An Article About Carbon Bikes

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by danfoz

Not according to Gordon Gekko:

Quote: Gordon Gekko: The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good.

But your point that pure free market is just as naive as pure socialism is well taken.

Quote: indeed derived from the undeniable sense of brotherhood conveyed in conversations I've had with young Israeli's, both men and women.

Young Israeli's yes; but there is a great deal of resentment across the broad spectrum of Israeli society between some of the hard right religious, many of who do not serve and yet push hard for settlements and other territorial issues ; and some of the more secular moderates, with a history of service and a more moderate position. Like arguments referencing Greece as being a harbinger of future problems in the US; Israel is pretty unique. It's a very tiny country with lot's of cultural, religious, and social commonalities that hold what would otherwise be a very fractious political body together. Military service is only one aspect of what creates the"brotherhood."

I do believe that a draft is good for the US. The service should represent a broad section of US society and it doesn't currently.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by kopride
It's a good thing Myagi knew that hand warming bone healing technique and Daniel-San learned that leaping crane kick, or things could have gotten out of hand in the Valley.

If they had, Liz Shue filling out that sweater would have fixed everything. Wait, she was the reason things got out of hand in the first place. Never mind 😉

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by danfoz

If they had, Liz Shue filling out that sweater would have fixed everything. Wait, she was the reason things got out of hand in the first place. Never mind 😉

Sweep the leg!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by kopride

I'm glad you're not sympathetic towards drunks as I am not either. A person driving drunk like she was should have gotten jail time and should had been held liable for the damages she did, but not in our society. I had a friend killed by a drunk driver and the drunk wasn't even injured and served 1 year on prison with 5 years probation if he attended rehab; that guy may have died under mysterious circumstances some time later last I heard. I got lucky and was able to kill a drunk driver but in the process injured my back and had to have fusion done on the L5 and L4 I think caused from the damn lumbar support about 3 years ago, if I was in a car that didn't have lumbar support I don't think I would have been injured at all, anyway I was trapped in the car with the sheet metal wrapped all around me so they had to spend about 45 minutes cutting me out.

I have no pity on drunk drivers nor do I want our legal system to take pity on them which is what they do all the freaking time. If a person commits murder by being drunk in a car that should be treated the same as shooting the person with a gun.

The weird thing about that lady in Glendale was that she was supposedly an attractive woman, not sure if she was because I never saw her, she won the big bucks because now she was no longer attractive to men! As if that was a reason to win anything other than jail time and restitution for the property damage.

The crazy thing is that taking away a drunks license does nothing, they just buy a cheap car never register it and go driving without a license. And the defense for these drunken aholes can be as lame as this: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/12/the-affluenza-defense-judge-rules-rich-kids-rich-kid-ness-makes-him-not-liable-for-deadly-drunk-driving-accident/ Just one of the many examples of such stupid reasons to let a murderer go free.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Froze
I have no pity on drunk drivers nor do I want our legal system to take pity on them which is what they do all the freaking time. If a person commits murder by being drunk in a car that should be treated the same as shooting the person with a gun.

I'd be all in favor of people that are significantly over the limit during a regular traffic stop facing a similar penalty as those that are carrying a firearm with intent to use it during a crime. Taking your first couple of drinks is a conscious decision. You know you're driving and there's clear guidelines on how an 'average' person deals with alcohol in terms of drinks per hour and body weight. IMHO, it should be a topic that you should need to be explain when you renew your license. The question of "how heavy are you and how many drinks per hour are you allowed" should be a mandatory pass/fail answer.

I love beer probably more than the next guy, which is why I'm a fat f**k right now, but there's a time and a place and that place isn't behind the wheel of a car.

Oy! Lawyers!

"Gun shows are becoming scary freak shows: weekly comic-con for the paranoid, scared, and insecure except without the freaky girls and A-list celebrities."

Paranoid? Just exactly what they hell is one "paranoid" of when one has an anti-tank rifle?

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]

There's nothing more fun than sending 20 MM rounds sailing thru a car unless it's...

sending almost 11,000 RPM downrange and just shredding a vehicle into scrap metal!

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]

There was the young girl that was killed at the Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot a few years ago when the top gun on the triple-mount broke and fell on her head. Damned horrible shame, but those trampolines-o-death are still more dangerous.

There was a child killed by an ambulance in Kentucky this week, two others were injured. The ambulance went into the median and apparently no charges will be filed. I am guessing a civil action is coming.

No freaky wimminz?

Your Honor, may I present exhibit D?

First...a little background. Chelsea Victoria...

Da guns. Not those guns, stoopid!

Yeah. Freaky. She has it. And I want it.

Like a retarded drum set in a submarine.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by CAMPYBOB
Oy! Lawyers!

"Gun shows are becoming scary freak shows: weekly comic-con for the paranoid, scared, and insecure except without the freaky girls and A-list celebrities."

Paranoid? Just exactly what they hell is one "paranoid" of when one has an anti-tank rifle?

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]

There's nothing more fun than sending 20 MM rounds sailing thru a car unless it's...

sending almost 11,000 RPM downrange and just shredding a vehicle into scrap metal!

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]

There was the young girl that was killed at the Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot a few years ago when the top gun on the triple-mount broke and fell on her head. Damned horrible shame, but those trampolines-o-death are still more dangerous.

I need one of those guns for 4th of July celebrations. I could shoot that thing all night while screaming "YIYIYIYIYIYIIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIY"

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by swampy1970

I'd be all in favor of people that are significantly over the limit during a regular traffic stop facing a similar penalty as those that are carrying a firearm with intent to use it during a crime. Taking your first couple of drinks is a conscious decision. You know you're driving and there's clear guidelines on how an 'average' person deals with alcohol in terms of drinks per hour and body weight. IMHO, it should be a topic that you should need to be explain when you renew your license. The question of "how heavy are you and how many drinks per hour are you allowed" should be a mandatory pass/fail answer.

I love beer probably more than the next guy, which is why I'm a fat f**k right now, but there's a time and a place and that place isn't behind the wheel of a car.

What's crazy is that an average weight person say 176 pounds can have up to 3 beers in an hour and only be at .08, I'm sorry but I think that is too much. I think they ought to go to .04. There is no reason to be behind the wheel after drinking, none whatsoever, if you want to drink then either find a person who hasn't had a drink to drive, call a taxi, or stay the freak home.

Quote by Froze:
"I could shoot that thing all night while screaming..."

At $300 per 1000 rounds and each gun running at 3600 RPM...you would be screaming all right. About your smoking CC.

"There is no reason to be behind the wheel after drinking, none whatsoever"

Try Saudi Arabia. Somewhere there's a country missing an ayatollah.

I keed!

In tragic role reversal, 9-year old kills instructor with Uzi: nbcnews.comarizona shooting range instructor killed girl uzi n189611Open ↗

Send lawyers, guns and money.

Saw this. And again, letting a 9 year old girl shoot an auto Uzi has nothing to do with responsible gun ownership. It's the same dumb [censored] that makes me annoyed at gun shows/freak shows. A 9 year old shouldn't be handling anything other than a Red Ryder. Doing dumb provocative reckless stuff with untrained people/kids and firearms isn't about rights, the Constitution, or flipping off the liberal nanny state. It's just stupid and fuels the anti-gun folks in portraying responsible gun owners as fringe lunatics. Because it's completely indefensible. And if you let a 9 year old handle an auto weapon, you are a fringe lunatic. I'm all about rights, but with rights comes some degree of responsibility. I have a girl who's almost 9, my fishing buddy. she's catching little fish off a dock, not deep sea fishing for Mako.

There was a range in New England where the same thing happened a couple years ago. A young child was handed a Micro-Uzi or a Mini-Uzi (I forget which model, but both are shorter than the standard Uzi model sub-machinegun) and with a burst of full-auto fire put a round thru the instructor's head.

Kids love shooting full-auto, but put them on a tripod mounted weapon with the T&E locked down.

Maybe we should make the world safe and only give kids airplanes to play with...

en.wikipedia.orgJessica DubroffOpen ↗

And then there's racing cars...

en.wikipedia.orgJoey LoganoOpen ↗

Yeah, Joey Logano was tearing up tracks as a 10-year old.

Hell, statistically, BICYCLES, are more deadly than all of the above. Maybe we should ban them because a 9-year old kid playing in traffic is a great idea.

Let's see now...

And again, letting a 9 year old girl ride a bicycle has nothing to do with responsible transportation ownership. It's the same illogical [censored] that makes me annoyed at bike dealers and industry trade shows/freak shows. A 9 year old shouldn't be riding anything other than a tricycle on a sidewalk. Doing dumb provocative reckless stuff with untrained people/kids and bicycles isn't about rights, the Constitution, or flipping off the liberal nanny state. It's just stupid and fuels the safety whacktards folks in portraying responsible bike owners as fringe lunatics. Because it's completely indefensible. And if you let a 9 year old ride a bicycle, you are a fringe lunatic. I'm all about rights, but with rights comes some degree of responsibility. I have a girl who's almost 9, and she is only allowed to ride on residential streets with 6,000 sport utility vehicles, not cross busy streets with semi-trucks on them.

9-year old boy shoots 5.56x45 SCAR machinegun because 'Murica! And freedom!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Froze
What's crazy is that an average weight person say 176 pounds can have up to 3 beers in an hour and only be at .08, I'm sorry but I think that is too much. I think they ought to go to .04. There is no reason to be behind the wheel after drinking, none whatsoever, if you want to drink then either find a person who hasn't had a drink to drive, call a taxi, or stay the freak home.

I hate to say it, but this is dumb. What needs to happen is that cops need to go after the folks who are exhibiting inability to drive, regardless of what's in their system. It's been long proven that there are MANY things that detract from one's ability to drive, including many things that most of us do regularly in a vehicle: lack of sleep/long day, changing the radio station, eating, drinking (NA beverages), etc. Not to mention, BAC limits don't factor in tolerances. Just as different medications affect people differently, the same is true for Grandpa's cough medicine. I've known quite a few people who are falling down drunks after just a couple, while only my closest friends and family would know when I've put myself over the BAC limit but stopped short of losing ability to walk and talk (and drive). I know from experience that after plowing snow for 30 hours straight, I'm way worse off than having 3 pints (and I weigh 180 lbs) in an hour.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by jpr95

I hate to say it, but this is dumb. What needs to happen is that cops need to go after the folks who are exhibiting inability to drive, regardless of what's in their system. It's been long proven that there are MANY things that detract from one's ability to drive, including many things that most of us do regularly in a vehicle: lack of sleep/long day, changing the radio station, eating, drinking (NA beverages), etc. Not to mention, BAC limits don't factor in tolerances. Just as different medications affect people differently, the same is true for Grandpa's cough medicine. I've known quite a few people who are falling down drunks after just a couple, while only my closest friends and family would know when I've put myself over the BAC limit but stopped short of losing ability to walk and talk (and drive). I know from experience that after plowing snow for 30 hours straight, I'm way worse off than having 3 pints (and I weigh 180 lbs) in an hour.

Yep, my wife was hit by a truck yesterday. The guy was on his cell phone and lost so he turned into a driveway to turn around. She was coming from the opposite direction and he wasn't watching . She didn't go down but her leg is pretty bruised up from his bumper. Distracted is impaired.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by jpr95

I hate to say it, but this is dumb. What needs to happen is that cops need to go after the folks who are exhibiting inability to drive, regardless of what's in their system. It's been long proven that there are MANY things that detract from one's ability to drive, including many things that most of us do regularly in a vehicle: lack of sleep/long day, changing the radio station, eating, drinking (NA beverages), etc. Not to mention, BAC limits don't factor in tolerances. Just as different medications affect people differently, the same is true for Grandpa's cough medicine. I've known quite a few people who are falling down drunks after just a couple, while only my closest friends and family would know when I've put myself over the BAC limit but stopped short of losing ability to walk and talk (and drive). I know from experience that after plowing snow for 30 hours straight, I'm way worse off than having 3 pints (and I weigh 180 lbs) in an hour.

I SORRY BUT THIS IS DUMB AND SO WERE YOUR ACTIONS!!!!!! I don't how many times I hear this BS nonsense before about, "hey I can drive and be over the BAC limit because I'm special" BS, BS, BS, which has been proven by many studies over and over and over again that you cannot drive anywhere near as well even at or just below the BAC level.

Get a freaking clue and stay off the road and protect those around you if your going to be drinking like that.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Froze
I SORRY BUT THIS IS DUMB AND SO WERE YOUR ACTIONS!!!!!! I don't how many times I hear this BS nonsense before about, "hey I can drive and be over the BAC limit because I'm special" BS, BS, BS, which has been proven by many studies over and over and over again that you cannot drive anywhere near as well even at or just below the BAC level.

Get a freaking clue and stay off the road and protect those around you if your going to be drinking like that.

Blah, blah, blah...I expected this self-righteous bluster.

The reality is that I've seen an Indiana State Police information officer on live TV admit that BAC affects different people differently, to the extent that she had even seen people who blew 0.6% (not 0.06%--0.6%--fatal for most people) and they were still functioning well, as well as had seen people UNDER the limit who couldn't even come close to passing a roadside sobriety test.

The reality is that at my weight and metabolism (pretty darn good for a 40 year old--from the cycling and a physically demanding job) I can guarantee my reaction times and driving skill are better with 3 pints of good beer under my belt than most septuagenarians who are stone cold sober. It's not because I'm special, it's because there are many like me out there. Heck, I see a bunch of them when I stop at a local taproom on my way home from work on Thursdays a few times a year for $2.50 pints.

The reality is that BAC is just a convenient measurement tool for the local law enforcement to make some money, like speeding. It's not anywhere near universally or consistently enforced, and many exceed it (like speeding) with no problems. The ones that make the news for killing someone are almost always at some multiple of the BAC limit, starting with 2. Again, like all medications, alcohol in the blood affects different people in different ways.

The reality is that you've also ignored all the other distraction factors that people allow to creep into their driving on a daily basis that are every bit as dangerous as the average person being at a BAC of 0.08%, some of which I mentioned in my previous post. Never mind that driver training and tests in this country are little more than how to aim a car and how to parallel park it--I don't think I've heard of a standard beginner's driver's ed course that offered any behind-the-wheel training of recovery from loss of control or accident avoidance at speed.