Chris Connaker's reminder of « your ignore lists »

[PopPop]

I would bet we agree more than you think. In the broad general sense, we probably disagree. In the reasonable and logical sense, we probably agree.

 

You would probably lose that bet. I am simply disagreeing with specific comments that you made about speed regulation and enforcement.

[wgscott]

You obviously haven't been reading your news. Everyday "individuals" are held accountable for the illegalities of the the corporations they represent. Plus finding "fault for losing the life of an employee" is totally different than an individual killing another purposely with intent. Furthermore, one of the biggest protection schemes for "individuals" in America is to place assets in an LLC. By the logic of many here should they lose their rights?

 

Look I get the point and I truly see both sides. I understand the corruption that it leads to. The point that is being missed by my missive is that those on the left want to choose who does and who does not have access. Seriously, do you think a bloc of voters that hold sway over the Government somehow meets a different moral compass than a corporation? They are both after the same thing and that is to buy influence from the government to further their benefits at others expense. The left and right are both hypocritical in that respect. The left has just done a better job at justifying the "legitimate morality" of one versus the evil of the other.

 

[Allan F]

Of course I understand you would dislike Scalia while I view him as the prototype of what a Justice should be. I am not sure how many decisions you have read or the insight you have in the complexity of some of these decisions but few in history were as strong and infallible based on the constitution than Scalia.

 

So YOU do believe the court IS political if you believe that they should "interpret" the constitution as they believe, using tortuous logic, to justify it. I believe the Framers were specific, left it be difficult to change the constitution by a method for change which is indeed in there in the form of amendments, which has been used 27 times.

 

No doubt you can find those who disagree with Scalia including three "ultraliberal" and some not too smart Justices. In fact I knew the boyfriend of one of them well, got to meet her many times and she was no brainiac. But I digress. Scalia was 100% right. His job is not to lead to "good results" but to interpret the Constitution as written and amended, nothing more and nothing less. That is their job. If something is "wrong" which is "opinion" in most cases which you denigrated in another post, there are many who will view his decisions as "right". Which is right and which is wrong? Well that is not opinion if you believe that the job of SCOTUS is to evaluate the written document called the Constitution + Amendments as the law of the land as it applies to the cases it hears. Morphing an court opinion based on tortuous logic, making law, absurd precedent, etc was never the intention of a justice and hence why I again say it is ALL political and why your current appointee argument has no legs. In fact our VP endorsed the same thing when he was on the other side of the fence as did so many others.

No judge, including Justice Scalia, is or was infallible. As to the three "ultraliberal" former judges who I cited in reference to Justice Scalia, they were hardly that in terms of the spectrum of the Supreme Court of Canada. And none were women. So, your red herring comment about a 'boyfriend' is not only irrelevant, it is also inaccurate. "Bad" results are simply another term for "unjust" results and therefore an absurd, if not dangerous justification from any judge, let alone one who sits on the highest court of the land. I have read several of Scalia's judgments and he was the master of tortuous logic, even going so far as to complete ignore the plain words of the document in front of him and their historical meaning.

 

With respect, IMO, it is you who does not understand the role of courts in constitutional democracies. So, let us agree to disagree. I see no point in continuing this debate about the SCOTUS with you in this forum and therefore will act accordingly.

[firedog]

You obviously misstate the Citizens decision to make your invective, yet admit it is based on historic interpretation. You do realize that Corporations are made of American citizens with specific interests, no different than AIPAC, NAACP, ARRP, etc who are freely allowed to lobby and payoff candidates for their own agenda. Trust me there is no dearth of hypocrisy of the left wingers in every thing they do. You do understand that any power not enumerated by the Constitution is left to the states. That was the great compromise. But left winger borderline anarchists believe it is the right of the FEDS to ignore that and allowing them to stack the court with politicians who agree with that perspective just shreds the Constitution to where we are today; namely nothing but garbage.

 

But hey, what me worry.

 

I didn't misstate anything, you are just putting words in my mouth. I also think that unions and other organizations shouldn't be viewed as "persons" with free speech rights in this case. I understand how the ruling came about, it is beyond me how people who claim to be "originalists" think this ruling fits in with their philosophy. It is a perfect example of expanding the "original" meaning of the constitution through interpretation. I don't have a problem with the ruling in a legal sense; I do have a philosophical problem with it and I do have a problem with the convenient hypocrisy of some of those who agree with it.

[Jud]

 

I knew two of the Silkwood family's attorneys in that case, Art Angel and Jim Ikard, pretty well. Deliberate killing wasn't alleged or proved as part of the case. Certainly based on various facts one might have suspicions, but they were and remain just that.

[Priaptor]

No judge, including Justice Scalia, is or was infallible. As to the three "ultraliberal" former judges who I cited in reference to Justice Scalia, they were hardly that in terms of the spectrum of the Supreme Court of Canada. And none were women. So, your red herring comment about a 'boyfriend' is not only irrelevant, it is also inaccurate. "Bad" results are simply another term for "unjust" results and therefore an absurd, if not dangerous justification from any judge, let alone one who sits on the highest court of the land. I have read several of Scalia's judgments and he was the master of tortuous logic, even going so far as to complete ignore the plain words of the document in front of him and their historical meaning.

 

With respect, IMO, it is you who does not understand the role of courts in constitutional democracies. So, let us agree to disagree. I see no point in continuing this debate about the SCOTUS in this forum and therefore will act accordingly.

 

Talk about tortuous logic, you are invoking the "opinions" from Supreme Court Justices from Canada to denigrate Scalia?? Amazing you scathe others for using opinion with no facts but go on to say bad=unjust. In whose minds? Given the number of lawyers we have on these forums I bet every case one of the lost they thought was bad=unjust and vice versa. Yes best left alone if you are invoking Canadian Court to evaluate ours.

[Priaptor]

I knew two of the Silkwood family's attorneys in that case, Art Angel and Jim Ikard, pretty well. Deliberate killing wasn't alleged or proved as part of the case. Certainly based on various facts one might have suspicions, but they were and remain just that.

 

Yes and the folklore continues and the movie reality. In the same light, how many did the Clintons have whacked? This is silly stuff of course.

[Priaptor]

I didn't misstate anything, you are just putting words in my mouth. I also think that unions and other organizations shouldn't be viewed as "persons" with free speech rights in this case. I understand how the ruling came about, it is beyond me how people who claim to be "originalists" think this ruling fits in with their philosophy. It is a perfect example of expanding the "original" meaning of the constitution through interpretation. I don't have a problem with the ruling in a legal sense; I do have a philosophical problem with it and I do have a problem with the convenient hypocrisy of some of those who agree with it.

 

I recommend you read McConnell v Federal Election Commission. Pretty interesting decision.

[Allan F]

Talk about tortuous logic, you are invoking the "opinions" from Supreme Court Justices from Canada to denigrate Scalia??

Those former Supreme Court of Canada judges know far more about constitutional law than you will ever hope to know. Dismissing their opinions out of hand because they come from another common law jurisdiction is the epitome of tortuous logic. Over and out.

[Priaptor]

Those former Supreme Court of Canada judges know far more about constitutional law than you will ever hope to know. Dismissing their opinions out of hand because they come from another common law jurisdiction is the epitome of tortuous logic. Over and out.

 

Not dismissing as they are entitled to their opinion, which I know you hate, but hardly adroit at what goes on in chambers of the USA SCOTUS.

 

Out and over

[AudioDoctor]

In my opinion speed regulations serve an important public service and I fully support their enforcement.

 

So that was you driving the exact speed limit down 35 this morning?

 

[AudioDoctor]

Don't ever drive through VA with a radar detector. eek

 

I am well aware.

 

Edit: Some Police Departments use a device that detects radar detectors... One manufacturer makes a very good Radar Detector that is undetectable by the detector detectors...

 

LOL.

[PopPop]

So that was you driving the exact speed limit down 35 this morning?

 

 

Nice one, you got my point exactly. Speed regulations have to be enforced for that reason. We don't want people driving excessively slow or fast, it just isn't safe. I'm completely OK having enforcement of speed regulations. Do I push the limits, myself? Yes sometimes. Do I try to do so safely, with 55 years of driving experience? Yes. Do I always succeed? Maybe not.

 

I was on my motorcycle leaving Strong City Kansas last summer after spending a few days touring the Flint Hills. I was riding east on State Highway 50, heading for the Kansas Turnpike riding 40mph over the speed limit as I approached the northbound ramp. I got stopped by the Kansas State Patrol who told me that 40 over the limit would require him to impound my bike and give me a huge fine (I can't remember the amount). He chose to give me a $200 ticket for 20MPH over the freeway speed limit because I was just that close to the ramp, and it spared me a lot of grief and money. I accept that and don't argue.

 

I try not to be self righteous about my driving but maybe I come off as an ass at times. Riding a motorcycle has made me an exceedingly defensive driver which in my mind makes me a bit safer. Now there's the rub - am I kidding myself? My point is, I have only gotten two tickets in my life. One in 1969 when I rear ended someone while heading to my girlfriends house (blinded by love), and the one in 2015 which I deserved.

[AudioDoctor]

I do sometimes push the limits, but never in an unsafe manner on a crowded highway when there are other cars in close proximity, for an example. I do agree we need the enforcement to get rid of the unsafe behaviors, whatever they are, while the person is in control of 3-4 thousand pounds (or more) of metal cruising down the road. I also no longer ride a motorcycle, and totally get why you are a defensive rider on yours.

 

I go to a lot of track events too, I get a lot of the high speed out of my system there.

[17629]

Interesting. Wonder why? (I can think of logical reasons. For example: Allowing people to bargain and reach an agreed-upon resolution is usually a way to ensure courts are not clogged. But perhaps so many people tried to do that in NYC it simply became logistically impractical, so no one is permitted to any longer.)

 

 

It is done to free up the courts. They just make it impossible to win, so no one even tries. The city is always desperate for money and they go after it any way they can. You should see how they handle parking tickets. Flawless, perfect, morally flexible enforcement. A true wonder to behold.

[Priaptor]

I do sometimes push the limits, but never in an unsafe manner on a crowded highway when there are other cars in close proximity, for an example. I do agree we need the enforcement to get rid of the unsafe behaviors, whatever they are, while the person is in control of 3-4 thousand pounds (or more) of metal cruising down the road. I also no longer ride a motorcycle, and totally get why you are a defensive rider on yours.

 

I go to a lot of track events too, I get a lot of the high speed out of my system there.

 

Well I see the results of riding a motorcycle every single day and it isn't pretty, no matter how "safe" you are riding or how close you are following the speed limit. But I won't get into my full rant against motorcycles out of respect to those on this thread who ride them

[PopPop]

Well I see the results of riding a motorcycle every single day and it isn't pretty, no matter how "safe" you are riding or how close you are following the speed limit. But I won't get into my full rant against motorcycles out of respect to those on this thread who ride them

 

I had to find something to do, I have already watched all the re-runs of Sanford And Son, Columbo, and Everybody Loves Raymond. Feel free to rant, you couldn't possibly tell me anything I haven't heard or don't already know. I have long since gotten over being offended by people who don't approve of things that I do. [emoji6][emoji106]

[Allan F]

Not dismissing as they are entitled to their opinion, which I know you hate...

Correction, I do not hate opinions. I hate opinions based on ignorance or misinformation.

[Priaptor]

I had to find something to do, I have already watched all the re-runs of Sanford And Son, Columbo, and Everybody Loves Raymond. Feel free to rant, you couldn't possibly tell me anything I haven't heard or don't already know. I have long since gotten over being offended by people who don't approve of things that I do. [emoji6][emoji106]

 

I have no problem with what you do and endorse people to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't effect me. I am sure you are a careful rider and cautious. Unfortunately the costs of care of motorcyclists are rarely covered, insurance for them are for the bike not the care they may need and disproportionately dumps, for most riders, the burden on others.

 

Some of the cyclists I see on I95 are easily exceeding 120 doing wheelies and skirting in and out of cars. Pretty amazing

 

Of course the unfortunate aspect even for the most conscientious rider whether it be on bicycle or motorcycle are the oblivious in their cars.

 

As a libertarian I endorse whatever it is you want to do and as I said as long as it doesn't effect me and you are willing to accept all responsibilities for your own actions.

[Priaptor]

Correction, I do not hate opinions. I hate opinions based on ignorance or misinformation.

 

Well don't look in the mirror then because some of your "opinions" regarding Scalia meets your metric for "hate"

[Allan F]

Well don't look in the mirror then because some of your "opinions" regarding Scalia meets your metric for "hate"

Only in your misinformed opinion.

[PopPop]

I have no problem with what you do and endorse people to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't effect me. I am sure you are a careful rider and cautious. Unfortunately the costs of care of motorcyclists are rarely covered, insurance for them are for the bike not the care they may need and disproportionately dumps, for most riders, the burden on others.

 

Some of the cyclists I see on I95 are easily exceeding 120 doing wheelies and skirting in and out of cars. Pretty amazing

 

Of course the unfortunate aspect even for the most conscientious rider whether it be on bicycle or motorcycle are the oblivious in their cars.

 

As a libertarian I endorse whatever it is you want to do and as I said as long as it doesn't effect me and you are willing to accept all responsibilities for your own actions.

 

On one end of the spectrum are people who ride as carefully as possible, avoid risk, ensure themselves as completely as possible and always wear full safety gear. On the other hand you have uninsured careless riders who have never taken training, riding beyond their ability on over powered bikes wearing flip flops and gym shorts. I try to be the former.

 

I completely understand your frustration, and why you would want to rant.

[esldude]

On one end of the spectrum are people who ride as carefully as possible, avoid risk, ensure themselves as completely as possible and always wear full safety gear. On the other hand you have uninsured careless riders who have never taken training, riding beyond their ability on over powered bikes wearing flip flops and gym shorts. I try to be the former.

 

I completely understand your frustration, and why you would want to rant.

 

Let me see, I used to ride a motorcycle though not comfortable with it now on highways at least.

 

It was told to me early on one needed to pick one of two philosophies of riding.

 

The optimistic philosophy was that you are completely invisible to people in cars and trucks.

 

The pessimistic philosophy was that every single person sees you and they are out to get you.

 

I chose the former.

 

And while I did no 120 mph wheelies, I did come to the conclusion that except when you had the road to yourself, riding about 10 mph faster than the fastest traffic was actually safer. Because it allowed you to watch them and make decisions of lane placement etc rather than relying on others to see you which they weren't going to do. I never had any close calls except when I violated that and road slower than other traffic. (well excepting that damn possum in the Smokie mountains that time, he died and I thought I did or one of us was playing possum ).

[PopPop]

Let me see, I used to ride a motorcycle though not comfortable with it now on highways at least.

 

It was told to me early on one needed to pick one of two philosophies of riding.

 

The optimistic philosophy was that you are completely invisible to people in cars and trucks.

 

The pessimistic philosophy was that every single person sees you and they are out to get you.

 

I chose the former.

 

And while I did no 120 mph wheelies, I did come to the conclusion that except when you had the road to yourself, riding about 10 mph faster than the fastest traffic was actually safer. Because it allowed you to watch them and make decisions of lane placement etc rather than relying on others to see you which they weren't going to do. I never had any close calls except when I violated that and road slower than other traffic. (well excepting that damn possum in the Smokie mountains that time, he died and I thought I did or one of us was playing possum ).

 

I completely agree, Dennis.

 

The only wheelie I ever did was in 1973 with a CB450, in my driveway. I saw the garage door coming at me and promised my creator that I would never do it again if I lived through the next 15 seconds; got front wheel down and stopped safely.

 

I have been down 4 times, at speed, in 50 years of riding and I remember every incident like it was yesterday. I tore up thousands of dollars of riding gear but never broke a bone or drew blood. I'm proud of that but very aware that I have no control over what other crazies will or may do. So I ride on and I am just starting to think about how I will know then it's time to quit.

[Paul R]

And over the cliff we go....

 

Endless

 

Free

 

Fall

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.