in spirit within our ranks.
Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries
March in spirit within our ranks.

Nazi’s singing of Freedom and Liberty. How quaint.

Socialism is a form of authoritarian collectivism in which the individual is forcibly subordinated to the collective, “society.” It differs from the other forms of authoritarian collectivism in window-dressing trivialities only. For example, rather than individuals being forced at gunpoint to do obey the will of one man, they are forced to obey the will of several or many. But the fundamental essence is always the same: Force, exercised over the individual, by others who take the position that they have a right to control/direct the lives of other people – and to enforce their viewpoint at bayonet or gunpoint.

Socialism, like Fascism, is just another form of authoritarian collectivist control freakism. Do what WE (the collective) say or we’ll send men with guns to your house and have YOU (the individual) thrown into a cage. If you resist being thrown into a cage, WE (the collective) will have those men guns shoot YOU (the individual).

Sirna, you have no idea what freedom is. Tradgic.

I have a ‘ bad impression of cops.’

College student sues NYPD after cops frisked her and looked in her underwear’ when all she did ‘was stop to stroke a cat’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2355632/Samantha-Rosenbaum-sues-NYPD-stopping-frisking-including-looking-underwear.html#ixzz2Y8u4uBNt

You’re more likely to be stuck by lightening than have a foreign goberment endanger you.

Being attacked by local goberemnet,on the other hand, is as common as sneezing.

Troll…..paid troll..

Eightsouthman Tell me where I am wrong with my statements? They are the facts that I have lived with! Define your term Troll? Is it someone who tells the truth and you do not like the truth?

Everything you say is nonsensical. How do you define any of the parameters you speak of? Take each question, instill an empirical value to it, a value of quantity or quality or both and put a number on it. Every argument you make is totally subjective and the degrees or other qualifications are known only to you. Obtuse, yep, you are.

Please tell how many actual libertarians you’ve ever met who practice road rage, and who have actually run you or anyone else off the road? If you REALLY DON’T KNOW who those people were, WHY are you calling them libertarians? That’s just plain stupid and dishonest.

Why do you equate life-endangering driving with libertarianism, rather than just bad and aggressive driving? Where has Eric advocated road rage, or aggressive driving against anyone else to endanger their lives?

Thinking for yourself is not engaging in road rage. “Disobeying” “laws” that are not really LAWS, and not endangering anyone else, is not road rage, AND NOT CRIMINAL.

Driving so as to endanger anyone else is not “libertarian type of driving.”

If you knew anything of libertarianism, you’d know the falsity of what you’re claiming.

And just because you’ve never done something some cop thought was “threatening” doesn’t mean you’re not in danger by any cop who confronts you for anything.

What is it with you, anyway? What about libertarianism actually scares you, IF you actually know what libertarianism is?

Why can’t you even attempt to be honest about what Eric ACTUALLY writes and what libertarianism ACTUALLY is? That would be much appreciated.

Until then, no one can come to any conclusion but that you just don’t like people not like you. Oh, boo-hoo.

Seriously? Are you just a whack job? The most violent, aggressive people I’ve run across are liberal/progressives. A major point of libertarianism is non-initiation of force. Your claims would run rather against that. I think perhaps you are projecting a bit. Might want to get some help with your out of control anger issues.

Clover,

“self-proclaimed Libertarian road ragers”? That is your bizarre confection. I’d like very much for you to point out any Libertarian who describes himself as a “road rager.”

Or who is one, for that matter.

The whole point of being a Libertarian, Clover, is to reject aggression – violence toward other people. How many times must I explain this?

It’s not “road rage” to pass you, Clover. It is just passing you. The act, as such, may (or may not be) legal. But it does not necessarily cause you any harm.

It’s not “aggression” to ignore a stupid sign, when there’s no good reason to obey it. (That it’s “the law” isn’t a good reason – to a person with an operating brain. Mindless obedience is admirable in dogs and slaves, perhaps. Not free men.)

Why do you continue to misrepresent what others (including me) have argued?

“Road rage,” to you, is any failure to abide by any law. It is synonymous, in your mind (such as it is) with any exercise of individual judgment that conflicts with “the law.” Thus, you regard “speeding” as “road rage,” passing a slower-moving vehicle over a double yellow as road rage – irrespective of any consideration as to whether the action itself caused harm or even threatened to. For you, all that matters is that “the law” says Thou Shalt Not. Cops are “heroes” – righteous magnificoes who never abuse their authority; who never manufacture evidence, beat people or even kill them. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. They are, to you, god-like supermen who must be automatically obeyed at all times. To even question a cop is, to you, outrageous.

I have never, not once, defended tail-gating. I have never, not once, defended menacing others with a motor vehicle. You know this. Yet you continue to deliberately misrepresent what I do advocate – the exercise of individual judgment; the right to be left in peace unless a person has caused actual harm to others or their property – and denounce me for things I’ve never advocated, such as “road rage” and “aggression.”

You are either exceptionally stupid – someone literally not capable of understanding the written/spoken word.

Or, you are an egregious serial liar.

Which is it, Clover?

Yes Eric that is the entire problem! Even the libertarians can not get together with what should be allowed and what should not. You say that you do not OK tailgating but many of your libertarian friends say it is OK. That is the problem with as you say your libertarian rights to do anything you want to do. Some of you say that passing in a no passing zone is OK. Others of you say that tailgating is not a law to them. Others say that weaving through traffic at 120 mph is OK. Others say that having a 12 pack of beer and driving down the road is OK. Since you have an anything goes type of view millions of people are endangered by the guy that does not make the correct decision of what laws to break! That is why we have a government. They set standards and limits. People almost blind can not get a license. People with a higher BAC are not to drive! People that weave through traffic and tailgate need to be stopped and in some way change their behavior or they will kill someone or cause property loss.

You say that libertarians are not about aggression. With your libertarian rights of doing whatever you feel like on the road or where ever it is like closing your fist and swinging at someone’s head. Sometimes you land and sometimes you do not. You say that is an acceptable behavior until the fist lands!

Eric in your own words you say that “Libertarian philosophy is the non-aggression principle (NAP). To live one’s life in such a way as to avoid harming others or their property”

I guess you misinterpret your own philosophy! Tell me Eric if Someone drives drunk, or weaves through traffic, or tailgates, or excessively speeds, or passes in a no passing zone are major things that injure and kill others daily! I call that aggressive driving! Aggression that kills others and or causes property damage daily. I say that is behavior that is very aggressive and needs to stop! You call those behaviors non-aggression? Why?

Eric, you say ” To live one’s life in such a way as to avoid harming others or their property”. Is Tailgating avoiding harm to others? Is weaving through traffic at a high rate of speed avoiding harm to others? Is drinking four or 5 drinks and going out and driving avoiding harm to others? Is passing in a no passing zone avoiding harm to others? Maybe the libertarian party is not what you are all about!

You say that someone with a BAC of .01 does not need to be stopped even though it is proven that a BAC as low as .005 affects drivings negatively? If you want the limit to be .015 or higher before someone is stopped is that really doing enough towards your “avoid harming others or their property”?

It is now shown that you do not want to stop someone for driving erratically and not following laws. How would you determine when someone is not trying to avoid harm to others?

Eric Eric. You say “that while alcohol does affect reaction times (and so on) “. We finally agree! The .08 limit is a standard that is set just like minimum vision testing! The fact is that many are affected negatively with less than a .05 and our government was good enough to allow .08 before ticketing you! We all know it is impossible to follow someone for miles to verify they are good enough to drive safely. It is impossible to follow someone and determine that their their reflexes have been hindered and their judgement(and so on). So in effect if you do not want to stop someone and check them there is no way to keep thousands of dangerous or as you would call them poor drivers off the road just because they had been drinking! In effect you would be fine with your wife driving on the road with dangerous people!

Since we both know that you have to stop and check someone who has been drinking to see if they are affected, how would you determine if alcohol is affecting reaction times (and so on) “? If you want to wait and see if someone is weaving extremely on the roadway among other things then you want to allow drivers on the roadway that are well beyond the reaction time problem.

Eric I know you have not defended tailgating but others in your libertarian party say it is their right as a libertarian. Maybe you need to get everyone together to determine what you actually should be defending. From what it sounds like you would be OK to have the police stop a tailgater but you want the 10s of thousands of drunks that are at least or more dangerous to go free! Where does that fit into your “To live one’s life in such a way as to avoid harming others or their property “

Clover:

“From what it sounds like you would be OK to have the police stop a tailgater but you want the 10s of thousands of drunks that are at least or more dangerous to go free!”

You still haven’t learned anything. How can you prove that those drivers are “drunk”, by any definition and “dangerous” without first having evidence of such danger?

The burden of proof is always on the accuser. If no evidence of “danger” is presented then a stop to investigate if the traveller is “drunk” is unlawful – and such because we’ve had the Right to “travel” unencumbered on public roads since issue of the Magna Carta in 1215. “Driving”, as per all Law dictionaries, is a paid occupation – controlled by gubberment and licensing.

Far more people successfully travel intoxicated and are never caught than the ones that are by random stops and, there’s no evidence available that proves the traveller caught at the stop was doing anything dangerous if his vehicular control was perfectly adequate.

Clover, the roads are FILLED with intoxicated people (drink, drugs, prescriptions, antihistamines, endorphins), including pedestrians, but you have no way of knowing. They surround you, irrespective of a 0.08 BAC Judge Dredd Law. There’s no escaping that fact. The cops might continue to unlawfully encumber people for breach of whatever “Law”, but it has no proven impact. They don’t have the stats. If they do, they’re fudged among many other factors.

If you can’t take all of the above on board and all you can take away is this final sentence, I’d suggest you suffer from attention deficit disorder and get a reprogram.

Nice try, ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N.
I gave her a whole handful of quality links discussing the issue and I asked for her thoughts about them.
The response: Crickets.

Here’s a sample of the links:

Drunk Driving Laws Cause Drunk Driving Accidents
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html

Prohibiting Drunk Driving Is Not Self-Defense
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli41.1.html

How To Convince Men To Drive Drunk
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli28.html

I had to laugh at some of those links. The reason for more drunk driving accidents is because they want to drive faster than they are capable of just because they want to look normal :-). What a joke! There is evidence that stricter enforcement of DUI laws works. The number of people that drive drunk is lower than ever for states and communities that have cracked down. I personally know guys that drink that no longer drive drunk because of the cost if they get caught and possible road checks. You can not argue with facts no matter how many stories you make up! Thousands of people are alive today because of more enforcement. Billions of dollars of proper damage is saved from more enforcement. Go do you own research and that is what you will find.

It’s not a joke, Clover, it’s the way life is.
For example, a guy in Texas is going to jail for life for his 8th D.U.I. and nothing more. The ‘stricter enforcement’ didn’t stop him at least eight times. The same can be said of 30 other individuals, just in that state.

Your approach encourages men to drive drunk, it’s as simple as that.

The Fact That Drunk Drivers ‘Choose’ to Drive Drunk Is Completely Irrelevant

http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli38.1.html

I noticed you used the phrase, “evidence that stricter enforcement of DUI laws works”
Sure, many people stopped driving after drinking, however; overall, Evidence is not fact.
Do you suppose better cars played a role?
Or better designed and built roads?
The nation has been awash in turning two lane roads into four lane divided hyways. Do you suppose that could skewer your so-called ‘facts’?

Liberty is diminished and freedom is reduced as a result of your support for ‘sticter enforcement’. But that’s not your concern.
Next up is anger tests, tiredness tests, and soreness tests, because these all contribute to accidents.

Yeesh.

Drunk Driving vs. Sober Driving: What’s the Difference?

“Elderly drivers are merely one menacing group of drivers that we need to ruthlessly punish “before anyone gets hurt or killed.”” [Right?]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html

Driving is dangerous. The Clovers of the world want to try and make an unsafe thing into something it is not.

There is no way for you – or anyone – to know that the number of people who drive drunk is lower than ever for states and communities that have cracked down. I did my research, and that is what I found.

Yours is, The Pathetic Argument for Prohibiting Drunk Driving
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli33.1.html

Anyway, I’ll say this, for an imbecile, time and again, you’re pretty good at derailing a thread off topic.

First of Eric, you talk about searching a house will help get rid of some violence? My family members are not endangered if you are beating up your wife as you call it! I have a right to not go to your house and if I do I would be willing to risk a gun in my face since you say it is your right. Our roadways are a public place and I have no control over dangerous people being their other than with police help! Public areas should be as free from dangerous people as possible. I could care less if you are beating your wife in your car while it is parked because it is not endangering 100s or thousands of people like a drunk does when he drives! If the police have evidence that you are beating your wife then they can get your house searched or if they see you are beating their wife they can force their way into your vehicle.

DownshiftFast,do your research! Statistics do not change significantly from year to year without an external force. Car safety does not change significantly from one year to the next. There are not a lot of road changes from one year to the next. The statistics show a dramatic decrease in death rates and accident rates when there are increased enforcement changes for drunk driving!

Clover:

“Thousands of people are alive today because of more enforcement. Billions of dollars of proper damage is saved from more enforcement.”

Really? Did you find and ask them?

Just saying so doesn’t make it true – but since doing such is a girlish argument makes no difference to you.

Any stats you might find on that subject are deeply flawed because of all the other factors in play.

“Car safety does not change significantly from one year to the next. “

But more people are buying newer cars with increased safety features every year. You’re not good at cause-and-effect now are you?

BAC limits vary globally between states and countries. That in itself renders such legislation pointless, aggressive and fake.

Many of the narrow and twisting two lane highways and city streets have been redesigned over the course of the latest economic ‘boom’ period into four lane divided roads. All throughout the construction period, and after completion of the newly designed roads, the result in my area has been far fewer fatalities due to the construction interruption and the newly designed roadways. This process expanded exponentially year after year. The effect would likely be taken advantage of by those who wished to show roadside sobriety checkpoints improved overall safety and reduced the numbers of people who drove after consuming alcohol.

For decades the main narrow highways in my area (and likely most other areas, as described online by many) would see a deadly car wreck or two most every weekend. However; since the highways were divided and widened the fatalities have plummeted on these roadways. By 95% would not be out of the question.
I have traveled some, and read the accounts of others, and with these samples it seems this is the case all across the nation.

Furthermore, as the roadside sobriety checkpoints gained notoriety, it’s likely that people who have been drinking simply avoided those roads. Additionally, since the smoking bans in bars and restaurants took effect nationally it seems that more people have opted to stay home and drink for that reason, and not due to the roadside sobriety checkpoints. In all likelihood, the people visiting those who stayed home to drink may have taken residential streets or other streets and backside highways to avoid the well known roadside sobriety checkpoints. [I.e. whoever heard of a roadside sobriety checkpoint on a rural gravel road?]Therefore, the roadside sobriety checkpoint official statistics leading people to believe they are having a major impact, are just full of it.

There are lies.
There are damn lies.
And then there’s statistics.

Corrupt individuals in government use those false statistics to gain power and money.
Other individuals outside of government who stand to benefit as a result of maintaining the status quo act in tandem with the Clovers of the world help to support this corruption, all the while decreasing liberty and freedom with their continuing support of the corrupt individuals and their system.

Not to mention they all also help to maintain the vile prison-industrial-complex.

It’s all very disgusting and revolting.
You should be ashamed for being a part of it all.
… /rant OFF.

The conditioning and compartmentalization of the clover mind is remarkable indeed.

Clover, with the right media campaign over time you’d welcome, no you would demand viewscreens in every home. What if your neighbor starts messing with the gas line in his home? What then? What if your neighbor removes the tag from his mattress? What if your neighbor is storing gasoline in an unapproved container near his furnace? What if your neighbor starts running a brothel and you know nothing about it? What if he starts creating child porn? What if he has women tied up in the basement? What if? All these horrors can be prevented with viewscreens!

Are you a child molester Clover? If you weren’t you’d want the government to be able to come in our homes and make sure nothing illegal was going on.

Everything fits together like a glove.

Must Watch: “If You Want A Picture of the Future, Imagine a Boot Stamping on a Human Face—Forever”

DownshiftFast5to1 from your post you lead us to believe that our government is evil and out to get us? You do not have a clue who the enemy is! Foreign governments are far more likely to endanger you! Criminal are thousands of times more likely to endanger you!. Identity theft and other things are easier all the time but you are worried about the government coming to you at gun point. I am endangered thousands of times more by poor lawless driving, criminals seeking out personal information and many other things. There is one in 100 million chance that the police will come to my door and endanger me! I have a 1 in 100 chance of a criminal doing something bad to me and a far greater chance than that for a driver breaking many laws to endanger me and my vehicle. Wouldn’t it be a better thing trying to fight the real dangers to you!

Clover,

Government has the system in place and the ability to harm anyone it chooses.

The biggest difference between government and other criminals: Government considers all other criminals to be illegal.

Your odds are worthless.

If I were you I would not go gambling.

Yes, Clover. Our goberment – IS – out to get us. Haven’t you seen the billboards where they say just that?
Wake the heck up!
Foreign governments are NOT far more likely to endanger us.
Wake the heck up!
You are correct when you say, “Criminal are thousands of times more likely to endanger you!” that’s because our goberment and their minions are criminal. That kind of messes up your odds.
Wake the heck up!
The real dangers to me, are all supported by the likes of you.
Wake the heck up!

The Public’s Demand for Force

“… foreign expansionism has nurtured terrorism, which in turn contributes to a host of associated factors like the surveillance state and the police state. Now I want to go deeper.”…

http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff412.html

Government Against the People: It Gets Worse In the Late Stages

“The Philosophy of “Government Against the People” at Work”…

http://lewrockwell.com/rosenberg/rosenberg-p20.1.html

Understanding the Progressive Mind

“… State power is borderline mentally ill and is driven by evil intentions. They might interact with people on the “outside” of Progressivism, but they have no respect for them, nor do they wish even to understand any other point of view. There IS no other viewpoint, period.” …

http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson353.html

Get with it, Clover. Stop being a stick in the mud.

Clover, are you too stupid to see the scam?
The US federal government goes around the planet angering people then says you have to pay for it to protect you.
Since government does it on the world stage, guess what they do domestically as well?

Dammit have some understanding of history, of how governments work. Stop being such a schmuck.

Hey Clover,
How about this:
https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

OK Eric. So you are saying you are a criminal. Drunks are criminals? Both are threatening against other people. You threaten everyone that is on the road with you when you decide you want to. But then you say it is only threatening when it kills someone? Are you really saying that threatening others is actually OK? I can live with the government but I might not live with your libertarian right of endangering and threatening others!

“Put another way, the aggressive (first-use) of violence or its threat against another person is the only truly “criminal” act because it encompasses all criminal acts. ”

Eightsouthman you say our government is evil? There were more people killed and injured in 911 than any innocent people from our government the past 100 years! You just do not have a brain! There have been hundreds of thousands more people injured or killed by drunks the past hundred years than by our government. There have been thousands of more people killed and injured by your freedom of endangering others on the highway than our government has. What problems do you think we should fix first, the ones that occur thousands of more times or an isolated case that happened once? Get some common sense!

Some moron named Clover wrote this – “There were more people killed and injured in 911 than any innocent people from our government the past 100 years!”

The stupidest and most obviously inaccurate thing you have ever said Clover. Kudos, quite the achievement considering your record of BS.

In the last 100 years the US Government has killed MILLIONS of innocents you fucking retard. That is just directly, never mind the created and supported death squads in numerous countries, and thousands of innocent citizens routinely killed by the police for ‘not complying’.

Of course in your chamber pot of a brain, anyone killed by the government was not innocent as the government could never be wrong.

Here’s more on that Third Amendment violation in Henderson, Nevada:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-says-police-occupation-vio

There were more people killed and injured in 911 than any innocent people from our government the past 100 years!

Delusional.
Your loving government has killed or taken actions that resulted in the death of millions of innocent people in the last dozen years alone. Untold millions since the 1960s. Go read up on just one of many… put “Plain of Jars” into a search engine.

I am wondering how old “Clover” is. From the nonsense and the arguments that have no firm standing, I would guess barely old enough to vote, if that old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

You certainly are mental.
Some other driver endangers me and if I so much as sound the horn you accuse me of ‘rage’. Yet then you turn around and make this accusation above.
Seek help. You need it.

Poor ol’ Clover!

Still can’t noodle out the difference between the possibility of harm and the actuality.

Still refuses to accept the fact that just because “Smith” can’t drive competently under given conditions, then “Jones” and “Adams” must be presumed incompetent, too (even when there’s no evidence to support that belief).

I know perfectly well this is a waste of finger-dancing, but:

Has it ever occurred to you, Clover, that the guy who wrecks his car might just be a poor driver – irrespective of alcohol? That alcohol makes an already poor driver worse? That problem is not necessarily the alcohol – but rather, the person consuming it?

Think, now.

A very good driver is still a better driver, even with some alcohol in his system, than the average/poor driver is sober. I’d be happy to prove the point by drinking say three beers over 90 minutes, then going heads-up against my mother-in-law (or you) in a test of driving skill.

I’ll try to reach you by way of analogy:

Dom is a martial arts master. He could have a BAC of .15 and still kick my ass five ways to Sunday. On the other hand, I can probably outrun him – even with a BAC of .10 – because I’m lighter and can run faster/farther, being a conditioned runner.

Do you suppose that, even with a few drinks in him, your skills/reflexes are superior to those of an NBA forward?

Yes, these are extreme examples. But the point stands, Clover. Individuals vary in their abilities; their natural skills and training. You’ll never be able to write better than I – no matter how sober you are (or how “impaired” by whatever I might be). On the other hand, I’ll never run a four minute mile… and so on.

And the same goes for driving.

Some people are simply better drivers than others. They have superior reflexes/vision – or have acquired more skill. Such drivers can still control a car better even with alcohol in their systems than others can sober. Their higher baseline – physical capabilities and skill – compensates for the booze. True, they may no longer be as competent with the alcohol in their systems. But they”re still more competent than average – and certainly, competent enough. Or at least, not necessarily incompetent merely by dint of having “x” BAC.

Why should anyone be punished unless they – specifically – have done something to cause harm first? Or at the very least, done something to indicate that they’re about to cause harm? And no, Clover, having “x” BAC – is not, as such, evidence of incompetence behind the wheel any more than being over age 80 – as such – is evidence of being incompetent behind the wheel. Punishing someone just because they have “x” BAC – and for no other reason – is exactly like punishing someone just because they’re 80.

Can you see?

No, of course not.

You continue to demand the one-size-fits-all (and dumbed-down) standard. The blanket punishment of everyone based on the actions of a few someones. Not just “drunks” – as defined by your arbitrary BAC standard – and irrespective of the actual driving of the people involved. Everyone. People who have a “0” BAC. Who haven’t a drop of alcohol in their system. They, too, must be waylaid at gunpoint – forced to stop and submit to an interrogation and (at the least) visual search of their persons and property. Without even the pretext of probable cause. For no reason at all – – insofar as any supportable suspicion of their having done something illegal or wrong.

And you’re too feeble-minded to understand what that implies. That, quite literally, what goes around comes around. That one day, the same vicious justifications used to destroy the liberty of those who haven’t harmed anyone by their actions can and will be used to harm you, too.

And you’ll say, “but I didn’t do anything wrong!”

Perhaps only then will you understand.

It could be that the poor road designs are amplified on the weekend.

Also, the last time I had a big fat paycheck I blew it on a huge steak dinner. I ate too much. I couldn’t concentrate, I almost crashed.

I didn’t have a drop of alcohol.

If I did, and I did crash, I’m sure they’d blame it one the alcohol.

On another weekend I argued with my better half while driving – neither of which I do during the weekday – I almost ran over a pedestrian!

If I’d had a drop of alcohol, I’m sure they’d blame it on that. Seems like you do too, Clover.

It’s funny how you don’t see how people behave differently on the weekends vs. the boring weekday.

Clover, is Monday your Friday?
Or is every day the same?

Also, there’s some really nice farmland and beautiful beach front property in Florida I’d like to own.
Would you be selling it real cheap?
I can only come check it out on the weekend, I’m busy all week, so maybe I can pack my cooler up with root beer and come check it out? Maybe bring the distracting dog and the screaming kids, which I don’t normally bring along on weekdays,… and I might be sunburnt and have a headache from that if I come on Sunday. So be extra kind when I get there.

No, those won’t affect the statistics, and if I had just a drop of alcohol you can be sure your buddies in the occupation army will blame it all on the alcohol if there’s any kind of mishap. I’m sure they’ll shoot the dog and take the brats, too. That way we can rack up the CPS numbers as well.

So Clover, you’re admitting your police state is failure.

BrentP wrote, “So Clover, you’re admitting your police state is failure.”

That is so perfectly said.

I’ll try to remember that, it’s the best answer.

Of course, the Clover’s of the world will twist the meaning and say in a blood lust way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kUmNNummF4

It’s clear that the Clovers of the world seek ruination of the culture and society. Nothing less will suffice. After all, ‘Total Domination’ is their motto, Monday through Sunday.

DownshiftFast5to1, no the land that you and Eric are buying from me is in the middle of a swamp. It sounds to me like you should not be driving. Just like the drunks should not be driving. Sorry but the increase in accidents on the weekend usually finds alcohol as the contributor. Yes there are those accidents also caused by road rage libertarian but they are out there every day. We have video proof of that.

Clover,

I did not know you owned Walt Disney World.

DownshiftFast5to1, no the land that you and Eric are buying from me is in the middle of a swamp.

Ha. How does “increase in accidents” find anything?

Also, gator farming might be profitable.

You really do have no clue, Clover.

DownshiftFast5to1 an increase in accidents means something! More deaths means something. The fact that many of these occur because a drunk driver caused them means something. I know a mentally challenged person could not figure that out.

Eric you say we should let drunks be on the road just because there may be an old person that does not drive well? At least most states have testing for older people. They often have to take vision tests and if they get old enough they have driving tests every year. Most states are doing something about bad drivers that are old. You want us to do nothing about drunk drivers that kill and injure 10s of thousands of more people than the old drivers you are complaining about!

Tell me Eric how many 100s of thousands of deaths by drunks are you willing to accept without doing anything?

Egads, a “cloverus maximus” !!!

The last time a M.A.D.D. fundraiser called me, I helpfully suggested that they rename their organization and attack a real problem. Medical mistakes and prescription interactions. They could become Mothers Against Dumb Doctors and keep the initials. Since there are 200,000 deaths a year due to medical mistakes and prescription drug interactions, they could have a much greater impact saving lives. Think about it, 22 people die each and every hour (a Sandyhook every hour) due to mistakes in the medical industry.

I thought I was being very helpful as M.A.D.D. is currently fighting a small non-problem compared to the casualties inflicted by the medical system. And that’s before Obama-care kicks in!!! M.A.D.D. could make a real difference working to improve the medical industry!!!

For some reason, she hung-up on me.

And M.A.D.D. hasn’t called me since.

I don’t understand…….

Shazaam, we have thousands of fewer deaths and hundreds of thousands of fewer accidents each year because we are doing something against drunk driving. Since people die in other ways are you saying we need more deaths also from drivers that make the dangerous decision to endanger others? You call all of the deaths by medical mistakes the true problem. Tell us how to fix medical problems we would all like to know? A 5 year old can give you the solution to our drunk driving problem. Surely you can tell us how to fix the medical problem.

Shazaam: MADD called me the other day. I wish I were so creative.

Clover: The problem with drunk driving was that people like you considered them “accidents” much like you still consider lots of bad driving “accidents”. Now that drunk driving is no longer an “accident” but the result of decisions things are better. Now how about addressing all the bad sober driving that isn’t an accident? Oh wait, you defend that but are too chicken to do it to a cop at 2am. Or at any time, but at 2am it’s a sign of DUI, which lots of common driving is.

“Cloverus maximus”, your government school indoctrination is showing.

Shazaam, we have thousands of fewer deaths and hundreds of thousands of fewer accidents each year because we are doing something against drunk driving. Since people die in other ways are you saying we need more deaths also from drivers that make the dangerous decision to endanger others? You call all of the deaths by medical mistakes the true problem. Tell us how to fix medical problems we would all like to know? A 5 year old can give you the solution to our drunk driving problem. Surely you can tell us how to fix the medical problem.

How do you know how many lives are “saved” due to the campaign against drunk driving? Have you ever questioned the statistics? You sound like you trust the government to never lie to you.

If you are capable, please re-read my previous posting and please attempt to comprehend that I was in no way calling for more drunk driving deaths. Take your time. We are patient. Sound-out the hard words if you have to. We don’t mind.

Take a deep breath.

My point to the M.A.D.D. fundraiser was that their drunk driving battle was won. They got laws changed to get the repeat offenders jailed. They raised awareness of the problem of multiple repeat offenders. Of course, law enforcement jacked-up the fines and turned the effort into a major revenue generating enterprise. Still, it will be very difficult to reduce the numbers further. The battle M.A.D.D. set out to fight has been effectively won.

Thus it was my opinion that M.A.D.D. should target the problems in the medical industry. I personally know 3 people who almost died due to prescription drug interactions. All prescription drugs are metabolic poisons of some kind.

How many prescriptions are you taking? Do you know that they don’t interact in a way that might kill you? The statistics say you are far more likely to be killed by your doctor than a drunk driver….

Shazaam we are doing something about prescription drug interaction! We have new computer systems at pharmacies to check for these interactions, we have pharmacists who are supposed to check such things. To say we are doing nothing about it is pure stupidity. Yes drugs can react differently from person to person but that is the chance you are taking and that is why drugs go through so much trial phases.

How do I know drunk driving enforcement works? For one it is a proven fact that drinking reacts poorly with driving. Two, I personally know people that no longer drink and drive in the fear of getting caught. Three, when there was enforcement changes from one year to the next for enforcement during holidays it showed a dramatic change in statistics. I could care less if you disagree. The fact is people change behaviors if they have a brain.

Would you speed if there was a $50,000 fine and a year in jail if you drive 1 mph over the limit? Would you drink and drive if it cost you 5 or 10 grand and a loss of license for 6 months to a year? If you are one that would not change behavior then you would be brainless.

Oh yeah, a primo example of “cloverus maximus” as a product of government schooling!!! Alas it’s an all to common find.

Well twinkletoes, lemme tell you something about “your” precious pharmacy computer system. It’s crap. It does not work. Period.

Reason? It was designed to unearth folks who were taking to many pain medications. The “Puritans” are afraid that someone, somewhere might get high off of their pain medications. (Puritans: people deathly afraid that someone, somewhere might be enjoying themselves)

And I know your precious drug interaction system doesn’t work because I sat on a grand jury where an individual who was using Medicare had visited 40+ different doctors for pain medication. Medicare paid each and every doctor as there are no controls on how many doctors a Medicare recipient can see. (Medicare recipient is the PC replacement for my preferred label of “tax-parasite”) Now Medicare would only pay for the first prescription, he had to pay for the other 40+. Of course the accused was pulling down an estimated $80,000 per year selling the pain pills he purchased using this little scheme. And since it was different doctors, your precious “pharmacy computer system” didn’t even blink. The accused only got investigated because of traces of cocaine in his urine at one of his doctors visits. Of course he also was abusing the “safety net”/”voter purchasing system” by living in tax-payer funded housing, collected the max in food stamp assistance and had 3 “Obama-Phones” for some reason. A perfect example of how well government controls work. (Hint to “cloverus maximus”: government controls never work well if at all)

I have a relative who mans a poison control hotline, and thus I know that your precious “cloverus maximus” prescription control system rarely kicks anything dangerous. Since there is no liability to the pharmacy if the patient dies, why would they reject the sale? If the patient didn’t read the side effects fine print, well, to bad for them…… Follow the money, kicking potentially dangerous prescriptions might result in lost sales. Good luck passing a law to protect “cloverus maximus” from that one. The pharmaceutical companies all make massive contributions to the DC-Law-Mart and get the laws they want.

All in all, you are still ten times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by a drunk or speeding driver.

I’ll not argue that ethanol in large quantity impairs reaction time. Nor will I argue that age and / or dementia won’t have the same effect. Personally, the last time I came close to an accident was when I was driving sick. I had a bad case of the flu and nearly creamed someone. No medications, no nothing, just sick. Had I killed someone under those circumstances, I was, under the law, driving un-impaired and therefore legally.

In your “cloverus maximum” world, where “cloverus maximus” forces everyone to do what you want them to at the point of a gun, would you also advocate a 10 grand penalty and 6 month license suspension for driving when ill??

And you do realize that your massive penalties and/or jail time is simply using government as your instrument to impose the will of “cloverus maximus” on the populace. Imposing your will by using the law with attendant massive penalties and jail time is no different that pointing a gun at someone and barking orders. The government tax-parasites are more than happy to comply as more enforcement means more money and in their minds, more power.

What happens when someone ignores a government demand to pay a fine or the government demand that someone submit to their will? At some point the escalation of force will involve violence and guns.

Is that your perfect world? Really? I wish we could transport you back in time to 1937… You’d love it there. So orderly.

And the world thought that such “legal” violence was put away after the Nuremberg Trials. Yet here we are with “cloverus maximus” demanding that the government force the populace to follow “cloverus maximus’s” orders with the use of the government’s monopoly on violence.

Shazaam nice try but that is why they have multiple people on our juries because it sure look like you do not have a clue what you are talking about! Are you saying that our government is writing our pharmacies software? You are clueless. You say our system allows drug interaction and is killing people then your proof is someone going to multiple doctors and pharmacies to skip around the system. Is that your only proof you could come up with? I say if you are going to multiple pharmacies and multiple doctors getting medication and not telling anyone of the other medications that you are taking then I could care less if you die because you sure don’t!

Yes if we had a way to determine you should not be driving while you are sick then we would need to have a law for it. The problem with this is that you would need a doctor or a series of tests to determine if you are well enough to drive.

In the end that makes no difference to the fact that we know that people are more dangerous when they have had 4 or more drinks in a short time. We have a BAC limit of .08 in most if not all states. Other countries are going off of tests that people are driving poorly at levels well below that and have a .05 limit. The only reason we have laws for DUI is that people are not smart enough to know they can not drive safely with a dozen drinks in them and go out and kill people. Punishment and risk of punishment works for many people to not drive when in a poor driving condition. I could care less if you say that is it is the government forcing others to do what they want. The fact is that driving drunk kills and injures people and we have put the responsibility to our government to make and enforce laws to improve our safety while in public areas like our roads. It is no different than enforcing tailgating and reckless driving laws.

My my…. A true total “cloverus maximus”.

Churned-out by government schooling with a deeply engrained belief that “Government is good, more government is better.”

Your reading comprehension skills are perhaps below sub-par even for a government schooled “cloverus maximus”. Though it’s much more likely I was simply expecting to much.

You didn’t read the bit about the poison hotline did you? Or you chose to not comprehend it. Perhaps, like most examples of “cloverus maximus” your eyes skip a beat and your brain shuts down when you encounter information that runs contrary to your government school conditioning. It’s a pitiful, and not unusual behavior to find in “cloverus maximus”

I find it hilarious that your logic skills are so dis-jointed that you cannot follow a few paragraphs and make logical, intelligent responses. Your non-sequiturs into your own personal axe grinding are just sad.

It would appear that as a “cloverus maximus” you want nanny government to make you all safe. You want laws to protect you from everything and anyone that might harm you. As a typical “cloverus maximus” a pitiful creature living a desperately fearful existence.

My advice to a “cloverus maximus”? Avoid doctors at all costs. That will do the most to keep you alive longer since doctors are 10 times more likely to kill you than other drivers. Don’t drive, ever. It’s not safe enough for “cloverus maximus”. Stay out of the sun. Stay indoors all the time. Dispose of any and all weapons on your property. If your home is invaded, call 911. When seconds count, nanny government and the police are just minutes away. Always trust the government and it’s police forces to protect you. That way you can maximize your dreary, risk-free, safe “cloverus maximus” time on the planet. (you won’t enjoy your existence, but you will be safe, and that is the prime directive for a “cloverus maximus”)

Though you do realize that life will always end in death, no matter how much you plead with nanny government to make it otherwise.

I really do feel sorry for you.

Shazaam, you do not want me to be safe because you want dangerous drunks on the road? What are you saying? I am to take it upon myself to make roads safe? Do you want me to hang outside of bars with a high powered gun to take care of business when they get into their car staggering? Tell me what right does another person have to endanger others by drinking or other dangerous road driving? I have seen examples of libertarians taking care of other drivers on the road. They use road rage on others and leave it up to themselves how much they want to endanger others. Is that really what you want?

You have the right not to go to a doctor. I know many people that lived another 20 years or more because they did go to the doctor. Did you add them to your list of how dangerous doctors are? You are stupid. I have seen them repair hearts, clear up cancer and fix constant pain. I can only hope that you stay away from a doctor. It is pretty much like I could care less if you drive dangerously as long as you are the only one on the road at the time.

Shazaam – Everything you say will be used to feed clover’s strawman. About the only thing he is good for is for future historians to look back at to understand the meandering mindlessness of the average state worshiping bootlicking troglodyte of the time.

Aye.

This “cloverus maximus” is indeed a pitiful specimen. I had always wondered how slaves and serfs in days gone by could stand to live under the boot of their lord or master. It would appear that the sub-species “cloverus maximus” is a craven and fearful creature and actually prefers to live in bondage. It’s so much more predictable and “cloverus maximus” is relieved of responsibility for his own fate.

“cloverus maximus” is deathly afraid to live free and be responsible for his own actions. Afraid of others living free, lest in their freedom, they expose him for being such a pitiable fearful coward.

Thus I pity “cloverus maximus”. He is terrified of personal responsibility. The saddest part is that there are many specimens of “cloverus maximus” out there. All of them pitifully afraid of being responsible for their own lives and actions.

Future generations will indeed wonder about them. Do the over-medicated, regimented, government schools create these creature? Or are they just born cowards?

Shazaam fine then. If you want dangerous drivers and others to be free that is fine with me. We can only hope that those people kill you and your family and friends and not mine! I guess to you death is the ultimate freedom. Go for it.

See what I mean, Shazaam? This fuckhead is dumber than mud.

I wonder if EPA’s Clover is Cristina Silva?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/AP-Reporter-on-Zimmerman-Verdict-So-We-Can-All-Kill-Teenagers-Now

If not, they both seem to run at about the same speed. Backward and fucked up.