The real agenda of cagers (or pro-speeders)

[Mr R@T \ -Lsqco]

Well, I've looked at some of their pages and bizzare arguments - and I can only come to one
conclusion.

This is their *real* argument

1. I'm bigger than you and can go faster
2. I have (supposedly) paid more for my vehicle and associated running costs.
3. My "market value" and "share" of the roads is therefore more.
4. You are second class citizens on the road, and should get out of my way or *die*.
5. If I kill you with my vehicle, your life isn't worth me going to prison.

I wonder if any of the more vehement uk.tosspot lot would be brave enough to stand up and *state
these views as they are*, rather than hiding them behind bogus statistics?

Now if you substituted vehicles with *ethnic groups*, how many (otherwise normal) people would
*still* support their arguments? (Plus their websites would be monitored by the security services!)

Interestingly I have noticed many of the anti-cyclist types also spouting extremely intolerant views
with regard to other social issues (not road-related) elsewhere - perhaps more than a co-incidence.

Alex

 

[Nick Kew]

In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the
keyboard of "Mr R@t \(2.3 zulu-alpha\) [comms room new build]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This is their *real* argument

c.f. Dubya: "I've got more weapons than you, so what I say is the will of the international
community and you can support me or else ..."

> Now if you substituted vehicles with *ethnic groups*, how many (otherwise normal) people would
> *still* support their arguments?

Most would, if it were suitably dressed up. Whose side would _you_ be on if gypsies turned up in
your back yard? OK that's no longer likely since they've been ethnically cleansed in this country,
but the principle is clearly there.

It's the corruption that goes with power and influence. Thinking otherwise is the fundamental flaw
of utopian ideals such as christianity or communism.

--
Wear your paunch with pride!