Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|