That doesn't really answer the question.
How many people are you willing to let die because you want a "free market" solution to transportation, Darrin?
30,000+ every year seem acceptable to you?
That's the nanny state telling me how closely I can follow someone. that.
Right?
Maybe you will take a stab at it.
How many people are you willing to let die each year because you want a "free market" solution to transportation, Cobra?
10,000?
20,000?
50,000?
100,000?
The current answer seems to be about 40,000. Each and every year. One every 13 minutes.
If muslim terrorists were doing that, you would be screaming for internment camps.
Wow...
An infraction of the basic rule. An infraction that leads to so many avoidable accidents. We have too many careless drivers on the road. I consider those "pole positioning" and following too close, the most common dangerous practice of drivers. I believe accidents and insurance rates would be cheaper is we did all we could to stop reckless behavior on the streets.
Such things are pointless government interference in what should be a perfectly private decision.
The exact same logic can be used to mandate the purchase of health insurance, by the way. or, for that matter the outlawing of fatty foods and cheap sugar
We have to accept some deaths or we'd all be driving around in M1A1 Abrams tanks, getting 2 mpg.
Why so angry, btw?
DarrinS, you're still curiously not mentioning what you think an acceptable amount of deaths per year is.
Stop, would you. Apples and oranges.
Driving is recognized as a privilege by law.
Are you placing life into the same category, that it's a privilege?
Bad form...
I have witness accidents that would likely not have occurred if drivers weren't poll positioning or following too close. It's truly a safety issue, and if people cannot respect the safety of others, they should not be permitted to drive.
It's not private when it's on the public roads.
this thread is killing me. such convenient definitions of terrorism. But hey, if I put on a uniform, and give a warning before using lethal force on a defenseless target so that their relatives' fear and anguish pressures them to give in to my demands, that is entirely different than using lethal force on a defenseless target so that their relatives' fear and anguish pressures them to give in to my demands.
the warning especially makes all the difference. The civilian populations of Himoshima and Nagasaki could have easily sold their houses and moved to a more pleasant destination if they didnt want to be burned alive. and those unborn children? they should have chose a different womb to be conceived in, tbh.same goes for the iraqis, afghanis, vietnamese, new yorkers, etc etc. because god knows that moving from one country to another is really easy, especially for poor people in countries ravaged by war. their neighbors are just chomping at the bit to take them in. and if moving really were so difficult, the least they could do is organize a concert to show the world who's side they are on before getting bombed to .
What's funny though is that OBL did warn he would strike, I can't recall if it was just before or just after the US military fired 80 tomahawk cruise missiles to kill him (they missed and hit a pharmaceutical company instead- whoops!) war is ugly though. I'm not sure who the US was officially at war with at that time but there must have been someone. and isn't that turban a uniform? I'm pretty sure that is why a 50 year old rastafarian puerto rican got the kicked out of him on the week of 9/11 when I was living in Santa Cruz, CA, or why an Indian friend got kicked out of a pool hall (they called him a sand ######. He left his turban at home but he must have had some kind of uniform on, how else could they recognize him?) And then there was the 42 year old Indonesian anthropology major, mother of 2, that was taken into custody for 2 weeks without having any charges filed against her. I don't remember what uniform she wore, but she was muslim. at the time I thought it was a coincidence, but after reading Darrin's posts I now understand just how dangerous she was.
But given that the uniform and the warning are so important... what uniform were Nixon and kIssinger's CIA operatives wearing when they were assassinating political targets all over latin america and training police and military personnel to torture their civilian populations? what warning was the US giving when they were publicly repudiating the dictators they themselves propped up? oh, silly me, I got my definitions wrong. that's not terrorism, it's espionage, which sounds pretty god damn slick and elegant, even though it included putting rats in women's vaginas and electrocuting men's testicles and forcing musicians to play their commie songs after cutting their hands off.
diego should join Code Pink
Either that, or we simply build trains or bicycles in many places.
Devil's Advocate question: How is driving a privilege and not a right?
By legal considerations. I am not expressing my opinion on that. That is how the law interprets it. If driving was a right, there could be no repercussions for driving without insurance. Could there?
Do you have to have your rights "licensed?"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right
Damn, yoni and WC are idiots.
Freedom to move from place to place -- so long as your movement doesn't infringe on someone else (think trespassing) -- is a right. How you effect that movement, other than on your own two feet, is not.
Why? Well, cars, roads, and the consequences of driving cars on roads has a price that is born by people other than just yourself.
You have a right to drive if you have a license and meet the other legal requirements to do so.
Is this really so difficult for you to understand?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
