| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/1/13-17 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Motorcycle] UID:41368 Activity:high |
1/13 Live105 DJ says he'd like to see motorists stuck in traffic open
their doors against motorcylclists:
http://www.live105.com/music/audio/motor1.rm
Yamaha not amused:
http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149079
UPDATE: Live105 offers apology:
http://www.live105.com/music/co-op/default.htm
Note: DJ's apology kinda weak.
\_ Take away the vehicles and make it a straight fight, and I'd put
money on the bikers over the car drivers. Especially after the
second time this happens and all the bikers start carrying
guns and caltrops. I ride a bicycle, not a motorcycle, but if
someone does some shit like this to me, they'd better kill
me, or the blood on the street will be theirs.
\_ if you obey the traffic laws you won't be hurt
if you dont you deserve to get run over
\_ Your first statement is so patently false to anyone who's
ever ridden anywhere but a few select cities as to be
not worth responding to. I obey traffic laws, and I've
never been hurt or had a close call, but I've seen cars
do things that would have killed me if I had simply obeyed the
law and not gone the extra step of assuming that all you
car driving motherfuckers will totally ignore it, stopping.
at green lights to look, etc. You all think your so tough
when you're surrounded by a 3000 pound murder weapon, but
you have to get out sooner or later and then you're not so
tough.
at green lights to look, etc.
\_ So all bicyclists are ranting psychopaths who think all
car drivers are inconsiderate potential murderers? -John
\_ I speak only for myself.
\_ So you think all car drivers are inconsiderate
potential murderers? -John
\_ They're not all inconsiderate, no, but they are
all potential murderers. Cars kill more Americans
in a year than the whole vietnam war did. You
can call all of these "accidents", but as some one
who has chosen not to partake in car culture, I
see it as at least manslaughter, if not outright
murder, and I see the whole system as being guilty.
What's the fine for blasting through a crosswalk
and ignoring pedestrians if you don't actually
kill them? In my state it's a hundred bucks.
A HUNDRED BUCKS!! Now, what would the penalty
be for firing your gun into someones home, but
missing them? "But officer, I was aiming for that
target on my lawn!" You better believe it wouldn't
be a hundred dollar fine, even if it was a total
accident. Everyone, even the NRA, would agree
that gun users should be forced to show a certain
degree of responsibility, because if they don't,
people are going to die. But in America we have
decided that car drivers do not have to show that
level of responsibility, because our whole system
is based on allowing every drooling moron in the
country to be able to drive any time any any place
they want, and that would never work if they had
to actually be responsible about it. And yes,
I'm obviously a ranting psychopath.
\_ Uhm, you're a moron. Firing a gun into
someone's home could either constitute
attempted murder, assault, or nothing. It
really depends on the situation, e.g. was
it an accidental firing, was the owner of
the gun aiming at the victim in order to hit
or in order to scare, was the firing due
to gross negligence or merely negligence, was
there a product defect, etc. The same is true
for almost hitting a pedestrian with a car,
the car in this case would be the deadly
weapon vs. the gun. What you are spouting
about with your $100 fine is merely the
traffic infraction part of the equation,
which is a strict liability crime. The motorist
in question may still be prosecuted for the
above offenses (and depending on your state,
there's probably a fine for discharging a
gun which is also strict liability). In
addition, the victim can sue the motorist
for assault if (s)he really wants to. As
for your vietnam analogy, that's blatently
stupid. So what if cars kill more people
per year than in all of vietnam, heart attacks
kill more people per year than in all of
vietnam also. Should we therefore ban
people from being obese and force everyone
to exercise? Should we start hunting down
every possible dangerous activity that
humans engage in and ban them?
\_ A cop who saw someone blow through a crosswalk
with pedestrians in it could get nailed for
all sorts of things in CA starting with various
forms of reckless driving. If there isn't a
reason for it like the mechanical failure, it
can easily rise to the level of felony. What
state do you live in?
\_ Connecticut. Knowing the 100 dollar fine
for blowing a crosswalk was in the drivers
license test. As for California I'm going
to simply call bullshit. I lived in
California for five years, and I never
saw a car pulled over for a crosswalk
violation, and had my life put in danger
hundreds of times by the car weasels who
blew the crosswalks. I recall people getting
actually hit near campus multiple times.
\_ Ok genius, was a cop nearby? You're
telling me a cop stood there and was
witness to a car rolling through an
intersection putting life and limb at
risk by nearly hitting pedestrians and
did nothing? I'm calling big time
bullshit on that one. I saw one person
get hit while I was in school outside
the dorms. She was reading the Daily
Cal as she crossed the middle of the
street with traffic oncoming. Mostly,
cars would actually stop (illegally,
mind you) and let dormies cross the
street when they saw students waiting
for a traffic gap.
\_ You're from LA, aren't you?
\_ So when a bike is riding on the road do you always give
them a full lane?
\_ I do. -!pp
\_ Lanesplitting is 100% legal.
\_ Only for motorcycles, I think.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/curriculum/unit9text.pdf pg49.
\_ Uh, duh...
\_ Do you feel the same way about the Homeland Security Act?
\_ When did you stop beating your wife?
\_ Live105 doesn't exactly have a good track record for rseponsible
broadcasting. This should be no surprise.
\_ Uh, okay... odd little allegation.
\_ What's odd about it?
\_ That you throw it out without so much as an anecdote or
url to lend it credence?
\_ I figured it was a station enough people here might have
heard that I didn't have to explain. Either way, it's
just a music radio station. The minimal requirement to
be a DJ is having a good voice and uhm. That's it.
\_ You clearly have a more finely tuned "responsibility"
radar than the rest of us.
\_ I too think it's weird to mention something about
irresponsible broadcasting and not explain it. -!pp
\_ If you like getting your ass kicked, telling people to hurt
motorcyclist in a public forum is a good way to stay happy.
\_ Scroll down to duc996girl. Kinda hot.
\_ Tango and Cash did this about two years ago. They got canned
\_ Some other idiots did this a few years ago on 92.3. They got canned
\_ What an ugly asian chick
\_ Was someone denied sex?
\_ Did someone get denied sex?
\_ Kramer and Twitch did this a few years ago on KSJO. They got canned
a few days later. I am willing to bet this guy gets the boot
too.
too. Let's make sure that happens by contacting the station.
\_ Does anyone actually find morning shows like this to be funny?
Everyone I've talked to just finds them annoying. -gm
\_ Is this even legal? Can you actually get on the air and
encourage others to commit murder?
\_ Anne Coulter said the only way to talk to a liberal is with
a baseball bat. I don't see her rotting in jail.
\_ I'd love to go one one one with that fucking cunt with a
baseball bat. That would be a very short fight.
\_ The courts have soft spot for the mentally ill.
\_ Although vile, it's freedom of speech. Inciting people to
assault and kill bikers would never be covered by FoS by
even the wildest interpretation of the 1st amendment.
\_ Um, that's not what he did. What he said was stupid,
but in no way criminal.
\_ If you don't call it incitement then what was it?
\_ A great way to boost ratings by getting
hypersensitive morons riled? It's the American
way! -John
\_ Why would that boost ratings? If anything, I'd
be less likely to listen. Morons should not be
rewarded for their stupidity.
\_ Exactly. But loudly public righteous
indignation is so much more gratifying! -John
\_ Anyone got a written transcript?
\_ Okay, so I contacted Beven Dufty, my Supervisor and he promised
to have the SFPD Chief contact them and express her displeasure
as well as contacting them personally and asking if the SFMC
would like to weigh in. If any of you live in San Francisco,
please contact your Supervisor. I know Ross Mirkarimi rides.
Is anyone on the motd in District 5?
as well as contacting them personally and also asking if the SF
Motorcycle club would like to weigh in. If any of you live
in San Francisco, please contact your Supervisor. Heck even
if you don't live in SF, contact your Supervisor, if you think
there is the least chance that they will be sympathetic.
I know Ross Mirkarimi rides. Is anyone on the motd in District 5? |
| 2006/1/13-17 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:41369 Activity:moderate |
1/12 Funny, I always gave Pamela Anderson more credit than this, but
apparently she IS as stupid as she seems. I guess anyone who would
sleep with Tommy Lee is suspect...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060113/ap_en_tv/pamela_vs_the_colonel
\_ The question is why you ever gave her any credit at all.
\_ "FRANKFORT, Ky. - Pamela Anderson is leading a charge to remove a
bust ......"
Oh no!!!
\_ You'll always have the internet.
\_ She likes swallowing huge pieces of meat, but only if attached to
Tommy Lee.
\_ ITYM Kid Rock.
\_ I have no proof that Kid Rock is huge. I do have proof
Tommy Lee is huge.
\_ How many inches?
\_ The camera, um, adds inches.
\_ So does your mom. Now explain to me how having a pet
cause (no pun..sorry) makes you stupid? -John
\_ Are you kidding? You've got to be an idiot to support
PETA.
\_ PETA are slugs--they've ruined the business of
some of my family's friends. That said, if any
of what they're claiming is even halfway true,
it's wrong. Hitler liked dogs, I like dogs, does
that make me a nazi? (Go Godwin!) -John
\_ Ja Nazi. Heil German John! HEIL!!!
\_ No free speech for fascists. -John |
| 2006/1/13-17 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:41370 Activity:high |
1/13 You think Bay Area housing prices skyrocketed? Check this out.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060113/ap_on_re_us/everglades_holdout
$60K -> $4.95M in 30yrs.
\_ Synopsis of this article: Many dumb asses bought useless FL
swamp lands during the 1960's land scam, and got paid millions
of dollars 4-5 decades later.
My interpretation: The land/real-estate market is dumb ass
dummy-safe. If you hold it long enough, and in this case
2/3 of your lifetime, you'll still come out ahead. So go
ahead and buy your first home or 5th income property regardless
of the bubble, you'll still do well 4-5 decades later.
\_ Why is it a surprise that land might have tremendous value
*50 YEARS* after purchase? You seem pretty bitter that these
people had the foresight to give themselves a nice retirement
package starting *50 YEARS* ago. Why are you so upset that
other people have done well in life? Nothing is stopping you
from putting some money down on cheap land today and *maybe*
retiring well on it in *50 YEARS*.
\_ "...I will never be able to freely do what I wanted to do."
With $4.95M? I'd think he could afford a big place somewhere just
as rural.
\_ He was apparently forced off his land. I see a problem with
that.
\_ Go bother Jeb
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/10/naples/e39080a.htm
"Bush said Thursday that it looked as if negotiations with
Hardy would not succeed and that the state would have to
pursue eminent domain against him, something Bush said he
doesn't like to do. He said Hardy would be
'well-compensated.'" (Oct 17, 2003)
Hardy sure wants to: http://www.jessehardy.com
"So, you can do the math, people, 160 acres at $50,000 per
acre, equals $8 million dollars - a far cry from the
'staggering' $4.95 million I 'shrewdly' negotiated!"
... along with his lawyers:
"My negotiator, Will Smith, let me get ripped off, just like
my attorney, Charlie Forman. I would do anything to get my
land back, even if I didn't have anything else left."
\_ I'm happy to bother Jeb. Why does that matter?
\_ 70 year old with a 9 year old son.. This guy sounds like a trip..
\_ just telling you who's to blame in this case.
\_ This is horseshit, Jeb or not. There is a reason for
the existence of eminent domain, and the fact that it's
been abused crazily by corrupt politicians and property
developers doesn't mean it's always bad. Ask yourself:
qui bono? The guy got $5 million for a piece of swamp he
acquired for 60k--that's a lot of money. -John
\_ It doesn't matter what he got for it or what he paid
for it. We still like to pretend in this country that
we have property rights.
\_ Not after Kelo.
\_ Well yeah, like I said: "pretend".
\_ So when someone lubes you up and reams you, it's just
haggling over remuneration?
\_ Re. property rights: if you don't pay property
tax, your property is taken away from you. So that
sort of scotches that argument. Re. reaming: you
\_ Scotches what? In no manner does the concept
of property taxes scotch an anti-ED point.
[erased my own long rant]. In short, what
the hell are you talking about?
don't seem to be getting the fundamental difference
between taking away land for someone else's
profit (a la New London) and taking away land that
was initially probably developed at least shadily,
\_ Probably? All land in this country was
initially stolen from the natives. By
your logic it is therefore ok to ream all
current land owners just because.
like much of the Everglades, and returning it to
the commons. And yes, I know there's a huge grey
area. -John
\_ There's no grey area. Land taken from an
owner for anything more than strictly
defined public use (such as needing a
\_ I hope you realize that after
Kelo pretty much anything the
gov says is a public use is a
public use, including taking
away your home and giving it
somebody wealthier b/c they
will pay more property taxes.
school, firehouse, etc) without first making
all reasonable efforts to use other land and
not *fully* compensating the victim for
their loss is theft by government. There
are way too many ED cases where the ED isn't
for a real public use and the compensation
figures are calculated falsely (such as
after prices in the area drop by 80% after
they announce an ED) that it is impossible
to defend ED and it's advocates without
associating one's self with some of the
scummiest people in local government. This
isn't Europe. We've always been allowed to
actually *own* our property here.
\_ Nice dig, there. The money allocated to
him was not calculated falsely, as
property prices could would not drop
in the conventional sense if the property
was not being commercially allocated.
You may have noted the bit about it
being returned to its natural state.
That said, of course there is a grey area
and it is huge. I agree fully that ED
is vastly over- and too often misused.
But do you seriously believe that
communities as such could make _any_
economic progress if they had no way at
all of occasionally expropriating
resources? And no, before you hint at it
again, I do not believe in some socialist
utopian idea of land as a public good,
but as a limited resource to be handled
judiciously. And let's face it, the guy
_did_ get $5 million for a swamp. -John
\_ Ah, so the lube is okay if the price
is high enough. Thanks for sharing.
If the government can take land not
for public use, then private property
doesn't exist. Period.
\_ Parks are for public use. -tom
\_ Not state park and "preserves."
Too often they're off limits
for people. ED is reasonable
for roads and ... well pretty
much nothing else.
So let's take this ad absurdum--if I build a house on a pristine _/
natural resource under some sort of homesteading "nobody's using it,
come 'n git it" initiative, and the land is later found to be the
last remaining preserve of the rare spotted mud iguana whose
secretions cure cancer, and my presence is killing off the last few,
then the gub'mint takes my land, fences off the area and doesn't let
anyone in, you would oppose this, right (like I said, ad absurdum)?
Also, I'll freely admit that maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see the
difference in the big-picture between this and the gub'mint taking
your land if you don't pay property taxes. In both cases, the land
isn't really yours unconditionally as such. -John
\_ I'm not the op or anyone who responded to your post. I just
want to say that all this talk is further proof that the
concept of ownership (I give you XX trinkets so that you will
give me YY acres of land) makes people greedy and do really
evil things. The land is precious, and an individual has very
limited scope in what he/she can do to fully use the land for
greater goods. Given that most common people have been proven
to be selfish & stupid in the entire history mankind, it should
have been the case from the beginning that the land is not
monopolized by individuals. Land belongs to the common habitats
of the land.
\_ Is this a troll? Are you really actually advocating some form
of socialism or just looking for enraged responses?
\_ What? You haven't learned to pick up on the subtle
article-abuse we have all come to know and love of Chicom
troll? Get with it. Nevermind. I re-read the post, and I
believe it to be an imposter.
\_ I didn't see the expected ChiComTroll grammar at all.
I'm sure it is someone else but still a troll.
\_ I'm not the above poster you're responding to. With that in mind:
Cancer: it doesn't matter how you came about the land as long as
it is legally yours today. ED'ing cancer cure land: first, it is
necessary to keep the frogs on that land to harvest them directly
for a cancer cure? If so, we're screwed anyway since there won't
be enough of $rare_animal_or_plant_X to matter. If someone wants
to "steal" all the frogs off the land, I don't have an issue with
that. We're assuming the rare plant/animal is secondary to the
normal land use pattern for the owner. If the owner was actually
raising and farming these things for a cancer cure then I've got
a problem with stealing his frogs.
Property taxes: this is what all land owners pay in exchange for
the State (be it local, state or federal) to support and protect
the owner and their land claim so they don't have to raise their
own private army to defend their stake. The resource being paid
for with PT is protective physical and legal enforcement of the
land ownership claim. The State usually uses that cash to do
things like provide water, roads, schools, etc, but it doesn't
have to. Once the PT are paid, the State does what they want with
the money. By not paying your PT you are not paying the State what
they need to protect your land claim. Since the State is
effectively forced to defend all land claims, you can't opt out of
your property taxes.
Back to the core idea: I don't think the vast majority of people
have a problem with the concept of ED. I don't. The problem is
that local governments have been very seriously abusing it for
years and in the last 15-20 years the abuses have skyrocketed
both in number and severity well past the point of thinking of
ED as anything more than theft. Far far far too many cases all
over the country go like this:
1) Business Developer buys a few beers and kicks a few bucks at
a local mayor or board.
2) Locals find some nice water front land inhabited for the previous
$MANY_DECADES by honest, hard working tax paying, working class
folks and retirees and announces ED on the whole area calling it
a "blighted area".
3) ED announcement naturally causes huge drop in housing prices in
the area.
4) Locals use new lower comp figures as pay out number to determine
worth of remaining houses and small businesses.
5) Citizens get pennies on the dollar and evicted.
6) Locals hand over the land to the Business Developer we saw back
in #1 who builds yacht club, fancy hotels and condos.
7) Locals and Business Developer claim victory for The Community
and "Yay! ED makes everyone a winner!" except for those
Community Members we decided weren't adding enough to the tax
base and were kinda lower class anyway and couldn't afford a
yacht club membership, screw them. Welcome to ED in the
current era. Oh yeah, we might have built a school or small
park in there somewhere, too.
The alternative to the above is less common but has happened here
and there is they steal some dumb bastard's land, don't do a thing
with it and then sell it on the public market 20 years later after
real estate sky rockets. Not even a token park is built. Just
pure raw flat out theft under color of authority.
\_ Well, I think we agree that (a) this is theft, and (b) ED has
been massively abused and is a slippery slide in itself. I do
however still think that this particular case falls under the
few "legit" uses of ED--both due to the intended use of the
land ("for the public good" in the greater sense) and the
amount paid. -John
\_ I believe in this case he ended up in some sort of
negotiated settlement that he felt was forced upon him
under threat of ED. Negotiating under the gun isn't much
of a negotiation and he probably could've gotten more which
I think is what his gripe is. Anyway, at least we agree on
the major points which is the part I was here for. |
| 2006/1/13-17 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:41371 Activity:nil |
1/13 Jenn Sterger
\_ Who?
\_ obGoogle
\_ http://images.google.com returns no result. Amazing. Is she that
unpopular?
\) don't use google images.
\_ Another girl with fake boobs. |
| 2006/1/13 [Uncategorized] UID:41372 Activity:high |
1/13 Hillary and Bill thank the organizer for the fraudulent $700k
in campaign contributions.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3697504752429648815&q=peter+paul |