I'm still with the protester here. The Attack helicopter might have gotten that one speeder but it cost the government more than $15 million....
By my simple calculations (leaving a few things out)

$250.00 (Speeding Ticket Income)
- [ $15,000,000(Helo) + $500,000(Tomahawk Missile)]
-------------------------------------------------------
(15,499,750) Government Loss

...they are going to have to catch a LOT more speeders.

Now, about that speeding ticket...

I would get speeding tickets if I played this in the car. Nice fusion.

The cop's got a point. American roads aren't built the same way as German roads. Going 98 anywhere is bound to be dangerous, but going 98 in America is guaranteed to get you pulled over, and you WILL get yelled and ticketed for speeding, and possibly other violations if the officer wants to teach you a lesson (ie.reckless/careless driving).

If you want to get away with a speeding ticket, you just gotta kiss-ass your entire way through the ordeal, or have a relative who's a cop.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK: ...Dynamic, flexible, detour routing could be done on the fly for accidents...



Dynamic, flexible, speeding tickets too.

>> ^joedirt:
True story... These asshole suburb cops used to have a few favorite "parking" spots which allowed for speeding tickets and "visibility". Problem is they used to back on to a handicap ramp and park on the big sidewalk area.
One day I was bored an literally reading the state laws cause it was in a big binder and it was that or trying to look busy. Anyways, I jokingly photocopied the sections of the law about driving/parking on sidewalks and the mayor ended up faxing them to the chief of police.


And I am sure that changed policy? Try holding anyone else accountable like that---and it will fail. Business corporations? They would, in most cases, laugh at your petty laws. Religion? Let's not go there---but they would laugh too (Molestation any one?) How about schools? They would just petition for new laws to their favor...

Your protest enforced something. And only in the field of law enforcement is that able to happen (Cept maybe a few other fields...)

See, that is the great thing about being a citizen as opposed to a cop...

True story... These asshole suburb cops used to have a few favorite "parking" spots which allowed for speeding tickets and "visibility". Problem is they used to back on to a handicap ramp and park on the big sidewalk area.

One day I was bored an literally reading the state laws cause it was in a big binder and it was that or trying to look busy. Anyways, I jokingly photocopied the sections of the law about driving/parking on sidewalks and the mayor ended up faxing them to the chief of police.

You're right @blankfist, it's not strictly socialism. I've seen it referred to many times as 'semi-socialism'. From what I gather, it's a political system with near-free-markets (strict regulations) but with a strong welfare component. High taxes pay for free (or mostly free) education (including post-secondary), universal healthcare, a strong social safety net, and significant public investments in the arts.

Some would say high-taxes are tyrannical or that they penalize the successful, but it's hard to argue with the success of the system.

I also really like the idea of proportional fines for traffic violations.

So, whaddya think?

I spent many years studying and debating the principles of politics, but in my old age I realize that it's all bullshit, and one must study real-life examples if one is to have any real debate.

Wow! At first I was confuse if the police officer crashed into the car or the car crashed into the police officer. This video was awesome but for the fact that the noise was annoying. Good luck on getting out of that speeding ticket!

So what's the end game for this guy? He admits he gets a bunch of tickets because it doesn't always work, but he keeps trying it anyway?

"Yeah, wasn't it great that one time I got out of speeding ticket by making him forget why he pulled me over? It totally makes me forget my previous three license suspensions."

All I know is I live in a town where a bunch of white cops white a shot a white guy 30+ times...fuck going out like that....when I get pulled over for a speeding ticket in broad daylight, I slowly point at my back pocket as I say "Can I grab my wallet, sir?"

I keep a 9mm next to my bed in case of a break in, and if something ever happened, I would call 911 and get my ass out of the area...no way am I waiting in my house when a bunch of officers storm my house looking for a perpetrator. A (white) guy on the news caught a home-invader and told his son to call 911 while he held the guy at gunpoint...the cops came in and shot in him the back like 10 times.

I'm sure racism is the root of some small percentage of these issues, but most of the time its probably the suspect doing something sketchy because he feels innocent. Think about the worst-case scenario going through their heads, or risk getting shot, its that simple.

I think it is alarming that people get so up in arms about me making that poll. You can always just vote no? It's a only gauge to figure out what people think.. it's not like it's binding or anything.

Furthermore, I made the poll because swampgirl never got around to it and with the newest banning, so it seemed like an opportune time to do it.

I obviously didn't experience his presence as badly as some of you did, but why are you all of a sudden being all rass-ma-tass on my ass for this poll?

Ignore is there for a reason, if you want to use it. The only thing I thought was necessary was to strip him of his powers (which we can basically do with hobble now), because he misused his powers.

Personally I have no contact with choggie and I have no real interest in it either. When this matter is resolved, whichever outcome, I will not bring this up again, unless he does break rules again and should be ousted. I'm not arguing FOR him, I'm arguing from the rules of the sift. Bringing attention to problematic issues should not be stigmatized, or have you such short memories?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:

If you agree his "original" ban was justified, then why are you arguing in favor of repealing it? Furthermore I don't understand what you're intending by contrasting "personal ban" and "account ban".
Dag banned the person, not just the account. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. His behavior (that of the person) was destructive and vindictive to the site. What good would it do any of us to ban his account and allow him back to one day do it again?


Because banning the person was the wrong thing to do. He should have banned the choggie account and let him start over, until he broke the rules on the new one.

I'm not arguing for giving him his old account back, I'm arguing that he should be allowed to make a new account if he wants and have a chance to behave on that. If he can't then another ban can be in order. And if this happens a number of times, then, finally, a ban on his person would be in order.

He got capital punishment for a lot of speeding tickets and reckless driving - I think that's wrong.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
For the old-timers? No. For everyone. VS is not for the people who used to come here, it's for the people who come here now.
choggie is often portrayed as some sort of mad genius... like the Unabomber only less articulate and vastly more destructive.
For those who think we should resurrect choggie in any form: Why?
I concur that his video selection was interesting and unique, but there are lots of people who post interesting and unique videos. Not many people vote for them. choggie was successful because he got here early and didn't have to compete for views the way we all do now.
I disagree that he had anything interesting to say and, if he did, nobody could decipher it. Speaking in tongues does not make him a genius. If you miss choggie's "wisdom", volunteer as an aide on a schoolbus. Those kids call each other "fuckers" and talk about masturbation and circle-jerks left and right. You'll be bathing in choggiesque enlightenment for hours a day, 5 days a week.
If choggie really wants to return, let him email dag and make his case.


You are of course correct that this poll is for everyone, my quip was merely reflecting on that fact that no one who's been here for less than a year know anything of him, other than old comments.

As far as I know, choggie did return for a while on the user Sallyjune, which to my understanding dag knew about and left alone, because he behaved (I may be mistaken, so please correct me if this is wrong). This is essentially a unwritten pardon, but this account was instabanned by blankfist when he found out it was choggie behind the veil. (For the record, I didn't know it was him until after the ban and after the comment I made on the profile.) That was probably the first time the seed of this poll started for me.

I get an uncomfortable feeling when people (especially you, freedom-loving blankfist) go around banning accounts that have not broken any rules. If the user had made any threats or personal attacks or whatever, there would be a reason, but I don't think that the way it works now is a good one. We should only ban for "gross violations" of the sift guidelines, otherwise it should be up to admins to do it.

Same expressions on my face every time I get out of a speeding ticket.

>> ^inflatablevagina:
My point is even if the fine is $1000 I am going to speed sometime. If you say you don't speed.... I am calling bullshit. (p.s. im not picking on you.. i like you)
The speed limit around here is mostly 60 MPH. Do you know how many people actually drive 60 all the time? I bet if there are any... it's a relatively small percentage. If I want to drive 70 or 75 so be it. I leave plenty of space between me and the car in front of me. If someone tailgates me I move. I am all about being safe, but mandatory arbitrary speed limits on highways are ridiculous to me. I am totally fine speed limits in residential neighborhoods and school zones. I obey those speeds as I suspect most do.
I don't like stupid rules to be placed on me because other people can't handle their shit. I have an issue with a cop chasing me down the highway at 70 MPH and giving me a $250-300 ticket for speeding. Fuuuuuuck that. Cops have many uses in society and I bet you, I BET, that if they didn't have to babysit the roads then they would be able to perform an ACTUAL service to the community. Those cops didn't sign up to sit on the fucking highway and pull over people to ticket, did they? No most likely they signed up to patrol and protect the citizens... they have no place monitoring my speed.



Inflatable, you're exactly right. If laws worked to stop people from breaking the law, then states with death penalties would have no murders.

Whatever happened to punishment fitting the crime? Most of all punishment these days is monetary. Speeding tickets are a cash cow for the state. They make loads of money, and they also give their officers a quota so they can ensure they make that same revenue amount each year.

You feel you're a safe driver, and you also feel you should be able to drive 70 or 75 in the 60 MPH zone, but the Statists around you think you're too dangerous and irresponsible to do so and there must be a law against you doing so - and men with guns should pull you over to cite you.

The State sends these men with guns out to force you to obey their belief system which also generates income for them. How is this not racketeering? How is this not akin to paying protection money to the mob? And if you disagree with their monetized dogma, the men with guns throw you in a cage.

What say you of this court case? Is Mr. Barskey wrong because he should be following the law because, well, it's the law?

He broke the law. Whether the law is just or unjust is immaterial to his case.

Is his decorum reprehensible therefore he's deserving of punishment?

I observed no 'extra' punishment for Mr. Barskey appearing sloppy and adversarial. I award him points for sounding like Ed Norton.

Or, are speeding laws ridiculous because it's a victimless crime?

Speeding tickets are not preemptive, they are a reaction to the unlawful act of speeding. Speeding is not a victimless crime, it creates unnecessarily higher risks of injury or death and destruction of property from an already inherently dangerous activity. It's entirely possible that certain speed limits and their excessive fines are designed mainly for revenue enhancement (like those "unlawful" ticket quotas) but that's not Mr. Barskey's battle.

Is a $200 fine appropriate for speeding?

There are no universal guidelines, but 20 MPH over the limit is usually bad, and even the most forgiving cops can't work around that.

Do you think it's fair courts can add a penalty to a penalty?

Yes, because time equals money.

As Obi-wan Kenobi said, "You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." Mr. Barskey could have asked for a lesser fine based on any number of variables. He could also have requested a payment plan if the $200 fine would be too much to pay all at once. While well within his rights, he's giving the "liberty movement" a bad name with these head-butting antics.

The State is a Beast, no doubt, and a necessary evil. Because the fksticks in my state's government--like all governments at all levels--spent more money than they had, one of their "solutions" was to double all license and tag registration fees. ALL the people are being punished during a recession for politicians' spending addiction (aka "biz as usual"). Life remains unfair.