This is really disturbing
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Latest mod to the 750SS "ultralight"
Next: Means, Motives, and Opportunities as Iarnbored makes HUGE stinking turd pile in newsgroups by hating peace and worshipping war criminals Bush and Cheney
From: Henry on 21 May 2010 09:51 Twitbull timidly chirped: > Ever hear the one about the Irish priest <yawn> Ever hear the one about the psychotic usent twit who, when challenged to read, think, and defend its kook rants runs and hides behind its killfile, from where it will obsess, fret, and spew moronic lies and drivel for *years* on end? Not sure if it's a comedy or a tragedy - just grateful not to suffer its many ills... <chuckle> -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: S'mee on 21 May 2010 10:23 On May 21, 7:51 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Twitbull timidly chirped: > > > Ever hear the one about the Irish priest > > <yawn> > > Ever hear the one about the psychotic usent twit who, > when challenged to read, think, and defend its kook > rants runs and hides behind its killfile, from where > it will obsess, fret, and spew moronic lies and drivel > for *years* on end? Not sure if it's a comedy or a > tragedy - just grateful not to suffer its many ills... <chuckle> Thing is YOU are the twit...you described yourself PERFECTLY in your own post. It's shame you are smart enough to realize that.
From: Henry on 21 May 2010 10:37 S'mee wrote: > On May 21, 7:51 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Twitbull timidly chirped: >>> Ever hear the one about the Irish priest >> <yawn> >> Ever hear the one about the psychotic usent twit who, >> when challenged to read, think, and defend its kook >> rants runs and hides behind its killfile, from where >> it will obsess, fret, and spew moronic lies and drivel >> for *years* on end? Not sure if it's a comedy or a >> tragedy - just grateful not to suffer its many ills... <chuckle> > Thing is YOU are the twit...you described yourself PERFECTLY in your > own post. It's shame you are smart enough to realize that. So, you "think" that responding directly to the insane rants of you and twitbull shows that I'm hiding behind my killfile, eh? Amusing, but given the source, not at all surprising. I wonder if there's anything that you *do* understand... -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: saddlebag on 21 May 2010 17:36 On May 20, 1:26 pm, Chuck Rhode <CRh...(a)LacusVeris.com> wrote: > On Thu, 20 May 2010 02:51:38 -0700, saddlebag wrote: > > On May 20, 2:16 am, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 19, 6:52 pm, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > But at the end of the day, the roads are public byways > >> > that we are granted a privilege to navigate. > > -snip- > > >> The fact that our several governments have assumed that power unto > >> themselves without an iota of authority to do so, and that they've > >> repeated the "driving is a privilege" line so often that suckerbait > >> like you assume that it's not only true but always *has* been true, > >> doesn't mean that it's actually true. > > So you are implying that driving on a public road is a right guaranteed > > you under law? That no matter how poorly you've performed there or what > > disaster you may have created, you have an inalienable right to get > > right back on and do your thing? > > Well ... time was when local public roads *were public* and maintained > by the public free for public use, as opposed to toll roads and > bridges over and around choke points that were chartered on > speculation by corporations for private gain. I don't think a lot has > changed except that nowadays governments prefer to levy taxes and hire > professional road builders rather than dun property owners for labor. > The public (non-interstate) roads are still (more than historically) > free to use (at least to bicyclists). > > Here's a 6MB glass-plate photo taken a century ago by my > great-grandmother of work in progress around Pine Village, IN: > > o Cobb, Magnolia. "Thomason's Gravel Road Gang." Glass plate. [Pine > Village, IN], [July 1909.] > <http://www.LacusVeris.com/Snaps/Thomasons_Road_Gang_1.png>. > > Note farmer tans, child labor, and winter wheat or oats in the shock. > The kid to the left down in front has a theatrical pose, which I > attribute to my great-grandmother's influence. > > This was at the height of the Good Roads Movement: > > o "Good Roads Movement." _Wikipedia_. 8 May 2010. 20 May 2010 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_roads>. > > -- > .. Be Seeing You, I don't think I'll have time. I'm going to quit my job now, raise a mess of children, then get to work on my new road!
From: saddlebag on 21 May 2010 17:46
On May 20, 2:14 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 2:51 am, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > But at the end of the day, the roads are public byways > > > > that we are granted a privilege to navigate. > > > > Whoops! I must have missed something. Exactly where does it say in > > > black and white that our government -*any* of our governments- may > > > "grant us the privilege" of being on a public byway? > > > > The fact that our several governments have assumed that power unto > > > themselves without an iota of authority to do so, and that they've > > > repeated the "driving is a privilege" line so often that suckerbait > > > like you assume that it's not only true but always *has* been true, > > > doesn't mean that it's actually true. > > > So you are implying that driving on a public road is a right > > guaranteed you under law? That no matter how poorly you've performed > > there or what disaster you may have created, you have an inalienable > > right to get right back on and do your thing? > > And, as usual, Saddle just posts straw man arguments and ducks the > question: "I mean, you *do* understand that that entire concept is > something originally dreamed up by bureaucrats for the sake of their > bureaucracy -a blatant power grab- and that nothing like that is > mentioned in any of the documents that outline what US governments are > allowed to do, right?" > > Right from square one you're trying to ignore the fact that according > to it's *own rules* our government has no right to tell us that > "driving is a privilege"; nor have they the power to "grant us the > privilege" of being on a public byway, both of which things are > entirely different from the government's right -nay, duty- to > establish rules of the road for the safety of the general populance. > > Requiring that citizens pass a reasonable driving test to demonstrate > their driving competency isn't unreasonable, nor is enforcing basic > safety laws, but neither of those things equate to driving being a > "privilege", or that the government has the power to "grant us" > something. > > That you don't understand the difference between reasonable driving > rules that pretty much everyone agrees are needed for safety reasons, > and a government claiming the imperial right to grant us a privilege, > tells us a lot about you. Justice Twibil, please enlighten the room on how one enforces "driving rules that pretty much everyone agrees are needed for safety reasons" without the means of punishing those who break said safety rules. |