Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:But you assume Obama's picks are good picks, don't you? We haven't even named the people we are talking about, but you are defending them anyways. What do you know about the nominees?

We know one of the nominees was appointed by Obama on the recommendation of Marco Rubio. After the appointment was formalized, Rubio then filibustered his own recommendation.

I have to agree with Rubio, though, that less than two years in prison is far too lenient a sentence for killing a cyclist. But that's an issue with the weak laws protecting cyclists and making them second-class citizens on the road, and not as much with the judge's ruling in that case.

So somehow if a motorists kills a cyclist, then there's no way the motorist can be charged with vehicular manslaughter or plain old vanilla manslaughter?

If not, then how is the underlined true?

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Maybe I don't understand a fillibuster, but doesn't it just lengthen the amount of time for a law to pass? In other words, if Rand Paul stops talking, doesn't the Senate just go and ratify the guy 51-49 anyway?

Yes, but at any time a Senator may choose to filibuster by continuing debate by speaking as long as he or she wishes. So what people called "filibustering" of nominees was almost always using the term indirectly -- it was the threat of a filibuster that was really doing the job. Any time someone attempted to end the debate and bring a vote to the floor, a person from the objecting party could simply get up and speak, which meant that effectively the vote could not occur. The way to prevent such a filibuster was with three-fifths of the Senate voting to end debate immediately -- this is why, if you have 40 people on your side, you have effectively filibustered the process even without speaking. Under the new rules, it only requires a majority of the Senate to end debate and preclude any filibuster.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:But you assume Obama's picks are good picks, don't you? We haven't even named the people we are talking about, but you are defending them anyways. What do you know about the nominees?

We know one of the nominees was appointed by Obama on the recommendation of Marco Rubio. After the appointment was formalized, Rubio then filibustered his own recommendation.

I have to agree with Rubio, though, that less than two years in prison is far too lenient a sentence for killing a cyclist. But that's an issue with the weak laws protecting cyclists and making them second-class citizens on the road, and not as much with the judge's ruling in that case.

So somehow if a motorists kills a cyclist, then there's no way the motorist can be charged with vehicular manslaughter or plain old vanilla manslaughter?

If not, then how is the underlined true?

I need to understand all of the factual background, but 2 years seems right (perhaps too long). I can only assume the cyclist was riding at 15 mph in the middle of the road, acting like a car and dramatically slowing traffic for miles behind him.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:But you assume Obama's picks are good picks, don't you? We haven't even named the people we are talking about, but you are defending them anyways. What do you know about the nominees?

We know one of the nominees was appointed by Obama on the recommendation of Marco Rubio. After the appointment was formalized, Rubio then filibustered his own recommendation.

I have to agree with Rubio, though, that less than two years in prison is far too lenient a sentence for killing a cyclist. But that's an issue with the weak laws protecting cyclists and making them second-class citizens on the road, and not as much with the judge's ruling in that case.

So somehow if a motorists kills a cyclist, then there's no way the motorist can be charged with vehicular manslaughter or plain old vanilla manslaughter?

If not, then how is the underlined true?

I need to understand all of the factual background, but 2 years seems right (perhaps too long). I can only assume the cyclist was riding at 15 mph in the middle of the road, acting like a car and dramatically slowing traffic for miles behind him.

I'm not sure how prevalent such legal outcomes are (because I didn't find Mets' link to a NY opinion piece convincing), but I find it funny that--to my knowledge--the law requires bicyclists to remain in the street and not on sidewalks, and so such a law slows traffic and annoys drivers.

Still, I don't see how it's justifiable to kill someone and serve 2 years because (a) you're annoyed at the victim, and (b) traffic was going slower than was expected.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Maybe I don't understand a fillibuster, but doesn't it just lengthen the amount of time for a law to pass? In other words, if Rand Paul stops talking, doesn't the Senate just go and ratify the guy 51-49 anyway?

Yes, but at any time a Senator may choose to filibuster by continuing debate by speaking as long as he or she wishes. So what people called "filibustering" of nominees was almost always using the term indirectly -- it was the threat of a filibuster that was really doing the job. Any time someone attempted to end the debate and bring a vote to the floor, a person from the objecting party could simply get up and speak, which meant that effectively the vote could not occur. The way to prevent such a filibuster was with three-fifths of the Senate voting to end debate immediately -- this is why, if you have 40 people on your side, you have effectively filibustered the process even without speaking. Under the new rules, it only requires a majority of the Senate to end debate and preclude any filibuster.

Seems there is too much drama for an ineffective method of stopping the passing of a law (it is effective in delaying passage of a law).

thegreekdog wrote:Assuming the risk. If a cyclist determines it to be in his best interest to act like a motor vehicle and drive in the middle of the road (as opposed to on the side of the road) or, alternatively, decides that weaving in and out of traffic is in his best interest, I believe the law should take into account that the cyclist has assumed the risk of being hit by a car and the law should act accordingly.

tl/dr: RIDE YOUR FUCKING BIKE ON THE SIDE OF THE FUCKING ROAD. YOU'RE NOT A FUCKING MOTOR VEHICLE STUPID MOTHER FUCKERS.

AndyDufresne wrote:Guys, we're attacking the bicycle problem here from the wrong angle. Here is the solution we should be pushing for:



We just need to get cyclists higher than the motor vehicles.


--Andy

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Maybe I don't understand a fillibuster, but doesn't it just lengthen the amount of time for a law to pass? In other words, if Rand Paul stops talking, doesn't the Senate just go and ratify the guy 51-49 anyway?

Yes, but at any time a Senator may choose to filibuster by continuing debate by speaking as long as he or she wishes. So what people called "filibustering" of nominees was almost always using the term indirectly -- it was the threat of a filibuster that was really doing the job. Any time someone attempted to end the debate and bring a vote to the floor, a person from the objecting party could simply get up and speak, which meant that effectively the vote could not occur. The way to prevent such a filibuster was with three-fifths of the Senate voting to end debate immediately -- this is why, if you have 40 people on your side, you have effectively filibustered the process even without speaking. Under the new rules, it only requires a majority of the Senate to end debate and preclude any filibuster.

Seems there is too much drama for an ineffective method of stopping the passing of a law (it is effective in delaying passage of a law).

The current change doesn't affect the rules for filibustering legislation. Rather, it is focused on executive nominees. And in fact there have been executive nominees that have been filibustered so hard that they were dropped and replaced.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, if the bicyclist weaves in and out of traffic, then his negligence should be taken into account.

From what I've seen, nearly all bicyclists ride around the side of the road next to that white/yellow line. Sometimes, bicyclists need to move more toward the middle of the lane to avoid potholes and obstructions on the side of the road (this is why in some states, there's a law prohibited a car from passing within 2-4 feet of bicyclist; something I don't quite agree with, but then again many drivers don't understand why a bicyclist can't always drive on the side of the road).

Anyway, usually there is no shoulder, so for our purposes 'around the yellow/white line' should demarcate the 'side of the road'. Given this boundary, traffic can still be impeded, and the bicyclist can still be killed by an idiotic, impatient driver. If the bicyclist is riding normally on the 'side of the road, and the driver runs him over--when clearly the driver could've slowed down and waited to pass, then in this circumstance shouldn't the driver be charged with vehicular homicide?

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Assuming the risk. If a cyclist determines it to be in his best interest to act like a motor vehicle and drive in the middle of the road (as opposed to on the side of the road) or, alternatively, decides that weaving in and out of traffic is in his best interest, I believe the law should take into account that the cyclist has assumed the risk of being hit by a car and the law should act accordingly.

tl/dr: RIDE YOUR FUCKING BIKE ON THE SIDE OF THE FUCKING ROAD. YOU'RE NOT A FUCKING MOTOR VEHICLE STUPID MOTHER FUCKERS.

This is not the fault of cyclists but the fault of the legal system. For example, NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law says, quite clearly:

"§ 1231. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates. Every person riding a bicycle or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application."

Except that the same set of laws go on to state that cyclist have to ride as close to the side of the road as possible, in general, which other motor vehicles do not have to do. It is a mess of laws that treats the bicycles like motor vehicles in some cases but not in others.

Symmetry wrote:Huh, is Ron Paul still a "thing"?

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Huh, is Ron Paul still a "thing"?

his ideas have been a "thing" for over 200 years, get with the pogrom limey

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Huh, is Ron Paul still a "thing"?

his ideas have been a "thing" for over 200 years, get with the pogrom limey

I've seen the newsletters outlining his ideas.

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Huh, is Ron Paul still a "thing"?

his ideas have been a "thing" for over 200 years, get with the pogrom limey

I've seen the newsletters outlining his ideas.

he wrote newsletters? link pls?

Night Strike wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Huh, is Ron Paul still a "thing"?

his ideas have been a "thing" for over 200 years, get with the pogrom limey

I've seen the newsletters outlining his ideas.

he wrote newsletters? link pls?

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Huh, is Ron Paul still a "thing"?

his ideas have been a "thing" for over 200 years, get with the pogrom limey

I've seen the newsletters outlining his ideas.

he wrote newsletters? link pls?

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Huh, is Ron Paul still a "thing"?

his ideas have been a "thing" for over 200 years, get with the pogrom limey

I've seen the newsletters outlining his ideas.

he wrote newsletters? link pls?

I'm pretty sure you can google "Ron Paul Newsletters".

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Huh, is Ron Paul still a "thing"?

his ideas have been a "thing" for over 200 years, get with the pogrom limey

I've seen the newsletters outlining his ideas.

he wrote newsletters? link pls?

I'm pretty sure you can google "Ron Paul Newsletters".

and you should google "op-ed"

john9blue wrote:some of them. not all. it's never "all". "all" is for the intellectually lazy