Gravitymaster

Members
  • Content

    13,097
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Gravitymaster

  1. I can think of a few others throughout history who thought similarly. And they did and are doing quite well! Look Irans leaders have to go, they are bat shit crazy! And well that's not a good thing for the people of Iran or the people of the world. And well it would be nice to maybe liberate Iran but who will pay for it? I for one say....NOT ME! How about we kill the Bush Tax Break and then use the money we raise from taxing the top 1% to pay for it! The GOP gets a war that they want! And the liberals see a more even tax code! I say we cut a deal with the Revolutionary Forces within Iran. We will help you but we want 1/2 your oil in return.
  2. I can think of a few others throughout history who thought similarly.
  3. How are the arson laws working out in L.A. and N.Y.?
  4. I love how the writer threw in this little gem. Insinuating that banning guns in National Parks would have prevented this from occurring.
  5. How exactly are they disregarding others' safety? We both know that in the great majority of collisions, the rider comes off far worse. It's only when we get to reckless splitting that this shifts to equal footing. It's legal in California because the CHiPs want it to be. It's perfectly safe for them and hundreds of thousands of civilians to do. Its origins may have more to do with our longer history of terrible traffic than anything else, including the concerns of engine overheating. Although I agree mostly, I wouldn't call lane splitting "perfectly safe". OTOH it probably is safer than risking being rear ended by an automobile whose driver wasn't paying attention.
  6. Or my extreme high performance custom built SuperBeetle. With HD's, minus some guys running really old iron, it is straight bullshit. I'd say your opinion is pretty much straight Bullshit. That is widely regarded in the motorcycle world as a fraudulent/frivolous lawsuit. *shrug* This is SC, so now it is your turn to question my mother's virtues or blame me for terrorism or something similar. Right, so fraudulent/frivolous that a Federal Judge just allowed it to go forward. But, this is SC and you have your right to your opinion no matter how wrong it is. Don't know why you think your mother has something to do with this unless she rides a HD. Rear end collisions in California are also 30% lower since lane splitting is allowed as compared to other States.
  7. Or my extreme high performance custom built SuperBeetle. With HD's, minus some guys running really old iron, it is straight bullshit. I'd say your opinion is pretty much straight Bullshit.
  8. Why would you want to open your door and injure a biker? Do you realize that some of us ride motorcycles that are air cooled and must keep moving to prevent the bike from overheating? I had a $1000+ repair bill when one of those assholes lane split and knocked off my mirror, and smashed the hell out of my fender, hood, and A pillar... And the asshole just kept going... So now you are out for revenge against all bikers? WoW!!!!!!!!!! That's some very out of control anger.
  9. Why would you want to open your door and injure a biker? Do you realize that some of us ride motorcycles that are air cooled and must keep moving to prevent the bike from overheating?
  10. Most of the problems we have around here are because the lights go on sensors at night. During the day, they are on timers. Virginia passed a similar law last summer but it has the 2 minute requirement. I wondwr what will happen if you run a red light that has a camera.
  11. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/12/30/motorcycles-bicycles-can-run-red-lights-under-new-law/ This is a very sensible law. Anyone who rides who has had to sit at a red light for a long time until another car came along and tripped the light can appreciate this. I really don't understand why the requirement is to wait for 120 seconds though. It's either safe to proceed or it isn't. Why would it be safer 120 seconds after stopping? Right turns on red lights don't require 120 second stops.
  12. No. You clearly don't understand the difference between racism and dumb policy. And you clearly don't want to call AA what it really is. How about the OWS and their anti-semitism? Or Eric Holder or Reverend Wright or Louis Farrankan, or the New Black Panther Party?
  13. So you have never met a Liberal who supports Affirmative Action?? Really??? Isn't AA the definition of racism?
  14. I think he's talking about a war time President losing an election while engaged in a war at the time of the election.
  15. Heck ya!! Let's end poverty once and for all. I propose we take all the money from rich people and corporations and give $1 million to poor people. Problem solved, the war on poverty would be over and we could then focus on more important things like cutting taxes for the rich.
  16. Why should I comment on something I disagree with?
  17. Can't argue much with the fact that 77%is of Democrats believe in some form of Creationism. Nice try though.
  18. I think a better title for this thread would be "Let Your Keyboard Be a Counter-Friction Force to Stop the Machine".
  19. My point is that with 77% of Democrats believing in some sort of creationist theory, it's disingenuous to constantly portray Republicans as some kind of nuts because a slightly higher % are believers or to insinuate there's some clearly defined line.
  20. http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/fisker-recalling-239-karma-electric-cars-for-fire-hazard/#
  21. No problem there either. Once the surrounding communities see how well this works in SF, their workers/taxpayers will demand the same. Economics is so simple.
  22. More left-wing distortions. The truth is that 38% of those identifying themselves as Democrats believe humans were created in their present form 10,000 years ago by God. Another 39% believe that humans evolution was guided by God. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx
  23. No problem there. Just pass a law setting price limits on what MacDonalds can charge for a Big Mac.