What’s a “Clover”?

Print Friendly

I get lots of e-mails from new readers asking what a “Clover” is. I explain that it’s several things. In general terms, a Clover can be of the Left or Right persuasion. A Democrat or a Republican. Those are, however, superficialities (though many get hung up on them regardless). The fundamental thing is that he is an authoritarian and a collectivist. A person who believes the great “We” (also known as “society”) which he and his kind represent and speak for determines the fate of individuals, who are free to choose Pepsi or Coke or Toyota rather than Ford… but may not choose to be left alone, if “We” or “society” (that is, Clovers) decide otherwise.

He is also my muse, an actual person who embodies authoritarian collectivism.

Long-haul EPautos readers know the story. A troll appeared here several years ago  – and has been a constant persistent presence on these pages ever since. He (she?) self-identifies as “Clover” – which has become EPautos.com shorthand for… authoritarian collectivists of all persuasions.

You can read more about him – and them – here:

Southerners, of course, have their own name for such people. They call them “Yankees.” The problem is that there are probably just as many native-born Southerners who are Yankees in fact (e.g., Bill Clinton) as there are native-born Northerners (like me) who despise Yankeeism. Cloverism is not region-specific. It is an outlook.dancing Clover

Clovers are also, of course, terrible drivers. As in the videos above.

It’s not that they’re slow-pokes. That’s ok. No reasonable person expects another person to drive beyond his comfort level. The problem – the thing that defines a Clover – is their absolute indifference to other drivers; their refusal to move over and allow faster-moving traffic to get by. The well-known left lane hog is the apotheosis of Cloverism. But so also the prick who speeds up when you try to pass – then slows down once he’s succeeded in preventing you from passing. And the tool who honks his horns and flashes his brights at you for passing him on a long straight stretch that used to be a legal passing zone but which – for Cloverific reasons – has been painted over double yellow. Also the guy who can’t handle snow – but just has to go out anyhow and ends up getting you and him stuck.

The videos (and articles) above are just a sampling. Plenty more where they came from. Tune in for more!



Share Button
Previous articleKeeping It On The Road
Next articleFour Legged Heroes
Author of "Automotive Atrocities" and "Road Hogs" (MBI). Currently living amongst the Edentulites in rural SW Virginia.


  1. “But so also the prick who speeds up when you try to pass” This just happened to me on my way home from work this morning. I did manage to get around him/her but they sped up as I was trying to pass and I had to go 90mph to get around… They had been going about 45 mph in a 60 mph hwy. No doubt, there are a ton of “clover” drivers in the south, especially in East Texas. They drive me nuts. I haul crude oil for a living so I’m dealing with these clovers 12 hours a day. It does wear on a fellow.

    • Hi Jeff!

      Don’t get me started… well, ok…

      The other day, I was coming home on the Blue Ridge Parkway. I am running 50 (PSL 45 and mercilessly enforced by Park Pork running instant-on radar). This Clover rolls up behind me in a Soobaroo… and rides my ass. I can’t even see his headlights, that’s how close he was. We get to one of the few passing zones and I ease over to encourage this dick to pass. He doesn’t. So he tailgates me for another several miles. Then – finally – he passes me (over the double yellow; which I don’t mind – but why didn’t he pass me in the legal passing zone?) … and then slows down to about 47 MPH. Which forced me to slow down.

      So I passed the Clover – and lost him in the curves.

      Poor ol’ Clover!

      I wonder, by the way, what’s happened to our Clover? I guess his government checks must’ve bounced….

  2. Retired long-haul trucker, I remember following one of these Clovers — I think it was Alabama or MS — along one of the old country roads. Impossible to pass with 4 wheeler, let alone rig. His bumper sticker read: BEWARE! IN CASE OF RAPTURE THIS VEHICLE WILL BE DRIVERLESS!

    Wishin’ fer the rapture I be, fer sure fer sure. Sam

  3. This is all great and I see people who go out and buy sports cars all the time, then drive them at 5 mph or more under the limit.
    But since when is a Nissan Maxima a “sport sedan”? Really??? I thought only old people bought them new, and only very poor people who can’t afford a real car bought them used…

  4. Ate South Hombre, ain’t ewe jus da ee-pee ought-owes sunbeam?

    I dreamed my bud tuchus a 1/2 gallon juice jolt cola to hizz gizzard on a level 3 catwalk EIFS scaffold crack’em up awhiles back now. Brighter than ever he izz, or so the company mouth piece says real nervous-like when he asks him if in he needs anythang at tall 2 bee more comfter bull.

    Another cooped up chicken choker dragon wagon joins me in the service bay that’s outta service.

    Chute, my alien registration card says I ain’t even authorized to be on this planet, sum kinduva a transporter mixup, but whatchagonnadoboutit. Stuck on this blue marble slow lame too now.

    Take me to yer liter or better still yer 40 ozzer.

    No biggy. Followin the stripes to my cubicle wit the lady bears, it ain’t bin 2 bad iffen the 1 truth bee 4 told.

    Hope fully I won’t get anymore drivin awards this year, nice beanin a winner, but its hell on the lettuce patch, dontchaknow. How duzz them town clowns tell that I can’t stand starving the bears when I’m out cap tenning my short cheese shaggin wagon booze cruizer. Ching a ding cha cha cha chia pet.

    Keep the greasy side down and watch out for us bald gator gutshot primer coated dream weavers, theres two steps of our ditches for yer every step of road.

  5. Signs you might be from the woods at tax time:

    -if you claim your hunting dogs as dependents on your income tax.
    -if you tried to claim “loss of teeth” as an exemption on your taxes.
    -if you think H&R Block is an auto part.
    -if recycling aluminum cans is mentioned on your tax return
    -if you carry a case of beer to your tax audit.
    -if you think a 401-K is your Mother-in-Law’s Bra size.
    -if the IRS has ever asked you to wear a wire to the family reunion.
    -if you list the beers in your cooler as your Liquid Assets.
    -if you think a form 10-40 is a kind of spray lubricant,
    -If you think a 1040EZ is a type of a recliner.
    -if you need help filing and visit your local Taxidermist for help.
    -if you’ve been working on the same car on your front lawn all year, and list your occupation as auto mechanic.
    -if you check the “Were you blind in _____?” box because you got pepper sprayed on ladies night that year…
    -If you ask strippers for a receipt so you can write off lap dances.
    -if you consider the tips that you give “charity” at the topless club donations.
    -if you answered “I might” to “Do you have any children?”

    two more from the Rural Dictionary

    Raptor: Ed came around the corner a liitle too fast in his truck and raptor around a telephone pole.

    Social: If you’re drinking with a pretty girl at the bar who has a boyfriend and is too scared to fool around, you can give her some beer social relax.

    – if you learnt to count by singing 99 bottles of beer on the wall, you might be from the woods.

  6. OK, stupid question time. How can you determine that someone is an authoritarian and a collectivist by the way that they drive?
    Wouldn’t one need more data than said clover drives like a constipated snail? Maybe the universe (matrix) hates you and places these slow drivers in the way just to piss you off (that’s my theory from personal experience).
    Are they:
    oblivious? – check
    irritating? – check
    inconsiderate? – check
    authoritarian? – dunno (odds are yes)
    collectivist? – dunno
    Maybe they’re hypermiling, or suffer from time dialation such that 40 mph feels like 90. Either way it would still be nice if they would get the hell out of the way….

    • Hi Bob,

      One of the things these Clovers often do is speed up to prevent you from passing. That is a sure sign of an authoritarian personality. They are using their car to force you to drive at their pace, or the way they think you ought to be driving. Such people invariably use the ballot box to do the same thing as regards other things.

      • She tried to keep her name off her excrement, but here’s the ink-stained wretch responsible:


        Kathy is a freelance writer whose work has appeared on various sites including Uproxx and Playboy’s The Smoking Jacket. She is also a regular contributor to Cracked (cracked.com/members/auroratudor).

        After pit stops in New Jersey, California, and the UK, Kathy now resides in Austin, Texas with her husband and evil bunny rabbit.

        Befriend her on Facebook (facebook.com/kab18), follow her on twitter (@KathyBenjamin), or read her daily musings about sobriety on tumblr (kathyissober.tumblr.com). Read her book: Funerals To Die For.

        Mental Floss? Is that supposed to be clever? Sighhh. Whatever pays the bills I suppose, whatever captures screen time and ad clicks.

        Yet another purveyance of modern internet crapitalism…

      • vacuous, right offa vac u ass. So…..how does the authoritarian justify not obeying those signs most of us can see clearly “Left Lane for Passing Only”? Oh yeah I forgot, clover know they don’t mean her.

    • Or just a twink. clover, raise your skirt and drop your drawers. Bend to the floor and pick up your jars. That should answer a question i’ve had for yars and yars…..

  7. This anomaly has been back-posted to this still visible mid-January post. It is not in good form. Or appropriate, but here it has holographically manifested, just the same, from my userverse, into yours. I believed in this Yesterday.

    ASTRID: Walter? There’s something I wanna show you.
    SEPTEMBER: Peter… I want to talk to you.
    WALTER: Gene.
    ASTRID: I was gonna let her out. But I was afraid that they would hear her moo.
    WALTER: Yes. She does moo quite loudly. Especially after a meal.
    ASTRID: I at least wanted you to see her.
    WALTER: You always know how to soothe me. You always have.
    ASTRID: Walter, this is not the end. We’re gonna win this. And when we do, we’ll be… drinking strawberry milkshakes in the lab and not even gonna remember that this happened.
    WALTER: That sounds lovely. It’s a beautiful name.
    ASTRID: What is?
    WALTER: Astrid.

  8. Glad to see the jump to 53%. I was out at a smoky casino watching march madness and living the pub life.

    Obviously, it’s a false dilemma, what kind of world we inhabit. Smokefree and slathered in hand sanitizer. Or regular. In a free agora, both would be catered to

    Will anyone here admit to using hand sanitizer. Is that really a thing men do now?

    How about lysol and air fresheners. Does anyone here have a freshener in their car because they like it / need it. Or is it for the softer and more sensitive sex in their life, who likes those kinds of flourishes.

    What about latex gloves and hair nets. Do men like and want them. Are you happy that things are sanitized for your protection. As a consumer, do you get a warm feeling when something is sealed in plastic and you have to tear into it.

    Are you nervous to sleep in a hotel room. What about a truck stop super budget flophouse room. Would you jump in a body of water like they do in Switzerland. Or only dare enter a heavily chlorinated pool. America isn’t as clean as Europe or Japan.

    Do you feel wrong when you don’t shave every morning. What about not taking a shower or washing your hair for a day. How about not brushing your teeth. Wearing dirty clothes. Wearing really dirty clothes you’ve worn over seven days. Wearing work clothes you keep at work, and never bother to take home, because you forget and it doesn’t bother you, a little bit of old stucco and sweat from last week.

    Must you wear briefs. Or can you do boxers. Go commando. What about wearing stripes and plaids. Or dark socks and shorts. Do you care if you match. Do you notice if your wife does a bad job with your laundry. Do you do it yourself so its done right?

    There’s normal prudence. And then there’s mangina mind melding. How much effeminate worrying over hygiene is appropriate. Is there a line to be drawn. Maybe its more of a social caste thing, that a gender thing. Do you distrust anything that involves the poor and the lower classes.

    If somebody is coughing. Do you wish you had a surgical mask. Do you know if you were breast fed. I think that makes a big difference, but am unsure.

    There has to be some kind of objective standard somewhere, yet allowing for individual tastes and preferences as well. Watching hours and hours of advertising since infancy has affected our thinking, right? Is this fear of being dirty rational. Or emotional and manipulative. Done to make us believe we need the slave pens and taconite shacks we call home. Or something else entirely.

    • “Do you distrust anything that involves the poor and the lower classes.” Remove “anything that involves” and I can answer honestly, it’s only the poor and lower classes I trust……cause I are one.

      A few months back I was hauling rock off right of ways that muchachos were picking up and throwing in backhoe buckets. Lunch rolls around and they’re burning wood piles so they use the coals to cook with. Then i started bringing homegrown pork and beef, clamped on my hardhat and starting chunking rocks. Job supervisors who identified with me…..not so much trust on my part.

      Some supervisors tried to get the muchachos trust and were decent….but muchachos and me both never knew who to trust. When the nut-cuttin comes, you know where the supervisors loyalties lie.

  9. The Axis of Clover Evil? It’s not Iran. North Korea. No, it’s Israel – United States- United Kingdom – Commonwealth of Nations – NATO. There’s your axle of eevulll that must be broken, if the world is ever to start to heal.

    Season 5 Episode 01 of Fringe: – Transilience Thought Unifier Model-11

    ACT V

    Henrietta’s Apartment – Failed Plan
    WALTER: Olivia. I am so happy you’re alive.
    PETER: Walter, do you recognize this? It’s what September wanted you to find. It’s called a Thought Unifier. Or at least it was. This one’s long since dead. He must have designed it specifically for you.
    WALTER: What’s it used for?
    OLIVIA: Well, it’s meant to collect and make sense of the scrambled plan that September put in your mind.
    WALTER: What plan?
    PETER: You told us that you knew all the parts of the plan, all the elements. You just weren’t sure what they were supposed to be used for.
    ASTRID: Walter, do you remember this?
    WALTER: Whose hand is that?
    ASTRID: It’s William Bell’s hand.
    WALTER: You’re out of your mind. Why would we have William Bell’s hand?
    ASTRID: You said we needed his handprint so we could get access to one of his storage facilities.
    WALTER: I don’t remember it. I don’t remember any of it. I’ve failed myself, and I’ve failed the world. What is wrong with me? What has happened to —
    OLIVIA: — Walter.
    WALTER: I can’t do it. I can’t even recognize myself.
    OLIVIA: It’s like there’s nothing left to unify. All the parts are gone.
    ASTRID: Or they took them.
    HENRIETTA BISHOP: It’s more likely they were destroyed when he was fighting it.
    OLIVIA: Will they ever heal?
    HENRIETTA BISHOP: No. The plan is gone.



    The science team, preserved in Amber until 2036, joins the resistance forces fighting for freedom against the technologically-advanced invasion forces of the Loyaists and Observers from the distant future. Reunited with his daughter after two decades, Peter and Etta set out to locate and revive Olivia to help in the battle against the fascist regime.

  10. I see Clover as someone who does not hesitate to threaten violence to anyone, whether they are ‘dangerous’ or not.
    For example, Persia (aka Iran) has not initiated a war against anyone since Alexander defeated them in 331 BC.
    And there is NO evidence that they are considering such now. Nor is there evidence (at least that ‘our’ intelligence agencies can find) that they are pursuing nuclear weapons. But who could blame them if they did, seeing as Israel has dozens (100s?) of them. MAD was an insane policy, but deterrence does work on some level. Just ask Kim Jong Whatever the current one’s name is.

  11. Advance Spoiler Summary of tonight’s Walking Dead episode
    2 Cast Members Die In S05.E14, “Spend”

    Opening scene: Father Gabriel enters what appears to be a makeshift prayer room. He stands at an altar and looks down at a Bible. A basket of strawberries has been left for him by a member of the community. There is a note saying it’s a blessing to have him there. He then starts to tear the pages out of the Bible.
    Noah meets with Deanna’s husband over breakfast to talk about becoming an architect. He says he is in it for the long haul.

    Abraham washes his face while Rosita is asleep in a bed, her reflection showing in the sink mirror.
    Eugene is checking out a broken part from the community’s solar farm.
    Aiden kisses his mom on the cheek while getting ready for a supply run. Glenn, Aiden, Nicholas, Eugene, Noah and Tara (GANENT? Not exactly GREATM, but it’ll work for now)) leave in a beat up old van, banging out drum & bass music.
    Jessie is in her yard picking up pieces from a broken sculpture. Officer Rick notices, asks her if she has any enemies and says he will ask around to find out who did it.

    GANENT heads into a dark warehouse where Eugene seeks out the part he needs. Lots of walkers are locked behind a fence inside.
    Aiden, ever the douchebag, shoots an armed walker multiple times, finally shooting a grenade on the walker’s body by mistake. After the smoke clears, we see Tara has been knocked unconscious and is bleeding from her head. Eugene almost gets eaten because of his lack of ability to shoot his gun.
    Carol finds Sam in her house snooping around for cookies. (Does this kid ever eat a vegetable?) She tells him she will make some if he steals some chocolate for her.
    Dayum, Carol!

    Back at the warehouse, everyone but Aiden is stuck in a small room. Tara is bleeding out. They clear the walkers so they can rescue Aiden who is now impaled by two steel poles.
    Meanwhile, back at the ASZ, Abraham leads a construction team working outside the community. They are building a wall. A herd of walkers approaches which results in a gun fight. Abraham saves a girl with black emo hair (Francine?), tosses out a ‘mother dick’ for good measure, and we can see he is definitely happy to be fighting walkers once again.

    Pete the Drunk pays a visit to Rick. He tells Rick that the Alexandrians have lost things too and that Rick’s group needs to understand that. He also offers to play doctor to Rick’s kids. He tells Rick they ‘have to be friends’ and slaps him on the shoulder. (From the sneak peek.)
    GANENT isn’t faring so well. Eugene tells an unconscious Tara the group should have listened to him and that he takes no responsibility for what has happened. He carries Tara out of the warehouse, shooting walkers on the way… kind of.

    Glenn, Noah and Nicholas try to free Aiden from the kabob. Nicholas runs away. We’ll call him Douchebag #2. Glenn and Noah must finally give up and Aiden gets ripped to shreds. (Kabob AND strip steak!)
    After the walker fight, Sgt. Abe commands the team of builders to stay and finish the job they started.

    With Aiden dead and Eugene & Tara elsewhere, Noah, Nicholas and Glenn fight their way through an office.
    A member of the community tells Deanna that Abraham should lead the construction team.
    Carol is baking cookies again. After talking to Sam, she develops a suspicion that Pete is abusing him. She finds out Sam broke the owl statue.
    Glenn, Nicholas and Noah are still fighting for their lives. They find themselves trapped in the partitions of a revolving door. (Worst invention EVER!) They are trying to hold back the wave of walkers. Eugene pulls up in the van, music blasting. Glenn tries breaking the window, but Douchebag #2 panics and pushes the door to get out which results in Noah being exposed to the walkers. Glenn watches through the glass in horror as Noah’s face is ripped apart.

    Nicholas runs to the van and yells at Eugene to go! Eugene is like wtf, where are the others, and pulls his gun on Nicholas. They have a little scuffle, then Glenn tackles Nicholas, knocking him out.
    Gabriel tells Deanna that Rick’s group has done unspeakable things and that they are all pretty much Satan’s minions. Way to pay them back for saving your cowardly ass, Gabe.

    Carol tells Rick that she believes Pete is hitting Sam.
    Abraham is praising his workers.
    Maggie is listening to the entire conversation between Deanna and Gabriel.
    Carol tells Rick that he must kill Pete. Again….DAYUM, CAROL!
    Spoilers are accurate at the time of posting. As always, nothing is 100% until the show actually airs.

  12. Ways to pay…

    Dwolla – free for under $10. If over, $0.25 to send.

    Popmoney – costs you $0.95 to send

    Amazon Payments

    – – –

    Chase QuickPay

    Who says newfangled internet companies are the only ones who can have any fun? Chase Bank has its own method for person-to-person money transfers and it’s surprisingly not that bad. Provided at least one of you has a Chase account.


    You can send money directly to any U.S. bank. Unlike PayPal and Google, you can send money directly to any U.S. bank. Most financial institutions can do this once you’ve associated your account with another, but Chase QuickPay lets you do so without having to go to the trouble.

    If you use Chase, you don’t need any new accounts. Everything else here requires you to sign up for a service that you’re probably not going to be using as your main bank. If you prefer to consolidate, Chase is a one-stop shop.

    There are no fees at all. Chase QuickPay doesn’t charge money to send or receive. However,


    Someone involved has to have a Chase bank account. Setting up a bank account is much harder than signing up for PayPal or Google Wallet. If neither you nor the person you’re sending money to uses Chase, it’s going to be one of the least convenient options.

    Chase QuickPay is pretty great for Chase customers and useless for non-customers.
    – – –

    PayPal’s been around for fifteen years doing nothing but sending money every which way. They have to be pretty good at it by now, right? Actually, yeah, kind of. PayPal is definitely pretty good.


    You can spend PayPal money anywhere. I mean anywhere. In addition to most places online accepting PayPal, you can sign up for a PayPal Mastercard and spend it in stores or anywhere that doesn’t accept your account directly.

    Send money to any email address or phone number. You can already send money to someone using their email address with PayPal.


    You’ll pay fees for debit and credit cards. If you send money from one of your debit or credit cards, you’re going to be paying a small percentage. Fortunately, you can avoid this by carrying a balance in your PayPal account (transfers to PayPal from your bank account are free), which is much less worrisome since you can actually spend it.

    Transfers to bank accounts can take days. If you have a PayPal debit card, life is pretty sweet. If you don’t, though, spending money you receive via PayPal can potentially take a lot of time. To the tune of multiple days just to transfer it out.

    For most cases, PayPal is probably the way you’ll want to go, if nothing else for the versatility. That being said, if you don’t sign up for a PayPal debit card, it’s going to be considerably harder to spend your money immediately. To make life easier, set up an account, add your bank information, and get the Mastercard.
    – – –

    Google’s new app lets you send money to anyone with an email address. While most online payment solutions deal with how to pay a merchant or company, there are still plenty of ways to send your buddy ten bucks.

    Google Wallet

    Google’s entry into the money space allows anyone with a Google account to send cash to anyone with an email account. In fact, you can send the money from just about any of your financial institutions. Wallet allows you to add bank accounts, debit cards, or credit cards to fund your Wallet balance with. It’s not perfect, though.


    It’s simple to send money. Just add an email address, an amount, and which account you’d like to send it from.

    No fees for transferring from a bank account or Wallet balance. You can potentially incur a fee if you send from a debit or credit card, but the rest are fee-free.

    Everyone knows Google. If you send money to someone who doesn’t have a Wallet account, convincing them to sign up to receive your money won’t be as hard as explaining why they need an account with some obscure company.


    Getting money out is hard. You can use your Google Wallet account to pay for things online (or in select stores with the right phone). Transferring to a bank account is harder. Maybe even impossible. Some versions of Google’s help docs show that this is possible while others have been edited to remove such references. If you’re thinking of accepting money to Wallet, be sure you can spend it or get it out first.

    There are fees for debit and credit cards. The standard fee for sending money via a debit or credit card is 2.9%. This isn’t the most money in the world, but if you need to pay someone for rent, it could be a nice chunk of change.

  13. What clover can’t comprehend, is that he causes all the problems in the first place.

    Without clover, we would live, work, and socialize in a single location.
    We wouldn’t have to drive all over the place. We’d all be far safer. Use less resources. Incur less risk and inconvenience.

    Without clover zoning laws and regulations, we’d be free to build our own jobs and recreation areas on our own property.

    Imagine what we could each accomplish on our own land without clover control freaks. Rather than visiting this website like cyber refugees, we’d all be able to do our own things with whatever people we enjoy being with.

    Why don’t you just kill yourself clover, instead of infecting the world with your miserable busybody idiocies? You’re obviously unhappy with yourself, no one even knows what the hell your talking about. What little we can parse, makes us cringe with disgust. Do the right thing, make the world a better place, and remove your miserable self from the face of the earth.

    Go rub your lotion on your skin somewhere else, no one here cares to hear about your homoerotic pathological fantasies.

    • Clover has no comprehension of anything at all. His is the mind of an animal, reactive and instinctive. It feels; it does not think.

      • Yes that is true. An unloved animal at that. One that’s been kicked aside. Rejected by the pack due to weakness and poor breeding. Left out in the elements to die, yet somehow it survives in its meager feral misery. It desperately craves social acceptance it can never achieve, so it projects its rabid self-loathing dreams of suicide onto other more capable animals.

    • The whole thing comes down to hating the idea that somewhere, someone, lives differently. They must put an end to that. It makes them easily manipulated by those who seek to manage society.

      They also seek to freeze the status quo. Although this is largely manipulated by the people at the top of the pyramid too.

      What does welfare do? It keeps poor people poor. What does the tax code do? It keeps rich people rich and others from becoming rich. What do the business regulations do? They keep the wealthy people wealthy and prevent others from becoming wealthy.

      What does zoning do? It keeps people in their place. I keeps people from being able to have to their own business by forcing them to purchase commercial land. It maintains the value for people who already own commercial land. Much the same with property taxes.

      Everyone has to live the same way forever.

      • Yes BrentP. It goes way beyond money and power, which they have more than they could consume in a hundred lifetimes. It’s a kind of social homeostasis. Each person is adapted and bred by them from its first moment of life to maintain and spread their desired status quo and social balance of their imposed systems.

        They’ve made a world where its about survival of their fittest institution, and an individuals survival instincts and mechanisms are forcibly subordinated to their collectives and sundry man-machinery.

        Their rules and mass psychological movements maintain the stability of various institutions of human bodies and social constructs in response to changes in external conditions.

        They’ve wired us to think against our own nature and interests. And to raise our offspring for their needs.

        A possible instance of this mentality is “colony collapse disorder.” Regardless of what science claims, perhaps this is meant to be part of the bee universe evolutionary progress.

        Human zombie beings won’t allow this to occur. They’d sooner kill every bee, than allow them to behave in a way they dislike. Their very best scientists will work non-stop to bring an end to this “disease” which is quite possibly, no disease at all, but rather a de-socialization process of bees that is quite natural to their long term constancy of organism process.

        Perhaps cancer is also not a disease. A cancer cell is a cell that is no longer mortal. Rather than working so hard to “kill cancer.” Scientists that aren’t bound to keeping a human drone’s lifespan at their preferred length could conduct experiments that train all the cells in the body to become cancerous, which is to say eternally undying, and infinitely divisible.

        Instead of our usual “healthy” cells which die after about 52 divisions. Perhaps our entire bodies can be trained to live forever, just like cancer cells.

    • Tor Libertarian you say it is my fault we have to drive to get what we want? You want to just stay in one location? Man oh man is that a stupid statement. Without driving you would not have an internet, a server or computer or a monitor to speak here. Damn you libertarians are stupid. Without driving you would not have steel or aluminum or windows or you name it. If you are happy living in a log house without electricity or anything else then go for it. You would not have a car to complain about rules of the road. Clover

      • Wow, that’s one of the most disjointed, perverted things I ever read. Only clover sees a connection of no electricity, a log house and doing without virtually all other things because you don’t drive.

        Well, someone here is definitely stupid.

        • In case I wasn’t clear, here’s what I meant to say.

          1) imagine an alternate universe where there are no restrictions on private property. everything else stays the same.

          2) I’m assuming under this reality, there would be far more possible ways to live. We’d all have far more choices.

          3) I’m guessing one of the most popular ways to live, will be men of competence and wealth creation ability will want to do everything in close proximity.

          4) Someone like Eric would be able to build vehicles. Service vehicles. Sell vehicles. Run periodicals about vehicles. Run websites about vehicles. All on the same land he already owns. His wife would run an animal sanctuary or whatever her thing is as well. He would likely not write about politics, there would be no reason to, if he were happy with his ability to obtain wealth and use his property however he pleases.

          5) One of Eric’s neighbors might run a grocery. Another close neighbor may run a general store. All kinds of specialists would be within a few miles. You would only need to go to Roanoke in extremely rare circumstances.

          6) Nothing else need change. The same level of taxes could even be exracted as they are now. There can still be highways, internets, windows, and electricity. I am not saying something new will be imposed over what exists today. Only that thru some unknown mechanism, we will be allowed a choice with regards to property.

          7) Much of the reason for urban sprawl and spending hours each day in our car is due to government interference. It is government that forces you to live in one area. Shop in another far away. And work in still another even farther away.

          8) Tomorrow could be far better, if only we each could develop a little tolerance. If each of us can restrain ourselves from interfering with our neighbors who use their property in ways we do not like. In relatively short order, we’ll all be better off, when each of us has whatever we need within a very small radius. Assuming the govt doesn’t intervene and divide and conquer us the way they do now.

  14. Clovér, (Responding here since the reply column is too long.)

    Mithrandir if following the rules causes you to risk the lives of others every million miles and if you drive dangerously and cause the risk to others to go to one in every 100,000 miles then should we hang you upside down with nails in your feet when you do cause an injury to others?

    You need to write in a clearer manner. It would make it easier for me (and I suspect others) to follow what you are trying to convey. I suggest using the OWL from Purdue to improve your writing.

    Which rules are you referencing?

    If I tangibly harm someone, then I should be held responsible for my actions.
    The rest of your paragraph is vague and difficult to quantify.

    Do you think that hanging people downside up with nails in their feet for causing injury is the most appropriate manner to hold people responsible for their actions? You would not be the first person to nail the feet of other people for violations against the state.

    Tell me Mithrandir did you have kids? If so, did you wait until your kid touched the hot stove to tell him it was a bad thing to do?

    Sometimes the burnt hand remembers best.

    I fail to see how caring for my children is the same as treating others as responsible adults. I am responsible for myself and my children (until they become responsible for themselves). I am not responsible to the actions of others. They are responsible for their own actions.

    Do you expect me (or others) to start treating you as an irresponsible child?

    • So Mithrandir you say you should not touch someone for doing wrong and just bill them for whatever problems they cause? So Mithrandir if I take a ball bat and swing at your head to knock it off but miss my mark and only give you a small cut then all I owe you is a band aide?Clover

      • Clover,

        Are you really incapable of differentiating between deliberate attempted murder (taking a swing at someone’s head with a baseball bat) and someone driving a car faster than you feel comfortable driving?

        What you appear unable to fathom is that people who drive faster than you feel comfortable driving do not do so with homicidal intent, nor without care for the safety of other people. To say nothing of their own safety (unless you believe we’re suicidal, we have a self-interest in operating in such a way as to avoid accidents).

        Your problem – again – is that you believe your feelings about “risk” (defined by your own self-appraisal) ought to be determinative and binding on others. Thus, if you feel uneasy executing a passing maneuver then – by definition – it is “unsafe” and others ought to be punished for doing so irrespective of their ability to do so safely (as defined by not causing any harm to anyone).

        The same applies generally.

        You feel it’s “unsafe” to drive if it’s snowing… or has snowed “x” arbitrary amount. Hence, everyone should be “locked down” and not allowed to drive – irrespective of their individual ability to deal with snow.

        A person is a “dangerous drunk” if they are found to have “x” arbitrary BAC level… even if their actual driving cannot be faulted. Doesn’t matter that some people can handle more alcohol than others; indeed that some people are objectively safer/better drivers with some alcohol in their systems than others are with none in their system, because the former start out at a higher level of skill/physical abilities/experience than the former.

        No. For you, it’s one size fits all.

        And your feelings decide the “size.”

      • Yes Eric I feel uncomfortable having people drive faster than me because they have killed people. I feel uncomfortable with people driving drunk because they have killed a lot of people. Eric what you don’t get is it is not me that is uncomfortable driving at a certain speed, driving drunk or in a reckless manner it is I that feel uncomfortable because thousands of people that do it kill others and as you put it they may not be swinging a ball bat at someone’s head but rather they swing a ball bat where another person’s head very likely could be.Clover

        • But Clover – don’t you see the flaw in your logic?

          You’re generalizing.

          Clearly, I am able to drive faster than you feel comfortable safely. It defies logic to believe otherwise. How likely is it – if my driving really is “unsafe” – that I have gone 30-plus years without so much as scuffing someone else’s fender? Keep in mind that I put down a lot of miles, in a tremendous variety of cars, all over the country. QED.

          The fact that others may not be able to drive safely at my speed is not a fair reason to restrain and punish me (or anyone else with the skill/training/experience)…to drag the higher-skilled/more experienced down to their level.

          Or yours.

          Wouldn’t it be more just to deal with people on an individual, case by case basis? If someone causes harm, hold them fully accountable. But if they haven’t caused harm, is it right to treat them as if they had?

          You seem to believe I support “drunk” and “reckless” driving. I most strenuously do not. If people drive in such a way as to actually cause harm, then they ought to be held to a very severe standard of responsibility for that. Libertarians believe in absolute liberty – and total responsibility.

          But the mere worry that someone’s driving faster than you happen to feel comfortable with? That they have had a drink or two over the past hour?

          Absent harm caused, then I hold they should be left in peace. That the presumption ought to be innocence rather than guilt.

          For the same reason, Clover, that I would not support limiting you to the Bunny Hop on the ski slope, or forcing you to pay a special tax to help defray the “costs to society” of ski injuries. If you break your leg, that’s your problem – not mine.

          Do you see?

        • Clovér,

          I feel uncomfortable at what you promote because thousands (if not millions) of people being harmed (with some dying) due to the policies you promote.

          If there is objective evidence of someone driving poorly, then it would be reasonable for a police officer to investigate into the cause of the incompetent driving by pulling him over.

          If there is no objective evidence of poor driving then there is no reason for an officer to pull an individual over. (Assuming there is no other legitimate reason to pull the driver over.)

          Your swinging bat example is a strawman that does not make logical sense.

          ╟>Where is the person driving faster? (highway, business zone, residential zone)

          ╟>How much faster than you? (5mph below PSL, PSL, etc.)

          ╟>Is the faster driver just staying in a single lane and only making safe lane changes with appropriate use of directional signals?

          ╟>Simply driving faster than you are comfortable is not enough to bring violence to others.

          By your logic, you should ban automobiles since 30-40 thousand people die each year while traveling on the roads and highways.

          • Mithrandir I can not help your stupidity. You say I should ban vehicles because 30 to 40 thousand people die in vehicle accidents. No Mithrandir. I believe in banning the actions that cause 75 percent or more of those deaths that are 100% preventable. Clover
            Eric says that he is all for replacing engine oil every few thousand miles as a preventative measure but you and him are against all preventative measures that cost the lives of 10s of thousands of people and billions in dollars in damage. I call your logic stupid.
            I still wonder if you have ever had kids? Do you let them learn by their own mistakes? Burn themselves with hot water. Burn themselves no a stove. Get frostbite without enough clothes on in the winter.
            Eric says I want to treat him like a child. Driving drunk or in a reckless manner is acting like a 2 year old.

            • Clovér,

              Thankfully with your posts there will not be a shortage of hyperbole and strawmen.

              I do not know any 2 year old children driving drunk or driving in a reckless manner.

              You say I should ban vehicles because 30 to 40 thousand people die in vehicle accidents.

              No, I did not say that.

              By your logic, you should ban automobiles since 30-40 thousand people die each year while traveling on the roads and highways.

              • Hi Mith,

                It’s exhausting, isn’t it?

                Clover’s either really dumb – or a malicious/deliberate liar.

                He either cannot follow a simple conversation/argument… or he willfully ignores simple points made and attempts to smear his opponents using mischaracterizations and other such diversions.

                • Eric,

                  It is tiring and trying.

                  Clovér acts as a text book definition of an internet troll.

                  It would be very unlikely that someone can be this obstinate and illogical.

                • I hate to say it Eric, but clover is fabulously successful. Whether his thing is getting attention or disrupting this site, every time someone responds to him or comments about him, he wins. The substance doesn’t matter in the least — the mere fact of addressing him gives him what he wants.

                  • Hi Mike,

                    Yeah. You are probably right.

                    The only reason I reply to him is so that new people here not familiar with the site (much less Libertarian ideas) get a thoughtful deconstruction of his collectivist control freak crap.

                • eric, disjointed is not nearly enough to describe clover. He’s one upped me with his latest comment.

                  I got in Fri. evening and the boss had our new dozer on my place to see if it was going to perform correctly and clear some scrub to improve the pasture so we’d make more grazing for the wildlife.

                  All the kids were there, on a 4 wheeler they had driven 8 or 9 miles. There was a really small dozer there too to get in tight places. Various people were operating these machines since it nobody was getting paid, just assessing equipment, drinking beer and generally enjoying a nice day. One of the guys got off the small dozer and the bosses 9 year old boy got on, fired it up and tore off. His dad, his grand-dad and I all watched him. He got better the longer he operated. His dad said Well, the only way to learn something is to do it. I agreed. Whatever skills you have are learned, not inherited by birth. What a shame clover wasn’t there to run out and get in front of that boy to see if he’d panic and not stop.

                  I found this definition of clover in the Urban dictionary. I think it captures the spirit, or lack thereof, of clover perfectly.

                  “A giant prick, asshole, or shithead, one who never ceases to speak in a inconsiderate or demeaning way. “

                  • vocabulary from the Rural Dictionary

                    deciduous… definition: a state of being, according to others….Deciduous in jail, eightsouthman, good to see you’re a free man and posting here again.

                    witchadidja… definition: presence or absence of an object…. You didn’t brung your truck witchadidja? I got some stuff I need to take to my cousin.

                    asinine…. adjective describing attractiveness. Is she good looking? Well, I’d give her face a two an her asinine.

                    All: I’m gonna need me a all change on that truck.
                    Aorta: Aorta cut that grass down by the ballfield so dem kids don’t get hurt.”
                    Bard: Cousin Jesse bard money from me and I ain’t seent him since.
                    Doodle: a male person and his predicted actions. “Don’t even look at that SWP, ’cuz that doodle kill you.”
                    Far: If he don’t turn that stove down, them chickens will catch far.
                    Fascinate: I got nine buttons on my shirt, but my necks so fat I can only fascinate.
                    Farn: I ain’t unnerstand nuthin’ he sed…must be some farn talk.
                    Infamy: another person’s intent to exact physical punishment. “Ever since I stole his girlfriend, Bobby’s had it infamy.”
                    Munts: It’s been four munts since I heard from my brother.
                    Ranch: Go in the back of my truck and get that ranch!
                    Sensuous: Sensuous in the kitchen grab me another beer.
                    Spearmint: Billy Ray doin’ some type of spearmint in science class at school.
                    Tar: He got him a flat tar!
                    Twerk: I gots thirty minuts fer lunch den its back twerk
                    Urinate: That bartender is a ten but urinate
                    Water: Water you doing over dere.

                    • Tor, I red summa dis n a mazine.

                      Mean the blade operater wer fixin a luse bolt and nut yestidy. I grabt acupla nranches and ranked down on won while he held bakkup with tha utter.

                      We tuk down a ol fins, rold up bobwar for hours and then gotewar fer a bit….r 2.

                      Seems liek everthang I dun’n the all fill wuz hard.

                      I usta do electrical werk in the all fill. Some days we ranchd up conduit with waterpump plars all day.

                      I hatid after tornaders. Then pullin hiline war was the ardor of the day. Them ol nu pols wer hotnslik n skind ur ass if u slipt.

                      Wurkt on a rag sum, skeert a wurkn taers , speshly when ‘at moterman was drunkt.

                      Hadta go backta the rAnch tageta biganuf ranch.

                      BTW, I werkt with Joe Rowe, purty gudolboy. Got kidnapt by them Texis Milisha tipes. Thot he had muny but he didint.

                      Free air sure smells good, thankee.

                      BTW, them shrimps an onierns sur r gud. Dove Linkhorn

                  • Hi Eight!

                    Yeah, he’s really… something.

                    I’ve gone ’round and ’round with him over his latest refusal to concede an obvious, irrefutable fact: That the speed limit on the road where I made the video of his fellow Clover doing 49 MPH is 55 MPH.

                    Clover does not like that I passed him; feels it was “unsafe.” Well and good, as far as varying opinions go.

                    But the little SOB will not admit the fact that the speed limit is 55 and that the Clover was driving slower than the speed limit.

                    He gins up endless non sequiturs about curves, about advisory speeds… which of course is precisely what makes him a Clover!

  15. Clovers are the fasces, the bundles of sticks, that make fascism.

    The original symbol of fascism, in Italy under Benito Mussolini, was the fasces. This ancient Imperial Roman symbol of power was carried by lictors in front of magistrates. It is a bundle of sticks featuring an axe, indicating the power over life and death.

    The fasces, the Fascio (leagues), are a symbol of strength through unity.

    e pluribus trifolium unum axium

    from many clovers a single axe

  16. Re: “Most curves can be taken at 20 MPH above the PSL” – When I was a teenager a friend of my parents insisted that he could take any curve at twice the speed posted on a yellow warning sign. Since he was living in upstate NY, that may have been true there. But I was living in Kansas, where the PSL was 70 and many curves had warning signs to slow down to 65. I would have liked to see him taking them at 130.

  17. Clover again exposes himself as an oblivious serial liar. Unlike Eric, Clover HAS CRASHED while skiiing. He has done this while doing an activity TWICE as dangerous as driving.

    Clover’s own words….

    “Yes I have crashed. The only difference though Eric is that the course is blocked off from other people. There is zero chance I will injure someone else. There is no solid objects on the course so few people do get injured. There is a far greater chance I will be injured in a car accident getting there by an idiot like you that feels you can drive on the edge of crashing around other people.

    1 Error number one. Roadways and ski slopes are both relatively blocked off from other people. But non-skiers and non-drivers can be killed.
    There is not a zero chance Clover will kill himself or someone else. There is TWICE as much chance a typical skier will be involved in a fatality as a driver. This is a fact.

    2 Error number two. There are no solid objects on the course. I’ve just posted a video of a millionaire banker veering off and crashing into a tree and dying instantly. Trees are obviously on the course. One skier hitting another person can also result in death.

    3 Error number three. There is not a far greater chance of a driver being involved in a fatality. Quite the opposite. It’s twice as likely for a skier to be killed per mile skied, than it is for a driver/passenger to be killed per mile driven.
    One driver/passenger dies every 100 million miles of roadway travel.

    4 Clover, it is only dumb luck that you didn’t kill yourself or someone else when you crashed. You have been exposed as a delusional liar in front of all of us. Are you going to admit this, or continue to pretend we don’t all know you are a complete fraud and liar?
    – – –

    Restating the facts of the matter.

    One skier dies every 50 million miles of ski slope travel. One driver/passenger dies every 100 million miles of roadway travel.

    These are facts, not emotings or worries. This is a documented reality.

    You’re fucking finished clover. You know it. We all know it. Either admit you’re wrong. Admit you’re a dangerous person in denial who could’ve killed himself or someone else when you crash. Or get the fuck out of here already and go peddle your lies to readers closer to your own mental age.

  18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5DFv4G03LE Interview with Gian-Franco Kasper, President of FIS (International Ski Federation)

    FIS is world’s highest governing body for international skiing and snowboarding it was founded in 1924.

    So does clover adhere to the following core principles are the motivation in all that the FIS does?

    to act responsibly
    to show respect
    to be professional
    to cooperate with others
    to apply ethical values
    to communicate clearly and frequently
    to look to the future.

    I’m thinking clover does not live up to these very well. He should do better, or sell his skis and take up something better suited to his character.

    FIS vision & mission

    Anna Fenninger – Dune skier. European Ambassador for CCF – Cheetah Conservation Foundation.

    Rare footage of fatal skiing crash back in 1991.

    Showoff clover breaks a bus window

  19. In a ski slope setting, you’ll notice clover is faced with inattentive and incompetent skiers. I’d like to hear how he interprets the whole picture. This might be interesting.

    The average skier you see cruising down the mountain is probably going anywhere between 10 to 20 miles per hour.

    Downhill racers clock out at 40 – 60 miles per hour, and Olympians tend to ski between 75-95 miles per hour, depending on the conditions, their equipment, and their body composition.

    Speed skiers, who dress in aerodynamic apparel and ski straight down the mountain sans turning, go as fast as 120 – 150 miles per hour. The current world record for the fasted speed skier for men is held by Simone Origone, an Italian skier who reached 156.2 miles per hour.

    The fastest female speed skier in the world is Sanna Tidstrand, a Swedish skier who hit 150.6 miles per hour.

    So should their be a Federal Ski Slope Administration. Perhaps they should spray paint lanes. And post speed limits, and no passing zones and all the rest.
    There could be hundreds of violations, misdemeanors, and felonies perpetrated while skiing. Let’s start passing a lot of laws.

    Shouldn’t each place keep a record of any accidents and rules violations of each skier. Shouldn’t each skier have a ski license number on the back of his ski suit so the other skiers can identify any bad actors.

    What about ski insurance. Ski safety patrols who pull you over on the slopes and do inspections of your gear. What about ski safety officers with radar guns making sure every one is skiing at a safe speed. Perhaps there should be blinkers and brake lights on your ski jacket, for safety.

    What about those who drink while skiing. What is the safe level, or is no level safe. Should there be zero tolerance for skiing and drinking. What about SUI. What about tail gating and slope rage.

    Ski with a buzz, get stung by the fuzz.

    Drunk Russian takes friend home after skiing

    Drunk skiing in Austria

    Winter Bikini Ski & Snowboard in Russia

  20. Here is a deadly ski accident caught on video. The bankster vice president of the Bank of America hits a tree and dies.

    Skiing is twice as deadly as driving. Completely outlawing skiing worldwide would save many lives. There’s no need for anyone to risk their lives skiing in this day and age. They can virtually ski on Xbox far more safely, and with no damage to the environment and no hospital bills we all have to help pay for.

  21. Risks of Skiing
    In terms of injuries per 1,000 skier or snowboarder days, Switzerland reports around 3.5, Norway 1.5, Vermont USA 1.9, and Canada 2.5. The death rate in the US is about one per million visits. of which more than half are related to head injuries.

    Studies from Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Norway and Canada show that the proportion of head injuries is estimated at 15% for ski injuries and 16% for snowboard injuries. 74% of head injuries occur when skiers hit their head on the snow, 10% when they collided with other skiers, and 13% when they collided with fixed objects.

    If you assume 50 miles per ski visit. That’s one death per 50 million miles of skiing.

    On U.S. roads and highways, there was 1.1 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2011.

    Skiing is twice as deadly as driving on roads and highways.

    • CloverI had to laugh at Eric’s comments. I never knew that Brent or most other libertarians are actually clovers. Brent has shown us plenty of his videos where he tries blocking others from getting in front of him. He goes into rage when he is passed and floors it after the other driver. So in Eric’s mind Brent is a true clover.

        • Eric you are a low life. You make writers look bad. Anyone that posts that it is bad to not allow drivers on the road in one of the worst blizzards ever is so far below my intelligence that you are not worth it. You are flat out stupid and/or broke. Anyone that needs to write that garbage to get people to pay you money is beneath me.Clover

          • At least I can write, Clover.

            What can you do? I mean, that’s purposeful and doesn’t involve using government as your personal Luca Brasi?

            Who are you to allow me to do (or not do) anything?

            • CloverEric the government has access to people that are multiple times smarter than you. You say that the government with those very smart people should not be allowed to determine what is safe or not for other people and you should do your own thing. Tell me why a stupid person like you is better to determine how much safety other people should have? You believe that you as a stupid person gets to decide for someone else if they should be killed by a drunk, killed by you driving way too fast, killed or injured with your decision to drive poorly. Why should you get to decide for yourself if I need to stay home because you as an idiot can make your own decision to drive in zero visibility? Eric I do not believe idiots like you should be deciding for others how much risk of harm or loss that others should have from you.

              • Clover,

                Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that intelligence determines whether a person has the right to decide – or have someone else decide.

                Ok, I’m game.

                Let’s you and I take side-by-side IQ tests and the winner will be awarded in loco parentis control/authority over the other, who must obey (or else).

                How ’bout it, Clover?

                • Sic em, Eric! I still think if you charge to post here you’ll make more money and get the pleasure of letting the green leafy one pay to post his bilge…

                • Eric,

                  One may be intelligent, but not have enough wisdom to use that intelligence.

                  Intelligence can tell you it is raining.
                  Wisdom will tell you to get out of the rain.


                  You claim that government is full of smart people. Kindly explain why government is so inefficient and debt ridden. (18Trillion and counting.)

                  While I await your reply, it may be time you were locked up. It’s for the women and children. You might harm them or yourself.

                  Does this sound unreasonable? This argument is similar to arguments you have promoted (without the name calling) regarding many different topics.

                  You promote caging and fining people for the theoretical and possible harm they might commit against others or themselves. It is a shame that society does not punish people only for the actual harm they cause to others.

                  In general you want control of others as a matter of principle. Only you can try to explain why.

                  I prefer to leave people to themselves until they tangibly cause harm to another.

                  You also make some faulty conclusions.

                  Tell me why a stupid person like you is better to determine how much safety other people should have?

                  I do not think Eric is determining how much safety other people should have. Other people are responsible for their own safety, just as Eric is responsible for his own safety. Other people can choose to have as much safety as they can afford. This is the same for Eric.

                  I have never heard Eric state that he wants to interfere in the choices of others, provided they are not tangibly harming others.

                  You stated many times how you wish to control and restrict what other people may or may not do, regardless of how their actions affect others.

                  • Mithrandir the only one that may have a lower IQ than Eric is you. So you say that we are responsible for our own safety? Really? Are you telling me to get the hell off of our highways to be safe because libertarians have the right to drive drunk, the right to drive dangerously?Clover
                    My nephew is a newer driver and we were on a two lane interstate over the weekend. One of your so called excellent drivers ahead switched lanes and pulled between two vehicles with my nephew saying that the idiot just pulled between two vehicles with one foot of space in front and behind it. That is what you are saying that we are responsible for our own safety? Mithrandir you are stupid.

                    • Clovér,

                      So you say that we are responsible for our own safety?
                      Ultimately, yes. (Assuming you are of adult age and physically, mentally independent)

                      Really? Yes, really.

                      Are you telling me to get the hell off of our highways to be safe because libertarians have the right to drive drunk, the right to drive dangerously?

                      You are the individual that is telling other people to get the hell of our highways.
                      I prefer to let people make their own (hopefully informed) choices and then live with the consequences of their choices.
                      I do not think anyone here has promoted drunk driving.

                      There is risk in life. One can not avoid it. One must be willing to take some risks in life.

                      You do not state what you consider dangerous driving. Some actions might indeed be very dangerous. Some actions are not equally dangerous to all people.

                      I cannot safely travel at 70mph with my car in heavy rain so I need to slow down to a speed that I can drive safely in heavy rain. Other people are able to drive safely at 70mph in their vehicle in heavy rain. On the multi- lane highway, I’ll be the slower driver in the right lane while the drivers that are able to safely drive faster than me can safely pass me by on the left. I do not demand that other drivers slow down to my driving ability.

                      If other drivers misjudge their driving ability, then they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Even by driving slower, I am taking a risk by driving in heavy rain.

                      If I do not need to be out inclement weather, I usually will not be out. Every individual can make their own choice about going out or staying inside during inclement weather.

                      I think it would be preposterous of me (or any individual) to decree (mandate) that everyone must be inside during inclement weather.

                    • Mithrandir you are so stupid you will never get it. So you are saying that if someone drives in a dangerous manner and causes an accident they will suffer the consequences. Mithrandir if they cause their accident and they hit me it is not they that suffer. It is me! You do not understand that? You do not understand that it is me that ends up in the hospital or spend time getting my car fixed and hopefully will be reimbursed? So you are saying that libertarians have the right to drive however the hell they feel like and I suffer the consequences?
                      Why do libertarians feel they have the right to harm others?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      The problem is you seem unable to discuss it. The distinction between holding people (as individuals) responsible for that they do (respecting harm caused) but leaving them be if they have not caused harm is one you either are unwilling to deal with or incapable of comprehending.

                      You demand that all people be pre-punished for harms they have not caused – but might. And you’re arbitrary and selective about it.

                      It does not occur to you that there are innumerable things you might do that could just as persuasively be presented as justification to force you to hand over money, or restrict your liberty. I’ll give you an example:

                      Skiing (which you’ve indicated you enjoy) is a flippant and dangerous activity. You stand a much greater chance of being injured or injuring some other person and thereby imposing “costs on society” (in addition to the “safety” problem) than a person who does not participate in this risky activity. Therefore, Clover, you should be required to pay into a special fund to defray the costs of skiing-related injuries and required to buy and renew a special skiing license every year. How you ski should be strictly regulated, too. Indeed, why should anyone be allowed to ski at all? No one needs to ski. It’s not “safe.”

                      Or, this:

                      You appear to have a strong urge to control other people and this worries me. I fear for my safety. I think that people such as yourself, whose statements suggest anger management issues, are potentially dangerous and “there ought to be a law.” Minimally, you should be required to go in for evaluation – you know, just to be certain you’re ok and aren’t going to go on a rampage. Because after all, you might.

                      Do you see?

                    • Clovér,

                      I’ll put your response as a Number 4.

                      You want an over the top counter productive response to a problem. (Treat all people as incompetent for the problems that some people cause. The more appropriate response would be to deal with the people that cause the problems and leave other people alone.)

                      Your reply also has a good example of an ad hominem attack. Calling others names (or using other logical fallacies) does not improve your argument.

                      Mithrandir if they cause their accident and they hit me it is not they that suffer. It is me!

                      It does not matter much if you (or another innocent traveler) is harmed through the actions of another (incompetent driver, careless driver, reckless driver, etc.) or a true accident (deer runs out into you on the road, — engine falls from the sky on you, — another individual has a medical emergency, loses control of vehicle, — etc.). You will be just as hurt in either case.

                      The true accident could not have been avoided.

                      If an individual is responsible for causing harm, then they are (and should be) held responsible for the harm they caused. Sometimes the individual responsible is able to repair the harm done, sometimes it is impossible.

                      Unfortunately life is not fair in this respect.
                      No one is given a guarantee that they will live in a risk free world. Life has some danger that can not be avoided.

                      However, it does not make sense to punish Robert (or anyone else) for causing you harm when it was Peggy that actually harmed you.

                      If Peggy can repair the harm she caused you, then that would be great. If she can’t, then she will have to repair as much harm as is possible. It is not an perfect solution, but we do not live in an perfect world.


                      I do not think Clovér cares to see.

                      Clovér prefers to use ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies instead of discussing actual issues.

                      Clovér also prefers to disrupt your site as much as possible.

                      He will employ hit and run tactics.
                      –stir up trouble then run and hide when his argument is faced with opposition (Number 13) that he can not defend.

                      He will suggest extreme, over-the-top, counter-productive solutions which will hurt more than help, or which are wholly disproportionate to what is being discussed. (Number 4)

                    • Thanks for that, Mith…

                      We try to correct Clover – not for his benefit, but for the illumination of others, who may be susceptible to Clover’s straw men/emoting/blame-shifting/subject-changing collective authoritarian eructations.

                    • Mithrandir tell me how your idea of being able to drive however the hell you feel like is different from a group with a high powered guns shooting n the direction of people a half a mile away. If a group do it then it is only a matter of time before someone hits and possibly kills someone. If you happen to stop shooting or run out of bullets before you hit someone then are you saying it was your right to be shooting in the direction of others? That is no different than driving drunk or reckless. It is not a good thing to do and you should not have the right to endanger others just because you are a libertarian.Clover
                      Tell me why libertarians feel they have the right to significantly endanger others?

                    • Clover,

                      What you’re trying to do when you cry “doing whatever the hell they feel like” is imply that people will – absent being pre-punished, as you advocate – act recklessly, without any consideration for their own or other people’s safety.

                      This is absurd. Most people are not sociopaths. Nor are they suicidal. They try to avoid harming others, or being harmed themselves. Irrespective of “the law.”

                      Do you suppose most or even many people would become murderers if “the law” against murder did not exist?

                      I drive fast. Faster than you would probably be comfortable driving. But that is because I have training, skill and experience you haven’t got. But it doesn’t mean I am driving recklessly, let alone that I am a threat to anyone. The proof of this is the fact that I have not so much as scuffed the paint of my or any other person’s car in decades.

                      At what point, Clover, does your estrogenated fear of what might happen take a back seat to what has actually happened?

                      Or rather what has not happened?

                    • Clovér,

                      Did I state that?

                      Mithrandir tell me how your idea of being able to drive however the hell you feel like

                      I stated

                      If an individual is responsible for causing harm, then they are (and should be) held responsible for the harm they caused.

                      There is a difference between the two.

                      I think you posted excellent examples of Number 11 and Number 12.

                      Do you wish to discuss holding individuals responsible for the actual harm they cause?

                      Do you wish to discuss why it is appropriate to hold individuals responsible for the harm they might cause?

                    • Eric you say “” is imply that people will – absent being pre-punished, as you advocate – act recklessly, without any consideration for their own or other people’s safety. “Clover

                      Yes Eric that is the truth. There is proof of it.

                      Mith– you say if someone harms another person then they will be accountable. You have failed to tell me how I am going to be compensated for my injuries? Since money is irrelevant for me because I have all I will ever need how do you propose to compensate me for injuries or death? Everyone who enters our highways is to drive in a responsible manner to reduce risk to others. You believe you have the right to give as much risk as you dang well please to others.

                    • Clovér,

                      Very good. You are now giving an example of number 3

                      You have failed to tell me how I am going to be compensated for my injuries?

                      You may never receive what you consider just or adequate compensation.

                      As I stated before:

                      If an individual is responsible for causing harm, then they are (and should be) held responsible for the harm they caused. Sometimes the individual responsible is able to repair the harm done, sometimes it is impossible [to repair the harm done].

                      Unfortunately life is not fair in this respect.

                      If someone harmed you and was unable to repair the harm to you, then you will have to settle for the current remedies that are available where you live.

                      You believe you have the right to give as much risk as you dang well please to others.

                      I never stated that. I think you are using example 11 or example 12 here.

                      Do you wish to discuss holding individuals responsible for the actual harm they cause?

                      Do you wish to discuss why it is appropriate to hold individuals responsible for the harm they might cause?

                      Yes Eric that is the truth. There is proof of it.


                      Are you implying that without the law you will act recklessly?

                      If no, why not?

                      If no, do you think it is possible that other people would also refrain from acting recklessly without the threat of law?

                      Now you are using number 2 assuming that everyone will act recklessly without the threat of law.

                    • I’m more confused that this is the last reply button on a huge string of comments. Clover doesn’t confuse me so much as infuriate me and often, scare hell out of me when driving. Clover has been obviously “luckier” than Sonny Bono while skiing but that may have more to do with where Clover skis and nothing more.
                      I got to a 4 way stop last week where the traffic is very heavy. You have to keep up with whose turn it is and I do. Big rigs are waiting their turn just like everyone else and when their turn comes up, they use all the power they have and get the hell through that intersection as fast as they can which lets the next person get through faster so that the lines aren’t interminable. So when my turn came I matted that old Pete and the Detroit jumped it out in 5th gear……and then I had to slam on the brakes to avoid this fool in a pickup who took his turn prematurely and then eased out just rubber-necking his way around the corner while I sat halfway into the intersection waiting for him to get out of the way so I could go on. Of course had I hit him, and no one had stayed to testify for me(and nobody would have since they’re mostly oil patch clovers….or at least drive like one)I would have been raked over the legal coals while nothing would have happened to Clover in his out of turn, slow moving pickup except probably to sue me since my vehicle has a company name and DOT number on the side and his didn’t. It was the perfect Clover move, not a clue as to when his turn was(immediately after mine)but simply took it when he so desired. I immediately thought of Clover. But the clover I know would most likely have sat there and created a Mexican stand-off holding everybody up and then turning willy-nilly like that pickup driving clover did.

                      In that intersection they have painted lines at the stop signs to indicate where you should stop so big rigs can make the corner and not encounter the front of Clover’s car. It works well until a Clover gets there and pulls way out so she can see all directions and “be ahead of everyone else”regardless of whether it’s her turn or not. grrrrrrr……..

                    • Mithrandir if following the rules causes you to risk the lives of others every million miles and if you drive dangerously and cause the risk to others to go to one in every 100,000 miles then should we hang you upside down with nails in your feet when you do cause an injury to others?Clover
                      Tell me Mithrandir did you have kids? If so, did you wait until your kid touched the hot stove to tell him it was a bad thing to do?

                    • Clover,

                      You want to treat other adults like children – that’s the nut of it. You believe you are possessed of superior wisdom, and that others are foolish, dangerous little tykes who must be forcibly restrained lest they do something you think unwise.

                      It’d be hilarious were it not so tragic.

                    • Now you understand Eric. You and your friends do act like children. Wa wa wa I have to pass and endanger others to save 5 seconds. Doesn’t that sounds like a child? Wa wa wa I need to tailgate to save a half a second. Wa wa wa I need to weave through traffic to try to save a few seconds. Wa wa wa I need to drive drunk because I am unable to walk good enough to walk home. Eric it goes on and on that you and your friends act like 2 year olds.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      You are a Grandmaster of the straw man; a black belt of the Package Deal.

                      Allow me to deconstruct:

                      I pass when I encounter slower-moving traffic and deem it safe to do so, given the available space/time/sightlines. You are not comfortable with my evaluation of the aforesaid (based on your own lower abilities) and thus consider my actions “endangering others.”

                      But – somehow – I’ve caused no harm to anyone over decades of driving thus. One of two things must be true. Either my driving is not dangerous or I am exceptionally lucky.

                      “Tell me,” Clover: At what point do your estrogenated fears over what might happen – based on your own projections/fears – take a back seat to what actually has (and has not) happened?

                    • you are a joke Eric. You pass when you have sight lines? Really? It seems to me that you want to pass when you can not see entering vehicles.Clover
                      So you say you only pass when you can see far enough ahead to be back on the road before any cars can become visible coming the other way? So do you call people stupid and dangerous when they pass at the bottom of a hill and can not see cars that may come over the top? Do you call people stupid and dangerous for passing on a cure when you can not see hundreds of yards around the corner? I would really like to know your view on such people. Is it their right to endanger others?

                    • “You pass when you have sight lines? Really?”

                      Yes, Clover – exactly!

                      ” It seems to me that you want to pass when you can not see entering vehicles.”

                      It seems to you, Clover. In fact I could see. Or are you going to claim you were with me at the time? Are you familiar with the roads I drive? Know the driveways, the entry points? Really?

                      The problem – your problem – is your insistence that others be governed by what seems appropriate to you.

                      Other may be able to judge time and distance better than you; are able to prepare for and execute a pass more competently than you.

                      In other words, Clover, you are not the standard of value – though you think you are. And insist that others be be held (and held back) to it.

                      Poor ol’ Clover!

                • IQ test? Eric you are a joke. You said yourself you are terrible at things like math. I guess algebra would make you throw up.
                  Then it comes to you not knowing the difference from one road to the other with one having no passing zones. Eric the road with no passing zones had trees and brush within a yard or two of the road you were on and blocking the visibility of entering vehicles. Someone with a 10 IQ should have been able to figure that one out. Not your though Eric.Clover
                  Then you say that people should be driving on our roadways when any minute it will become zero visibility and cover them with 10 feet drifts. Again Eric Someone with a 10 IQ should have known that we do not want that.
                  Eric your IQ is so low they probably can not measure it.
                  Then you say that people should not drive drunk but you say that they should not be classified as drunk until they kill others and are unable to walk. You say that any amount of BAC does not really matter.
                  To sum it up Eric, my IQ is probably about 15 times what yours is.

                    • Clover,

                      What I do understand is that you’re unable to follow a simple, logical argument. To acknowledge a principle (whether you agree with it or not) and discuss it rather than spew illiterate non sequiturs.

                      I find that the first resort of people with low IQs who have nothing substantive to debate is to accuse their opponents of having low IQs.

                    • Clover,

                      It’s interesting – revelatory – that you never directly respond to any point made but instead eruct non sequiturs such as the one above.

                      “Tell me” – as you like to put it:

                      At what point does your estrogenated fear of what might happen take a back seat to what has actually happened?

                      Or rather what has not happened?

                    • Clover,

                      It does not occur to you that there are innumerable things you might do that could just as persuasively be presented as justification to force you to hand over money, or restrict your liberty. I’ll give you an example:

                      Skiing (which you’ve indicated you enjoy) is a flippant and dangerous activity. You stand a much greater chance of being injured or injuring some other person and thereby imposing “costs on society” (in addition to the “safety” problem) than a person who does not participate in this risky activity. Therefore, Clover, you should be required to pay into a special fund to defray the costs of skiing-related injuries and required to buy and renew a special skiing license every year. How you ski should be strictly regulated, too. Indeed, why should anyone be allowed to ski at all? No one needs to ski. It’s not “safe.”

                      Or, this:

                      You appear to have a strong urge to control other people and this worries me. I fear for my safety. I think that people such as yourself, whose statements suggest anger management issues, are potentially dangerous and “there ought to be a law.” Minimally, you should be required to go in for evaluation – you know, just to be certain you’re ok and aren’t going to go on a rampage. Because after all, you might.

                    • Eric you brought up skiing. Yes skiing is like driving. If I ski in such a way around other people to endanger others then I am kicked out. The same way as drivers should be if they drive drunk or in a reckless manner. You still do not get it. Others have zero chance of being injured by me with drunk driving or reckless driving. You say that people should have the right to endanger others. Show me that in the constitution Eric?
                      Eric if you say you have the right to drive as fast as you like and as dangerously as you like if you have visibility for miles in all directions then I can see your point in a way but it always comes down to you saying it is OK to endanger others. I disagree with that, our government disagrees with that and almost everyone but you disagrees with that.Clover
                      Driving 90+ mph on a two or 3 lane interstate with medium to heavy traffic endangers others but you are too stupid to see that. You are too stupid to understand that there should be no passing zones where you can not see cars entering the highway and they can not see you. Eric that is not a disagreement, you are flat out stupid and wrong. Then you say that people should have the right to drive when a major blizzard has started. I showed you an example of what happens in such a case. It hurts the people that do it, the people that have to help them and delays clearing roads and emergency vehicles. Eric we do not have a disagreement on this, you are flat out wrong again. Eric you have mental problems if you can not see where you are wrong. I am a person that uses logic every day and do not understand how someone like you can not.

                    • Clover,

                      Show me where I ever argued people have a right to endanger others.

                      What I’ve argued is precisely the opposite. That people – as individuals – be held accountable when they do endanger others.

                      The difference between us is that you equate your personal opinions about what might happen with what has actually happened (and not happened).

                      Your fears and feelings trump facts.

                      You generalize – and demand that “Smith” be restrained/punished/controlled because of what “Jones” did.

                      You’re unable to understand that people differ in abilities; that some people are better (and other worse) at various things and that “one size does not fit all.”

                      And you’ve once ignored my question regarding the “risky” and “dangerous” things you do.

                    • “Fast as I like”?

                      Yes, certainly.

                      “As dangerously as I like”? (Italics added.)

                      No, of course not.

                      But I don’t do that, Clover. Because I am not suicidal or sociopathic and am not interested in harming myself or other people. I drive within my limits, at a pace that is reasonable for me. That means I drive faster than you are comfortable with, certainly. But not as fast as someone like Jeff Gordon might be comfortable with.

                      Where we differ is our definitions. You feel that whatever you deem “risky” or “dangerous” is – by definition – risky and dangerous. That is, everyone ought to be held to your standards.

                      This is like arguing that no one ought to be allowed to run faster than you can, or lift more weight than you can.

                      When it comes to driving, Clover, I am better at it than you are. I am able to safely handle higher speeds, including cornering speeds, than you are – by dint of superior (to you) skill and experience/training you haven’t had. In the same way that there are people who are much more skilled/talented at skiing than you. Do you feel such people ought to be held back to your level, too? And punished for operating above your level despite having caused no harm to anyone?

                      Here’s a specific example of exactly this sort of Cloverism in action:

                      I live near the Blue Ridge Parkway. At the first sign of snow, the Park Pork (federal Park Police) close the gates and effectively close the road to traffic. This is a huge inconvenience because it forces me to take a circuitous route “down the mountain.” I am perfectly capable of dealing with snow. I do not to be parented by Park Pork. You believe otherwise, of course. You believe that our Dear Leaders in government are smarter and wiser and thus, by right entitled to nudge us (bayonet in the back) this way and that. For our own good. For “safety.”

                    • Eric it is impossible to talk to you because of your stupidity. You say you can drive way faster than anyone else because you can corner better? That is something spoken by an idiot. Eric I as a ski racer can corner on skis better than 99% of the people in the world. That still does not say I can fly as fast as I like through a crowed area of skiers because all someone has to do is make an unexpected and in your terms legal turn in front of me and I kill him. Tell me how better cornering deals with a dead person.Clover
                      Eric our laws are not set up for people like you that drive on the edge of crashing. People can drive in a safe manner and a timely manner fully within our laws.
                      So Eric you say that people should have the right to drive in a closed park that just had heavy snow. I tell you what Eric, you buy a snow mobile and volunteer to patrol and rescue stranded drivers and maybe they will leave it open.
                      Eric you complain about being delayed for seconds or a minute or two. Why? So you can write the garbage that you do?

                    • Calling people “stupid” isn’t an argument, Clover. It’s what frustrated six-year-olds do.

                      Somehow, I’ve managed to “drive on the edge of crashing” without crashing for…. 30 years.

                      You know why, Clover? Because I am not “driving on the edge of crashing.” I am merely driving faster than you feel comfortable driving. That’s the nut of our disagreement. You take the position that whatever you deem “unsafe” or “risky” is unsafe and risky… because that’s what you believe. Thus, you take the position that a person with “x” arbitrary BAC level is – by definition – a “drunk” driver, even if his driving cannot be faulted. And, that a person is a “dangerous speeder” if they drive faster than some arbitrary threshold that you feel is appropriate… whether they are in full control of their vehicle and have caused no problems for anyone being immaterial, as far as you are concerned.

                      At what point, Clover, do your estrogenated fears about what “might” happen take a back seat to what actually has happened?

                    • “Eric I as a ski racer can corner on skis better than 99% of the people in the world”

                      Now Clover claims to be an elite, Olympic-level skier!

                      Well, if so, Clover, then you’re operating “on the edge of crashing” (your words) and thus, choosing to assume all kinds of risk… purely for your own selfish, anti-social pleasure. What about the danger, Clover? The potential – the likely – cost to society?

                    • Again Eric your IQ is so low it is not measurable. I said I was a better skier than 99% of the people. Actually I should have said better than 99% of skiers. Doe that make me an Olympic skier? What is there something like 50 Olympic downhill skiers? Multiply that by 100 then what is that Eric? 5,000 is the answer Eric. Eric there are hundreds more skiers than that. I know you are stupid at math. I am not an Olympic skier and you are so far away from being an expert driver. Clover
                      Eric I just looked it up and I have 9,000 accident free miles since the middle of November and in all conditions except for high heat. There was not once that I needed to drive on the edge of crashing. You really are stupid. Have you figured out why there are no passing zones yet?

                    • Clover,

                      I do not “drive to the edge of crashing”… I merely drive faster than you are comfortable driving.

                      The fact that I have no so much as dinged a door in 30 years really ought to tell you something.

                      Your problem is you seethe with resentment that others disagree with your evaluation of “risk” and “danger.” Even when it’s demonstrably the case that said “risk” and “danger” is minuscule to nonexistent (see earlier point about not so much as dinging a door in 30 years).

                      You’re left with the pathetic non-argument that I am “stupid.” Puerile name-calling. Not even inventive name-calling.

                      Sad, really.

                    • One more thing Eric, yes when you are racing you are on the edge of crashing and yes I have crashed. The only difference though Eric is that the course is blocked off from other people. There is zero chance I will injure someone else. There is no solid objects on the course so few people do get injured. There is a far greater chance I will be injured in a car accident getting there by an idiot like you that feels you can drive on the edge of crashing around other people.Clover

                    • Clover admits,

                      “yes I have crashed”

                      Whereas I have not.

                      No wonder Clover fears speed. He knows he can’t handle it!

                      But ought not to assume the same of others.

                    • Clovér,

                      So now you are a seer and can predict the future.

                      Others have zero chance of being injured by me with drunk driving or reckless driving.


                      You say that people should have the right to endanger others. Show me that in the constitution Eric?

                      Eric if you say you have the right to drive as fast as you like and as dangerously as you like if you have visibility for miles in all directions … you saying it is OK to endanger others.

                      I do not think Eric ever said these statements. These are good examples of ad hominem attacks.

                      I am a person that uses logic every day and do not understand how someone like you can not.

                      Based on your writing, it does not appear that you are successful in using logic.

                      To repeat from a previous post:

                      Are you (Clovér) implying that without the law you will act recklessly?

                      If no, why not?

                      If no, do you think it is possible that other people would also refrain from acting recklessly without the threat of law?

                      Now you are using number 2 assuming that everyone will act recklessly without the threat of law.

                    • CloverNo Mithrandir I would not drive dangerously without laws. Your friends drive dangerously even with laws. Videos have shown this. Deaths by drunks and speeders and other reckless driving shows that yes there are those that do drive dangerously. The only thing the laws do is to cut down on poor driving and get the really bad ones off the road.

                    • Clover,

                      Wouldn’t it be fairer – more reasonable – to hold people accountable for what they actually do (in terms of harm caused) rather than generalize, and punish everyone based on what you worry someone might do?

                      Try, Clover. Reach deep and access your thinking mind.

                      You claim to be a high-skilled skier. If true, then you can operate at a faster pace than others, with less risk. Should the fear of an average skier – his discomfort with the speeds you ski, the routes you take – be the basis for limiting how fast you’re allowed to ski? The slopes you’re allowed to tackle?

                      The principle at issue is exactly the same. If you think rather than emote, you will grok this.

                    • Yes Eric I have crashed at many sports that I have done. Snow and water skiing, volleyball, basketball ……….. If you would ever have done a sport cough cough, you probably would have too if you were trying 100%.
                      Yes Eric an you crashed your car and I never have. In most sports it is expected to crash once in a while but with vehicles on the highway you are expected not to crash but we all know that you have.Clover

                    • RE:clover

                      March 1, 2015 at 7:17 pm

                      In this comment, Clover, you PROVE the uselessness of Government.
                      The good (whether good means moral, kind, or skilled) don’t need the laws; the bad (Immoral, cruel, or unskilled) won’t follow the laws anyway.

                      SO SHUT UP, @$$HOLE.
                      Leave us to live in peace – or someone like me will make you LEAVE – in pieces.

                    • Jean I know people that drink that do not drink and drive because they do not want to lose their license for months and cost them 5 grand or whatever. Jean where laws are often enforced they do work.Clover

                  • What the hell does “driving on the edge of crashing” even mean?

                    Is there anyone outside of ESPN 8 “the ocho” who could define that term for us? Perhaps John Madden could enlighten us all.

                    • Hi Ancap,

                      Clover equates driving faster than the speed limit with “driving on the edge of crashing.” He views the speed limit, in other words, as a kind of event horizon beyond which only the reckless tread. I am certain he has no clue at all just how high the grip threshold of the typical car is and how fast one actually has to be operating to even approach the limits of the car. Most curves can be taken at 20 MPH above the PSL without even beginning to test the car’s limits; 10 over can be done without even thinking about it…. assuming a reasonably competent, paying-attention driver.

                      Ah, but there’s the rub!

                      Part of the reason for Clover’s donkey braying wails of despair is that Clover’s limits as a driver are extremely low; far lower than the car’s limits. Thus, he feels edgy and full of fear when he sees anyone operating faster than his own extremely low limits. That, or resentful of people who have the ability/background to operate at speeds beyond Clover’s comfort zone.

                      I think the latter is dominant. Because if there’s anything that defines a Clover, it is an instinctive urge to thwart and frustrate his betters.

                    • Eric,

                      Most curves can be taken at 20 MPH above the PSL without even beginning to test the car’s limits

                      This has been true in my experience. Although, if I was driving a curve for the first time, I would believe the sign on the chance that it was completely accurate. (probably why you wrote most above.)

                    • Exactly, Mith!

                      Parenthetically: Posted speed limits have become effectively useless as information pertaining to safe rates of travel on a given road/curve. For the most part, they are legal constructs we all ignore or pay little attention to, except insofar as being concerned about getting a ticket.

                    • CloverEric you are an idiot. The most stupid person alive. You say that most cars can do 20 mph over the limit around corners. What an idiot. So when you are flying around a corner what happens to that car around the corner that just entered the road?/ Eric decided for himself how much danger the other driver is in. Then what if there are some loose rocks or sand on the road from winter road salt left over? Again Eric killed someone else. Then he says that most cars can go around a corner at 20 mph over the limit. What if yours can only make it 19? You just killed someone else.. Eric I could care less if you drive into a tree 20 mph faster than the limit I just do not want you or your friends hitting a family member of mine at 20 mph over the limit. Why does an individual get to decide how much risk another person has but a group/government can not? Eric there are 10s of thousands of people killed each year by people like you making your own decision how much they should put others in danger and at risk.

                    • Hey Mith!

                      As I’ve noted before, it’s either – or.

                      Clover is either literally borderline retarded (as evidenced by his reading incomprehension) or a malicious, dishonest, deliberate serial liar.

                      There is no other way (that I can see) to explain his refusal to stay on point, his arguing against things no one here has ever argued in favor of.

                      I believe he is the latter. Because I (and others, including you) have taken pains to carefully explain that, no, we do not advocate or defend “drunk driving,” do not advocate or defend “driving on the edge of crashing” (that is, recklessly) and so forth.

                      The argument is over what constitutes “drunk” driving; whether driving faster than Clover is comfortable driving constitutes driving “on the edge of crashing.”

                      For Clover, “drunk” driving is defined by whatever arbitrary BAC threshold the state posits as defining “drunk” driving. If the state defines it as .04 BAC (or .06 or .08 or .02) then one is “drunk” if one tests at that level – ipso facto – even if there is no evidence that the person’s actual driving was impaired.

                      And so on.

                      Clover equate his feelings with facts. And believes that if “x” is “the law” then – by definition – it is not merely a legal requirement, it is a moral obligation to obey said law.

                      I have never dealt with such a servile, unthinking creature as he.

                      Unfortunately, there are millions – tens of millions – of servile, unthinking creatures such as he out there.

                      On purpose.

                      The system requires such. Hence, it encourages the propagation of such.

                    • CloverMithrandir why are you here? Why show your ignorance daily? Eric wants everyone to be able to drive close to the limit of their vehicle. Mithrandir are you dumb enough to agree? Mithrandir I am sure my car is easily capable of driving 120 mph. Is that the cars limit we should be using? Mithrandir on an open road without curves and any other cars I am sure you could safely drive 120 mph in my car without an incident. 120 mph with heavy traffic and you should be hung. Do you understand Mithrandir the difference with your pea brain?

                    • Clover,

                      Your comments illustrate that you have no idea just how capable (in terms of traction/grip and braking) any modern car is. You – like the speed limit regime – are stuck back in 1975.

                      Your comments also illustrate that you are either incapable of distinguishing between driving faster than a speed limit and “driving close to the limit” – or you are a deliberate serial liar. Because the difference has been carefully explained, several times.

                      I drive faster than you are comfortable with, but not above my own limits or those of the car I am driving (which I would be uncomfortable with).

                      Now then, Clover. If I were, indeed, constantly “driving on the edge of crashing” (as you say I do) then how do you explain 30 years of accident-free driving?

                      At what point do your fears about what might happen take a back seat to the facts about what actually has (and has not) happened?

                    • Eric I have over 9,000 accident free miles the past 3 months of winter driving. How about you idiot?Clover

                    • CloverI knew you would never answer Eric. You probably do not have 9,000 miles the past 2 years. I guess that helps a lot to keep your chances of an accident down. Eric I have over a million accident free miles. I am a far greater driver than you.

                    • Clover,

                      I drive (and ride) more than you do. Remember what I do for a living. I test-drive new cars. Every week, all year. Often, I have two cars in a week. I put several hundred miles on each per week. Keep in mind a trip “into town” for me is 70 miles there and back.

                      I am given (and, obviously, trusted with) brand-new cars, many of them costing a great deal of money – to say nothing of the potential liability issues if I were – as you believe I am – “dangerous” and “reckless” behind the wheel. Do you know why, Clover? It is because I have proved myself to be a skilled and safe driver.

                      The record speaks for itself.

                      If I were the things you accuse me of, then – by now – surely I would have lost control/wrecked at some point over the past 30 years.

                      But this has not happened.

                      At what point, Clover, do your estrogenated fears about what might happen take a back seat to what actually has (and has not) happened?

                      Here’s the bottom line: You are accident free driving as you drive, within your abilities and comfort zone. And so am I. The difference is, simply, that I’m able (as a result of higher skill and more training/experience than you have) to operate at higher speeds than you are with equal “safety.”

                      But you can’t stand it that others have more skill/competence than you do. Everyone must be force-fitted to Clover’s one-size-fits-all standard. As defined by Clover. How fast is “too fast”? Whatever Clover feels is “too fast.” Clover is (or feels himself to be) incompetent to drive after having consumed a couple of beers? Then everyone is incompetent to drive after having had a couple of beers. Etc.

                      Poor ol’ Clover!

                    • I knew you would never answer Eric. They are not going to allow you to test drive cars for hundreds of miles. Eric it is not only speed that is your problem, you do not have a clue when to drive fast. You are too stupid to determine you should not passing when there are blind road entrances. I would guess that you have not had an accident because you forced others off the road.Clover
                      Eric what you do for a living is write. That is not driving hundreds of miles a week.

                    • I did answer, Clover.

                      Directly, honestly – two things you never do.

                      I get each car for a week to ten days; there is no limit to the mileage I am permitted to accrue. I drive each car at least 70 miles per day and typically 100-150 miles per day. Remember: I live about 35 miles from “downtown” – and drive there (and back) every day. Plus other places.

                      The bottom line, Clover, is that I have been driving these new cars (as well as my own cars and my bikes) without incident for decades.

                      At what point, Clover, do your estrogenated fears about what might happen take a back seat to what actually has (and has not happened)?

                      Will you ever answer that question?

                    • Eric you are a liar but I already knew that. No way in hell are they going to allow you to drive over 1000 miles per car. No way way in hell are you driving in town every day without a job there. Again Eric that shows your mental problems.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      I often drive more than 1,000 miles. My job is to drive – and evaluate – the cars.

                      Amazing that you know my comings and goings more than I do.

                      I don’t lie. You just can’t handle the truth.

                      The truth is I drive new cars every week, for a week at a time – and have been doing so for decades without incident. The truth is that for ten of those years I did so in the Washington, DC area – which has some of the busiest roads in the country. The truth is I routinely (pretty much every day) drive at least 70 miles “down the the mountain” and back home again – because the gym is downtown and the stores are downtown. The likely truth is I drive more than you do, in terms of mileage. The certain truth is I’ve driven (and drive) in more challenging environments than you have (road and track; off road and on; in virtually every state in this country as well as Canada, Mexico and several European countries). The certain truth is I have driven vehicle types at speed (race cars) that you would not even know how to drive (please don’t tell me you’ve ever driven a Formula Ford/open wheel car – because my bullshit detector is already sore from dealing with you). The certain truth is I have more miles on two wheels than you will ever have – because you don’t even even know how to ride a motorcycle.

                      The certain truth is I have proved I can drive – and ride – faster than you deem “safe” without incident.

                      Again: At what point do your estrogenated fears about what might happen take a back seat to what actually has (and has not) happened?

                    • Thanks, Mith!

                      Clover deals in insults (elementary school level) emoting and the unsupported assertion. He’s a serial liar, too. Deliberately misrepresents what others have said. We all know the specifics, so no need to rehash them. The point is, he’s a despicably dishonest person who specializes in smears and innuendo.

                      It’s almost too easy to pick him apart, though. Not much challenge.

                      One on one, Clovers are nothing. Easy meat. The problem (for us) is that we’re in the position of the elephant under assault by an army of ants. The elephant can stomp millions of them, but they just keep coming….

                      Something more comprehensive is needed.

                    • Eric,

                      Clovér is similar to a thin stick. Alone it is easy to break with your hands. If you get a bunch of them together, they are impossible to break with your hands.

                    • Mithrandir drunks can sometimes drive for decades before they kill another person.l Does that mean they are a good and safe driver? Eric has wrapped his car around a tree before. He has said so. A superior driver would never have done that. Yes Mithrandir sometimes a driver who drives 10 times worse than I do, like Eric, can go a long time without accidents. Would you have that driver drive around one of your family members? Even poor drivers like Brent does not cause an accident every day.Clover

                    • “Mithrandir drunks can sometimes drive for decades before they kill another person.”

                      And so can Clovers.

                      So, Clover, “tell me”… does that mean you support “Clover” checkpoints, too?

                      You might wreck at any time, Clover. It’s a possibility.

                      But (taking you at your word) you have not – which indicates you’re driving within your limits.

                      And so am I.

                      Based on the same objective criteria.

                      What is your problem, Clover?

                      At what point do your moist panty fears about what might happen take a back seat to facts about what actually has (and has not) happened?

                      Well, Clover?

                    • Eric your statements like you do not have a clue why there is a no passing zone in one of your videos when a 5 year old should be able to see it says that you are a danger on the highway.
                      The statements that you say you are a far superior driver than the norm so you can take far greater chances with other people’s lives says that you should not be driving. Some of the best drivers in the world have caused car accidents on the highway. Eric you are too stupid to understand why. Eric those same expert drivers did not cause an accident the first time they were on the highway. Some too many years before they caused an accident. The reason they caused an accident was often caused because they took more chances than anyone else. Do you understand that Eric?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      Your eructations are unintelligible.

                      The entire concept of double yellow/no passing zones is an example of your least common denominator/one-size-fits-all mentality.

                      In some European countries, double yellows are almost unheard of. The rule is – pass when safe. That is, when the driver is able to do so, based on his judgment. A skilled driver in a fast car – or a rider on a fast sport bike – may need half or less the time someone such as you needs to execute a pass. Why, Clover, must everyone be forced to drive at your (low) level?

                    • Hi Bevin!

                      Indeed. And they’re too got-damned stupid (or blinded by their control-lust) to understand that the gun they so love to point at others will one day be pointed right back at them.

                    • CloverEric, I have had to slam on my brakes for people like you that feel they can pass around corners or hills or in your case blind cross roads or driveways. I had an idiot like your pass me on a corner when there was an oncoming car. He made it but the oncoming car had to slow from hitting him. All to save a few seconds. He was within a couple hundred yards of me 10 miles down the road. Superior? No. A stupid driver like you.

                    • Clover, if you were brighter (or just a little more thoughtful) you’d recognize the fallacy. You are attributing to me the competence or lack thereof of another driver; equating that driver’s actions with mine.

                      This is the essence of Cloverism: Your one-size-fits-all (and dumbed-down) viewpoint. If “Smith” is unable to safely pass/drive fast then all will be presumed unable to safely pass/drive fast – and punished for doing so, even if their specific driving cannot be faulted (other than it being “against the law”).

                      Poor ol’ Clover!

                    • Yes Eric I was talking about drivers like you. Drivers who have the need to increase the danger to others just because you are incapable of driving a little slower for a few seconds. Eric you say that you are superior so you can. Superior at passing? How is that Eric? Do you have a heavier foot so your car goes faster around someone else or is it that you can downshift faster? Eric you are stupid.Clover

                    • Again, Clover:

                      When do your estrogenated fears about what might happen take a back seat to what actually has happened? Or not happened?

                      I have been driving without incident for decades. So, apparently, have you. “Tell me,” as you style it, how it is that you are a better/safer driver given this fact? Don’t tell me what you worry might happen, or what has happened to others. “Tell me,” Clover, how I’m a dangerous driver given I don’t cause accidents?

                      No answer.

          • Clovér,

            It is good of you to admit
            Anyone that posts that it is bad to not allow drivers on the road in one of the worst blizzards ever is so far below my intelligence that you are not worth it.

            You favored banning people from the roadways during bad weather.

            It must be hard for you, — considering yourself so far below your intelligence — but I would expect that you know yourself better than other people.

            • It’s worse than that, Brent.

              I’m convinced he’s so unintelligent, so unconscious, he’s unable to understand (and so, discuss) anything on an abstract/conceptual level. For him, there are only particulars, each unconnected to any other thing. He literally does not understand. And can’t.

              We’re dealing with an animal mind.

              The process probably operates something like this:

              Snow is dangerous!

              People should not drive in snow!

              Those who do are dangerous!

              Because people should not drive in snow!

              Now, repeat this over and over and over… and you’ll have a sense of Clover’s “mind.”

              If you point out to Clover that the issue isn’t whether it’s prudent to drive in a snowstorm but rather whether it’s right (morally) to literally “lock down” (that is, imprison) people in situ and to punish them if they disobey (even if they cause no harm to anyone) then Clover will repeat the mantra above.

              After awhile, it begins to sound like the incessant barking of a German Shepard. Which is more or less precisely what it is!

            • Brent I am sure you took your poor driving videos down. Who would want to admit that you are one of the worst drivers on the highway. Brent you should have your license taken from you.Clover

              • All the videos on my youtube account are still up. Just cite them. Oh wait, you’re lying and being a bully. Really Clover, you are a despicable person.

              • Good gosh, I wonder you can spell or even touch the appropriate keys. If nothing else, people such as yourself are depressing.

              • Clover – you say “Brent you should have your license taken from you.”
                No, our point on this site is that you shouldn’t NEED a license to drive on roads you helped pay for.
                IF you hurt someone, or damage their property, then and ONLY then are you liable for the damages.
                If the roads were privately owned (as they should be) then the owners would have the right to determine who may drive on them. But since their goal would be to maximize revenue, they would not make unnecessary restrictions.
                They might charge higher fees for those like YOU who delay others, or put them at risk by failing to yield right of way.

                • Phillip the Bruce, you say that you have the right to drive dangerously because you helped pay for the road. The last I heard, Libertarians do not want to pay for roads. Eric wants a dirt path in his back yard. I ask Eric how will roads be built without him paying? He says it will just happen. Magic.Clover

                  • Clover,

                    You’re either illiterate and unintelligent or a serial lair. Which is it?

                    I’ve explained to you – repeatedly – that the issue is being forced to pay for roads, not paying for roads. I’d like to be left in peace to pay for the roads I use – just as I am (for the moment) still free to buy the food I like, the house I want (and so on) and not be forced to pay for your food and housing. Oops. I just remembered. Because of Cloverism, I’m already forced to buy food and housing for Clovers!

                  • Clover – Why don’t you learn to READ. I have never claimed I have the right to drive dangerously. Although I may drive in a manner YOU consider dangerous, YOU don’t have the right to make that determination.
                    Contact me again when I have caused you actual damage, instead of just making you wet your panties because I won’t yield to your inferiority.

  22. anon, you probably consider yourself a dickweed. and a clover. because you haven’t been here long enough to know anything about any of us. so you must really be referring to yourself. if not, please elaborate with detailed specifics so we can follow your train of thought.

    to reiterate just one aspect of being a clover. and one thing none of us have in common with a clover. a clover is someone who wants a standard of behavior imposed on all people all the time by some kind of authority. he likes zero tolerance one size fits all dictates. if tomorrow England’s red flag laws were to be resurrected and made the law in England and America, he would immediately begin to comply, with no questions asked.*

    if you weren’t such a stereotypical driveby nobody, you’d know who each of us are, and what we each mean when we use the term clover.

    you’ll have no idea what I’m saying, and I’ll never learn anything about you, or what your ex-wife was like and how we resemble her or any of that.

    as a start of your error correction, consider that you commit the fallacy of assuming the conclusion:

    that we’re all clueless nutcases because… well because nothing, it’s just a generic derogatory label you haven’t defined or shown why it fits any of us.

    *In United Kingdom, the Red Flag Laws required self-propelled vehicles to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle’s approach.

    Firstly, at least three persons shall be employed to drive or conduct such locomotive, and if more than two wagons or carriages he attached thereto, an additional person shall be employed, who shall take charge of such wagons or carriages :

    Secondly, one of such persons, while any locomotive is in motion, shall precede such locomotive on foot by not less than sixty yards, and shall carry a red flag constantly displayed, and shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the approach of such locomotives, and shall signal the driver thereof when it shall be necessary to stop, and shall assist horses, and carriages drawn by horses, passing the same,

    The Red Flag Law was repealed in 1896, as the internal combustion engine became more commonplace and accepted, though they were now manufactured elsewhere in jurisdictions that had no Red Flag Law.

  23. There’s a phenomenon I’ve taken to calling the Great Wall of Clover. I’m sure we’ve all encountered this. This is when multiple clovers in different lanes all pull alongside each other and match speeds, forming an impenetrable barricade. What’s better still is when you see Clovers actually form the wall — when you’re on a single-lane road that expands to two, and the two guys in front of you each pick different lanes and then go the same speed.

    The ultimate symbol of Cloverism is the yellow school bus. It is a disgustingly entitled thing that interferes with all traffic in any lane, going in any direction, because oh my god won’t somebody think of the children. A nice little lever the very lowest-level bureaucrats can pull to control other people’s lives at other people’s expense. Not to mention the explicit purpose of the rolling yellow coffin is to take your children away from you to a place where they’ll be trained to be Clovers themselves.

    • Darien – Isn’t it interesting how the state exempts itself from the seatbelt requirement for the
      “rolling yellow coffin”?

        • Home release vehicle is most appropriate. It’s kind of like the work release vehicles, except in this case, home release. The school uses the bus to release you out of their care for a specified time. Work release is during the day. Home release is at night. Other than that, they are two very similar programs.

  24. It has not happened for many years but when someone used to ‘honk his horns and flash his brights’ I often would slow to the point they had to pass or pull off then rejoin behind them. Two fun things often happened.

    One, they realized what had happened, that they had behaved badly, and drove way beyond their abilities trying to ‘outrun’ me. Usually resulting in a near crash as they panicked, driving 10mph over the limit.

    Two, they did not realize and were shocked when I pulled up behind them in their driveway, politely explaining what utter dickheaded retards they were and how a less restrained giant hairy man might have beaten them to a bloody pulp for their actions. This was always fun. Worth ever extra mile driven to watch someone wet themselves in their own driveway.

    It’s good to have free time to make people aware of their behavior.

    • When bicycling I’ve done this, followed people to their driveway or other destination. People who nearly ran me down. I have learned a few things:

      1) Some people did it on purpose.
      2) Some people feel that a 2 inch margin is perfectly acceptable for vehicles moving 25 and 40mph in a non-racing environment.
      3) Some people never even saw me. (some even apologize)
      4) People lie when confronted.

      3) is by far the scariest, when they are honest. My goal is the same, to make them aware I am not traffic cone and I take their driving as aggression towards me. Namely because number 1) is so popular.

      • Hi Brent,

        Never had a bicycle incident since I was insignificantly clipped in a crosswalk age 12 or so. Next dozen years were amazingly indecent free.

        Several motorcycle incidence though. Mainly soccer moms in mini vans/ SUvs, changing lanes while I’m parallel. Not malicious, just careless. Some apologize, some are just entitled a-holes. One needed a new drivers window from right leg Dayton hobnail. Fortunately I drive so little lately, and ride less, I have not had much problem in the last few years other than an errant Echo. It would have fit under the F350 nicely either way.

        The passing thing grates me enormously though. I have passed euro luxo-barges in the local canyon driving a F350C/C long 4×4 safely +/- 5mph posted speed limit only to have them squeeze my lane. Really, a 20+y.o. F350 vs. newish MB500ish. Couple of, “really, do you not understand the mass and scale of this?” beemers too. How could that ever end well for them, even if I was completely in the wrong? People are strange.

    • clover = assclown

      I have noticed some clovers love to pass. But only when it is least appropriate.

      When traffic is one laned because of construction and it comes to a stand still, there’s clover being the asshole that he is flying up in the left lane, entitled to pass everyone, causing traffic to be at a standstill because the right lane has to stop to let clover in. Clover is in more of a hurry and a little more special than the rest of us. We owe it to him to cut in front of everyone else.

      This same guy is the guy who is in the left lane in normal traffic, driving at the speed limit or 5 under. For some damn reason, he’s never hurried to get anywhere unless he can be a dickhead to do it. Then he’s all in.

      • Not that you’re any more of a clueless nutcase than these other guys, but I just want to note the obvious: you guys are just collating behaviors that irritate you and acting as though this one fictional driver type is guilty of them all. And you just make shit up to “prove”, even if it’s contradictory.

        “When traffic is one laned because of construction and it comes to a stand still, there’s clover being the asshole that he is flying up in the left lane”

        But I thought “Clover” is afraid to drive fast? Now suddenly he’s flying in the left lane? Sounds like one of you “dickweeds” to me.

        “causing traffic to be at a standstill because the right lane has to stop to let clover in.”

        And here’s me thinking that it’s the construction that’s slowing traffic down; that whether or not the lane is closed here or there, traffic is still going to have to merge and — SURPRISE — it will slow down.Clover

        “Clover is in more of a hurry”

        Elsewhere we learn that the definition of Clover is that he is NOT in a hurry and he is impeding everyone’s else’s hurry.

        “This same guy is the guy who is in the left lane in normal traffic, driving at the speed limit or 5 under.”

        You just made that shit up. Basically Clover is anyone who does things that you don’t like. Good grief man, are you my freaking ex-wife? Everyone in the world is here to do everything as she wants, how she wants, when she wants. I suppose everyone is a clover to her too.

        • Hi Anon,

          You’ve got it all wrong. What defines a Clover is his insistence that others accommodate him (and be punished for not accommodating him). The classic example being the slow-poke/left lane hog. It’s not their slow driving, per se, that’s the source of aggravation. It’s understandable that some people are less comfortable operating at high speeds. The problem arises when such a person refuses to pull over to the right (or, if necessary, briefly off the onto the shoulder) to let traffic that’s stacking up behind them get by.

        • Have you ever tried to ‘discuss’ anything with a clover or the resident troll, Clover? If you did you’d understand a bit better. For instance, the resident troll likes to argue that other people are in too much of hurry but then will defend pulling out in front of another driver forcing that driver to brake because it takes too long to wait for a gap in traffic.

          The inconsistency and contradiction of how they drive is part of the archetype. However when looked at from another angle, there is a consistency. The ‘clover’ wants to control other people and wants other people to accommodate him. The ‘clover’ will drive 20mph under the PSL until you try and pass him. One ‘clover’ may indeed race towards a merge to get in front while another ‘clover’ will come to a stop at the merge point and demand to be let in, in front. It’s two means to the same end. The idea is they aim to be in front and both will then use the control of being in front. They want others to yield to them.

          I’ve seen them move very quickly to get in front in all sorts of situations but once they’ve forced someone to yield to them? They aren’t in hurry any more.