True, but let's see how well the Tea Bag candidates stick to their campaign promises. Especially after the way the 'Baggers have been whining about Obama and his "lies".
Dems were voted out mainly because of the economy sucking. If you notice, nearly all the Dems voted out were "Blue Dogs" and most of THEM only got elected 2 years ago. 95% of "progressive" Dems got re-elected and my own state swung to a Democrat Gov after decades of Republicans.
So let us see the Republicans fix the economy already! They started complaining about 6 months into Obama's Presidency. The GOP better get set to compromise by Summer 2011 or they're going to flop.
The teabaggers are gonna be crying in their medicare and social security checks when their candidates get shut out by the rest of the GOP. Punks should have done the leg work and started an actual party like the Libertarians and the Greens.
A tactic used against the people we're freeing the shit out of over in the M.E. Blocking information, planting false information in local papers to drum up support for the occupiers...
He learned it by watching you, government! He learned it by watching you!
So what if they were his children? I don't give my parents the implicit right to risk my life in an attempt to save someone else.
There are MANY other questions. He didn't know why the driver was slumped, perhaps he was asleep or passed out. What if the driver awoke when he impacted? What might he do? Engine power is nearly always enough to over-come braking power. The slumped driver might panic, hit the gas and then both vehicles are pushed into the intersection. What if the bumping caused the driver to fall to the side, turning the wheel and sending his car into pedestrian traffic?
It's not about not getting involved because "might get hurt" it's about the reasonable and most responsible action given known information.
He forgot to take into account what might happen if the other driver awoke, startled, and perhaps mashed the gas and pushed his minivan into the intersection. He had no way to know why the driver was not controlling the vehicle.
It isn't about the law, it's about rational thinking. You don't know that by doing nothing the damage would have been bigger and that more would have been hurt. Yet you accept this premise as a fact and that is why your argument breaks down.
Do Nothing: 1) Driver and passengers do not impact any vehicles and get out of the way...no added risk. 2) Possible added risk to those in the intersection.
Try to stop vehicle 1) Driver and passengers are exposed to greater risk from rear impact 2) Possibly lowered but not eliminated risk to those in intersection.
Given what he knew at the time, I feel the path to least net risk and least net harm would be to get out of the way, honking and flashing lights to warn the intersection.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but let's see how well the Tea Bag candidates stick to their campaign promises. Especially after the way the 'Baggers have been whining about Obama and his "lies".
Dems were voted out mainly because of the economy sucking. If you notice, nearly all the Dems voted out were "Blue Dogs" and most of THEM only got elected 2 years ago. 95% of "progressive" Dems got re-elected and my own state swung to a Democrat Gov after decades of Republicans.
So let us see the Republicans fix the economy already! They started complaining about 6 months into Obama's Presidency. The GOP better get set to compromise by Summer 2011 or they're going to flop.
The teabaggers are gonna be crying in their medicare and social security checks when their candidates get shut out by the rest of the GOP. Punks should have done the leg work and started an actual party like the Libertarians and the Greens.
A tactic used against the people we're freeing the shit out of over in the M.E. Blocking information, planting false information in local papers to drum up support for the occupiers...
He learned it by watching you, government! He learned it by watching you!
And the government's SWAT teams and un-manned drones will wipe all four of your boxes off the face of the planet like so many rural Pakistanis.
My favorite chart : http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
My apologies to Nevada.
All of these justices are too old to comment on computers then.
So the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the case and kicked it back to the legislature?
Right. He's Naive, the dissenters were wise and the other majority Justices were calculated.
Your state gets about $0.60 spent on it by the Federal government for every $1.00 contributed in Federal income tax.
I bet if that money was spent in NJ, the budget problem would be easily solved. Same with CA, CT, NY and MA.
But it is being redistributed to states like NM, AZ, MI, MO, NV, etc...
Something tells me that Kennedy is the only Justice who didn't realize the loopholes existed.
So what if they were his children? I don't give my parents the implicit right to risk my life in an attempt to save someone else.
There are MANY other questions. He didn't know why the driver was slumped, perhaps he was asleep or passed out. What if the driver awoke when he impacted? What might he do? Engine power is nearly always enough to over-come braking power. The slumped driver might panic, hit the gas and then both vehicles are pushed into the intersection. What if the bumping caused the driver to fall to the side, turning the wheel and sending his car into pedestrian traffic?
It's not about not getting involved because "might get hurt" it's about the reasonable and most responsible action given known information.
I guess we must agree to disagree.
What if the slumped passenger wakes up, all drunk and takes off trying to flee an accident that he caused?
There are other issues here than the simple physics between two bodies.
What if the other driver was drunk or tired? Who knows what he might do if started into alertness by an impact.
Be a hero, but don't take others with you...
He forgot to take into account what might happen if the other driver awoke, startled, and perhaps mashed the gas and pushed his minivan into the intersection. He had no way to know why the driver was not controlling the vehicle.
It was irresponsible WRT his passengers.
It isn't about the law, it's about rational thinking. You don't know that by doing nothing the damage would have been bigger and that more would have been hurt. Yet you accept this premise as a fact and that is why your argument breaks down.
Do Nothing:
1) Driver and passengers do not impact any vehicles and get out of the way...no added risk.
2) Possible added risk to those in the intersection.
Try to stop vehicle
1) Driver and passengers are exposed to greater risk from rear impact
2) Possibly lowered but not eliminated risk to those in intersection.
Given what he knew at the time, I feel the path to least net risk and least net harm would be to get out of the way, honking and flashing lights to warn the intersection.
In my opinion, his greater responsibility was to the passengers in the vehicle HE is controlling.
I'd sue him. If he was the only person in the van, cool, risk your own life. Don't risk mine because you want to be a hero.
You don't have the right to put your passengers at risk IMO. He's lucky nothing seriously happened or he'd be looking at jail time and rightly so.
Sometimes the rules seem un-fair, but you can always donate a tablet or two.
I say that anyone who's system is being used for DDoS attacks can't complain about such treatment. They should have secured their systems.
Either deal with the justice system, suck it up, or take personal vengeance out on those who made the decisions.
Dealing with the justice system seems the best answer here.
Go get one.