He seemed a lot like a grumpy old man refusing to notice the world is changing around him, I honestly expected him to yell now get off my lawn at one point in the debate.
You mean the, I'm a maverick so I won't even be with your party when I don't feel like it McCain? They had to pander to the super far right because they would have stayed home without it. McCain was never liked by the Super Far Right.
So your sex life is a lot like mine.. hmm. Maybe someone can offer us some clue to what happened between being in peace and making love that did not work afterwards.
I have found that just giving the option to click something on a computer compels some people to click things indiscriminately. It also works well with pre-checked check boxes on software installs and updates. Perhaps this is not far from the truth.
First problem: Clinton didn't lie. Starr wanted to use a definition of "sexual relations" so broad that anyone passing through a crowded bus or subway would have "sexual relations" with half a dozen people. Clinton's team complained, so the judge tightened the definition of "sexual relations" to "penis in vagina". Which rules out blowjobs. Which not only means that Clinton did not lie according to the courts definition, if he had said "yes", that would have been a lie. Bitch as much as you want, but at the end of the day, according to the rules of the court, Clinton did not lie when he denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Deal with it.
Sigh.. Clinton lied and the court in question actually called him out on it. He was fined for contempt over it. The definition involved was the definition used in the court and defined by the court. Your definition, Your friends definition, or anyone else's definition or opinion about how broad it is or isn't is irrelevant because he was specifically told this term means this, did you X this.
I seriously do not understand why people still get this wrong and continue to this day to knee jerk in with crap that is completely false.
Second problem: even if it it was a lie, it's not perjury if it's not relevant. Whether or not Clinton had a consensual affair is irrelevant to the question of if he harassed Paula Jones. Which means the law you cite was also batshit irrelevant.
What you think of the law is irrelevant to a law being in existence. If you think government can ignore laws because you do not agree with them, you are no different then the people who think the government can break the law and search your phone records or home or listen to your phone calls and search your email because they think it is proper. You are verifyable wrong on your pretext to this statement, perhaps you should reevaluate it then actually think before posting again.
Third problem: it became painfully clear just how much you wingers really care about lying when Bush came around. Taking credit for HMO legislation that he actually vetoed as governor? You didn't care. Lying about WMD's? You didn't care. Lying about wiretapping? You didn't care. Lying about torture? You didn't care. You're like the mirror image of the Obamabots. And if you're going to try to weasel your way out by saying that it was a lie under oath (except it wasn't, see above), you also didn't care when Bushies like Gonzalez, Libby, or Alito swore the the whole truth only to lie through their teeth.
If you think this is about us verses them or you verses someone else, you are arguing the wrong argument. I said in another post that I didn't want to initially reply to the inference of Clinton because it brings out idiots and I believe its true here. Now LISTEN carefully, I do not care who is in office, if the government does not follow the law, it is wrong. If the politician does not follow the law, it is wrong. If a politician cannot even be honest in court, it is wrong. I do not care if it is Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan, or George Washington, it is wrong. So take your partisan but hurt "but they said something bad about Clinton" rant and shove it somewhere more appropriate. You might also want to refine it a bit to reflect the true reality of history too.
The Republicans didn't investigate or impeach Clinton because they had probable cause that crimes were committed. They investigated him because they wanted any excuse to remove him from office, and when they couldn't find one after re-investigating Vince Foster and Whitewater for the 12th time, they settled on a manufactured perjury charge.
I never said a thing about the impeachment. Who cares, Clint
That doesn't make a difference at all. Religion tests to hold office and positions in government are illegal and unconstitutional. -even if they are being used to remove anyone who is religious from government or the post.
Some people have to worry about work. Places of employment sometimes place filters to shield themselves from lawsuits which will look for words and either block the page entirely or flag it for a followup by HR.
A well disciplined public speaker will take that into consideration in their speech. In some cases, someone else would do it for them in something like this where the speech or answers to questions are written. If your communications are in a way that constantly endangers part of your audience, you will lose part of your audience. If using * allows children to continue being interested in Linux because their parents aren't upset over the language or suspicious of the content because of it or if it allows the work place to be somewhat free to view/read the comments, it's worth doing.
It's not disingenuous, it's being polite and respectful of your potential audience.
I guess that is what the US federal government has devolved into, but the original intent was to be a unufied face for foreign relations and an independent body represented by all the states to solve problems with trade between the states and the protection of the states. The state governments were supposed to retain the role you speak of.
I guess it doesn't make much of a difference in reality. Its just a shifting of positions.
Wow..you are right. The way they are listed is misleading as hell. They are listed for China because they were born there but credited as being an American or British scientist when they got their Nobel..
Your answer is informative but does not really answer the original question, let me reformulate it for you: why should anyone wonder about who Bill Clinton had sex with in the first place, it's his problem, not the people's.
Well, I thought I answered that in my other statement..Bill Clinton signed a law in 1993-1994 that allowed a plaintiff in a lawsuit to bring in evidence that would show a pattern of sexual discrimination or sexual harassment outside her specific claim. Do to this law, he was asked questions about his relationship in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against him stemming from a time when he was governor of Arkansas.
You are right, a president's sex life should not be part of public discussion, however lieing to a court of law about it while trying to skirt the ramifications of a law he signed into effect very much is. The sex is ancillary, do not spend too much time focusing on it and you will see where the problem was.
The fact that Bill Clinton lied when this story was investigated is a different matter: the point is, this story should never have been investigated to start with.
It most certainly should have been investigated. Bill Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment stemming from an incident that happened before he became president. His lie to the people is irrelevant, it was the lie to the court of law in a woman's pursuit of justice under the law. That is how it became public knowledge, through the statements made in court and leaks surrounding the questioning of him before his deposition. Bill Clinton signed the law into effect that allowed the plaintiff to bring up evidence and situations outside her specific case to show a pattern in support of her case (Well, i was either Clinton or Bush 1 but it was well established by the time he was in court over it.) It is a serious matter when you cannot get the highest executive figure in government to tell the truth in a court of law.
what frigging difference does it make where Slick Willy stick his Slick Willy. Exactly NO DIFFERENCE. Its one more way to make you stop looking at the fact your pockets, pensions and portfolios have all been picked clean.
Actually, the difference that it made was the chief law enforcement officer of the land ended up lieing in court when asked a question that was only able to be asked because of a law he championed and signed into law allowing women claiming sexual harassment and discrimination to use references outside the claimed act to support a pattern to help make their case.
That's a big ass do as I say not as I do to the American public. Clinton was fined for his lie to the court and ended up having problems with his law license in the process. I didn't want to get into this BS argument that has been hashed out many times before and the record it clear, but evidently, you either didn't get the memo or decided to ignore it for whatever reason. So maybe I should ask you if the government is above the law, can the king do no wrong? Because if it was you or I who lied in court like that, we wouldn't be getting off so easily, I'm positive of that.
But don't worry, lot's of people fail at their first real job and get fired from it.
Whoa, whoa whoa!!! slow down there buddy, you not only got the cart before the horse but are setting off the wrong way to the market.. I didn't say anything about qualifications, I said Romney has had no say or ability to vote for or against the warrantless wire taps or the immunity the telecoms received. The parent was incorrect in saying neither candidate could wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates. One of the candidates has yet to put his hands on it.
As for Obama and debates, everyone knows Obama is only good at giving other people's speeches. He can't do his charm and voter appeal if he doesn't have someone else write the words and a teleprompter to read them from. The jokes about the teleprompter being president and Obama being his personal aid is long and old. Obama did end up debating McCain though. I don't remember how it came out but McCain shouldn't have been the republican pick anyways. If it wasn't for needing to beat Obama, a lot of the republicans would have rather stayed home then go vote for McCain the "i"ll do what I want when I want and you won't know what you will get because I'll buck the system like a senile old man that's escaped a nursing home in his undies because I'm a maverick" candidate.
It sends a signal that the court did not address it. Any other court can address it if someone with cause can bring the case to it. That seems to be the problem in this case though, you cannot get cause if the law says you cannot sue.
This is why you will never ever hear a thing about the thousands arrested by government across the country protesting the bankers and wall street and such, yet not a single banker has been prosecuted even where outright fraud has been admitted and proven.
I'm not sure why the candidates should be talking about people getting arrested in protests. I'm not aware of the federal government arresting one person for protesting. State and local government might have but the candidates aren't running for state or local government.
So in short, moderators have no incentive to rock the boat.
Moderators need to be moderate and impartial by default. The debates are there to show the differences in candidates not to show one as better or worse then the other. IF a moderator seems to be favoring one candidate over the other, it can actually cause a backlash that would cause the defeat of one of them. It can also cause a reluctance of candidates participating in them. The candidates are the ones who are supposed to bring these things up- not the moderators. What you are asking for is more akin to journalist asking questions at press briefings and speeches.
If a moderator is rocking the boat, they are doing something completely wrong. Part of the reason you might dislike the way the debates are might be because you have a different concept of what purpose they serve then what you seem to think they should be. You should never be able to tell what ideas or ideology a moderator holds over politics in general or any particular subject by questions asked in a debate.
I think it's bad when either break the law. However, I consider it a lot more egregious when the government breaks the law because they are the ones who made the law and enforce it. I'm not fond of a do as I say not as I do mentality.
Romney has never been in a position that could influence the warrantless searches or the laws forbidding the lawsuits. He has never been a senator or congressman and lost his last attempt to run for president.
He did run for senator against Ted Kennedy back in 94 or so, but lost that. He's basically been just a governor and politician who tried to get a job at a federal level.
Romney can probably weasel out of culpability if he wanted to. However, I doubt either candidate wants to because they most likely see nothing wrong with it. Obama threw some bones when trying to get elected last time, but that was just campaign posturing to get people to vote for him though.
Because while it sounds like it would even out, it would open the home owner up to some severe unintended consequences.
The courts won't look at it as a wash, they will take each suit or claim separately giving the injured criminal the ability to collect independent of his debt from the loss in the trespassing case. This will allow him to seize assets and place liens on property through court orders that may not even be able to consider that he owes you more money. You might be able to correct it but its a lot more problem then defending in the first place.
I'm not sure what developing a written language has to do with not being able to trade in the same markets or largely being relegated to tribal survival, being a laborer, or servant for someone else. The oppression isn't limited to coming from Europeans either. Class systems and corruption in even democratic governments can cause oppression when it's result is subjugating the majority of the populace.
The world is not broken, it is just weary of me inviting you over, opening the door and letting you in, then handing you my most expensive piece of crystal art and pull a weapon while you are looking at it and killing you for "trying to steal" it.
Because of this, the world likes to see some showing that a reasonable person was in fear for their safety or lives. The level of fear and all might change from place to place, but it is to avoid cold blooded murders from being claimed as self defense. That's the reason why the Zimmerman guy in Florida is on trial, his actions make it look like a concealed cold blooded murder instead of a self defense which in the end it might have actually been.
as long as they aren't the idiots that cried piracy over the lendlink BS I'm willing to give them a look.
Just remember, almost any famous author had to start out as an unknown. The terms associated with this adventure seems to be right for checking them out.
This is typically due to oppressive rulers and a lack of freedom in their history close in relative time compounded by hundreds of years of being declared not worthy or less then human by more wealthy countries. It has little to do with the pigment of their skin other then how they have been treated by others as well as their own throughout the years..
Yes, that because the States control the regulations. You're point?
If you would have looked at what I quoted from the op, you could easily derive my point. Sadly I do not have the ability to draw a picture for you to understand better but I can spell it out precisely. My point was that the op's statement of "All ramps are legally required to be of a sufficient length for any properly maintained car to reach merging speed." was incorrect and fallacious as there is no requirements whatsoever laid down in law or regulation concerning that.
I suggest you look into taking a diving class if one of the most basic situations causes you to drive unsafely. Obviously, as has been said, in this situation you slow down. From your attitude I expect you ride the bumper all the way.
I suggest you look into reality and the reality that does not exist only in your back yard. The problem is not in slowing down, it is trying to get up to merge speed with a car lacking power while needing to drive slow the majority of the ramp. Your attitude suggest that you have never driving anything other then a bicycle in the US, Hell, even California that typically has long ramps will put traffic lights on their ramps 3/4 of the way down them to meter traffic onto the highways. This has been explained enough that anyone reading should be able to understand what is being discusses.
You seem completely focused on proving yourself right at the expense of facts and your self worth. You need to get this under control or you life will never get any better. You are obviously in a lot of pain right now.
lol.. Said the troll. Like I said, anyone who has actually driven something other then a bicycle and driven further then their corner store knows what I am talking about. There was even a foreigner chiming in with his family's experience with the same situation. I'm sorry your feelings got hurt because a couple of people where ragging on the practicality of the small under powered cars for normal use by normal Americans who live just average lives. But seriously, if you had even a slight grip on reality you wouldn't have bothered posting what you did. Perhaps you should be taking your own medicine there Doctor.
lol.. and that does what for the poor sap behind you?
BTW, I used to drive truck. The speed limits on the raps are especially important when riving an 18 wheeler. The solace I had while driving truck was that the rig was so big that I wouldn't feel the pain of an accident involving a smaller vehicle merging.
The big difference is that people know they do not stand a chance with a big rig. They tend to change lanes (if their head isn't up their ass) r compensate their speed. Driving a truck, I realized why a lot of people hated us, they are constantly having to adapt their driving to account for us. This is especially the case in areas with a split speed limit where trucks do 55 and cars do 65 or 70 or so. What I have found in a car though is the exact opposite most of the time. Cars will push the limits thinking you will too. Even if they are watching and willing to put the breaks on, it leads to a lot of anxiety in the process.
I guess some people simply will not understand if they haven't experienced it. But there are a lot of areas that lots of power changes the entire driving experience. I'd rather be in awe of the acceleration then sorry about a merge with someone's breaks not working as well as you would expect.
Slashdot Mirror
He seemed a lot like a grumpy old man refusing to notice the world is changing around him, I honestly expected him to yell now get off my lawn at one point in the debate.
You mean the, I'm a maverick so I won't even be with your party when I don't feel like it McCain? They had to pander to the super far right because they would have stayed home without it. McCain was never liked by the Super Far Right.
So your sex life is a lot like mine.. hmm. Maybe someone can offer us some clue to what happened between being in peace and making love that did not work afterwards.
I have found that just giving the option to click something on a computer compels some people to click things indiscriminately. It also works well with pre-checked check boxes on software installs and updates. Perhaps this is not far from the truth.
Sigh.. Clinton lied and the court in question actually called him out on it. He was fined for contempt over it. The definition involved was the definition used in the court and defined by the court. Your definition, Your friends definition, or anyone else's definition or opinion about how broad it is or isn't is irrelevant because he was specifically told this term means this, did you X this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/contempt041399.htm
I seriously do not understand why people still get this wrong and continue to this day to knee jerk in with crap that is completely false.
What you think of the law is irrelevant to a law being in existence. If you think government can ignore laws because you do not agree with them, you are no different then the people who think the government can break the law and search your phone records or home or listen to your phone calls and search your email because they think it is proper. You are verifyable wrong on your pretext to this statement, perhaps you should reevaluate it then actually think before posting again.
If you think this is about us verses them or you verses someone else, you are arguing the wrong argument. I said in another post that I didn't want to initially reply to the inference of Clinton because it brings out idiots and I believe its true here. Now LISTEN carefully, I do not care who is in office, if the government does not follow the law, it is wrong. If the politician does not follow the law, it is wrong. If a politician cannot even be honest in court, it is wrong. I do not care if it is Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan, or George Washington, it is wrong. So take your partisan but hurt "but they said something bad about Clinton" rant and shove it somewhere more appropriate. You might also want to refine it a bit to reflect the true reality of history too.
I never said a thing about the impeachment. Who cares, Clint
That doesn't make a difference at all. Religion tests to hold office and positions in government are illegal and unconstitutional. -even if they are being used to remove anyone who is religious from government or the post.
Some people have to worry about work. Places of employment sometimes place filters to shield themselves from lawsuits which will look for words and either block the page entirely or flag it for a followup by HR.
A well disciplined public speaker will take that into consideration in their speech. In some cases, someone else would do it for them in something like this where the speech or answers to questions are written. If your communications are in a way that constantly endangers part of your audience, you will lose part of your audience. If using * allows children to continue being interested in Linux because their parents aren't upset over the language or suspicious of the content because of it or if it allows the work place to be somewhat free to view/read the comments, it's worth doing.
It's not disingenuous, it's being polite and respectful of your potential audience.
I guess that is what the US federal government has devolved into, but the original intent was to be a unufied face for foreign relations and an independent body represented by all the states to solve problems with trade between the states and the protection of the states. The state governments were supposed to retain the role you speak of.
I guess it doesn't make much of a difference in reality. Its just a shifting of positions.
Wow..you are right. The way they are listed is misleading as hell. They are listed for China because they were born there but credited as being an American or British scientist when they got their Nobel..
Well, I thought I answered that in my other statement..Bill Clinton signed a law in 1993-1994 that allowed a plaintiff in a lawsuit to bring in evidence that would show a pattern of sexual discrimination or sexual harassment outside her specific claim. Do to this law, he was asked questions about his relationship in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against him stemming from a time when he was governor of Arkansas.
You are right, a president's sex life should not be part of public discussion, however lieing to a court of law about it while trying to skirt the ramifications of a law he signed into effect very much is. The sex is ancillary, do not spend too much time focusing on it and you will see where the problem was.
It most certainly should have been investigated. Bill Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment stemming from an incident that happened before he became president. His lie to the people is irrelevant, it was the lie to the court of law in a woman's pursuit of justice under the law. That is how it became public knowledge, through the statements made in court and leaks surrounding the questioning of him before his deposition. Bill Clinton signed the law into effect that allowed the plaintiff to bring up evidence and situations outside her specific case to show a pattern in support of her case (Well, i was either Clinton or Bush 1 but it was well established by the time he was in court over it.) It is a serious matter when you cannot get the highest executive figure in government to tell the truth in a court of law.
Do you mean something will happen differently then when the other 6 who have won them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country
There has been 2 within the last 3 years too.
Actually, the difference that it made was the chief law enforcement officer of the land ended up lieing in court when asked a question that was only able to be asked because of a law he championed and signed into law allowing women claiming sexual harassment and discrimination to use references outside the claimed act to support a pattern to help make their case.
That's a big ass do as I say not as I do to the American public. Clinton was fined for his lie to the court and ended up having problems with his law license in the process. I didn't want to get into this BS argument that has been hashed out many times before and the record it clear, but evidently, you either didn't get the memo or decided to ignore it for whatever reason. So maybe I should ask you if the government is above the law, can the king do no wrong? Because if it was you or I who lied in court like that, we wouldn't be getting off so easily, I'm positive of that.
Whoa, whoa whoa!!! slow down there buddy, you not only got the cart before the horse but are setting off the wrong way to the market.. I didn't say anything about qualifications, I said Romney has had no say or ability to vote for or against the warrantless wire taps or the immunity the telecoms received. The parent was incorrect in saying neither candidate could wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates. One of the candidates has yet to put his hands on it.
As for Obama and debates, everyone knows Obama is only good at giving other people's speeches. He can't do his charm and voter appeal if he doesn't have someone else write the words and a teleprompter to read them from. The jokes about the teleprompter being president and Obama being his personal aid is long and old. Obama did end up debating McCain though. I don't remember how it came out but McCain shouldn't have been the republican pick anyways. If it wasn't for needing to beat Obama, a lot of the republicans would have rather stayed home then go vote for McCain the "i"ll do what I want when I want and you won't know what you will get because I'll buck the system like a senile old man that's escaped a nursing home in his undies because I'm a maverick" candidate.
It sends a signal that the court did not address it. Any other court can address it if someone with cause can bring the case to it. That seems to be the problem in this case though, you cannot get cause if the law says you cannot sue.
I'm not sure why the candidates should be talking about people getting arrested in protests. I'm not aware of the federal government arresting one person for protesting. State and local government might have but the candidates aren't running for state or local government.
Moderators need to be moderate and impartial by default. The debates are there to show the differences in candidates not to show one as better or worse then the other. IF a moderator seems to be favoring one candidate over the other, it can actually cause a backlash that would cause the defeat of one of them. It can also cause a reluctance of candidates participating in them. The candidates are the ones who are supposed to bring these things up- not the moderators. What you are asking for is more akin to journalist asking questions at press briefings and speeches.
If a moderator is rocking the boat, they are doing something completely wrong. Part of the reason you might dislike the way the debates are might be because you have a different concept of what purpose they serve then what you seem to think they should be. You should never be able to tell what ideas or ideology a moderator holds over politics in general or any particular subject by questions asked in a debate.
I think it's bad when either break the law. However, I consider it a lot more egregious when the government breaks the law because they are the ones who made the law and enforce it. I'm not fond of a do as I say not as I do mentality.
Romney has never been in a position that could influence the warrantless searches or the laws forbidding the lawsuits. He has never been a senator or congressman and lost his last attempt to run for president.
He did run for senator against Ted Kennedy back in 94 or so, but lost that. He's basically been just a governor and politician who tried to get a job at a federal level.
Romney can probably weasel out of culpability if he wanted to. However, I doubt either candidate wants to because they most likely see nothing wrong with it. Obama threw some bones when trying to get elected last time, but that was just campaign posturing to get people to vote for him though.
Because while it sounds like it would even out, it would open the home owner up to some severe unintended consequences.
The courts won't look at it as a wash, they will take each suit or claim separately giving the injured criminal the ability to collect independent of his debt from the loss in the trespassing case. This will allow him to seize assets and place liens on property through court orders that may not even be able to consider that he owes you more money. You might be able to correct it but its a lot more problem then defending in the first place.
I'm not sure what developing a written language has to do with not being able to trade in the same markets or largely being relegated to tribal survival, being a laborer, or servant for someone else. The oppression isn't limited to coming from Europeans either. Class systems and corruption in even democratic governments can cause oppression when it's result is subjugating the majority of the populace.
The world is not broken, it is just weary of me inviting you over, opening the door and letting you in, then handing you my most expensive piece of crystal art and pull a weapon while you are looking at it and killing you for "trying to steal" it.
Because of this, the world likes to see some showing that a reasonable person was in fear for their safety or lives. The level of fear and all might change from place to place, but it is to avoid cold blooded murders from being claimed as self defense. That's the reason why the Zimmerman guy in Florida is on trial, his actions make it look like a concealed cold blooded murder instead of a self defense which in the end it might have actually been.
as long as they aren't the idiots that cried piracy over the lendlink BS I'm willing to give them a look.
Just remember, almost any famous author had to start out as an unknown. The terms associated with this adventure seems to be right for checking them out.
This is typically due to oppressive rulers and a lack of freedom in their history close in relative time compounded by hundreds of years of being declared not worthy or less then human by more wealthy countries. It has little to do with the pigment of their skin other then how they have been treated by others as well as their own throughout the years..
If you would have looked at what I quoted from the op, you could easily derive my point. Sadly I do not have the ability to draw a picture for you to understand better but I can spell it out precisely. My point was that the op's statement of "All ramps are legally required to be of a sufficient length for any properly maintained car to reach merging speed." was incorrect and fallacious as there is no requirements whatsoever laid down in law or regulation concerning that.
I suggest you look into reality and the reality that does not exist only in your back yard. The problem is not in slowing down, it is trying to get up to merge speed with a car lacking power while needing to drive slow the majority of the ramp. Your attitude suggest that you have never driving anything other then a bicycle in the US, Hell, even California that typically has long ramps will put traffic lights on their ramps 3/4 of the way down them to meter traffic onto the highways. This has been explained enough that anyone reading should be able to understand what is being discusses.
lol.. Said the troll. Like I said, anyone who has actually driven something other then a bicycle and driven further then their corner store knows what I am talking about. There was even a foreigner chiming in with his family's experience with the same situation. I'm sorry your feelings got hurt because a couple of people where ragging on the practicality of the small under powered cars for normal use by normal Americans who live just average lives. But seriously, if you had even a slight grip on reality you wouldn't have bothered posting what you did. Perhaps you should be taking your own medicine there Doctor.
lol.. and that does what for the poor sap behind you?
BTW, I used to drive truck. The speed limits on the raps are especially important when riving an 18 wheeler. The solace I had while driving truck was that the rig was so big that I wouldn't feel the pain of an accident involving a smaller vehicle merging.
The big difference is that people know they do not stand a chance with a big rig. They tend to change lanes (if their head isn't up their ass) r compensate their speed. Driving a truck, I realized why a lot of people hated us, they are constantly having to adapt their driving to account for us. This is especially the case in areas with a split speed limit where trucks do 55 and cars do 65 or 70 or so. What I have found in a car though is the exact opposite most of the time. Cars will push the limits thinking you will too. Even if they are watching and willing to put the breaks on, it leads to a lot of anxiety in the process.
lol.. It's a daily thing for a lot of us.
I guess some people simply will not understand if they haven't experienced it. But there are a lot of areas that lots of power changes the entire driving experience. I'd rather be in awe of the acceleration then sorry about a merge with someone's breaks not working as well as you would expect.