One Thing Leads to Another

So in other words, you agree Bailey is a shining example of humanity, his only mistake was not trying to murder the police earlier, and people have the right to kill cops whenever they feel like it.

And to think I once said you made libertarians look bad. How silly of me. Clearly you are a paragon of values. Sorry for ever doubting your infinite wisdom

“Fine, then if he had no pot, had not smoked pot, and had a legal gun, then he had even less of a reason to flee the cops. That means he would have simply been issued a ticket and sent on his merry way. Or perhaps let go with no citation at all.”

Your most imbecilic comment thus far.

It assumes those cops were not itching for a bust – a bust over a non-crime (possessing “weed”) – and that cops never confect “suspicion” (such as “I smell weed”) to support an arrest over said non-crime.

Those hero cops probably would only have issued him a ticket for that bag of weed – and the gun he had on him… They’d never have taken him to jail or charged him with a felony that entails potentially years in a cage. No reason to be afraid. No reason to try to flee. Cops are there to help us! And to keep us “safe.”

Now I know you’re a troll. No one could possibly believe such a thing. Not anymore. Not with evidence to the contrary literally raining down from the sky almost every single day.

So I’m sitting here eating my potentially-deadly-soon -to-be-banned salad and I’m thinking how it’s kind of funny how boot-licking goberment lovers would think Eric Peters is an anarchist.

I’m an anarchist, and from this angle, it seems clear to me that Eric Peters ain’t no anarchist.

Not yet, anyway.

Ok, now I’m off to Jon Rappaport’s website to read about stuff like how doctors and the FDA kill millions of people and no one says a peep. There’s no checkpoints setup to catch lying FDA bastards anywhere. I wonder why that is? Oh shit, its that, “some animals are more equal than other animals”, thing again, ain’t it? Cause there’s nothing ‘potentially dangerous’ about doctors and the FDA. Nope. No sir E.

Ooops, that’s Jon Rappoport.

I do so strive to be accurate.

Here’s a link about them killer doctors and the evil FDA:

The medical cartel: too big to fail, too evil to expose

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/category/fda/

I agree speed cameras are total BS. You can’t go to traffic court and argue your case against a camera. Traffic violations should require a human observation and interaction to confirm.

As for DUI, I keep pointing out its absurd to emphasize how many times drunk drivers make it home. I live in a pretty remote area. If I walked outside my door and fired 5 random undirected gunshots every morning, there is a good chance no one would ever get hit. That doesn’t mean I should be allowed to do this. It’s still an imminent risk to the public

Those who believe the law is the law, should not have any problem with automated enforcement. The problem with the camera can’t be not being able to question it in court for it’s not like traffic court is even remotely fair with a live cop. The law is the law types never object to all the streamlining that makes just a pocket picking exercise. The word of the cop is good enough for them. So why do so many object to automated enforcement?

It is my belief they object to automated enforcement because the machine isn’t selective. It can’t tell the bad people from the good people. So what happens is these law is the law types that haven’t been pulled over in 20 years start getting tickets and they don’t like it.

“Those who believe the law is the law, should not have any problem with automated enforcement. “

When did I ever say “the law is the law”?

“The word of the cop is good enough for them. So why do so many object to automated enforcement?”

The word of the cop is not good enough without being subject to cross-examination. Traffic cameras can’t be cross-examined, so they are illegitimate. Also they are mechanical devises which, like all mechanics, can fail. If a camera malfunctions and wrongfully issues a ticket to someone who isn’t speeding, that person is left totally screwed.

CNS, you have repeatedly given the mantra that he broke the law thus what follows from that, the intrusion of state, is acceptable. This is your basis of defense for the cops. The law is the law and he broke it so the government employees were justified in their action to pull him over. That’s what you’ve been arguing for days.

Then you turn around and post a comment, which I replied to but seems to not be here last I looked for it, where you expressed that you were not supportive of automated enforcement because you can’t question a machine. You can question the cop all you want in traffic court it isn’t going to help you with regards to a common traffic violation most of the time. The entire process has been streamlined for revenue purposes over the years with the cheers of people who wanted traffic violators punished. After all to them the law was the law. Well until they get selected anyway.

However automated enforcement has had wide disapproval. It loses everytime it is voted on. Governments of all levels do everything in their power to override the will of the people. This is very strange. In all these decades the average american has had no objection to the streamlining of traffic business. In fact he usually votes for the guys who are going to get tough on traffic offenders. They still do. They react like you to libertarian ideas with regard to traffic. It’s bogglesome. Logically the people who wanted the cops to crack down, to enforce the law, to have more laws on the books for driving, who have been cheering the last three decades or more of a more intrusive traffic cop should love automated enforcement. Some do, but they are few and far between. So I think to myself what’s the real difference here?

Traffic court is not a fair place. If the average american had complained the way he does about automated enforcement it wouldn’t have gotten that way. So to me this reason has no merit. Most people just pay the fine one way or another anyway. They look at people who fight traffic tickets as kooks. So no, this doesn’t hold up to examination. What’s difference is that machines don’t care what a person drives, what his skin color is, what time of day it is, if he is from out of state, or anything else that a real cop notices. The machine doesn’t filter. It tickets everyone. That’s got to be the reason so many people hate them. And while I hate the scam of automated enforcement I enjoy watching the clover masses squirm when they are treated like the way they advocate others be treated.

BTW, real cops lie, their equipment malfunctions, etc and so forth. I’ve yet to see the average american fight traffic tickets from real cops. It’s only us kooks that fight traffic tickets.

I’m glad you won those cases. That makes perfect sense. Speed cams are a total joke. They should be rejected on grounds that they can’t be cross-examined.

I’d expect CNS to be driving this: http://www.history.nimg.de/Bilder/Autos/CIJ/AlfaRomeo-vickyvectis.jpg

Yes, I hate laws that penalize people who haven’t caused harm to others.

Again: If we had peace officers, I’d support them. I have no love at all for thugs – of any persuasion, badged or not-badged.

You fixate on Bailey – a black guy who probably arouses your ire because he’s a “druggie.”

But it’s the principle at issue here that matters, Clover.

The principle that a man – any man – has an absolute right to be left unmolested until and unless he has caused harm to others or their property.

That’s where we differ.

You’re a “law n’ order” type.

I’m a human rights type.

Clearly you love thugs. Bailey is the textbook definition of one and you hail him as a hero.

“where the police are always corrupt and can never do anything right.”

Yes, that’s what usually what happens with monopolies. Again, if you were a libertarian (which you sure as fuck are not), you’d understand that.

I don’t care about Bailey’s skin color or his drug habbits. I care that he was endangering the public with his wreckless driving (and possible intoxication), and willing to murder fellow human beings rather then answer for his actions.

Your defense of Bailey proves your love of thugs.

The funny thing is, I think it’s possible Bailey himself wouldn’t defend his actions with the zeal that you are displaying. I think there is a good chance he knew it was wrong to put other drivers at risk by fleeing and it was wrong to shoot at the police. He just did it because he realized he was about to go to prison and didn’t want too, not because of principles or morals.

Clover, what do cops spend the preponderance of their days doing?

Radar-trapping “speeders,” issuing tickets for not wearing a seat belt… arresting people (and seizing their property) for possessing/consuming arbitrarily illegal “drugs.”

These are all corrupt (abusive) actions, by definition. No victims involved; ho harm to actual persons or property. Nothing more than violations of statutes – “the law.” Man-made “offenses.” That’s all. And you support this regime.

Cops don’t even have a legal obligation to protect your person. Were you aware of that?

But they will mercilessly enforce “the law” – any law, every law.

And you think that comports with Libertarian ideals.

And that to object – and to resist – does not!

“Cops don’t even have a legal obligation to protect your person. Were you aware of that?”

All they do is show up with a piece of chalk after a crime has been committed, then parade around as if they are the great protectors (like what happened in Boston and Sandhook). The really sad part is that fucking idiots like CNSClover cheer them on further shrouding them in their veiled legitimacy.

Ah, the argument from CAPSLOCK. You are WIN. Your logic IMPREGNABLE. This thread is decided, unless one dare unleash the formatting tag KRAKEN: The dreaded argument from BOLD CAPSLOCK.

Your quibbling is incredible, Clover.

No, they didn’t actually have their guns drawn when they initially pulled him over – but the threat of violence was there from the moment the thugs turned on their lights and siren. It was sufficient to coerce Bailey’s compliance – to force him to pull over. Because he knew that failure to comply meant… guns drawn.

Do you deny this?

No interaction with a costumed enforcer is voluntary or peaceful – unless you can walk away and the thugs have no power to prevent you from doing so. Bailey could not walk (or drive) away. He was waylaid by force. The costumed enforcers initiated force.

Over the manufactured non-crime (because no victim or harm done) of not using a turn signal. That’s what set this whole ugly chain of events in motion. It is a common occurrence. That link I posted? A case in point. Another non-crime (talking on the phone) that resulted in a vicious assault. Unfortunately, that poor woman – like so many victims of costumed thugs – had no meaningful way to defend herself. Had she tried, those sociopathic thugs would surely have killed her. Over a fucking bullshit charge of talking on her phone! And you would say she deserved it – as Bailey deserved it. For “resisting” authoritay. For disobeying “the law.”

Your position is one of reflexive deference to “the law” – by dint of it being “the law.” A circular position that excludes any consideration of the rightness or wrongness of the law – and thus, its enforcement.

You reverence “the law” (and those who enforce it) much more than human rights. If that were not the case, you’d agree that no man – costumed with state regalia or otherwise – has any right to interfere with another man by threatening him with violence in order to obtain his unwilling compliance with arbitrary edicts or to punish him for doing something that hasn’t caused or threatened to cause harm to other persons or property.

And that makes you a Clover, Clover.

CNS: Americans such as yourself have a funny idea of what constitutes the first use of violence. The first act isn’t the first person to draw a gun or the first person to fire a gun. The first act is intrusion with the backing of violence.

It’s no wonder americans are led to war so easily. All the government needs to do is to put another country in the position where they’ll fight back and it can claim that it was fired upon. If that doesn’t work they just make up an event.

The first act backed up with violence is the selective enforcement of failure to signal. Unless you are willing to argue that he would have been left alone if he chose not to pull over but to continue driving normally, you have to admit this is the first act that is backed up by violence.

If the officers were actually harmed by this act of failure to signal they could have simply noted down the plate number and informed the owner of the vehicle by mail with a court date. It was clearly a ‘beyond the stop’ fishing kind of stop. Cops don’t even bother with it otherwise.

Eric: “No, they didn’t actually have their guns drawn when they initially pulled him over – but the threat of violence was there from the moment the thugs turned on their lights and siren. It was sufficient to coerce Bailey’s compliance”

Doesn’t matter. The fact that they never drew their weapons until he forced them too means they did not hold him up at gunpoint. The mere “potential” for drawing weapons is not enough. Funny how you say potential for things is meaningless until the act occurs, but then don’t apply the same standard to the cops. I thought you said everyone should be treated the same.

Eric: “No interaction with a costumed enforcer is voluntary or peaceful”

Yep, I was right, you still can’t figure out the difference between and uniform and costume. Anyway, that’s false. If someone calls the police to report a family member has been kidnapped or property has been stolen, that’s voluntary action. Citizens routinely make voluntary calls to the police for service all the time, and then peaceful interaction ensues.

Eric: “Over the manufactured non-crime (because no victim or harm done) of not using a turn signal.”

It was not manufactured. He did it and the police had every right to pull him over for it. There is no inherent human right to ignore traffic laws and treat the road as your personal property, because you’re not the only driver on it. When you start acting irresponsible, you risk other drivers as well. Libertarians do not justify behavior that can harm others. This is particularly the case for driving while intoxicated. That’s no different then firing a gun in random directions in a populated area.

Eric: “Had she tried, those sociopathic thugs would surely have killed her. Over a fucking bullshit charge of talking on her phone! And you would say she deserved it”

Clearly you missed the part where I said that was a case of police abuse. Your selective reading strikes again. I didn’t defend the cops in that case, I just pointed out it has absolutely nothing to do with this one.

Eric “You reverence “the law” (and those who enforce it) much more than human rights.”

Wrong again. I simply pointed out the laws Bailey violated were legitimate and his rights were not violated in this case. He had no right to ignore traffic laws. He had no right to endanger the public even further by fleeing down the road at high speed from the police, he had no right to shoot them for performing the legitimate duties of a peace officer.

Everything he did was a crime. not a human right. If the cops in this case were 100% libertarian and acting its principles, their actions would have been the same as you see on the tape. To hold Kevin Bailey up as a victim and paragon of libertarian ideals makes a complete mockery of the system and ideology you claim to believe in.

CNS you are avoiding the important question. If he had kept driving normally and not stopped for the cops, what would have happened? That is he did nothing violent, just ignored that the cops were even there. What would happen?

You know as well as I what would have.

Furthermore, everyone in this country is in violation of some law. That’s how the system is designed. To get anyone they want when they want. The vehicle code is filled with selectively enforced items and if a cop doesn’t spot one of those or just lie about it he can make up violations.

I’ve been pulled over for no legal reason multiple times. Pure fishing expeditions. Sometimes the cop never says why I was pulled over. Sometimes the cop makes up a reason like ‘a similar car was used in a crime’ (really comical as this one was done when I was driving a car of a type which had disappeared from the road due to age) or sometimes they make up a law. One cop went as far as to cite a newspaper.

The fact of the matter is this can happen to you too and I don’t think you’re going to like it much when it does. We’re all indigs* now, some people just don’t know it.

*military slang for the population of an occupied country.

Clover’s Ninny Sister (CNS)

I ask again, do you feel that driving under the influence and driving at dangerously high speeds should be legal?

If the cops see someone standing over another person with a knife in hand, do they have to wait until that person stabs their victim before they can intervene? Is that what you would do?

So driving 140 MPH in an inner city street with a BAC of .23 is just fine? The police shouldn’t do anything until the driver runs over someone? That doesn’t work. Some standards have to be set.

What if someone was outside drunk out of his mind firing a gun in random directions? Can the police stop him immediately or do they have to wait until his bullets hits somebody before anything can be done?

Libertarianism doesn’t mean the cops can’t take action until someone gets hurt.

Yes focus should be on the harm done, but that doesn’t mean people who engage in dangerously reckless behavior that poses a clear threat to the public get a free pass.

Yes plenty of speeders and drunk drivers don’t crash, but that doesn’t mean what they are doing isn’t a clear risk to the public that the police have every right to try and stop.

Driving at absurdly high speeds and driving while intoxicated is like standing in the middle of the street and firing a gun in random directions. Most of the time you won’t hit anyone, but that doesn’t mean its harmless or that the cops shouldn’t do anything about it.

So Jon Rappoport sees as Orwell wrote about in 1984.
“When all people share the same imposed reality, there is no reality at all. The mind then stands only symbolically, like a black tree that has been dead for years.” RE:The scene of the Rally in 1984, where The People were horrified to learn they had brought the wrong signs, when the Ally and Enemy were flipped in a speech The Party was making… And no one even questioned the change, they all just ACCEPTED the alteration to reality – because their minds were controlled…

Hi Ed,

Yeah, I know – you’re very probably right in re “CNS.” But I responded on the assumption that “CNS” might be a sincere, if misguided reader – and not just a troll. I have tried to reason with him. However, it’s proving impossible. Because (as you know) in order to have a reasonable discussion, one must be willing to concede factual points – such as the fact that when cops pull you over, they are using (initiating) force. As I mentioned to “CNS,” we can debate the merits of using force to stop a person for violations of statutory law that do not involve actual harm to actual persons or property. But it’s beyond debate that force is used to pull people over for violations of statutory law that involve no harm to actual persons or property – as in this case (Bailey not using his turn signal) because there were no other cars nearby ans thus, no possibility of actual harm being done.

I’m ready to debate the rightness or wrongness (vis-a-vis Libertarian ideals especially) of using force to detain/punish people over violations of statutory laws that do not involve actual harm to actual persons or property. But “CNS” is apparently unwilling – or unable to enter into such a discussion.

Instead, he wants to repeat, as nauseam, that armed enforcers are not using – and initiating – force when they forcibly stop a person for violating a statutory law absent a victim/harm to persons or property or even a plausible assertion of imminent risk to persons or property.

So, rest assured: I’m done with him. If he posts along similar lines – repeating the same canards over and over and over – I’ll just delete ’em before they even appear.

Time to move along….

Well, he got his feeding. That’s what these assholes are after. This guy keeps coming back here under different names because this is where he gets fed. If all he got was a few short replies such as “FOAD”, or even no reply and a quick nuking of his initial post, he’d soon stop hijacking threads.

He has been taken seriously and he’ll be back.

Yep, a FOAD or just an ignore will almost always drive them away. I had someone try to post a response, under an obviously (and comically) contrived identity, to an article I posted on my own blog about a year ago . The idiot was a dead giveaway as a fedsnoop in that he responded to my article by asking a completely irrelevant question about how I felt about something cops somewhere had done, a question that had nothing whatsoever to do with the article I posted. Needless to say, I didn’t bite and the guy went on IGNORE immediately.

Nice try, asshole. They obviously didn’t make any attempt to train you to do the “job” they hired you to do (but then again, anyone who would NEED “training” for such a “job” is probably a hopelessly inappropriate candidate for any position other than street sweeper anyway).

Again, if people like that are the best the feds can hire, we have less to worry about than we think.

You’re almost certainly right, Jean. I stand corrected. VERY careless on my part for not seeing things in such an obvious light.

Bailey initiated the force. He ran from the cops and endangered everyone else on the road in doing so. He shot at them when they quite legitimately stopped him. All the force in this case was done by Bailey, even though at the point he initiated the force, he had not even been arrested yet. They had taken no force against him whatsoever when he made his move.

This is not about reverence for the law. I know there are plenty of bad laws on the books. But the specific laws Bailey broke in this case are not among them and the police had every right to enforce them all.

You are so blinded by your hatred of the police you cannot see any cases in which they do something right, as this clearly was one. That makes you many things, but not a libertarian.

Bailey wasn’t shot for a traffic violation. He was shot for fleeing the cops at high speed and then shooting at them. He initiated the force, not them.

Furthermore, he wasn’t stopped at gunpoint. The cops had their guns in their holsters all the way up to the point when he shot at them. Can’t you get even the most basic facts of this case right?

I disagree with most of what you said about the cops, but even if it was all true, it doesn’t change the fact that in THIS specific case, they did go after someone who was being harmful and who had initiated force. In this case, the facts show the cops did the right thing, and there is no way around it. Your hatred of them is preventing you from seeing the truth.

There is no way of getting around the fact that Bailey initiated the force, not the cops. He ran from them and endangered other motorists. He shot at them while their guns were still holstered. No force had been used on him until he decided the road was his personal escape route and the safety of other drivers didn’t matter.

Under your own definition of legitimate force, the cops were justified. He initiated the force and they legitimately responded.

The act of a cop pulling someone over in this case is an implicit act of force. That is the state’s monopoly on legal violence is behind that action. Or are you going to argue that stopping for said cop is entirely voluntary with no consequences of violence for merely ignoring the cop and going about one’s business? You know, at low speed, following generally accepted procedures in traffic like in the OJ ‘chase’.

So you’re saying all traffic stops for violations are illegitimate and said drivers have the right to shoot the police in each case? Makes perfect sense, if your IQ is in negative numbers.

A legitimate traffic stop for a traffic violation is not an initiation of force.

A traffic stop for breaking laws that legitimately protect other motorists is perfectly justified.

Well sir, you certainly are full of yourself. You would be willing to flee the cops and endanger everyone else on the road over a petty seat belt violation and act as though they are the villains.

If you want to make a stand over what you think is right, fine, but don’t endanger anyone else in the process. At least get out of your car and run on foot.

Oh right, not cops, but “armed and costumed assholes”. I think that really says it all.

I didn’t say I agreed with seat belts laws. I said you had no right to endanger the public in order to defy them. You want to make a stand on principle, fine, just don’t risk anyone else’s life while doing so. When you flee from the cops in a vehicle at high speed, it’s not just about your life anymore.

And yes, I do agree cops should try to have a fitness routine. It’s quite important for the job. If their employer wants to make them have it as a condition of employment, no big deal.

This guy is to busy polishing his masters’ boots with his tongue to grasp what you are talking about, Eric.

Hey CNS, this ought to get your authoritarian collectivist control freak state worshiping panties in a whirl:

When Should You Shoot a Cop – Larken Rose

Oh right, so any time you want to resist a law you think is unjust, you have the right to do anything you want to avoid arrest, no matter how minor the violation and how great the risk it is to others. If someone gets killed in order for you to avoid a seat belt ticket, tough luck for them. I’m sure that person’s family will find your principles comforting.

That’s not libertarianism. Libertarianism assets that one can do what one wants so long as their conduct is peaceful and doesn’t harm others. Once you unwillingly drag others into your scheme and risk their lives, it’s not about you anymore.

So, out of curiosity, just how long have you been calling yourself a libertarian? I don’t see any hint that you follow the philosophy at all. Saying you reject the failed War on (some) Drugs proves nothing. Plenty of Progressives reject it as well.

“So, out of curiosity, just how long have you been calling yourself a libertarian? I don’t see any hint that you follow the philosophy at all. ”

Iberns, the asshat you’re responding to is what I call a libertardian, which is a variety of troll who thinks he’s impersonating a libertarian. He actually thinks he’s undercover and that everyone will assume that he’s just another libertarian making a point.

He has a point on his head and he thinks he’s sharp. 😉

“Iberns, the asshat you’re responding to is what I call a libertardian”

Ha! I’ve been burned by a troll. Hat’s off to you CNS. I’ve been doing this internet thingy for over 20 years, so it’s not easy to pull that off.

Nice try, but if you read what I said, you can see I pointed out that in this case,the police were justified in what they did under libertarian principles. Only an anarchist pretending to be a libertarian would argue otherwise.

“Only an anarchist pretending to be a libertarian would argue otherwise.”

This statement alone pretty much proves you know nothing about the philosophy (a libertarian would understand what I mean by saying this).

Sorry Eric, repeating a lie more times doesn’t make it true.

No one has the right to endanger the public by breaking reasonable traffic laws and fleeing from the cops when they legitimately pull you over for it. Preventing traffic violations is not random exersize of authority. It’s a legitimate means of protecting the public from careless or incompetent drivers. And it’s only done in response to the driver’s wrongful act.

You still cling to the fantasy that “individual rights” is an excuse for doing anything you want no matter how much you put others at risk. That’s an anarchist line of thinking, not a libertarian one.

The fact remains Bailey initiated the force. His actions caused a traffic stop. His actions turned it into a deadly force situation. The cops were doing nothing wrong. Under libertarian principles, they were clearly vindicated.

Oh, shit! Another Ed. Please tell me you’re not the AntiEd.

BrentP – “Anyway my point wasn’t the rest of the story. My point is that your tune will change when you get selectively enforced upon. I know how it is to be selected upon. You clearly don’t.”

CNS, may this happen to you. You need the life experience.

http://www.newsforage.com/2013/06/911-call-captures-escalation-of-traffic.html

Note this isn’t even selective enforcement, it was porcine error, followed by porcine violence.

He committed a traffic violation. That doesn’t make him evil but that’s perfect justification for a traffic stop.

I know about the NAP. The cops didn’t violate it, and he did. His driving endangered the public They had every right to take a dangerous driver off the street if he really was under the influence of drugs, but he chose to flee at high speeds, thus endangering the public even more, and shoot his way out of a legitimate arrest.

The only one pretending to be a libertarian here is you. It seems you are really an anarchist.

It’s his type – the conditional Libertarian, the “limited government” conservative – that drives me nuts the most.

I’ve honestly only heard about this story from you, and considering what the State normally does and how it twists things, I’m certainly going to trust a fellow libertarian, even an anarchist, over the state-controlled media.

That said, the reality remains that an 80% ally is an 80% ally. I don’t know about this guy in particular, he doesn’t even sound particularly libertarian (Heck, some people don’t consider ME a libertarian, even though I’m essentially as libertarian as you can get without being either “Pro-choice” on abortion or being an anarchist), and he may not in reality be any kind of an ally to any degree. If an 80% ally gets something wrong, by all means, criticize their position in any way you deem necessary. That does not, however, make them an enemy.

You have a positive opinion of Ron Paul, so I seriously doubt you despise every honest limited government constitutionalist, as after all, that is what Ron Paul is. Your problem in this case, as is mine, is that the poster in question seems to be supporting UNLIMITED government authority, not that he’s not an anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalists are certainly libertarians, but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. I see no good reason why I shouldn’t support people like you when we agree 95% of the time just because I support government existing to deal with legitimate violations of the NAP: therefore limiting their authority to police, courts, and defense, while you oppose any government existing altogether.

Anyone who’s honestly limited government, even if we don’t agree on the details (And I put ancaps in this broad category) isn’t my enemy. Its the supporters of unlimited government, the people who will support virtually ANY act of aggression as long as the State does it that I feel are my real enemies. My real enemies are the Lindsey Grahams, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas, and the Nancy Pelosis, not Rand Pauls and the Justin Amashes and the Thomas Massies…

Honestly, there are some things I just won’t compromise on. I won’t vote for anyone who supports war or gun control, and it would take a lot to get me to support anyone who supported greenback currency or Roe v Wade. But if we’re not willing to build any kind of coalitions, as Ron Paul has suggested doing multiple times, we aren’t going to get ANYWHERE.

Admittedly, I don’t know where the right balance here is, but to immediately cast out anyone who doesn’t want to totally destroy 100% of the state is, in my opinion, a position that dooms us to lose even a very libertarian position.

Heck, you’d have to throw me out of the tent if that’s the case.

It’s worse – deeper – than that.

CNS doesn’t consider it abusive to send armed men out to detain/fine/arrest/cage – even kill – people over “violations” of law. Not because they’ve damaged property, or caused others harm. But merely – and solely – because they’ve transgressed against “the law.”

He’s the apotheosis of the statist-collectivist-authoritarian, yet doesn’t even realize this. Because he has this bizarre idea that it’s ok to violate some people’s rights when he (and others of like mind) believe it’s justified, based on their fears about theoretical/generalized “risks,” or “costs to society” or in order to “keep us safe.” He’s too limited in brainpower to comprehend that these same rationales can be used to justify laws – and enforcement – he doesn’t like and which are an affront to his liberty. But, having conceded the principle, he’s got no real defense to put forward. He’s disarmed himself – and all of us, too.

It’s his type – the conditional Libertarian, the “limited government” conservative – that drives me nuts the most.

CNS believes that he is safe in the herd, that the lions will go after someone else…

He forgets there are more Lions than herd animals these days… Even if most of the pride is busy drooling on itself (bureaucrats), CNS sees only the OBVIOUS Lion: The male, with his big mane, basking in the sun, lying on the rock…

He forgets that the FEMALE lions are the hunters… And they aren’t on the rock, no…

But the female huntresses smell CNS… The smell of soiled panties carries on the savannah…

(Geez, am I getting too graphic now?)

Reg_ ” “follow the law”,” That means tacit support of wars of aggression . . . corporate war, illegal acts of aggression in other sovereign nations.

If you follow the law, you don’t resist the draft or any other social pressure put upon you to join up and support your all knowing government, which sells the illusion of bogus personal protection. That purports to ‘protect our freedoms’ when it actually has another self serving agenda. And agenda that trades lives for profit. That destroys families and viable social structures. That diminishes our national and personal treasure. That makes us vulnerable economically and physically for a very long time.

But hey! Pat yourself on the back . . . your ‘good boy’.

Peacekeeping doesn’t mean doing nothing until someone gets hurt in all cases. Libertarianism still allows the police to take action when someone’s behavior presents a clear imminent risk to the public, like driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and fleeing from the cops at over 100 mph.

I asked this question in a different post and I’ll ask it again here.

What if someone was outside drunk out of his mind firing a gun in random directions? Can the police stop him immediately or do they have to wait until his bullets hits somebody before anything can be done?

It is quite revealing that you still refuse to answer my question about the man firing a gun in public scenario. Can the police stop him or not?

Again, a libertarian society doesn’t mean no police (or peacekeeping if that’s what you want to call it) action until someone gets hurt. They can still take action when they see an imminent and deadly risk to the public based on someone’s actions.

Read the scenario I presented again. I didn’t say he was pointing a gun at anyone. I presented a case of a man in public in a populated area firing a gun at total random. He’s not aiming at anyone in particular. Just shooting in random directions.

Can the police stop him or do they have to wait until someone gets hit?

Ignoring a traffic law is not force, but neither is the police pulling someone over and writing them a ticket for it. If the cops beat someone up for a traffic violation, then it makes sense to criticize them. But simply writing a ticket for a violation is legitimate response.

Again, in this case the cops had not taken any force against Bailey before he initiated force against them, and the other drivers on the road by fleeing at high speeds. At that point they had every right to respond.

“What if someone was outside drunk out of his mind firing a gun in random directions? Can the police stop him immediately or do they have to wait until his bullets hits somebody before anything can be done?”

Sure they would, but why would you wait for the police? Shoot him yourself. I would.

CNS, better let me run out of ammo. And if you can’t go that, just ask yourself, self, do I really want to die tootsweet? If that answer is no, just let me get my yaya’s out, never hurt anybody to date, mid-sixties and that’s a pretty good record since I’ve logged a couple million miles on the road and the only wreck was due to GM’s great ABS,,,,and I was sober to a disgusting degree. Geez, dicks like you. I absolutely hate to be sober. I’ve spent a lost lifetime being disgustingly sober….and for what. I do much better with a buzz going. I suppose you just must not realize how it is to see everything out in front of you, including intersecting traffic and to actually look into people’s eyes who might turn in front of you. I know people have said You actually looked people in the eyes? Damn right, I make a point of it Nobody will turn in front of you who locks eyes with you, better for both of us. The only people I’ve had turn into my lane were not seeing, maybe turned my way but nobody home. Been There Done That too damned many hundreds of thousands of times. It’s sorta nice to be in that crazy, fast city traffic you can’t screw up in cause those people are having to pay attention, no joke.

“I absolutely hate to be sober.”

Me too. I just cracked one of these.

lberns1, pales ales ok but I would ask for something darker, not necessarily stronger. Still, I love it all, fermentation rules. ha ha

Pale Ale perhaps, but the difference is that this beer doesn’t use hops, it uses heather. It really is a nice diversion from the flood of IPAs out there, and has become one of my favorites.

lberns1, I see what you mean. It’s not entirely lost on me, just can’t afford it even if I could find it(not here, or anywhere within a 100 miles or more). It does sound excellent from the description.

Absolutely.

The old standard was expressed thusly:

“He ain’t hurtin’ no one… so leave him alone.”

Being odd – eccentric – is not sufficient warrant to kidnap/cage someone. But that’s where we are.

Just wait until they – the PTB – declaim that anyone who doesn’t support the government is “sick” … and requires “care.”

Yes, you are corrrect. We lock up SANE people as well as the looney.

Eccentric shouldn’t be a problem. Weird shouldn’t be a problem. Edgar J Hoover was a flamboyant trannie, as I recall… Just as one example.
He was not locked up, of course…

I can’t see enough to make a GOOD judgement here, behind company policies. I’d need to get to this from home.
but something like this? At most, you just restrain the individual from running into a certain-death situation for NO gain. Hence the roof concept. Absent such incident, if he wants to run back in, LET HIM. If the building’s collapsing, maybe not – odds are he can’t accomplish his goal anyway, and you get two deaths instead of one. The assumption is, the one death has already happened, why compound it?

The interesting thing to use as counter-point is our collective “appeal to authority” of fire fighters: “Leave it to the professionals.” Just like cops, when sconds count… Only minutes (if you’re lucky) away.

We (society) PAY firefighters, but we pepper spray, taze, and arrest those who would act to do similar or identical actions sans the safety equipment (hence higher risk). THAT would seem to me to be asserting ownership over a person.

Maybe to clairfy my stance need something very different:
Imagine the child in a guillotine. Even if the place is wired to explode: BEFORE the blade drops, no one should interfere with you going to save the child. Even if the blade is dropping, stay out of the way.
Once the blade HAS dropped, and the infant is dead – THEN keep the person from going up there and getting blown up in the explosion that will follow.

[Sorry, can’t come up with a reasonable analogy. And it’s seconds, so it’s easy to second-guess from safety, and “it’s not my child.” ]

I am craving open pit smoked freshly tasered hero bacon jerky, it’s quite delicious, when you can get some.

Eight Rules of Fight Club

Well, they don’t just disappear people in the night – yet.
But really, I just had the song “Rockin’ In The Free World” ringing in my ears….

[ From: http://www.metrolyrics.com/rocking-in-the-free-world-lyrics-ks-choice.html ]

Rockin’ In The Free World

There are colours on the street
Red, white and blue
People shufflin’ their feet
People sleepin’ in their shoes

But there’s a warnin’ sign on the road ahead

There’s a lot of people sayin’ we’d be better off dead

Don’t feel like Satan but I am to them

So I try to forget it anyway I can

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

I see a woman in the night

With a baby in her hand

Under an old street light

Near a garbage can

Now she puts the kid away and she’s gone to get a hit

She hates her life and what she’s done to it

That’s one more kid that will never go to school

Never get to fall in love never get to be cool

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

We got a thousand points of light

For the homeless man

We got a kinder gentler machine gun hand

We got department stores and toilet paper

Got styrofoam boxes for the ozone layer

Got a man of the people says keep hope alive

Got fuel to burn got roads to drive

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

Keep on rockin’ in the free world

🙂

I wouldn’t dismiss the Tea Parties, Jean. They’re a bit like the Hydra. Cut off one head in battle, and three new ones appear, all with fiercely gnashing teeth and hungry maws the PTB need to keep feeding to stay in power.

An untamed beast which is partly conservative, partly libertarian, and partly populist is a formidable animal who strikes fear into statists and zookeepers everywhere.

The “carrot” would not be offered without a big stick to go along with it, remember.

“Here’s the money… here’s the script.

Oh, and it would be such a shame if anything happened to your family.”

It would not seem wise to even start to play that game. sigh

MamaLiberty,
Remember, only one rule for dealing with the Devil:

DON’T.

I doubt I’d bite. I’ve got a pretty good life – nice wife, nice place. I’m fairly content, materially speaking. And I don’t feel oily – which is priceless.

I’m pretty content with what I have – which acts like a Temptation Shield against selling out. Sure, it’d be nice to be able to go to Barret Jackson and buy a 100 point “perfect” restored Brewster Green SD-455 Trans-Am four-speed (one of my favorites) but I’ve got a pretty decent ’76 – not as rare (or as fast) perhaps, but not bought with corporate shill money, either!

I wouldn’t mind having another 50 acres; and I’d like to finish my guesthouse this summer. But I’d rather have 16 acres – and work on the guest house as money and time permits – than become like Beck. I guess I’m just not socially conditioned enough to value money and status as much as I am supposed to.

8-south, don’t forget Alex Jones. Much of Glenn’s material comes directly, often hours after, Jones’ meticulously researched output.

And yet he seems to harbor some weird antipathy to him….”sounds like the ravings of a fascist” he said once about Jones.

I’m glad if he’s waking some people up. It bothers me a bit that he doesn’t seem to have a genuine moral compass; he’s in it for the audience. And he’s misused his platform to mislead people at times–such as when he supported the original 2008 “bailouts”.

AFAIK he still denies the existence of the FEMA concentration camps–despite the publicly-available documents like the army’s FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations Manual.

I’m leery of Glenn Beck.

meth, I’m still not on his bandwagon. I know his past, have heard him utter BS time and again. Just because he wants everybody to think he’s a freedom fighter doesn’t mean my memory failed. He’s opportunistic to be kind, a flat out backstabber to be accurate. As long as he’s pushing people away from the feds though, he’s not ALL bad. I simply keep an eye on him and wait for the “other” shoe to fall if you know what I mean. I.E., his record is highly “inconsistent”. BTW, that link you supplied made Firefox go bonkers, didn’t want to take me there, bad juju it said.

8-south:

Try this link instead, you’ll have to find FM 3-39.40 by scrolling down about half-way. They’re alphabetically ordered.

Strange that Firefox gave me the same bad-juju warning. A few months ago, I downloaded the original document straight from there.

Seems they’re not so keen on sharing it anymore. You know, sharing the document they used MY money to write, and the camps they used MY money to build.

Here’s another source for it that doesn’t have bad juju.

8-south–also, I hear you on Glenn Beck and I figured you’re no wet-behind-the-ears beltwaytarian!

I call out Glenn Beck whenever I can, so the uninformed and recently-informed know to watch their backs around him.

As you say though–if he wakes people up, great.

Oh, meth, welcome back, sorry to hear you’re ill. I was beginning to wonder if you were taking a break at club fed. I know how life can be rocking along and in a second, can turn into a veritable shitstorm. I left countless cases of ammo stacked right where the BATFE left them knowing they’d come back. 5 years later they sent the locals who gave me a raft of shit to which I replied ‘I knew you’d be back so I left everything sitting just as the BATFE left it”. Go check the old photos or just call them but leave me the fuck alone. BTW, the next time you come, they’ll still be right here….and they did and it was. I’m thinking of finding it all a new home, maybe neatly nestled in large cap mags hung side by side for quick reload.

Ha! Thanks 8-south.

As far as club fed–Big Bad Bill is Sweet William Now. I’m not precisely in their targets, yet. They’re going after the actually effective ones–guys like Michael Hastings. By the time they’re coming after guys like you and me, the revolution will be well underway…and I’ll not be caught at home 🙂

Speaking of Michael Hastings–Eric, et al–have you guys ever heard of an engine + transmission of a Mercedes leave the car at right angles while the car is still moving in a straight line??

If he wasn’t murdered by car bomb, then my name is Barack and I’m Kenyan.

Totally obvious. Way worse than Breitbart; it was a very, very plain message to journalists–“Yeah, we listen to you. Step out of line? BOOM! You’re dead!”

meth, one more thing on the pdf. What(I can’t seem to find it)does I/R mean? Everything hinges on that and they give definitions for all other abbreviations. I thought my cuz was gonna have a conniption from me using NAP last week in an e. I’m going to devote my life to using abbreviations from now on. As Bugs would say Ain’t I a stinker? Another thing about GB you speak of him using AJ’s work, sometimes only hours after his using it. Demonize someone, delegitimize them and people will shun them. This is a good tactic when you’re merely plagiarizing someone and don’t want your audience to find where you got your information. He also plays on those who don’t use the internet, a big failing I can’t seem to convince my old friend of. I do send him stuff through his wife though that is only available on the net so he has to read it sometimes. He feels it’s dehumanizing just because his wife and I have had major battles over what she says and used to whole-heartedly believe. She was a run outside, run the flag up the pole, stand and salute person, literally. After what happened to my wife and I, and he rightly pointed out done at the behest and by those she so proudly idolized, she started to some around. I’ve had her reading LRC for years now, a great place to start those who need some “re-education”. Thanks for the link, even if I can’t figure out I/R.

meth, the MH thing stunk from the very first reports. I’ve seen one since that had the same info you spoke of. It said he was travelling high speed when the car “jackknifed”. I don’t know how a car can do that but I get it turned suddenly, as if a driver who’s only input was the steering wheel and the brakes suddenly locked up on one side. Certainly they’ll say the car was too badly damaged to figure anything out and ignore the skid marks of two brakes on one side locking up on a very sophisticated ABS system. Sure, we believe. And now, more Ry. I realized I didn’t have that in CD, just an old album. I need to fix that.

“…anyone who must be persuaded to be free probably doesn’t deserve to be. “

THIS! (I would remove the “probably” from the above statement, but otherwise spot on.)

Seriously, I too have reached the point where I feel not one ounce of pity or sympathy for the Clover that finds itself on the wrong side of the Establishment’s wrath or that finally feels the changes of bondage cutting of the circulation in its limbs.

Why not? Because in 99.999999 instances out of 100, said Clover was an enthusiastic enabler of such Establishment tyranny – as long as it benefited from it.

Any human life form so soulless that it craves control over itself by some higher temporal power or that would exercise petty and unnatural authority over others in order to satisfy its own shallow, worthless ego is a creature to be held in absolute contempt. I say this mostly because “epiphanies” by the average Clover of the benefits of freedom too often are insincere and self-serving (i.e., “how can I assure freedom FOR ME, but tyranny for everyone else?”).

While it’s not difficult to spot a sincere “convert” to the cause of liberty, a Clover who has been genuinely “born again” (so to speak), IME these are few and far between. With freedom comes responsibility for one’s own life and actions, something Clovers biologically avoid like snails avoid salt.

Seriously Ed, Agreed. I have been posting such time and time again across the past few years. Do Not trade one for one with the low level enforcers and clovers. We are 1pct of their size. When each of us, with individual and Spiritual introspection, reach that line in the sand, we must not array ourselves against the minion level (unless absolutely forced to). Aim higher, aim for the head of the squid. Make each and every message count. There are only a few thousands in varying levels of control at the top. At the very top (or at least the ‘top’ that we can identify), maybe a few hundreds but certainly under 1k. And the ones the “Elite” like to have us fawn over in the media? Measured in tens. I agree with the poster above who said he had given up (as have I, long ago). But for me, that only means I am hardened and ready (resigned) to face what is coming. Focus your efforts, once you have the basic survival mindset and equipment, on marksmanship. A decent 762 can ring a steel target at 1,000 yards consistently thus would make a nice platform. Frankly for soft targets I prefer 338 Lapua, 408, and the newer Barrett 416 given ballistics. The latter two quite capable of hits at 2,000 yards. I for one am setting up our out-of-harms-way place outside of the US for the family while stocking it and our US abode well with recent firearms purchases. I suggest others do the same. Best to you all…

“we must not array ourselves against the minion level”

Yes, I agree, Alpine Knight. BTW, I’m the ‘Ed’ who posted about having given up, but not the ‘Ed’ who posted the video clip. Apparently, the siteware here allows duplicate users of screen names.

The minions are numerous, unlike their instigators.

“Soon to be erased by the conquerors”

How’s that working in Afghanistan?
Push just hasn’t come to shove yet.
Is the blackmarket dead?
All I can say is, Stop looking under rocks for birds.
Someday, after The Wall comes down, those under the rocks might come out and have a yearning to fly,… or a least jump up high.

Your comment, “Freedom will always exist, but at this point in history, it will be nothing but a footnote. ” Reminds me of this article:

Liberty Is Winning, Mostly
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1234.html

Also reminded me of the saying about how things are always bleakest at the threshold of breakthroughs. …Or something like that. Not that I’m discounting the possibility of We’re Freaking Doomed from happening. It’s always a possibility.

One last thought: are you familiar with the concept of The Fourth Turning? The phrase, ‘and the worm turns’, comes to mind. It’s a lot like how it’s no longer cool to wear polyester pants, no one does it anymore. I think maybe someday soon the know-nothings will act like they knew all along too.

clover, I just realized who you are….Ann Coulter. Yep, got you pegged, speak just like her and have the same views. well, well, well

Clover,

You are babbling again. Take a moment to think before you write,

8Sman,

That is an eerie observation. Probably does not look like her, but 2 out of 3 ain’t bad. 😉

Mith, it is her. Ann? Could you take off your blouse? I’ve been curious about that Adam’s Apple for decades.

Eightsouthman, now that’s just plain mean!

“Could you take off your blouse? I’ve been curious about that Adam’s Apple for decades.”

How in the heck am I supposed to get some sleep with that image in my mind? E-gads man, have some compassion.

That’s right, Clover. Because cops are our friends and protectors. They never abuse people. Never run roughshod over them. Just relax… Submit & Obey … and all your problems will be solved.

Innocent of what clover? Do you consider it a crime to be in possession of a weed that grows wild all over North and South America despite incessant tax funded efforts to eradicate it? A true crime requires an injured party. Now you may argue that using recreational drugs “injures” the individual, but that, like piercings, tattoos, sky diving, spelunking and snake handling are a matter of individual choice. Not things that need to be declared “illegal” by you and your ilk. Let’s use spelunking for an example of prohibition. Let’s say the U.S. gun-vernment declares spelunking to be a dangerous activity and worthy of laws prohibiting citizens from “thrill seeking” in this dangerous manner because of the burden it places on the public health-care system and rescue workers. Yet private individuals with caves on their property allow paying customers to go crawling around in these holes in the ground for a much higher price than before, because it’s a now a prohibition induced black market and the risk to reward ratio is so high.

The authorities discover that you, clover, are one of these illicit “cave dealers.” They bring men with guns to your house, storm the place, shoot your dog, taze you and beat you down before they confiscate your land and home and put you in a cage. Would you feel that since you violated an arbitrary statute against “cave dealing” that you were in the wrong and deserved what you got? No. You would consider a law prohibiting cave diving, especially in the privacy of one’s own cave, to be ludicrous. After a prolonged vacation at Hotel Graybar with a “celly” named Ben Dover you’d have a remarkably different outlook on the “justice system.” Henceforth, you would have a healthy distrust of government and their enforcers. So you clean up your act, work hard and buy another house and land…with no cave on the property. You start raising your own vegetables and make sure they’re GMO vegetables so you don’t offend Monsanto and risk another run-in with “the law.” Then a drought comes. You decide to dig a big hole in your backyard and install a cistern (an underground water storage tank). There you are digging this big hole in your backyard when the county assessor flies over, sees it and reports you to the cave and cavern enforcement agency.

The next thing you know, you’re overrun by balaclava clad thugs with guns for the “crimes” of manufacturing an artificial cave (digging a hole), possession of cave manufacturing paraphernalia (shovel and pick axe) and possession of a cave with intent to engage in spelunking. You know you haven’t harmed anyone or done anything that’s actually wrong. But you also know what’s about to happen to you in the name of justice, so you cut and run. Once the authorities have you pinned down, you make the decision to fight because you know that otherwise you will be caged and treated badly. Based on past experience, you know there are worse things than death so you call your mama, tell her you love her and won’t be coming over any more. Then you open fire . All because you liked to go crawling around in holes in the ground and other folks (with the cloverian nosy busybody mindset just like you), think there “oughta be a law against it.”

In a free country there would be no such laws. In a free country men with guns wouldn’t be out prowling around looking for people engaging in statutorily prohibited non-crimes to punish. In a free country changing lanes without using a turn signal would not be a punishable offense. No one would be punished for anything until someone else was demonstrably injured by their actions…in a free country. That’s where we’re supposed to live clover. In a constitutional republic where you’re innocent until proven guilty and when there is no harm there is no foul. That’s a free country. But because of people like you, we now essentially live in a police state where if “they” want you, “they” can find something to gig you with. Be careful what you wish for clover, you just might get it. And *it* might just might get you before it’s over.

Boothe,

I think you may have missed your calling. That is an excellent analogy.

Clover, you have this habit of responding to things I never said.

Again: There is a difference between failing to signal in the presence of oncoming traffic (dangerous) and failing to use a signal when there is no other traffic in the vicinity. Right? Will you at least acknowledge that?

In the case at issue, the cops were looking for a pretext – an excuse – to pull over the man. They were going to pull him over. If he had used his turn signal, they’d have come up with some other reason. The man was in the crosshairs. Doomed, no matter what he did. Further evidence of this is the notorious “You ain’t got no weed” (cops are such literate people, aren’t they?) statement that followed. You know what was coming next… right? They were determined to search the car. And needed another excuse. The bullshit excuse of arbitrarily illegal drugs.

And, in re “enraged.”

You are the one who reflexively resorts to the application of violence at every turn – not I. I may be vociferous in commentary, but I would never harm or threaten to harm you physically, unless you threatened me physically first.

And no, Clover, my driving by you over the double yellow because you’re driving slower than I’d like to drive does not constitute violence. You aren’t harmed by my actions. I am simply refusing to be controlled by your actions.

Eric I have been harmed by people passing in a no passing zone. People coming straight at you at a combined 120 mph with only a couple of hundred feet to react or less has caused me to slam on the brakes and pull off the road! I have been lucky because it has killed others! I would call that threatening and endangering others but you call it your rights!

Tell us Eric where you got your information that the cops were after this guy? Maybe the should be though if he is a person who deals drugs and shoots at the police! Is that your libertarian right to shoot at police when they stop you for a minor traffic offense? You say the driver did not signal because there was no traffic around him? Where did you get that information? Is it one of those cases where you say a turn signal is not needed when there is no traffic so therefore a turn signal should never be required? Tell me Eric is it a libertarian view that it is OK to endanger others? Everything you say backs up that view. You say you should be allowed to do whatever you feel like to endanger others and you should only be prosecuted if it kills or injures someone.

Tell me Eric what kind of society would it be if people are allowed to do whatever they feel like when there are hundreds of thousands of mentally unstable people out there that do things like aim their cars at someone else to scared the hell out of them or hundreds of similar actions?

I take this to mean you have a problem with people who’d drink a half a dozen drinks and then go drive responsibly….correct? Clover, you’re the person truckers actually hate to the point of doing things they normally wouldn’t do. We’ve all seen then thousands of times, the guy who won’t go over 55 but will them stay right beside you as you increase your speed to 75 to get around and he increases his speed to stay right beside you. I’ve had this happen so many times I’ve wished to have a blowout that would cost me hundreds of dollars but might blow the idiot beside me off the road. Of course, blowouts never happen when it would be beneficial and clovers are by their very nature, non-beneficial. I’ll give you a for instance. This actually has happened to me countless times but this time the guy increased his speed to 80 just to keep me from being able to pass. This shit went on for miles with me getting hotter and hotter because of the danger he was putting everybody in. The last time he did it he was still right beside me going up a hill, back in my blind spot. About half way up this long hill when I knew he wasn’t going to do anything but stay right beside me as he’d done several times I simply put on my turn signal and started pulling back into the lane. Unfortunately my wife was with me and started screaming(never a good idea with me)there was a car beside me. I pointed out he’d been right beside us for miles as she already knew and that I wasn’t going to play any longer, I’d had it. This guy was so stupid he stayed with me and pulled onto the shoulder. Fine, as long as I was back in my lane before traffic came over that crest of the hill. Now he can’t get in a blind spot so I’m looking him in the eye in my mirror. He sees the look and my face and just crams on his brakes, nearly collecting the safe drivers behind him…..but in his clover mind, he was in the right, no matter what he’d done to create that situation.

Thanks Eightsouthman. It sounds like you have as many or more problems with your reckless driving as the guys you complain about! If you both followed the laws there would be no confrontations. I guess we can not have that can we? It would be no fun for you I guess if police put a stop to your type of driving! Why is it that I never have confrontations on the highway? Why do you? I guess that answers it!

eric, do you know why we have laws? It is because so many like you make your own determination of what is safe! Like that guy that says it is not tailgating driving behind another car 10 feet back at 75 mph! Like the guys that have made me slam on the brakes or push me off the road because they determined that they could pass in a no passing zone. Like the guy that has 8 to 10 drinks and goes out and kills a family! Eric there are hundreds and thousands of cases where people knew they were not following the law but their judgment that they are too good of drivers for laws caused accidents or killed someone. I am leaving this country when it becomes anything goes driving like you want!

You say the cops stopped the car for not using their turn signal when no one was around. Often cops stop people like that to warn them they are doing something wrong and let them go when as you say they were not hurting anyone! We will never know if that was going to happen here because the guy started shooting at them instead.

I just got done taking Bonkey for a ride down our local bike path. The path has two lanes created by yellow dotted passing stripes painted on the whole length of the asphalt path, the entire path for miles, around curves and over steep hills, is one huge passing zone.

There’s no yield signs, no speed limit signs and nobody uses turn signals, or even hand signals. Everything seems to flow pretty smoothly with all kinds of signal-less passing going on and bikes weaving around pedestrians – some of whom are pushing baby strollers – it’s real close to being anarchy and everyone on the path seems to enjoy that fact.

I imagine that’s what the roadways could be like. People would motion to one another, make eye contact, or simply keep to themselves and keep to the right. Even if they didn’t keep to the right, things would sort themselves out, but that requires thinking. Clovers do not like thinking. They want it all to be automatic and controlled, like robots.

Clover, my comment below is for YOU.

You driveling, inane, pathetic excuse for a human being. Not only could you not defend yourself in a physical altercation, you wouldn’t even TRY. You’re a prey animal. You’re worse than that because they actually flee predators; you WORSHIP your predators.

And a verbal altercation? An argument? A debate? There is no such thing with you. You’ve been so programmed, so damaged by propaganda and indoctrination, that you’re not functioning on a sapient level. You’re an automaton. A robot. A computer program–and not even a very cunning one.

It’s horribly sad; that old ad is right, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

Because when I look at my children, or I look at my friends, and see the intelligence, the spark, the LIFE in their eyes, that human creativity, rebellion, WILL…

…and I read or talk to people like you, I see how much you’ve given up. How much has been stolen from you. Even your very humanity; the very fire that makes us what we are.

I’m starting to believe again in the idea of a non-material “soul”–perhaps it’s a quantum-entangled field, perhaps something we have no science for. But when I see some of the slaves around me, I wonder if the NWO have developed a technology to actually snuff it.

Because it’s like you’re not even there anymore.

Clover, you’ve repeatedly defended drivers that make others brake so why do you dislike it so much when someone forces you to brake to avoid them?

DownshiftFast5to1, you’re lucky. The bike paths by me are filled with clovers unless it’s the buttcrack of dawn or the hottest days of years. They are probably clear in the winter too but I wouldn’t know since I dislike winter bicycling.

The clovers ride or walk slowly side by side blocking the whole path and all the other usual nonsense they do on the road.

Ann, go to bed. Your nonsense is maddening. I think it was meth who said ” a mind is a terrible thing to waste”….and he’s right. I’m so glad they didn’t waste one on you. Put some vanishing cream on your Adam’s apple and get some rest, you obviously need something to help your “mental” faculties.

Your operate on the assumption that laws are a sort of holy writ, issued by higher-order beings with superior knowledge and judgment who are always impartial and fair

It’s a religion to these people, Eric, complete with all the working elements:

Holy doctrine(law), pastors(congressmen), popes(president), penance(jail time/fines), excommunication(deportation), high priests(judges), churches(court rooms), cathedrals(capital building), idols/symbols(flags/badges/statues), hymns/chants(anthems/pledges), and whacked out fanatical followers (like Clover)

True. I once saw a movie where only the police had guns. It was called Schindler’s List.

I have no doubt he’d do it – or at least, not object to it being done. Provided it was “the law.”

Right. And then he’d tell you, “And anyone who has a problem with what I/they do has severe mental problems.”

To be a Clover is to have a limited mind, “… or perhaps we should call it the literal mind. […] The literal mind is a programmed mind. […] The literal mind accepts all contradictions like hundred-dollar bills. […]

The literal mind, under guidance from elite media anchors, will connect the dots directly in front of it, but it will avoid, at all costs, imagination. It will never posit alternative realities or explanations which then make those dots take on different meaning, fuller and deeper and truer meaning.

The literal mind is full of fear and protection. It wants to protect itself and it is afraid that something novel might swim into view and shatter it to pieces.

The literal mind is a clog in the bloodstream of life. It’s a believer in the extreme fairy tale of ordinary reality.

The literal mind imports, wholesale, images of ordinary reality and clings to them like a leech. […] Do not hold out a helping hand to the literal mind. It will try to snap your finger off. That gesture is all it has left.” …

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/why-hasnt-the-us-government-snatched-ed-snowden-yet/

Downshiftfast5to1,

Excellent article by Jon R.

Are you really that stupid?
Are you a little girl?

Clover, try to relax a little . . . and think a little bit.

I made the case for peaceful co-existence. The notion that a man ought to be free to go about his business unless he’s actually harmed or very clearly threatens immediate harm to others. Got that? It’s leading somewhere.

Now, if we accept the idea that a peaceful citizen minding his own business has a right to be left alone unless he’s harmed someone else or clearly doing something that threatens imminent harm, what follows from this? Think, now. It’s not hard, really.

If someone assaulted you, Clover, would you be within your natural rights as a human being to defend yourself?

Try, please, to answer these queries without emotional eructations, m’kay?

PS: You have far more in common with the KKK than I.

Because you’re the one who resorts to violence and threats to get what you want – and get others to do what you want them to do. I, on the other hand, only want to be left in peace – and to leave you in peace. I want absolutely nothing from you, Clover. Not one penny of your money. Not to interfere with your right to live your life as you see fit (whether I agree with what you do or not) so long as what you do doesn’t actually cause me a tangible, physical injury.

Can you say the same?

So you’re saying he did an ‘oh my exit’ or ‘oh my turn’ like any garden variety sober clover would.
You argue we all have to yield to these drivers who change lanes without signal so what’s your problem with it all of a sudden?

Clover –

You and I differ as to the meaning of “drunk.” That’s the issue. For you, “drunk” means anyone who has “x” arbitrarily decreed BAC. Even if they give no evidence that their actual driving is meaningfully impaired.

I, on the other hand, am only concerned about drivers whose actual driving suggests they’re impaired – for whatever reason.

Just yesterday, I was driving down the mountain to the gym. Ahead of me, a Ford Explorer whose driver was unable to keep his vehicle in his lane, who repeatedly crossed the double yellow in the curves – sometimes, putting three-fourths of his vehicle in the opposite lane. I doubt he was anything but sober. But he was an inept/careless driver. Yet no “checkpoints” to stop him.

Meanwhile, the driver who hasn’t given anyone any reason to suspect impairment – in terms of his actual driving – gets arrested at a “checkpoint” solely because he’s found to have “x” BAC. The fact that no one can fault his actual driving is no defense (legally speaking). It is not even necessary to produce evidence of dangerous driving – just a BAC number.

Make sense to you?

People have different skill levels. Right? Would you disagree? People also respond to alcohol differently. Right? Would you disagree?

“Smith” is an exceptional driver. He has very high skills, excellent reflexes and eyesight. He’s had three drinks – but he’s still a better (more competent/capable of controlling his car) driver than “Jones” – who has not had a single drink, but is low-skilled, with slow reflexes and poor vision.

You don’t care about the very real risk to others presented by Jones – because he’s “sober” (as defined by law) despite being a demonstrably poor driver.

But you do care about “Smith” – even though he’s no threat to anyone, because he’s an excellent driver, even with a few drinks in him.

All you care about is your arbitrary, mindless legalisms. Not actual harm done.

Eric there are problems with your example. If there was a policeman following the vehicle that was going well out of his lane do you think the policeman should stop the vehicle? I say yes. Tell me how you were able to determine if the driver was drunk causing him to go out of his lane or just someone who was in full control who felt like doing it?

If the police were able to have a checkpoint and they had a way to determine if a driver is going to be inept/careless/dangerous do you think it would be a good thing for for all of us to put a stop to such a driver? When the police stop a driver and he has a high BAC he is hundreds of times more likely to drive in an inept/careless/dangerous manner than you or I. If the driver has the same skills as you or I do when he is sober he is hundreds or thousands of times more likely to cause someone else harm when he has a high BAC! Why is it you do not want to do anything until he has a 100% chance of harming others? Would you want a driver with a high BAC to be on the roadway along side or coming towards your wife?

If there was a policeman following the vehicle that was going well out of his lane do you think the policeman should stop the vehicle? I say yes.

Is this why you refuse to do to a cop what the drivers you defend do to me?

You have defended the driver of the SUV in this video ( http://clovercam.com/?p=377 ) at length. Not only that but you attack me for staying in my own lane minding my own business. Notice, no signal at all from the SUV driver. He just moves over. You’ve defended every driver that has behaved in a similar manner. So now you say such drivers should be pulled over even if they do not cause another driver to take evasive action? Is that why you won’t put your convictions to the test in front of a cop?

Eric that is the difference between you and me. I would be willing to be stopped hundreds of times in my lifetime to prevent family members from being killed and injured but you want them to be on the same roadway and drunk with your wife on the road!

As for Brent’s video, that is some of your worst driving that you have done. You stay in the right lane and in someone’s blind spot for the entire time before they try to switch lanes! The SUV driver may be wrong but you are far worse in the video. You learned nothing in your drivers training!

Eric you do not get it! Searching a house is far far different than checking to see if someone is safe to be on the road. You are not going to injure others on a public highway from your house. Your wife has to take her own chances by living with her husband. She always has the option of leaving. You are saying we do not have an option to drive on a safe roadway!

You say that we do not check to see if someone has 20/20 vision to drive? Every state that I have lived in has a minimum vision standard with a test before you get your license. I am not saying that you put a driver with .002 BAC to go to jail. There has been testing for BAC for different people and how they react. They then set standards based on these tests along with crash statistics to set the maximum levels similar to minimum standards for vision. You show me your statistics that show that you can have a far higher BAC level than what we have now and show that people can and do drive normally with the same reaction times then I will listen.

Clover, my driving was to hold a steady speed greater than the traffic to my right while remaining within a single lane.

Why don’t you try what the SUV driver did to a cop? Why don’t you try what any of the drivers you defend to a cop?

Eric you do not get it! Searching a house is far far different than checking to see if someone is safe to be on the road.

No, it’s not. In another discussion forum ages ago a self identified cop argued the home was different. However I would then produce news story after news story showing it wasn’t. That difference isn’t principled Clover, it’s just a feeling, an opinion that it is different. All it takes is a little time and people will accept police entering their homes at any time of the cops’ choosing.

Back in 1982 the idea of checkpoints in the USA was unthinkable soviet like behavior. But they figured out how to manipulate emotions of people like you Clover so now we have them. They’ll do the same to enter homes. They’ve started the process already.

Clover as a prisoner in Auschwitz as he’s being herded into a gas chamber, “I don’t know what it is that I’ve done, but I surely must deserve this.”

lberns1, If Clover had a past life in such a place he was a guard following orders. It’s the law!

BrentP – I made that point in an earlier post. I’m just doing the flipside, and showing that Clover is nothing more than an obedient little tool of the state. Or, more appropriately: a useful idiot, which was how the Bolshevik leaders privately referred to their followers as. It doesn’t really matter on which side he sits.

“crossing 3 lanes of traffic […] not even using a turn signal”

Oh God, the horror, the horror!

Happens all the time: smack dab in the middle of the unitedstates. I’ve seen it happen plenty of times in the South, and out West too.

Guess what.
Every time I’ve seen it,… nothing happens.

No injury.
No wreck.
If they were lucky, no ticket.

Seems to me, cops and Clovers are just miffed because they weren’t notified in advance.
It’s a control issue.
…And they can’t handle the unexpected.

In the background a Clover robot is saying, “I MUST HAVE ABSOLUTE CONTROL and POWER! How DARE anyone deny me!”

Clover –

Crossing three lanes of traffic without signaling – as such – presents a problem…. how? What if no other traffic was in the vicinity?

You imply that other drivers were cut off, or somehow endangered. But this does not necessarily follow.

Do you see?

This is another case in point of your inability to separate out a mere violation of statute and a genuinely harmful to others wrong.

It’s not “anything goes” – your hysterics. It’s about exercising judgment – and leaving people alone if their judgments don’t cause harm. Whether you personally would judge a given situation differently – and act differently – is irrelevant. It’s not about likes and dislikes. It’s about harm – and not causing harm. If no harm has been done, why hassle people?

Here’s an example: Almost every day, I “run” the stop sign that’s at the “T” junction of our road and the main road. That is, I do not come to a complete stop, if there is no traffic coming. As I approach the “T” to make my usual right-hand turn, I look to the left and check to see whether any other cars are coming. The visibility is such that I can see for a good quarter mile and thus, I know for a certainty that there is no oncoming traffic and thus, no reason – other than blind obedience to “the law” – to stop completely (and waste gas as well as time).

Do you fault me for this? Am I driving “unsafely”? Should I receive a ticket? If yes, why?

OK Eric. you say flying across three lanes of traffic is OK and not using a turn signal is OK. Is weaving back and forth on the roadway like a drunk might do OK because it did not hurt anyone at the time? How about a drunk that crosses three lanes of traffic? How about driving 120 mph weaving through far slower cars is that OK because it did not hurt anyone at the time?

Tell us Eric what laws should we still have while driving? How do you determine the difference between what are unsafe drivers and as you say using your right to drive however you feel like type of driving that is OK as long as it does not kill anyone at that time?

I have heard self proclaimed libertarians say it is OK to drive however fast they want to. I have heard others say there is no such thing as tailgating in their mind. I have heard others say that passing in no passing zones is OK. I have now heard that crossing 3 lanes of traffic is OK and turn signals are optional. I have seen others say it is OK to cut someone off from changing lanes in front of them because they used their horn and sped up and pushed the front of their car next to the rear of a car or semi to block them! I have seen others go into a fury when someone is only driving 15 mph over the limit in a middle lane!

Eric should we let drivers drive like places in India where the requirement is for easy to bolt on fenders and other parts because accidents happen so often?

Every time I see Clover comment on what someone else has said I am reminded of this;

A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

-Bertrand Russell

Apparently Bert had to deal with the cloverish too.

clover, give us an in-depth review of driving techniques in India and Russia. I don’t think I’m quite “up” on them since the driving videos I’ve seen from Russia show people who know what they’re doing. I doubt people in India want to take too many chances with their hard-earned vehicles but I’ll admit I just don’t know for a fact. Please, enlighten us. Don’t get your panties in a wad, just the facts please.

Eightsouthman if you want to know what traffic is like in India and Russia then go to youtube. There are dozens of examples. In many places the drivers to not follow lanes, signs, or anything you might find in the USA. There accident rate is probably 50 to 100 times higher than where I live.

You are a joke Eric. You always bring up that a cop is threatening you with his gun! Tell us what percent of traffic stops the cop pulls his gun on you? I am waiting. You say that a cop will give you a ticket for rolling through a stop sign in nowheresville when no one is around? How is he going to give you a ticket when he is not around? Explain that one!

I just don’t get it Eric and I never will. You say that drivers should be able to do anything and we should let them go. You say that cops stop people when there are no other vehicles around? Tell me why a cop would be wasting his time in such a place? There are millions of cases where cars are endangering others and breaking laws. You always bring up the hypothetical that almost never happens and pound on it post after post after post.

Clover just wants to win the argument, not understand or raise his IQ. Clover, just go back to downloading your Communist porn. It’s all your infantile mind understands. Hope your mum catches you.

OK Eric you now say do not stop someone unless they are causing someone harm? Explain what you definition of harm is? Is harm what you call slowing you down by 2 mph? I guess anything else you allow! Most laws that are broken usually do not cause anyone harm unless they hit or kill someone. At the same time it increases your chances of being hit or killed by hundreds or thousands of time!

What it comes down to is that I say that causing someone harm is increasing the danger to another person significantly above the norm. Your definition of harm is not allowing you to drive 30 mph over the speed limit if you feel like it! I would say by law my definition is the correct one!

We agree to disagree Eric. You keep bringing up that you get ticketed when no one is around. The policeman needed to be around to give you a ticket! There is one reason why they ticket or give you a warning for something that is not endangering others at the time. It is to keep you from driving the same way when there are other cars around. Most people if they do not signal or drive correctly when there are no other cars around will also not signal or drive correctly when other cars around. You have proven that you do not drive correctly when other cars are around! Tell us Eric what gives you or others the right to endanger others? What gives you the right to shoot a gun into a crowd and either hit someone or not but you say you should be let go if you do not end up hitting someone?

Your being lucky is not a case for you to do whatever you feel like. Other drivers that have driven the same way as you have killed people!