# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Woman gets ticket for driving 2 mph under speed limit

## St James

Woman gets ticket for driving 2 mph under speed limit

A Maryland woman has gotten a very unusual speeding ticket for driving a mere two miles under the speed limit on Interstate 95.
Local NBC affiliate News4 reports that the woman, who asked to keep her name anonymous, was driving 63 miles per hour in a 65-mph zone. Police say the reason they ticketed her was that she was driving in the left lane reserved for speedier commuters.
"[I was] really shocked," she told the station. "I thought, 'Oh my God, you've got to be kidding me.'"
Of course, commuters who get annoyed by someone hogging the right lane might salute the move.
However, the woman noted the area was experiencing heavy winds at the time and she was only driving under the speed limit as a safety precaution. She also claimed to have never been ticketed before.
"Sometimes when it's dangerous, you have to do what you can to stay safe," she said.
She has one ally on her side: the local branch of AAA.
"The reason [the ticket] is silly is because it's sending the wrong message," said John Townsend of AAA Mid-Atlantic. "And that is, 'We will tolerate you driving at more than the speed limit, but it you drive below the speed limit, then you're penalized for that.'"

here:  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...211957738.html

Seriously??? Law enforcement has become self-sustaining. It's time to end this bullshit............

----------


## Karl

Well on some freeways I have seen posted MINIMUM SPEED which is generally 10 MPH under the posted speed although in Minnesota on interstates it's 70mph and 40mph minimum a substantial difference 

Anyhow just as you get ticketed for speeding a police officer can also cite you for going under the minimum posted speed the same

----------

St James (03-13-2013)

----------


## St James

> Well on some freeways I have seen posted MINIMUM SPEED which is generally 10 MPH under the posted speed although in Minnesota on interstates it's 70mph and 40mph minimum a substantial difference 
> 
> Anyhow just as you get ticketed for speeding a police officer can also cite you for going under the minimum posted speed the same


It's merely all about power............nothing more

----------


## Karl

> It's merely all about power............nothing more


Maybe in the OP case 63 in a 65 is obsurd

But I got NO PROBLEM with them nailing those @$$holes who are doing 45 on the freeway and fucking up traffic

----------


## St James

If you are going slower than the 10 mph you're allowed, then you need to get pulled over unless your hazzards are on. Otherwise, you're either incapacitated or under-qualified to be on the roads.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Maybe in the OP case 63 in a 65 is obsurd
> 
> But I got NO PROBLEM with them nailing those @$$holes who are doing 45 on the freeway and fucking up traffic


The cop is stupid and she should fight the charge and get him in trouble. I do have a problem with people going too slow unless the roads are dangerous or it's raining hard. To put this  woman now having to get a lawyer and emotional distress just because he is a smart a$$, this guy should be fired.

----------


## Maximatic

> The cop is stupid and she should fight the charge and get him in trouble. I do have a problem with people going too slow unless the roads are dangerous or it's raining hard. To put this  woman now having to get a lawyer and emotional distress just because he is a smart a$$, this guy should be fired.


Cops don't get in trouble. The article says he cited her for failing to keep right. It's not a speeding ticket. So, he wouldn't get in trouble even if he had a real job.

Edit: But hey, if security were a for profit industry, cops wouldn't do stupid stuff like that. You'd get good good customer service, or you could fire them.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Cops don't get in trouble. The article says he cited her for failing to keep right. It's not a speeding ticket. So, he wouldn't get in trouble even if he had a real job.
> 
> Edit: But hey, if security were a for profit industry, cops wouldn't do stupid stuff like that. You'd get good good customer service, or you could fire them.


We are not making people pay to get protection. That's mafia.

----------


## Maximatic

> We are not making people pay to get protection. That's mafia.


Is this sarcasm?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Is this sarcasm?


No, it's not. I think privatization of police is a stupid idea.

----------


## Maximatic

> No, it's not. I think privatization of police is a stupid idea.


As it is, we are made to pay for protection, whether we want it or not. What kind of protection service do we get for our money? Have you ever been the victim of a crime that you reported to the protection agents? How did that go? Personally, I don't have any terrible stories about it, but some of our friends, here, do. They take a "report". Then, when they get done, they file it. If they don't like the way you're acting when they take the report, they will probably initiate force against _you_. And, if you're in trouble, they'll be there in a good, what, 20 minutes? Can a privately owned company get away with that? Come on now. I wouldn't pay them if they acted like cops. So, how is private, optional security like the mafia, and coerced government security, which really isn't security, not?

----------


## Trinnity

> Police say the reason they ticketed her was that *she was driving in the left lane* reserved for speedier commuters.


........................this is why ^

I agree it was a bit over the top, but I see this crap all the time. In my area, the main road for many miles between cities is a 2 lane highway with relatively few opportunities to pass due to hills and curves. We have loads of people who are in no hurry at all, doing 45 and even 35 in a 55 zone. It's infuriating. These same people who usually do 45, go through the small no-stop-light "towns" at the same 45 when the speed limit has dropped to 35. Where are the state police? Not stopping these "pokies"; that's for sure.

Try putting up with that on a regular basis for _years_ and see how you feel.....omg

I don't expect people to speed for my convenience; not at all. I do wish people would observe the posted speed limit and not put the people behind them in a _parade_. Is this familiar to any of you?

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-15-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> As it is, we are made to pay for protection, whether we want it or not. What kind of protection service do we get for our money? Have you ever been the victim of a crime that you reported to the protection agents? How did that go? Personally, I don't have any terrible stories about it, but some of our friends, here, do. They take a "report". Then, when they get done, they file it. If they don't like the way you're acting when they take the report, they will probably initiate force against _you_. And, if you're in trouble, they'll be there in a good, what, 20 minutes? Can a privately owned company get away with that? Come on now. I wouldn't pay them if they acted like cops. So, how is private, optional security like the mafia, and coerced government security, which really isn't security, not?


Privatized police is bad for the same reason a police officer cannot act like a police officer while working as private security. Conflict of interest. You'd replace the aggression of government with the aggression of business.

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-15-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> Privatized police is bad for the same reason a police officer cannot act like a police officer while working as private security. Conflict of interest. You'd replace the aggression of government with the aggression of business.


So, we should outlaw private security?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ........................this is why ^
> 
> I agree it was a bit over the top, but I see this crap all the time. In my area, the main road for many miles between cities is a 2 lane highway with relatively few opportunities to pass due to hills and curves. We have loads of people who are in no hurry at all, doing 45 and even 35 in a 55 zone. It's infuriating. These same people who usually do 45, go through the small no-stop-light "towns" at the same 45 when the speed limit has dropped to 35. Where are the state police? Not stopping these "pokies"; that's for sure.
> 
> Try putting up with that on a regular basis for _years_ and see how you feel.....omg
> 
> I don't expect people to speed for my convenience; not at all. I do wish people would observe the posted speed limit and not put the people behind them in a _parade_. Is this familiar to any of you?


I hardly think two miles under in bad weather conditions is comparable.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So, we should outlaw private security?


Could you show me where I said that?

----------


## Roadmaster

> I hardly think two miles under in bad weather conditions is comparable.


Yes, if it had been more under I would have taken the side of the cop. We have also in NC where they love to get people going over 5  miles over the speed limit, twice a month going  towards Durham and another city. It's called speed traps and they love to give out speeding tickets. Maybe he was just mad that he couldn't give her a speeding ticket. I do agree that some act like no one else in on the road and real slow drivers are problems but not in this case.

----------


## Maximatic

> So, we should outlaw private security?


No. You said it would be a conflict of interest. But that presupposes the current system. And then you said "You'd replace the aggression of government with the aggression of business" But that's just an undefended assertion. There are plenty of reasons to believe that that wouldn't happen. What keeps you from acting like a dickhead cop? Is it because you're afraid that the client might call the cops on you.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No. You said it would be a conflict of interest. But that presupposes the current system.


No, it doesn't. It stands alone. If Sucrocorp is fucking around with your farm, Sucrocorp isn't going to send their cops to investigate, nor would a Sucrocorp ally. Sure, you could ask a Sucrocorp enemy like Agricorp to use their police to investigate Sucrocorp, but how do you know it would be a fair investigation? They are enemies, Agricorp benefits from Sucrocorp getting busted. 




> And then you said "You'd replace the aggression of government with the aggression of business" But that's just an undefended assertion. There are plenty of reasons to believe that that wouldn't happen. What keeps you from acting like a dickhead cop? Is it because you're afraid that the client might call the cops on you.


I'll defend that assertion simply: there's not an iota of difference between a person in charge of a business and a person in charge of a government. Both are human, both are in positions of power, and both will seej out ways to use that power and expand that power without getting overthrown.

----------


## The XL

There would be a major problem with both private cops and government cops.

Really, screw cops in general.  Just give everyone their second amendment rights back.  Fuck gun control.

----------



----------


## Roadmaster

> I hardly think two miles under in bad weather conditions is comparable.


Yes and if she had lost control of the car because of high winds, she would  have gotten a ticket for driving too fast in unsafe conditions.

----------


## Roadmaster

> There would be a major problem with both private cops and government cops.
> 
> Really, screw cops in general.  Just give everyone their second amendment rights back.  Fuck gun control.


When I was young we liked the cops but they didn't act this way.

----------


## Maximatic

> No, it doesn't. It stands alone. If Sucrocorp is fucking around with your farm, Sucrocorp isn't going to send their cops to investigate, nor would a Sucrocorp ally. Sure, you could ask a Sucrocorp enemy like Agricorp to use their police to investigate Sucrocorp, but how do you know it would be a fair investigation? They are enemies, Agricorp benefits from Sucrocorp getting busted.


There isn't any such thing as an ally, in the same business, in a free market. The incentives to compete are greater than the incentives to collude.
Take the dispute to a third party.




> I'll defend that assertion simply: there's not an iota of difference  between a person in charge of a business and a person in charge of a  government. Both are human, both are in positions of power, and both  will seej out ways to use that power and expand that power without  getting overthrown.


The incentives are completely different. In a private business, where you have to compete for market share, you have to do a better job of pleasing your customers than your competition, otherwise, you lose them. In a government, you don't have any competition.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> There isn't any such thing as an ally, in the same business, in a free market. The incentives to compete are greater than the incentives to collude.
> Take the dispute to a third party.
> 
> The incentives are completely different. In a private business, where you have to compete for market share, you have to do a better job of pleasing your customers than your competition, otherwise, you lose them. In a government, you don't have any competition.


You're arguing for perfect world standards. We don't live in a perfect world. There's absolutely no logical reason to believe that it WOULDN'T end up exactly as I said, because again, you're dealing with people in positions of power. Government, business, school, hell, even in families, a person in a position of power is a person that will try to expand that power and keep themselves from losing it. 

That is reality. It's easily observable and happens every day, unlike your perfect business environment.

----------


## Maximatic

One time I blew smoke in a cops face because he was interrogating me when I was already handcuffed. He was a young, stupid hyperactive punk. The older cop laughed about it. As I was walking into the courthouse for that case, the older cop was walking in at the same time. I said oh, thank god it's not that stupid little punk. He said "come on, we'll get out of here real quick." He talked to the prosecutor. They came out and said "How about we drop these other four charges, and you plead guilty to a PI?" I sad okay.

----------


## Gemini

> No, it's not. I think privatization of police is a stupid idea.


Depends on the area I suppose, private security is usually better than public security.  But the mafia has everything in common with the government.  The only real difference between the two is that one is larger and better armed than the other.  One makes the other illegal because it is a competitor.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Depends on the area I suppose, private security is usually better than public security.  But the mafia has everything in common with the government.  The only real difference between the two is that one is larger and better armed than the other.  One makes the other illegal because it is a competitor.


It's better, but only for the companies they contract out to. If someone is mugging you in the street, a Sucrocorp cop is going to ignore you as long as it's happening off the property, unless they are just generally a do-gooder anyway.

----------


## Maximatic

> You're arguing for perfect world standards. We don't live in a perfect world. There's absolutely no logical reason to believe that it WOULDN'T end up exactly as I said, because again, you're dealing with people in positions of power. Government, business, school, hell, even in families, a person in a position of power is a person that will try to expand that power and keep themselves from losing it. 
> 
> That is reality. It's easily observable and happens every day, unlike your perfect business environment.


I just gave you reasons to think that isn't the case. Now you say perfect world, reality no logical reason, and you haven't addressed anything I've said. I don't know what else to tell you.

http://voluntarycompact.com/Enforcement.html

Why aren't you this argumentative on our calls?

----------


## kilgram

> Cops don't get in trouble. The article says he cited her for failing to keep right. It's not a speeding ticket. So, he wouldn't get in trouble even if he had a real job.
> 
> Edit: But hey, if security were a for profit industry, cops wouldn't do stupid stuff like that. You'd get good good customer service, or you could fire them.


HAHAHA

That is fun. Like the American prisons that are private, no? :-P They won't do stupid things, no?...

They will do more, and they will be mercenaries, that is worse. Mercernaries for the people that can be paid, and as TRAT said, they would be a kind of mafia.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I just gave you reasons to think that isn't the case. Now you say perfect world, reality no logical reason, and you haven't addressed anything I've said. I don't know what else to tell you.
> 
> http://voluntarycompact.com/Enforcement.html


I'm at work, so I'm trying to keep my responses brief but thorough. I thought my response was adequate to address what you said.




> Why aren't you this argumentative on our calls?


Generally speaking, we talk about stuff that I agree with y'all on  :Tongue:

----------


## Maximatic

> I'm at work, so I'm trying to keep my responses brief but thorough. I thought my response was adequate to address what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, we talk about stuff that I agree with y'all on


Just don't be a dickhead to your clients.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> HAHAHA
> 
> That is fun. Like the American prisons that are private, no? :-P They won't do stupid things, no...
> 
> They will do more, and they will be mercenaries, that is worse. Mercernaries for the people that can be paid, and as TRAT said, they would be a kind of mafia.


Right, the prison system is an excellent example of what happens when things that should never be privatized ARE privatized.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Just don't be a dickhead to your clients.


I would never. It's a church, and a good one at that. These are good people.

----------


## Gemini

> It's better, but only for the companies they contract out to. If someone is mugging you in the street, a Sucrocorp cop is going to ignore you as long as it's happening off the property, unless they are just generally a do-gooder anyway.


So how has Sucrocorp violated their contract then?  Jurisdiction applies to even public law enforcement.  If the contract says they are to keep the peace within eye view than they are on the hook for it, if not, they haven't broken their contract.

They would still be a total waste of DNA in my eyes, but penalizing them for something they never agreed to is a bit of a stretch.

----------


## Maximatic

I don't know how private prisons work, but I know they work for the government, which doesn't have competition or a profit motive. I don't think it's a good example of anything that would happen in a free market.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So how has Sucrocorp violated their contract then?  Jurisdiction applies to even public law enforcement.  If the contract says they are to keep the peace within eye view than they are on the hook for it, if not, they haven't broken their contract.
> 
> They would still be a total waste of DNA in my eyes, but penalizing them for something they never agreed to is a bit of a stretch.


The problem arises when you consider that if privatized police can only act on their clients' properties, who polices outside their property?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I don't know how private prisons work, but I know they work for the government, which doesn't have competition or a profit motive. I don't think it's a good example of anything that would happen in a free market.


Prisons do have a profit motive, though. It's why they support government actions like the War on Drugs and do what they can to keep as many people in prison as they can for as long as they can. It makes them more of a profit.

----------

Gemini (03-13-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

Can we get back to talking about how cops suck?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

This is a far more interesting discussion. We all agree cops suck, except cop lovers like @patrickt and @saintmichaeldefendthem.

----------



----------


## kilgram

> Depends on the area I suppose, private security is usually better than public security.  But the mafia has everything in common with the government.  The only real difference between the two is that one is larger and better armed than the other.  One makes the other illegal because it is a competitor.


Private security better? Yeah, private security hitting people without control... Yeah, please don't make me laugh.

I prefer one thousand times more police, and that I hate them from the deepest of me, than  any kind of private security, that only would serve to the corporation that pay them. No, thanks. That would be the beginning of the corporate wars  :Smile:

----------


## kilgram

> I don't know how private prisons work, but I know they work for the government, which doesn't have competition or a profit motive. I don't think it's a good example of anything that would happen in a free market.


I know that there are towns in the South that the whole industry is dependant to the prison. Imagine that.

----------


## Gemini

> The problem arises when you consider that if privatized police can only act on their clients' properties, who polices outside their property?


I suspect another company would like to fill that void.

----------


## Gemini

> Can we get back to talking about how cops suck?


While I do enjoy a good rant about how the police are largely a functionless organ, it is unproductive.

And not all cops are worthless, but I would also say that most are not worth what we pay them.  Like mechanics, cops can be good and bad.  And really they are usually only as good as policy lets them be, with exceptions of course.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I suspect another company would like to fill that void.


But how? Unless you give them ownership of your house and your land, I don't see how that would work, because you'd still have areas they could not go.

----------


## Gemini

> Private security better? Yeah, private security hitting people without control... Yeah, please don't make me laugh.


They can be held accountable, things like technology help us with this.  The ones that are out of control will probably not be in business long.




> I prefer one thousand times more police, and that I hate them from the deepest of me, than  any kind of private security, that only would serve to the corporation that pay them. No, thanks. That would be the beginning of the corporate wars


1000x more?  Can you imagine just how bad that would be?  Better solution, fewer cops, loosen gun regulations.  Problems largely solved.

Your remarks on corporate wars is interesting.  But it is already occuring within governments, how many shit fights occur with jurisdiction alone?  When A doesn't work well with B, C suffers....C being the general population.  I'm not saying that private security is perfect, but pretending government security is better is just silly.  Both are just as susceptible to corruption.  The only difference is that you can fire private security easier than you can a public servant.

----------


## Maximatic

> But how? Unless you give them ownership of your house and your land, I don't see how that would work, because you'd still have areas they could not go.


Why would you give them ownership of your stuff? What areas would they not be able to go? Why? And why would they need to go there?


Say you decide to go into business and build a protection agency. You decide that you want to limit your service to a small area at first because it's easier to be effective that way. So you pick a fairly populated, 500,000 square mile area where some 500,000 people live. You would need a 24hr call/dispatch center that could handle all the calls you get, preferably with never any hold time, some detectives, some tough guys who can handle confrontation and are not so misanthropic that they offend your customers all the time (basically polite cops), a fleet of vehicles. Not much else, but I'm sure a few other things that I'm not thinking of, maybe a couple of "lawyers" (people who are good at dealing with judges and know a lot about whatever case law the judges typically favor). Let's say this area doesn't have any good protection service for poor people and you want to try to fix that, so you want to keep the service as cheap as possible. If you can get one third of the people in the area to pay you $100 per year, that's over $16,000,000. Do you think you could provide decent protection service on a budget of $16,000,000 a year? I think you probably could. Even if you have to charge twice that, we're still only talking about $20 a month.

----------


## Gemini

> But how? Unless you give them ownership of your house and your land, I don't see how that would work, because you'd still have areas they could not go.


I imagine the same way internet providers do.  Not every company has wires and cables to go everywhere, but they do link up with each other and share networks in a fantastic way.  You and I likely don't share the same internet company as this server, yet we are able to share our thoughts with ease.  

Corporate cooperation isn't evil, unless it is put to evil purposes.  I imagine that consent contracts would be needed for certain things, but it is entirely possible.

----------


## Gemini

> Why would you give them ownership of your stuff? What areas would they not be able to go? Why? And why would they need to go there?
> 
> 
> Say you decide to go into business and build a protection agency. You decide that you want to limit your service to a small area at first because it's easier to be effective that way. So you pick a fairly populated, 500,000 square mile area where some 500,000 people live. You would need a 24hr call/dispatch center that could handle all the calls you get, preferably with never any hold time, some detectives, some tough guys who can handle confrontation and are not so misanthropic that they offend your customers all the time (basically polite cops), a fleet of vehicles. Not much else, but I'm sure a few other things that I'm not thinking of, maybe a couple of "lawyers" (people who are good at dealing with judges and know a lot about whatever case law the judges typically favor). Let's say this area doesn't have any good protection service for poor people and you want to try to fix that, so you want to keep the service as cheap as possible. If you can get one third of the people in the area to pay you $100 per year, that's over $16,000,000. Do you think you could provide decent protection service on a budget of $16,000,000 a year? I think you probably could. Even if you have to charge twice that, we're still only talking about $20 a month.


Stop it!  Stop it right now!  That logical thinking will not be tolerated here!

/sarcasm.

Not too shabby of an idea.

----------


## kilgram

> I imagine the same way internet providers do.  Not every company has wires and cables to go everywhere, but they do link up with each other and share networks in a fantastic way.  You and I likely don't share the same internet company as this server, yet we are able to share our thoughts with ease.  
> 
> Corporate cooperation isn't evil, unless it is put to evil purposes.  I imagine that consent contracts would be needed for certain things, but it is entirely possible.


Corporate cooperation is evil, because looks always for their profits and benefits.

----------


## kilgram

> Why would you give them ownership of your stuff? What areas would they not be able to go? Why? And why would they need to go there?
> 
> 
> Say you decide to go into business and build a protection agency. You decide that you want to limit your service to a small area at first because it's easier to be effective that way. So you pick a fairly populated, 500,000 square mile area where some 500,000 people live. You would need a 24hr call/dispatch center that could handle all the calls you get, preferably with never any hold time, some detectives, some tough guys who can handle confrontation and are not so misanthropic that they offend your customers all the time (basically polite cops), a fleet of vehicles. Not much else, but I'm sure a few other things that I'm not thinking of, maybe a couple of "lawyers" (people who are good at dealing with judges and know a lot about whatever case law the judges typically favor). Let's say this area doesn't have any good protection service for poor people and you want to try to fix that, so you want to keep the service as cheap as possible. If you can get one third of the people in the area to pay you $100 per year, that's over $16,000,000. Do you think you could provide decent protection service on a budget of $16,000,000 a year? I think you probably could. Even if you have to charge twice that, we're still only talking about $20 a month.


Unrealistic. That is not how the real world of corporations work.

----------


## Maximatic

> Unrealistic. That is not how the real world of corporations work.


It's a sketch of a business model, dude. It is how businesses work.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Why would you give them ownership of your stuff? What areas would they not be able to go? Why? And why would they need to go there?
> 
> 
> Say you decide to go into business and build a protection agency. You decide that you want to limit your service to a small area at first because it's easier to be effective that way. So you pick a fairly populated, 500,000 square mile area where some 500,000 people live. You would need a 24hr call/dispatch center that could handle all the calls you get, preferably with never any hold time, some detectives, some tough guys who can handle confrontation and are not so misanthropic that they offend your customers all the time (basically polite cops), a fleet of vehicles. Not much else, but I'm sure a few other things that I'm not thinking of, maybe a couple of "lawyers" (people who are good at dealing with judges and know a lot about whatever case law the judges typically favor). Let's say this area doesn't have any good protection service for poor people and you want to try to fix that, so you want to keep the service as cheap as possible. If you can get one third of the people in the area to pay you $100 per year, that's over $16,000,000. Do you think you could provide decent protection service on a budget of $16,000,000 a year? I think you probably could. Even if you have to charge twice that, we're still only talking about $20 a month.


And if Sucrocorp pays off Securitel to ignore them when they fuck around with John Barstow's cattle farm?

----------


## Maximatic

> And if Sucrocorp pays off Securitel to ignore them when they fuck around with John Barstow's cattle farm?


Why would some company want to pay some other company so thy can fuck around with some farm?

Edit: How much is your companies reputation worth?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Why would some company want to pay some other company so thy can fuck around with some farm?


It's just a hypothetical, Max. Don't get tied up in the specifics.




> Edit: How much is your companies reputation worth?


Mine? Fuck them, I wouldn't take the bribe. But the owner of the company I work for is not the same type of man.

----------


## Gemini

> Corporate cooperation is evil, because looks always for their profits and benefits.


So the pursuit of profit and benefits is evil now?  Because I do that, so does the bulk of the human population, but I wouldn't classify them as evil to want to better their station.

How are you arriving at this conclusion?

----------


## Gemini

> And if Sucrocorp pays off Securitel to ignore them when they fuck around with John Barstow's cattle farm?


Sounds like good grounds to fire them, or exercise your natural rights to defend your property with the endowments of the second amendment, or both.

----------


## Maximatic

> It's just a hypothetical, Max. Don't get tied up in the specifics.
> 
> 
> 
> Mine? Fuck them, I wouldn't take the bribe. But the owner of the company I work for is not the same type of man.


Nobody would. It's just too expensive. You could make a lot more money charging dues and not having to do much work than you could trying to pillage. You'd have a good reputation, you'd stay in business. Life would be great.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Sounds like good grounds to fire them, or exercise your natural rights to defend your property with the endowments of the second amendment, or both.


Yes, because people totally lash out at the government when its corrupt security force violates their rights.

----------


## Gemini

> Yes, because people totally lash out at the government when its corrupt security force violates their rights.


Depends on the location friend, depends upon the location...and sometimes the time period and level of desperation.

You've heard of the revolutionary war right?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Depends on the location friend, depends upon the location...and sometimes the time period and level of desperation.
> 
> You've heard of the revolutionary war right?


Yes, over two hundred years ago a minority of the colonists had the balls to stand up against government aggression. Unfortunately, over two hundred years later, Americans are more interested in bitching than they are doing.

----------


## kilgram

> It's a sketch of a business model, dude. It is how businesses work.


In theory.

----------


## kilgram

> So the pursuit of profit and benefits is evil now?  Because I do that, so does the bulk of the human population, but I wouldn't classify them as evil to want to better their station.
> 
> How are you arriving at this conclusion?


Just observing how act the 99% of corporations of the world. That is easy to arrive to that conclusion, and mainly of the corporations of Spain, and observing that they with the government are the main cause of the disastrous situation of the country.

----------


## The XL

Any large enough power will impose it's will on us.  If it isn't government, it will be a huge private force.  This is just the reality of any system of government or lack thereof.

I'll take my chances with anarchism, regardless.  It couldn't be any worse than this.  It'd be silly to pretend potential problems wouldn't exist, though.

----------

kilgram (03-13-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> I hardly think two miles under in bad weather conditions is comparable.


I didn't say it was. She was a nervous nelly going under the speed limit in the LEFT LANE. That was the problem. She had no business being in the left lane going slow. That's what I call a dumbass.

People like her think because they're driving "safe", they have the moral high-ground and the right to hog the road and inconvenience others. If she got pulled and ticketed, I'll bet you she was causing somewhat a hazard.

----------

Gemini (03-13-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Yes, over two hundred years ago a minority of the colonists had the balls to stand up against government aggression. Unfortunately, over two hundred years later, Americans are more interested in bitching than they are doing.


Most yes, but not all.  Doing is one thing, but doing recklessly is foolish, opportunity must present itself or be created.  Basically, when their are food riots, change will happen rapidly, not always for the better.

The stomach is usually subservient to the source of its nourishment.  It is the world's best negotiator.

----------


## Gemini

> Just observing how act the 99% of corporations of the world. That is easy to arrive to that conclusion, and mainly of the corporations of Spain, and observing that they with the government are the main cause of the disastrous situation of the country.


Than the corporate philanthropy which is abundant here is something you ignore?  Or you simply see it as a means of salving their conscience?

How would you explain religions then?  They market a product, and receive revenue from their supplicants largely, yet for the most part they seem to be altruistic.  Obviously, the definition of altruism may vary, and you may have just rotten religions who promote all manner of violence and garbage.

But they have a lot in common with corporations, so are they all evil as well?

----------


## patrickt

> This is a far more interesting discussion. We all agree cops suck, except cop lovers like @patrickt and @saintmichaeldefendthem.


Of course, all left-wing liberals think all cops suck. That's TRAT's problem. A left-wing liberal who can't come out of the closet. He's forced to make shit up.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Of course, all left-wing liberals think all cops suck. That's TRAT's problem. A left-wing liberal who can't come out of the closet. He's forced to make shit up.


Jesus, you're now the third person to think I'm trying to hide the fact that I'm a leftist. What, exactly, have I said or done to make you think I'm trying to hide it?

----------


## kilgram

> Than the corporate philanthropy which is abundant here is something you ignore?  Or you simply see it as a means of salving their conscience?
> 
> How would you explain religions then?  They market a product, and receive revenue from their supplicants largely, yet for the most part they seem to be altruistic.  Obviously, the definition of altruism may vary, and you may have just rotten religions who promote all manner of violence and garbage.
> 
> But they have a lot in common with corporations, so are they all evil as well?


Philanthropy is a lie. And yes, is a way to clean their consciences. They are wealthy thanks to the poverty of the rest, and many of the poors that they created are helped by them later, thanks to that thing called philanthropy or charity.

Religions are a system to control people and create slaves. Religions are created by the men with authoritarian ideas to control and enslave the peasants. So yeah, religions are evil.  :Smile:

----------


## Gemini

> Philanthropy is a lie. And yes, is a way to clean their consciences. They are wealthy thanks to the poverty of the rest, and many of the poors that they created are helped by them later, thanks to that thing called philanthropy or charity.
> 
> Religions are a system to control people and create slaves. Religions are created by the men with authoritarian ideas to control and enslave the peasants. So yeah, religions are evil.


Some do, some don't.

You got to judge these things by the results man.  A single profile won't cut it for everybody.  LDS church for example, strictly all voluntary as it is.  I was taught from a young age by religious leaders to challenge and prove things for myself.  Nobody forces me to do anything.  Government participation?  Not so voluntary, if I don't pay into it men with guns take me away to a cell. 

"Philanthropy" can be misused, and that is when it stops being philanthropy.  I don't care if somebody donates something so they can advertise their company, they could have just spent that money advertising just the same, but they opted to do a good cause and found a win-win situation for both themselves and those they are helping.  Not seeing the evil here.

But hey, you've got your agency and you can spend it however you like.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I didn't say it was. She was a nervous nelly going under the speed limit in the LEFT LANE. That was the problem. She had no business being in the left lane going slow. That's what I call a dumbass.
> 
> People like her think because they're driving "safe", they have the moral high-ground and the right to hog the road and inconvenience others. If she got pulled and ticketed, I'll bet you she was causing somewhat a hazard.


The lane you're in doesn't matter in bad weather conditions, EVERYONE is supposed to be driving slower. That's one of the first lessons of defensive driving.

----------


## kilgram

> Some do, some don't.
> 
> You got to judge these things by the results man.  A single profile won't cut it for everybody.  LDS church for example, strictly all voluntary as it is.  I was taught from a young age by religious leaders to challenge and prove things for myself.  Nobody forces me to do anything.  Government participation?  Not so voluntary, if I don't pay into it men with guns take me away to a cell. 
> 
> "Philanthropy" can be misused, and that is when it stops being philanthropy.  I don't care if somebody donates something so they can advertise their company, they could have just spent that money advertising just the same, but they opted to do a good cause and found a win-win situation for both themselves and those they are helping.  Not seeing the evil here.
> 
> But hey, you've got your agency and you can spend it however you like.


For example, Bill Gates has been considered the Devil in computers science, for many reasons and most of them right. And now, I don't know if he does it to clear his image, or really has bad feelings about what he did when he was managing Microsoft and now he gives a lot to charity.

And yes, however I hate him, for what he represents, I have to say that this charity activity works, because I have a little better image of him than before, and much better than Steve Jobs.

But this charity goes to places that many times his corporation is responsible of the situation that they live.

----------


## LCgreat

I got a ticket in Greensboro,NC.in the 70's for driving ,25 mph,in a 30 mph speed zone. The officer wouldn't listen to reason,and I was from out of town.Oh well it was the 70's. :Cool20:   :Afro:

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> It's merely all about power............nothing more


Yes. 

Or she ignored signs saying "Slower traffic keep right" and absolutely deserved that ticket.

I'm continually amazed at how enforcement of the law is seen as a power grab and people breaking the law are seen as victims.

----------


## The XL

That's because most of what you considered unlawful is all bullshit.

Oh, that's right, you couldn't defend your glaring hypocrisy regarding nudism vs non violent drug use a week ago and decided to put me on ignore to run away, so you can't see this.  My bad, carry on.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> That's because most of what you considered unlawful is all bullshit.
> 
> Oh, that's right, you couldn't defend your glaring hypocrisy regarding nudism vs non violent drug use a week ago and decided to put me on ignore to run away, so you can't see this.  My bad, carry on.


Miketopia. Everything works the way he thinks it does, because he said so. He is always right, his arguments are always perfect and never full of holes. The law is what he says it is.

----------

The XL (03-15-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Miketopia. Everything works the way he thinks it does, because he said so. He is always right, his arguments are always perfect and never full of holes. The law is what he says it is.


Yep, pretty much.

----------


## garyo

I'm tickled to death that some inconsiderate oblivious asshole got a ticket while riding along below the speed limit in the passing lane, too many people have no idea what a multiple lane road is for.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I'm tickled to death that some inconsiderate oblivious asshole got a ticket while riding along below the speed limit in the passing lane, too many people have no idea what a multiple lane road is for.


Well I'm glad you see it too. I thought I was going crazy with everyone going on like this is some horrible injustice that a woman broke the law and got a ticket for it.  Those of us who operate by common sense are outnumbered by the crazies these days.  :Thumbsup20:

----------

garyo (03-15-2013)

----------


## Cap

They should have dragged her out of her car and pistol whipped her.

I'm fucking sick of slobs who hog the passing lane, it's inconsiderate.  If you're going to do the limit (or less), stay in the fucking slow lane.

----------

garyo (03-15-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> They should have dragged her out of her car and pistol whipped her.
> 
> I'm fucking sick of slobs who hog the passing lane, it's inconsiderate.  If you're going to do the limit (or less), stay in the fucking slow lane.


Oh, the cop haters would just go NUCKING FUTZ if somebody got pistol whipped.  They have no idea how restrained the police are overall, having never stepped outside of this country to see what real oppression is.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

So, everyone is just going to ignore the fact that the weather was bad, meaning EVERYONE should have been going slower? Correct me if I'm wrong, but THAT is also illegal, to not slow down in bad weather.

----------

garyo (03-15-2013)

----------


## garyo

Im standing in the corner.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> So, everyone is just going to ignore the fact that the weather was bad, meaning EVERYONE should have been going slower? Correct me if I'm wrong, but THAT is also illegal, to not slow down in bad weather.


How does the weather affect people's responsibility to follow the law and stay in the right lane if you're slower than the rest of the traffic?  I'm very certain the sign doesn't read "Slower Traffic Keep Right unless the weather is bad"

----------


## Guest

> Oh, the cop haters would just go NUCKING FUTZ if somebody got pistol whipped.  They have no idea how restrained the police are overall, having never stepped outside of this country to see what real oppression is.


I've stepped out of the country and I live in NYC.  Our police aren't that different.  You compare the country to BFE Idaho and ignore the LAPD, NYPD, and Chicago PD.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-15-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> How does the weather affect people's responsibility to follow the law and stay in the right lane if you're slower than the rest of the traffic?  I'm very certain the sign doesn't read "Slower Traffic Keep Right unless the weather is bad"


The point is if the weather was bad, she should not have BEEN slower traffic, because everyone on the road should have been going as slow or slower.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I've stepped out of the country and I live in NYC.  Our police aren't that different.  You compare the country to BFE Idaho and ignore the LAPD, NYPD, and Chicago PD.


Rina, think about it. Do you HONESTLY think he'd hate the LAPD and NYPD if he got a taste of how they were? Honestly.

----------


## Guest

> Rina, think about it. Do you HONESTLY think he'd hate the LAPD and NYPD if he got a taste of how they were? Honestly.


Any human would.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Any human would.


Well. People who pride themselves on supporting a police state generally aren't good in that department.

----------



----------


## Network

She needs to go faster.  No time for slow pokes.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Rina, think about it. Do you HONESTLY think he'd hate the LAPD and NYPD if he got a taste of how they were? Honestly.


You do understand that breaking the traffic laws and breaking the laws of physics are two different things, right?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Laws of physics? What does that have to do with anything?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Laws of physics? What does that have to do with anything?


Did you not just repeatedly harp on how traffic should have been travelling slower because of weather?  Jeez!

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Did you not just repeatedly harp on how traffic should have been travelling slower because of weather?  Jeez!


I just worked four twelve hour days in a row. Cut me some slack.

----------



----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I just worked four twelve hour days in a row. Cut me some slack.


Ok.

----------


## Maximatic

> It's just a hypothetical, Max. Don't get tied up in the specifics.
> Mine? Fuck them, I wouldn't take the bribe. But the owner of the company I work for is not the same type of man.





> Unrealistic. That is not how the real world of corporations work.


New, short  podcast on it.

http://maximatic.podbean.com/

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/...ic/id589640250

----------

