Rant: TV Weather reports

[Garandman]

ive never been so disappointed in so many smart people that i respect.

The Winter is young!

nope. then again our state isnt widely known for having horrible drivers either, unlike other states *cough* Massachusetts.

Arguing whether MA or NH or any Northeast drivers are "better" is ludicrous. In fact with licensing standards what they are in the US, I don't think there is any driving craftsmanship left. Even drivers of enthusiast cars drive like dbags. I can assure you that NH plates are given a wide berth in Boston.

When I got back from Germany, it was a big adjustment to drive at what seemed like walking pace on the highway and still see near-total incompetence.

[SVRACER01]

Nearly 100 Injured In 59-Vehicle Pileup On I-93 | Home - Home


Damn massholes always fucking things up for NH. Oh. Wait.

Would you like to talk about the regular pileups on 93 in the Londonderry area too

LOL, what a horrible example. not only did the crash start with a boy scout bus from MA but everyone else they mentioned in the article was from MA as well, including a driver and a bus from UMASS...and it was the NORTHBOUND lane LOL!
everyone knows that that area (nashua, londonderry, derry etc) is the entry/exit for MA/NH. in other words you see far less MA drivers on rt16 than you do on 93 or 95.
regardless, i was being facetious with my MA driver comment because..ya know...no one ever comments on boston drivers

[e30addict]

Damn it. You weren't supposed to read the article. Who does that!

I just wanted to

[PhilB]

... oh! so when you get some free time youll go argue that its your inalienable right to drive a car on public roadways and you dont need the gov'ts permission to do so and you will refuse to abide their tyrannical laws any longer and drive your vehicle when and how ever you desire without a license. let me know when and where youre going to do that...id like to watch. ...

You really aren't any good at this, are you? I already covered this, in the very post you quote -- AGAIN: I can't afford to fight every battle on every subject all at the same time, so I have to pick my battles based on importance, relevance, and risk. That's one I'll deal with later, if I think I can make a difference. Until then, the best I can do is speak up about what is wrong, and maybe others will take it up, or opinion in general will shift some.

It's also my inalienable right to not have my money and property forcibly stolen from me, but I pay taxes anyway because I don't want to get thrown in jail. The principle remains true; my rights remain in existence, but I comply simply out of a valid fear of the use of governmental force. That not the same as approving of the rights violation. That's not hypocrisy; that's self-preservation.

... im glad to hear that i was efficient in proving your lack of reading comprehension. i saw no where in any of the quotes listed that driving is a right. lets look...
nope.
nope
nope
aaand no.

all of them say the same thing. you have the right to use the roads. i interpret that to mean: you can use a car on them if you are legally allowed to drive or posses a drivers license. you must be aware that you require a drivers license to drive on the road since you posses one, just like you posses a motorcycle license because you know that it is required for you to legally ride a motorcycle on said roads.
normally your points are difficult to argue even if i disagree with you, but this time you are just simply wrong. you may FEEL its you right to drive (which would mean you have the mentality of a 16 year old and i know that isnt true) but its not.

So you think that a right to do something, that you still may not do because you have to get permission, is being treated as a right? You really aren't making any sense, and seem to have no idea what the concept of a right means. Try reading it r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y this time:

The whole concept of liberty is that you have the right to do anything that doesn't violate the equal rights of anyone else.

PhilB

[Chippertheripper]

You really aren't any good at this, are you? I already covered this, in the very post you quote -- AGAIN: I can't afford to fight every battle on every subject all at the same time, so I have to pick my battles based on importance, relevance, and risk. That's one I'll deal with later, if I think I can make a difference. Until then, the best I can do is speak up about what is wrong, and maybe others will take it up, or opinion in general will shift some.

It's also my inalienable right to not have my money and property forcibly stolen from me, but I pay taxes anyway because I don't want to get thrown in jail. The principle remains true; my rights remain in existence, but I comply simply out of a valid fear of the use of governmental force. That not the same as approving of the rights violation. That's not hypocrisy; that's self-preservation.

So you think that a right to do something, that you still may not do because you have to get permission, is being treated as a right? You really aren't making any sense, and seem to have no idea what the concept of a right means. Try reading it r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y this time:

The whole concept of liberty is that you have the right to do anything that doesn't violate the equal rights of anyone else.

PhilB

HypocriSEE!

Or were you saying you weren't furty or little?

[SVRACER01]

It's also my inalienable right to not have my money and property forcibly stolen from me, but I pay taxes anyway because I don't want to get thrown in jail. The principle remains true; my rights remain in existence, but I comply simply out of a valid fear of the use of governmental force. That not the same as approving of the rights violation. That's not hypocrisy; that's self-preservation.

oh, so now paying taxes is infringing on your rights? seems a bit of a reach. how do you suppose we pay for these roads that you have the right to drive on to be maintained and plowed or how to pay for fire/ems/police? or is it also your right for the city/state to perform/provide these without your money? never go full retard
i guess if you dont want to pay taxes thats fine. just dont use our roads, police, fire etc

So you think that a right to do something, that you still may not do because you have to get permission, is being treated as a right? You really aren't making any sense, and seem to have no idea what the concept of a right means. Try reading it r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y this time:

i know what a right is. i also understand that some of these rights may require a "prerequisite" if you will.
i know that i have the right to own a gun, that doesnt mean that expect me (or anyone else) to be able to just walk in and buy one without some sort of background check first
just like i know that i have the right to use the roads (that taxes pay for) as long as i have a valid drivers license that i acquired by passing a test.

The whole concept of liberty is that you have the right to do anything that doesn't violate the equal rights of anyone else.

PhilB

we do have equal rights. you have to have a drivers license to drive on the public roads...just like everyone else. i guess thats liberty, because if you are driving without a license then thats not fair to all the other people who are doing it properly.

[PhilB]

HypocriSEE!

Or were you saying you weren't furty or little?

Ah. I didn't think you had anything meaningful to say.

So, to draw an analogy, if you get mugged at gunpoint, and you hand over your wallet so as not to get shot, you are claiming that you are then approving of mugging, and would be hypocritical to protest, complain, or claim it is still your right to not be mugged, since you submitted under duress to your mugging? Brilliant.

... i know what a right is. i also understand that some of these rights may require a "prerequisite" if you will.
i know that i have the right to own a gun, that doesnt mean that expect me (or anyone else) to be able to just walk in and buy one without some sort of background check first
just like i know that i have the right to use the roads (that taxes pay for) as long as i have a valid drivers license that i acquired by passing a test.

Then no, you do not know what a right is. A right, by definition, is something that all adult people have equally, without any prerequisites. If a prerequisite is required to exercise it, then it isn't being treated as a right.

... we do have equal rights. you have to have a drivers license to drive on the public roads...just like everyone else. i guess thats liberty, because if you are driving without a license then thats not fair to all the other people who are doing it properly.

Damn, Skippy. Fail. Complete and utter failure to grasp.

PhilB

[Chippertheripper]

Your analogies are the worst. Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand your ramblings, but seriously, you suck at prose.

[Kurlon]

Speaking of bad drivers, I suddenly feel like I need my front bumper repainted...

[nhbubba]

Something in the air today. Took me 50% longer to commute today.. for no reason I could determine. Roads were well plowed and salted down to bare blacktop. Still. 40 MPH on I-93.

Can we get a longer ban next time?!

[jasnmar]

Mobile device... Forgive me.

aaand no.

all of them say the same thing. you have the right to use the roads. i interpret that to mean: you can use a car on them if you are legally allowed to drive or posses a drivers license. you must be aware that you require a drivers license to drive on the road since you posses one, just like you posses a motorcycle license because you know that it is required for you to legally ride a motorcycle on said roads.
normally your points are difficult to argue even if i disagree with you, but this time you are just simply wrong. you may FEEL its you right to drive (which would mean you have the mentality of a 16 year old and i know that isnt true) but its not.

the right of the citizen to drive -
People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)

As long as we are cutting down the rulings let's cut them down to this. Right (of the citizen) to drive. People v. Horton was an illegal search case. The officer searched the vehicle based on the fact that there were "young people" in it. In this case the California Appeals court (with consultation of current SCJ Ginsberg) ruled that "being young while driving" is not adequate reason to stop a car or to conduct a search.

We've agreed that the right to posses a firearm is a right. Now, let's investigate Commonwealth v. Couture. In this case a clerk reports (to police) a man with a gun in his store (semi-concealed). Based on the clerks report officers stop the car and recover the weapon. The court rules that possession of the weapon is not adequate grounds to conduct a stop or search. Specifically the court says:

Absence of a license is not `an element of the crime,' as that phrase is commonly used.

We agree that possession of a firearm is a right.
The courts say that a person cannot be searched for exercising their right to possess a firearm.
The courts say that a person cannot be searched for exercising their right to drive a car.
We disagree that driving is a right.

[PhilB]

Your analogies are the worst. Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand your ramblings, but seriously, you suck at prose.

You're claiming I'm a hypocrite for advocating for freedom, while not wanting to get jailed or shot. I'm saying complying under duress does not in any way mean I don't believe in what I'm saying, and doesn't make me a hypocrite. It only means that I recognize the reality that I can't fix our lost freedoms all at once by myself and that I must therefore pick my battles to be activist in. I can still honestly and with integrity support freedom and liberty consistently whenever I can do so in reasonable safety.

PhilB

[Chippertheripper]

Like behind your keyboard (and not the wheel of your automobile) during a blizzard, and in the state of Massachusetts.
Good for you.

[PhilB]

Like behind your keyboard (and not the wheel of your automobile) during a blizzard, and in the state of Massachusetts.
Good for you.

Try to make sense.

I wasn't advocating going out in a blizzard unnecessarily. I was advocating the idea that it was not necessary or right for the state governments to threaten to harm people over it.
And I wasn't in Massachusetts, drivjng or not, so that part of your comment is just dumb.

PhilB

[SVRACER01]

As long as we are cutting down the rulings let's cut them down to this. Right (of the citizen) to drive.
We agree that possession of a firearm is a right.
The courts say that a person cannot be searched for exercising their right to possess a firearm.
The courts say that a person cannot be searched for exercising their right to drive a car.
We disagree that driving is a right.

the problem with that, is you cut out the second part of that important sentence: "right to drive on public roads" is what it reads.
thats not what the court was saying in that case. what they were saying is along the lines racial profiling. you cant stop a car because the driver is brown and could be here illegally (looking at you AZ). you cant stop a car because the driver looks too young, or are wearing their hats backwards. you cant use that as probable cause for a stop. all that means is the cop will now follow you for 18 miles waiting for you to not signal 100ft before a turn and pull you over for that, then claim they smell weed and search the car. luckily for MA drivers a judge ruled that the odor of weed is not probable cause for a search.
"Absence of a license is not `an element of the crime,'", i feel thats along the same lines as being arrested for resisting arrest. its an add on charge that somehow people get arrested for solely.

and if Phil wants argue that because we have to have a background check to posses a gun it infringes upon our rights, while that may be technically true (and i cringe to say that), no one, and i mean not even a gun owner, would say they feel that a background check is in any way a rights violation. it is necessary in order to (attempt) to keep guns out of peoples hands that shouldnt have them. you may not agree but youre in the minority on that one.
and just for arguments sake, even if driving was a right (which its not) i dont think (nor does anyone else but you it seems) that having to pass a simple test would be a tragic infringement on that right. just like having to take additional tests to drive a dump truck, or a semi, or bus with children or a tanker full of oil or fuel (which by the way requires a TSA background check too). otherwise any retard that felt like driving 80k lbs of home heating oil could just jump in and start driving, because..you know...its their to do so and all.
i agree that requiring this and that is a slippery slope when it comes to our rights. as times change so do how we get to keep those rights. no one ever dreamed that someone would walk into an elementary school and mow down a bunch of 4th graders. it was bad enough when it happened at colleges, and then high schools and movie theaters. but now that it HAS happened people are wondering if there is anything else we should consider in the way of prevention.
but requiring a license to drive isnt one of those right infringements. why? because driving isnt a right. using the roadways is, and you can do that by any means that doesnt require you to posses a license to operate it.

[SRTie4k]

the problem with that, is you cut out the second part of that important sentence: "right to drive on public roads" is what it reads.
thats not what the court was saying in that case. what they were saying is along the lines racial profiling. you cant stop a car because the driver is brown and could be here illegally (looking at you AZ). you cant stop a car because the driver looks too young, or are wearing their hats backwards. you cant use that as probable cause for a stop. all that means is the cop will now follow you for 18 miles waiting for you to not signal 100ft before a turn and pull you over for that, then claim they smell weed and search the car. luckily for MA drivers a judge ruled that the odor of weed is not probable cause for a search.
"Absence of a license is not `an element of the crime,'", i feel thats along the same lines as being arrested for resisting arrest. its an add on charge that somehow people get arrested for solely.

and if Phil wants argue that because we have to have a background check to posses a gun it infringes upon our rights, while that may be technically true (and i cringe to say that), no one, and i mean not even a gun owner, would say they feel that a background check is in any way a rights violation. it is necessary in order to (attempt) to keep guns out of peoples hands that shouldnt have them. you may not agree but youre in the minority on that one.
and just for arguments sake, even if driving was a right (which its not) i dont think (nor does anyone else but you it seems) that having to pass a simple test would be a tragic infringement on that right. just like having to take additional tests to drive a dump truck, or a semi, or bus with children or a tanker full of oil or fuel (which by the way requires a TSA background check too). otherwise any retard that felt like driving 80k lbs of home heating oil could just jump in and start driving, because..you know...its their to do so and all.
i agree that requiring this and that is a slippery slope when it comes to our rights. as times change so do how we get to keep those rights. no one ever dreamed that someone would walk into an elementary school and mow down a bunch of 4th graders. it was bad enough when it happened at colleges, and then high schools and movie theaters. but now that it HAS happened people are wondering if there is anything else we should consider in the way of prevention.
but requiring a license to drive isnt one of those right infringements. why? because driving isnt a right. using the roadways is, and you can do that by any means that doesnt require you to posses a license to operate it.

I'm not invested in this conversation at all, pretty much just watching it out of sheer amusement. But there is a slight flaw in your logic. Dump trucks, buses and tankers aren't just sitting around waiting to be driven by any old schmuck. They're owned by a company that needs the goods delivered from one place to another. In the case of "right to drive", it would be up to that company to certify who has the ability to drive one of those vehicles safely without impeding the rights of others. Sure a company could hire any old shmoe to drive it, but they'd be liable if something happened to harm another person.

The assumption that anyone could jump in their tractor trailer and drive a load of hazardous material leans on the fact that they're employed to do so by an overseeing entity, not because they're just going out on a Sunday drive.

[SVRACER01]

you or i can go out and buy a 18 wheeled tanker truck and just be an independent driver/company. the only thing keeping you from driving down to the fill station (aside from our lack of CDL licensing) is a TWIC card to enter the facility and that requires a TSA background check

[SRTie4k]

You'd still have to abide by the safety margins of the companies you're working for, or the insurance that you have. Yes, any old idiot could take a big rig (without the trailer loaded with goods) out on the road with the "right to drive" philosophy, but they're still liable for any harm they cause someone else.

[rolker]

You'd still have to abide by the safety margins of the companies you're working for, or the insurance that you have. Yes, any old idiot could take a big rig (without the trailer loaded with goods) out on the road with the "right to drive" philosophy, but they're still liable for any harm they cause someone else.

So, essentially, the Libertarian philosophy is replace government with lawyers and insurance companies? Yeah, that will work.

[jasnmar]

I think Oxx and I are butting heads around the definition of a right vs. a privilege.

I *think* that it is his believe that to be a right, the right must be unfettered, or have no qualifications. I don't share that definition of a right. Indeed there are many (perhaps most) rights that do, indeed have qualifications.

Voting is a right of US Citizens over the age of 18. Voting, as written into our amendments is a *right* of those qualified. The qualifications have changed significantly since the beginnings of our country with multiple amendments to extend that right to more people. In NH, one must have a valid photo ID to vote. That is a qualification. That doesn't make it not a right. In fact it is specifically called out as a right in the NH Constitution as well.

All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election.

There is a right to vote, that right is qualified. That's OK.

Privilege, for me, is more about creating a "special class" of citizens. The types of citizens to whom certain laws do not apply. Legislators, Law Enforcement, you know, the "privileged".

[jasnmar]

So, essentially, the Libertarian philosophy is replace government with lawyers and insurance companies? Yeah, that will work.

I don't know if most librarians would share that exact view .

[SVRACER01]

You'd still have to abide by the safety margins of the companies you're working for, or the insurance that you have. Yes, any old idiot could take a big rig (without the trailer loaded with goods) out on the road with the "right to drive" philosophy, but they're still liable for any harm they cause someone else.

im not even anywhere near who liable for what. by the "right to drive" philosophy (meaning i dont need a license anymore because 'murica) i go out and buy myself a sweet new peterbilt and a nice tanker trailer, i drive down to the old fill station and load up my shiny new trailer with 80,000 lbs of 93 octane fuel and drive around and deliver it to little no name gas stations all over new england.

I think Oxx and I are butting heads around the definition of a right vs. a privilege.

I *think* that it is his believe that to be a right, the right must be unfettered, or have no qualifications. I don't share that definition of a right. Indeed there are many (perhaps most) rights that do, indeed have qualifications.

Voting is a right of US Citizens over the age of 18. Voting, as written into our amendments is a *right* of those qualified. The qualifications have changed significantly since the beginnings of our country with multiple amendments to extend that right to more people. In NH, one must have a valid photo ID to vote. That is a qualification. That doesn't make it not a right. In fact it is specifically called out as a right in the NH Constitution as well.



There is a right to vote, that right is qualified. That's OK.

no thats where youre wrong. we totally agree on all of that.
you have a right to vote..as long as you have ID
you have a right to own a gun...as long as you pass a background check
you have a right to use the roads...but to DRIVE an automobile of any type you must have a drivers license. i cant say "as long as you have a drivers license" because you CAN in fact use the roads by foot, bicycle, horse etc. but if you want to drive an automobile on them then you need a license. a license to drive is not a right. it is a privilege that is awarded to you by meeting certain criteria. you must be at least 16 and pass a series of tests including vision, written and driving. only then will you be afforded the pleasure of now using the roads with an auto as well.
phil on the other hand seems to feel that driving is included in his right to road use and he shouldnt be required..no...forced to posses a drivers license in order to use the roads with an auto. he also feels that he shouldnt be forced to have a background check performed before buying a gun, he may even feel the govt should provide one for him...IDK. he may also feel that he shouldnt have to prove who he is to vote either but we havent discussed it, i can only assume he does based on his "right to drive" feelings. he has also made it clear that he shouldnt be "forced" to pay taxes, even though (ironically) those taxes pay to maintain the same roads he so vehemently feels he has the right to drive on without a license.

[jasnmar]

And at one point, to vote, you had to own property, you had to be 21 years of age, you had to be male, you had to pay a polling tax, you had to be able to read English.

Very similar to driving, qualifications, fees, tests, all there to vote.

The question is did voting change from being a privilege into a right (and if so, when), or was it always a right and we've just expanded the people to which the right applies?

[Garandman]

Something in the air today. Took me 50% longer to commute today.. for no reason I could determine. Roads were well plowed and salted down to bare blacktop. Still. 40 MPH on I-93.!

495 was supposedly worse. Took me 1:45 to drive Boston -> Westborough on MA Pike and the other direction was worse.

Our operating theory is that people stayed off back roads. Oddly Boston proper wasn't bad and the hellish 93 south commute looked positively civilized.

[SVRACER01]

And at one point, to vote, you had to own property, you had to be 21 years of age, you had to be male, you had to pay a polling tax, you had to be able to read English.

Very similar to driving, qualifications, fees, tests, all there to vote.

The question is did voting change from being a privilege into a right (and if so, when), or was it always a right and we've just expanded the people to which the right applies?

i think voting has always been a right (per say). it was just a right for certain people and if you were on the outside it appeared to be a privilege. now its a right as long as youre over 18.