On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:45:31 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
Why is it only now do certain people find
exception to it?

You would have to ask one. My guess would be a certain faction is trying
to cram their religious beliefs down otehr's throats.

Those beliefs have been a part of our culture since this country was
founded. The perception that religion is "suddenly" being "Crammed
down other people's throats" is held by those who have been
conspicuously absent from any religious influences in their lives and
see any display of religion as excessive. Yet it is those same people
who are the ones at odds with our society, as history will testify to.



The problem is both sides. One person find offense with
something of a religious over tone in government, he then
finds the ACLU and wants it removed. Now the religious
zealots start banging the drums in defense of religion.

You are exactly right. That is why this is reaching a head. Someone
finds something offensive, gets the muscle of a group such as the ACLU
to have it removed (Like lame Holiday party names instead of
Christians parties). It's not surprising that the people who support
these traditions will fight to retain them.

Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions.
You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim
you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane,
paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law.
Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed
(regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite.

It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either
passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Do you honestly expect
everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit?
That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this
area.

I can't answer for PA, but in California you would get a ticket
for impeding the flow of traffic. I've seen it, so please don't
say it doesn't happen.

So, the alternative is to allow people to exceed the posted limit?
That seem somewhat contradictory to me.


So basically, the way the law is written, it pretty much forces people
to break the speed limit in order to "justify" using the left lane?

You do understand the logic here right? If you are legally bound to
maintain the posted speed limit, then you cannot pass someone already
doing the legal limit, and the great majority of traffic would be
bound to remain in the right lane, except to pass those occasional
slow pokes. I'm sure I don't need to explain heavy traffic to a
California resident, but can you imagine if everyone tried to stay in
the right lane?


Both of you are
severe underachievers.

I don't think so. I don't think you are either. I do think that
you all are on the far end of political and religious spectrum,
as such, this argument between you three will never end.

I am hardly a religious zealot. I don't even go to church. I am not
even a practicing Christian. But I do believe in a "God" and I do
believe in intelligent design, and I believe in keeping morality as a
guide to responsible social behavior. I am for preserving proven
tradition and do not believe that change is automatically a good
thing. I am also a political conservative (As are you IIRC), and tend
to favor smaller government, personal responsibility and
accountability, a free market and a strong morality based system of
law and order in order to punish those who cannot act properly in a
civilized society.


The arguments between Frank, Twisty and I are much more complex than a
simple ideological disagreement. Twisty is twisty. His actions need no
further explanation. Frank has been stung ever since I admitted that I
supported Bush. A revelation that seems to have affected him
personally. Frank has since been trying to prove that support of Bush
(and republicans in general) is wrong based solely on his subjective
opinion that only an idiot would support him so, consequently, he has
been since trying to prove that I'm that idiot. But during the course
of the ensuing "debates", Frank has revealed much about his
personality, and has given me an insight into his own inner demons. I
can now see why he and Twisty have found common ground. They both have
a profound distrust of corporations and any form of "the
establishment". And, if their level of knowledge and education is as
they claim, they are both underachievers. Frank, who once claimed to
teach college courses, and claims to hold a BS degree in engineering,
working as a bartender. Twisty, who claims to be well versed in law,
and an "accomplished" writer, takes snowbirds out to fish on a charter
boat, and can't even afford a real computer. No wonder he hides behind
an anonymous pseudonym.

It had been fun from a purely psychological standpoint. But I am
beginning to tire of this almost constant off-topic banter. I am
actually longing for the days when we talked about amplifiers and mods
to radios. I never guessed that a simple ideological disagreement
would turn into several years worth of trash talking.

Dave
"Sandbagger"