If there wasn't the second amendment, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would no longer be a first amendment... or any amendment for that matter.
Yeah, because it's all your guns that are keeping the government from censoring what people can say. Y'all crack me up. How did things work out for David Koresh, or Randy Weaver, or anyone else who thought they could defend themselves from armed government agents? Has the second amendment prevented the Feds from spying on everyone, or seizing people's property, or establishing free speech zones, or otherwise infringing on our rights?
Look, I support gun ownership. I don't own one myself because I do not feel it necessary. But I support the right of any law-abiding citizen to arm themselves if they feel the need. However, the idea that that right will prevent the government from doing anything it wants is pure fantasy. You are outgunned and outnumbered. If they want to get you, they'll get you sooner or later.
There is an electric race car that puts out something like 830 HP and 2950 ft. lbs. of torque. I can't even imagine what that kind of power feels like behind the wheel. Electric cars are exciting to gearheads like me who enjoy performance driving. I can't wait until they become more affordable.
I love motorcycles because you can drive hard and still come within a couple mpg of what you would get babying it and highway / city doesn't matter much.
My ZX6R gets 42 babying it highway, 40 flogging it city.
My VTX1800 gets 32 babying it, 30 not
My WR250X was an exception and got worse on the highway due to lack of power and poor aerodynamics but still managed 58 highway, 65 city.
That's often true. Though my FJR1300 gets ~48 MPG on the highway, but only about 35 MPG in the city. You're right though that flogging it on the highway doesn't decrease the mileage too much.
Yes, our military and intelligence agencies work to manipulate US opinion and drive world events. It can be difficult to know whether a given event or dynamic is due to disparate forces or coordinated action. I am reminded of Operation Gladio in which the CIA planted bombs in Italy and blamed it on the communists. As I said, most people don't consider that angle. And if it is pointed out to them, a lot still won't believe it or incorporate it into their world view. If you are onto Operation Northwoods, I suspect you might be onto a more recent deception; one that cannot be discussed in polite company.
I guess I'm saying: fair points, but I'm still unconvinced. My own suspicion is that there's a combination of countries just blindly following the USA's lead, and cynical power-grabs as politicians see how effective bullshit fear campaigns can be.
And you could very well be correct! Opportunity and aligned interests can explain a lot. I was more reacting to the need for proof. It's very hard to prove things on the Internet.
Well it was interesting until they started talking about everything being more efficient at 55 mph. At that point, I was ready to give the author a boot party. Do not EVEN start that sh*t again.
Well, physics is physics. That seems to be the sweet spot, generally speaking. However, fuel economy is not my primary concern when I drive. I drive a fast car and enjoy driving it. The feeling of being pushed back in my seat and feeling the tires grip in corners is worth a few extra dollars to me.
It tells you exactly why in the article. It's the way people drive them.
If you try to push a small engine to drive like a larger one, you'll be accelerating harder, therefore using more fuel than under normal acceleration.
In similar manner, some years ago, I had a Grand Cherokee that my wife couldn't get more than 11mpg out of, while I could do 17mpg.
We have different driving styles. She is a leadfoot, while I drive like I have an uncooked egg between my foot and the gas pedal.
Perhaps this article might better be titled "Want better gas mileage? Don't drive like a gashole."
Yep, your right foot is the determining factor. I am able to achieve the manufacturer's fuel consumption rating in my car if I accelerate slowly and obey the speed limit. I did it as an experiment, as I usually drive more like your wife.
I drive a Focus ST, and during extensive MPG testing, I've seen this first hand. A turbo 2.0L engine, capable of much speed and acceleration, and I usually maintain about a 24-25 MPG average, which is the rating for all city driving, but I don't drive it gently most of the time.
When driving a car like that, you should be measuring fuel in smiles per gallon.
Well, at the moment it seems only the anglo countrys
That might lend credence to a conspiracy theory. Those governments are already known to coordinate pretty closely. If ambassadors meet and decide a particular course of action is beneficial to their respective governments, is that a conspiracy? That's the trouble with that word. The difference between conspiracy and coordinated action is often in the eye of the beholder.
who is driving the campaign and what is their end goal?
It must be the Illuminati, right? Do shut up.
If you have compelling evidence of a global conspiracy, then show us. If not, then cut it out; there are simpler explanations than global conspiracies.
Meh, even with compelling evidence most people won't believe a conspiracy is afoot. I've discovered that, outside of mathematics, it is quite difficult to prove something. There is always another possible explanation people can use, if they don't want to go in the conspiracist's direction. Or they'll say that someone would talk and expose the plot, or that such a level of organization isn't possible, or some such comforting rationale.
As we well know, people are good at continuing to believe what they have always believed. On any side of an issue people can discount evidence or say, "Maybe that's true but it doesn't necessarily follow that what you're saying is correct." What if the AC above provided links to documents from a Bilderberg meeting where they talked about using fear to control the population? (Incidentally, the existence of the Bilderberg group was once thought to be a conspiracy theory, but is now understood to be a real thing). The documents' authenticity would immediately be suspect. Can you prove the document is genuine? Good luck with that. So the document can safely be ignored because it cannot be proven as genuine. What if someone came forward and said they has spoken to a member of the conspiracy and had it confirmed? Hearsay. What if someone said they themselves were a member of a conspiracy? Well, everyone they implicate is going to deny it and the person will be ostracized.
If there were a global conspiracy to curtail freedoms, there is likely little direct evidence of it. Likely nothing is written down, and no one is going to talk about it. It probably can't be proven. So those of us who think that powerful people coordinate in secret to advance their interests will continue to believe that. And those of us who think events have a more mundane and ordinary cause will continue to think that. And people who think there is some sort of objective reality will continue to think that as well.
This is nothing new. many of us have known about warrantless wiretapping going on since the 60's, but everybody just calls us nutz and hands us tin foil for our hats.
So you're bragging about knowing public knowledge? Anyone who wasn't living in a cave would have seen the info about the Church Commission on the news in the 70s where they mentioned all of what had been happening with the intelligence agencies. It's not like you were privy to secret information.
Anyone denying that that had happened in face of congressional testimony would obviously be an idiot. But methinks you're constructing a straw man. If these people exist that deny what the Church Commission revealed publicly then please provide citations.
Part of the problem is that the agencies exposed by the Church Committee said they would stop their illegal practices, and people believed them. My own uncle, in his 70's, has told me the CIA is forbidden to operate inside the US, so they don't. I think such credulity comes from one not wanting to know how criminal their government is. In my experience a lot of people feel that way. Their lives are going okay, their worldview is stable, and they just don't want to know. People often prefer comfort to a greater understanding of the world they live in.
its always funny to see these posts from AC, no one has the balls to make such idiotic claims with their real names
If you think this is R vs D and not The people vs The government, i got a bridge to sell you.
Even if nixon started it, you have had how many democratic presidents since him? I mean, if the democrats REALLY wanted to end it, they could have. be it carter, or clinton, or now obama. But no. they dont only not stop it but they expand it.
When will people wake up and realize that voting for an R is the same as voting for a D, maybe not in the short term, but the long term as shown this to be the case
Well said. These days it's also about inside vs. outside; those with access to government and those without it. Or maybe ultra-wealthy vs. everyone else.
The Church Committee also discovered that CIA had people stationed inside every major broadcasting network, in order to monitor and manipulate the information we get. They are supposed to have stopped that kind of activity. Yeah...
I just assume that the intelligence agencies do what they please and try not to get caught. They will lie, deny and withhold to maintain their programs. And with all the classification, black ops and special access programs, it's nigh impossible to find out what they're doing. Such things have no place in a representative government; it is beyond control of the people or their representatives. We are told it is necessary in a dangerous world. But the people who tell us that are the same ones who lie to us on a regular basis.
There is a good reason for private schools, as public schools can be staffed by a lot of retarded teachers, but if private schools don't do a good job, you can go to another private school, while there is only one public school system, and if the corrupt teachers find a way in, once they are encroached, you can never get them out of there, as they are all better at backstabbing politics protecting their own jobs than teaching your kids. It's like a quality education is the right of every citizen's child, but a free public education system - a communist creation without private owners that care about their customers, and through that their own bottom line - may not give you that after all.
Once we restructure our economic system so that everyone can afford to send their kids to private school, I'll agree with you.
No it isn't. We made a relatively early decision in this country that debt slavery isn't acceptable, nor are debtors' prisons. We also decided you don't necessarily have full rights to your own money when you have an outstanding financial obligation, and that your wages can be legally garnished.
But we also have legal protections to insure that punitive and fiduciary measures don't create undue hardship. We have a pretty good system that does alright at balancing the risk-mitigating concerns of the creditor with the basic needs of the debtor, but in no way is failure to pay a debt actually illegal.
That fact doesn't even remotely justification the mindless advocation for it that the GP has. We don't need to have any Shylocks(and no, I'm not trying invoke the fact that he's Jewish) coming along for their pounds of flesh.
I understand your point and was mainly reacting to the poster's dickish opinion. But I do believe there are laws on the books requiring the payment of debt. You may not be arrested or go to jail, but there are legal consequences for not paying a debt.
How about we make it that much harder to be poor in the United States? What a place. If you think the banks don't run things in this country, just look at the way debtors and lenders are treated. Lenders must be made whole, even though they are charging a higher rate on these loans due to the added risk they are supposedly taking on. Debtors, well they better find a way to pay.
Reminds me of one of my favorite movies. "But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? "Fuck you, pay me." Oh, you had a fire? "Fuck you, pay me." Place got hit by lightning, huh? "Fuck you, pay me."
Yeah, I want these fucking things all over my neighborhood. I swear to god if these start sprouting up like toadstools I'm going to start using them for sighting in the.22. I can't understand what the heck people are thinking sometimes.
Maybe they're thinking this is a great way to distribute renewable energy in a decentralized manner. But after reading you post I too am wondering what people are thinking sometimes.
How people can miss this one truth of government I'll never know. They all tend to find an "enemy" to focus the peoples hostilities on, and if there isn't one they invent one.
This is a good thing to remember when the news is telling us about the bad guy du jour that we must go fight against. Whatever they are telling you, it's bullshit. We may not know what the truth is, but whatever they are telling you on TV isn't it.
And yet, when I talk to people about shady things that it looks like to government has done or is doing, I am told that if such a thing were happening someone would talk. Someone with a conscience would come forward and expose the shady operation.
Well, not necessarily. As we see here, there is a high cost to coming forward. If what you are coming forward about is classified, expect to go to prison as well (with the bonus of perhaps not being able to prove your allegation because it is all classified). People's sense of self preservation and responsibility to family may just keep them from talking about any nefarious deeds they know about. We can't take for granted the idea that people will come forward about crimes or malfeasance. Sometimes they do, and we should be grateful for their sacrifice. But many more do not because the personal cost is too high.
Slashdot Mirror
If there wasn't the second amendment, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would no longer be a first amendment. .. or any amendment for that matter.
Yeah, because it's all your guns that are keeping the government from censoring what people can say. Y'all crack me up. How did things work out for David Koresh, or Randy Weaver, or anyone else who thought they could defend themselves from armed government agents? Has the second amendment prevented the Feds from spying on everyone, or seizing people's property, or establishing free speech zones, or otherwise infringing on our rights?
Look, I support gun ownership. I don't own one myself because I do not feel it necessary. But I support the right of any law-abiding citizen to arm themselves if they feel the need. However, the idea that that right will prevent the government from doing anything it wants is pure fantasy. You are outgunned and outnumbered. If they want to get you, they'll get you sooner or later.
There is an electric race car that puts out something like 830 HP and 2950 ft. lbs. of torque. I can't even imagine what that kind of power feels like behind the wheel. Electric cars are exciting to gearheads like me who enjoy performance driving. I can't wait until they become more affordable.
LOL!
I love motorcycles because you can drive hard and still come within a couple mpg of what you would get babying it and highway / city doesn't matter much. My ZX6R gets 42 babying it highway, 40 flogging it city. My VTX1800 gets 32 babying it, 30 not My WR250X was an exception and got worse on the highway due to lack of power and poor aerodynamics but still managed 58 highway, 65 city.
That's often true. Though my FJR1300 gets ~48 MPG on the highway, but only about 35 MPG in the city. You're right though that flogging it on the highway doesn't decrease the mileage too much.
Yes, our military and intelligence agencies work to manipulate US opinion and drive world events. It can be difficult to know whether a given event or dynamic is due to disparate forces or coordinated action. I am reminded of Operation Gladio in which the CIA planted bombs in Italy and blamed it on the communists. As I said, most people don't consider that angle. And if it is pointed out to them, a lot still won't believe it or incorporate it into their world view. If you are onto Operation Northwoods, I suspect you might be onto a more recent deception; one that cannot be discussed in polite company.
I guess I'm saying: fair points, but I'm still unconvinced. My own suspicion is that there's a combination of countries just blindly following the USA's lead, and cynical power-grabs as politicians see how effective bullshit fear campaigns can be.
And you could very well be correct! Opportunity and aligned interests can explain a lot. I was more reacting to the need for proof. It's very hard to prove things on the Internet.
Well it was interesting until they started talking about everything being more efficient at 55 mph. At that point, I was ready to give the author a boot party. Do not EVEN start that sh*t again.
Well, physics is physics. That seems to be the sweet spot, generally speaking. However, fuel economy is not my primary concern when I drive. I drive a fast car and enjoy driving it. The feeling of being pushed back in my seat and feeling the tires grip in corners is worth a few extra dollars to me.
It tells you exactly why in the article. It's the way people drive them.
If you try to push a small engine to drive like a larger one, you'll be accelerating harder, therefore using more fuel than under normal acceleration.
In similar manner, some years ago, I had a Grand Cherokee that my wife couldn't get more than 11mpg out of, while I could do 17mpg.
We have different driving styles. She is a leadfoot, while I drive like I have an uncooked egg between my foot and the gas pedal.
Perhaps this article might better be titled "Want better gas mileage? Don't drive like a gashole."
Yep, your right foot is the determining factor. I am able to achieve the manufacturer's fuel consumption rating in my car if I accelerate slowly and obey the speed limit. I did it as an experiment, as I usually drive more like your wife.
I drive a Focus ST, and during extensive MPG testing, I've seen this first hand. A turbo 2.0L engine, capable of much speed and acceleration, and I usually maintain about a 24-25 MPG average, which is the rating for all city driving, but I don't drive it gently most of the time.
When driving a car like that, you should be measuring fuel in smiles per gallon.
Well, at the moment it seems only the anglo countrys
That might lend credence to a conspiracy theory. Those governments are already known to coordinate pretty closely. If ambassadors meet and decide a particular course of action is beneficial to their respective governments, is that a conspiracy? That's the trouble with that word. The difference between conspiracy and coordinated action is often in the eye of the beholder.
who is driving the campaign and what is their end goal?
It must be the Illuminati, right? Do shut up.
If you have compelling evidence of a global conspiracy, then show us. If not, then cut it out; there are simpler explanations than global conspiracies.
Meh, even with compelling evidence most people won't believe a conspiracy is afoot. I've discovered that, outside of mathematics, it is quite difficult to prove something. There is always another possible explanation people can use, if they don't want to go in the conspiracist's direction. Or they'll say that someone would talk and expose the plot, or that such a level of organization isn't possible, or some such comforting rationale.
As we well know, people are good at continuing to believe what they have always believed. On any side of an issue people can discount evidence or say, "Maybe that's true but it doesn't necessarily follow that what you're saying is correct." What if the AC above provided links to documents from a Bilderberg meeting where they talked about using fear to control the population? (Incidentally, the existence of the Bilderberg group was once thought to be a conspiracy theory, but is now understood to be a real thing). The documents' authenticity would immediately be suspect. Can you prove the document is genuine? Good luck with that. So the document can safely be ignored because it cannot be proven as genuine. What if someone came forward and said they has spoken to a member of the conspiracy and had it confirmed? Hearsay. What if someone said they themselves were a member of a conspiracy? Well, everyone they implicate is going to deny it and the person will be ostracized.
If there were a global conspiracy to curtail freedoms, there is likely little direct evidence of it. Likely nothing is written down, and no one is going to talk about it. It probably can't be proven. So those of us who think that powerful people coordinate in secret to advance their interests will continue to believe that. And those of us who think events have a more mundane and ordinary cause will continue to think that. And people who think there is some sort of objective reality will continue to think that as well.
This is nothing new. many of us have known about warrantless wiretapping going on since the 60's, but everybody just calls us nutz and hands us tin foil for our hats.
So you're bragging about knowing public knowledge? Anyone who wasn't living in a cave would have seen the info about the Church Commission on the news in the 70s where they mentioned all of what had been happening with the intelligence agencies. It's not like you were privy to secret information.
Anyone denying that that had happened in face of congressional testimony would obviously be an idiot. But methinks you're constructing a straw man. If these people exist that deny what the Church Commission revealed publicly then please provide citations.
Part of the problem is that the agencies exposed by the Church Committee said they would stop their illegal practices, and people believed them. My own uncle, in his 70's, has told me the CIA is forbidden to operate inside the US, so they don't. I think such credulity comes from one not wanting to know how criminal their government is. In my experience a lot of people feel that way. Their lives are going okay, their worldview is stable, and they just don't want to know. People often prefer comfort to a greater understanding of the world they live in.
its always funny to see these posts from AC, no one has the balls to make such idiotic claims with their real names If you think this is R vs D and not The people vs The government, i got a bridge to sell you. Even if nixon started it, you have had how many democratic presidents since him? I mean, if the democrats REALLY wanted to end it, they could have. be it carter, or clinton, or now obama. But no. they dont only not stop it but they expand it. When will people wake up and realize that voting for an R is the same as voting for a D, maybe not in the short term, but the long term as shown this to be the case
Well said. These days it's also about inside vs. outside; those with access to government and those without it. Or maybe ultra-wealthy vs. everyone else.
In both cases the government moved from the concern of external threats to a belief that the threats were internal.
It's a symptom of disunity and of a paranoid government.
When you're helping to maintain a corrupt status quo, your enemies are internal.
The Church Committee also discovered that CIA had people stationed inside every major broadcasting network, in order to monitor and manipulate the information we get. They are supposed to have stopped that kind of activity. Yeah...
I just assume that the intelligence agencies do what they please and try not to get caught. They will lie, deny and withhold to maintain their programs. And with all the classification, black ops and special access programs, it's nigh impossible to find out what they're doing. Such things have no place in a representative government; it is beyond control of the people or their representatives. We are told it is necessary in a dangerous world. But the people who tell us that are the same ones who lie to us on a regular basis.
...it doesn't have to be "spooks". In a free society governed by the rule of law, it is the LAW, not the capability, that is paramount.
What about in the United States? ;-P
Do I need to say any more? Who do you think runs your Congress?
The banks, energy companies and weapons makers. But most of them are not Jewish, sorry.
There is a good reason for private schools, as public schools can be staffed by a lot of retarded teachers, but if private schools don't do a good job, you can go to another private school, while there is only one public school system, and if the corrupt teachers find a way in, once they are encroached, you can never get them out of there, as they are all better at backstabbing politics protecting their own jobs than teaching your kids. It's like a quality education is the right of every citizen's child, but a free public education system - a communist creation without private owners that care about their customers, and through that their own bottom line - may not give you that after all.
Once we restructure our economic system so that everyone can afford to send their kids to private school, I'll agree with you.
No it isn't. We made a relatively early decision in this country that debt slavery isn't acceptable, nor are debtors' prisons. We also decided you don't necessarily have full rights to your own money when you have an outstanding financial obligation, and that your wages can be legally garnished.
But we also have legal protections to insure that punitive and fiduciary measures don't create undue hardship. We have a pretty good system that does alright at balancing the risk-mitigating concerns of the creditor with the basic needs of the debtor, but in no way is failure to pay a debt actually illegal.
That fact doesn't even remotely justification the mindless advocation for it that the GP has. We don't need to have any Shylocks(and no, I'm not trying invoke the fact that he's Jewish) coming along for their pounds of flesh.
I understand your point and was mainly reacting to the poster's dickish opinion. But I do believe there are laws on the books requiring the payment of debt. You may not be arrested or go to jail, but there are legal consequences for not paying a debt.
How about we make it that much harder to be poor in the United States? What a place. If you think the banks don't run things in this country, just look at the way debtors and lenders are treated. Lenders must be made whole, even though they are charging a higher rate on these loans due to the added risk they are supposedly taking on. Debtors, well they better find a way to pay.
Reminds me of one of my favorite movies. "But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? "Fuck you, pay me." Oh, you had a fire? "Fuck you, pay me." Place got hit by lightning, huh? "Fuck you, pay me."
Yes it should be illegal for deadbeats to not pay their bills on time.
It already is, you heartless jackass.
Yeah, I want these fucking things all over my neighborhood. I swear to god if these start sprouting up like toadstools I'm going to start using them for sighting in the .22. I can't understand what the heck people are thinking sometimes.
Maybe they're thinking this is a great way to distribute renewable energy in a decentralized manner. But after reading you post I too am wondering what people are thinking sometimes.
How people can miss this one truth of government I'll never know. They all tend to find an "enemy" to focus the peoples hostilities on, and if there isn't one they invent one.
This is a good thing to remember when the news is telling us about the bad guy du jour that we must go fight against. Whatever they are telling you, it's bullshit. We may not know what the truth is, but whatever they are telling you on TV isn't it.
And yet, when I talk to people about shady things that it looks like to government has done or is doing, I am told that if such a thing were happening someone would talk. Someone with a conscience would come forward and expose the shady operation.
Well, not necessarily. As we see here, there is a high cost to coming forward. If what you are coming forward about is classified, expect to go to prison as well (with the bonus of perhaps not being able to prove your allegation because it is all classified). People's sense of self preservation and responsibility to family may just keep them from talking about any nefarious deeds they know about. We can't take for granted the idea that people will come forward about crimes or malfeasance. Sometimes they do, and we should be grateful for their sacrifice. But many more do not because the personal cost is too high.
That transfers the losses from investors to people that just tried to do business with the company that was made to fail.
Come on, that's Goldman Sachs business model!