Clover’s Colon Coughs

Print Friendly

Here – for those who can stand it – are Clover’s latest intellectual eructations:troll pic

 

 

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/09 at 10:38 pm | In reply to DR.

You can hyper mile in any car but only when no other cars are around or their would be dead people. Yes I have seen people passing in no passing blind areas even when the car in front of them was going over the speed limit. If you went under the speed limit it would happen all the time. I tried Hyper-Miling with my car a couple of months after I got it to see what it would do. I took all back roads as much as possible and I averaged 25% better than the rated highway mpg of the car. More than 650 miles on a fairly small tank.

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/09 at 10:24 pm | In reply to chiph.

Yes Eric if you want good gas mileage with cars today you would crank your speed down to the 55 mph of the 80s. Yes you would get 15 to 20% better gas mileage but you really do not want that do you?

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/09 at 8:38 pm | In reply to Chris.

Yes Chris the technology exists today but it was not on that car. It had a 60 HP engine, no air conditioning, no power steering or brakes. Only two seats. At the time the car was EPA rated at 55 mph highway speeds. Yes it probably did real well because the only thing the engine powered was the drive train. It probably did real well also at the time because of 55 mph roads but check that gas mileage at 70 or 75 mph on the roads we have today. You would not see 50 mpg. Cruising at 55 mph in my car I get in the lower 40s mpg and it has power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, 4 seats and more than twice the hp. If you made a new car today with those specs of your car then you would only need 2 cyl, power nothing and a two seated shorter car and yes we could have 50+ mpg cars if you rated them with 1987 EPA ratings.clover crap pic

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/09 at 6:29 pm | In reply to Tor Libertarian.

Yes Tor Libertarian I sure do like the Tesla company. I shorted the stock a few weeks ago selling naked calls. On a very safe trade I will pocket about 3 grand. I could cash out now but it would cost me 3 or 4 hundred so I will hang on and let the options expire worthless. It is a good company but it was and still is way overpriced. The lack of batteries will keep the number of those cars way down compared to other manufacturers. Even with the giga factory producing full out it still will sell
a small fraction of cars compared to other companies.

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/09 at 2:14 pm | In reply to clover.

Garysco you miss the point. Eric says he is paying no tax. You are talking about gas tax that goes to the government. In Eric’s world you would not have that. So Garysco, what is your solution for roads?

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/09 at 2:08 pm | In reply to eightsouthman.

Boothe you are too easy. You say you need bright lights in order to see the deer. I agree that more light helps to see them well in front of you but that is not always possible with traffic and often deer are not in the wide open in front of you for high beam lights to help you. You say they almost always hit you in the side then what is the purpose of seeing them hundreds of yards in front of you? The purpose for lights is for the most part to be able to slow down. I think State Farm would much rather have deer hit the side of your car rather than you running into them in front of you at 20 to 50 mph. There I go again, using common sense that is not allowed here.
Where do you live that they allow hunting at night? That sounds dangerous having someone shooting in the dark. That must be a libertarian law.

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/09 at 10:46 am | In reply to David.

BrentP the light pole was on a sidewalk. The light pole had a bike path between it and the main road. If it is dangerous for the light pole to be there then it is dangerous for the bike path and the sidewalk to be there. In effect if it is too dangerous for you on that road at 45 mph maybe the speed should be enforced at 30 mph. Brent if it is too dangerous for a car driving down that road it is way too dangerous to have a sidewalk and bike path there. It still comes down to it is impossible for a driver to be killed by that pole if a person had been traveling the speed limit. If someone was traveling the speed limit it is impossible for him to hit the pole at 45 mph unless he lost all brakes and steering. If someone as you say might lose control some day on that road he would have a very good chance of surviving the crash.

The driver if he was not killed in the accident should be in jail. You are all about setting the maximum speed on a roadway as the speed limit and on this road that was the case. Anyone driving faster than that is endangering others more than himself. The driver had seat belts and air bags and the crunch zone on the vehicle is significant enough to be able to survive most crashes at 45 mph. A pedestrian does not have that luxury. Your discussion should not be about moving the pole but what should be done about getting reckless drivers off the road who endanger others.clover king

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/08 at 10:02 pm | In reply to Tor Libertarian.

Nice link Tor Libertarian. Everything I have already said. I did have to laugh at keeping your speed max to 55 mph and drive under the speed limit. A libertarian would never say that or do that. They lose all of their fun of breaking laws if they drive like that. It would never happen. Drive within your headlights? Again a libertarian would never do that.

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/08 at 8:20 pm | In reply to David.

Brent the pole was on the other side of a bike path and on a sidewalk. Do you drive in such a way to endanger someone on a bike or a sidewalk? Brent the driver of the car had the protection of the car. If there was a pedestrian or a biker tell me how much protection they would have had?
Brent if anyone was driving 45 mph in that situation they would not have lost control. If you do not lose control there is zero chance of hitting the pole. Therefore at 45 mph no one would have died. At 90 mph two people died and more would have if there were pedestrians at the time. Tell me what part of that do you not understand? I would think an engineer would be smarter than you are.
If you drive 90 mph like that around bikers or pedestrians you should be in jail. What part of that do you not understand?

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/07 at 9:36 pm | In reply to David.

I rest my case David. I asked how a true libertarian society would be like and how it would function and I had a half a dozens replies with absolutely no answer to my question.

Eric you say “what classifies as dangerous?” Eric it is like the race car driver that recently killed himself and another. A guy that drives 45 mph over the speed limit and he dies and kills another. If there happened to be a few people on bikes or walking on the sidewalk he would not only have caused them danger but probably killed them. According to you he was driving just fine. Yes Eric in such a case if he was driving just 50 mph he probably would not have crashed but he was much more likely than at the speed limit of 45 mph. 45 mph on such a road is the correct speed because there is a bike path right next to it and a sidewalk within a 3 or 4 yards of the road. Yes at 45 mph it can even be dangerous but for every 5 mph faster than that it becomes increasingly more dangerous to others. Tell me what right do you have to determine how much danger another person should have? You say it is your right to accept as much danger as you like by not having seat belts or air bags but you are not allowing that decision to others how much danger they should be in. Is that the libertarian way? Eric you say libertarians have the right of “justifying the use of violence against people” because of their right to endanger others in a significant way.
Eric you say what is the use of laws because people do not follow them. I tell you what, put a couple of cop cars along the road and say that. Advertise that there will be DUI checkpoints set up that night and see what a reduction of drunks there are that night. Have a law that you will be jailed or lose your license for a couple of years if you drive 20 mph over the limit and see how many do not follow that. Eric just because you tell a lie does not mean we are stupid enough to believe it. Well, yes some here will but there is no hope for them anyway.

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/06 at 6:31 pm | In reply to Helot.

Helot I understand you all right. I saw the links that you posted. You can tell from the first couple of sentences that they are one sided and lies. Yes Helot, I understand if you believe what is in the links then yes I do understand you are an idiot.

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/06 at 6:23 pm | In reply to eric.

Eric how do you plan on paying for the roads you say you feel like paying for? Do you have a cup at every intersection? Tell us who is going to build and maintain your roads? How in your world would they buy them to be able to put out their cups for the donations you never do?

clover

1,076 approved

xxx@xxx.xxx

xxx.xx.xx.xx

Submitted on 2014/05/06 at 5:54 pm | In reply to Garysco.

I have your solution. Find the state with the least amount of taxes and move there. Start you own city with fellow libertarians therefore you will not have property tax needs for local schools or government because you will have none. You will not need cars because you will not have roads to drive on. Make sure you do not live where you need bridges because you will not have any. Buy some horses and raise horses and livestock. Your taxes will be low and no traffic cops or any cops for that matter. You will not need safety devices in cars because you will not need cars. You will not need insurance and you will not have registration fees. The only downfall is there will be nothing to complain about. When are you moving?

Share Button

  3 comments for “Clover’s Colon Coughs

  1. May 11, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Res ipsa loquitur

    Incertum oratio

    • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
      May 15, 2014 at 11:17 am

      I’d say Clover’s far more negligent than his random ramblings elucidate.

  2. ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
    May 15, 2014 at 11:13 am

    Clover:

    “If you do not lose control there is zero chance of hitting the pole.”

    I routinely double the speed limits and never hit anything because I don’t lose control.

    Your point Clover, is what..? Oh, I know. Attributing crashes to things you don’t like others doing and having them jailed instead. Gotcha sicko.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *