Sin_City_Superhero: Bisu:When you are arrested for murdering someone, you aren't being deprived of your right to kill people; there is no such right.That's right. There is NO right to commit murder. Not for me. Not for you. Not for a woman, a man, a black a mexican, a genie or anyone else. There is, however, a right to vote. In the 1920's women were granted the right to vote. A right that had existed for black men for 50 years, and for white men a lot longer than that. Apparantly, "We the people" took a while to clarify.
The Irresponsible Captain: Too little, too late. By the time it gets through appeals all cars will be self driving.
OgreMagi: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.You're trolling, but I'll answer you. The current psychological tests for potential violence have an error rate of 1 in 3. In other words, they don't farking know and are just guessing.
Earguy: Fine. EVERYBODY gets the test, if it takes a lot of senile drivers off the road.
Bisu: RandomRandom: The framers of the constitution could not possibly have meant for the 2nd amendment to include semi-automatic weapons, as those weapons simply did not exist..Incorrect.The alternative to them wanting the inclusion of semi-automatic weapons is that they wanted only mid 18th century arms to be allowed to the people forever thereafter. That's even less logical considering the origins of the 2nd amendment. You are suggesting they only wanted the military to have weapons developed after 1789, and not the people, even though the entire purpose of the amendment was to give the people the ability to defend against a modernly armed military.Your suggestion requires the framers be very stupid and short-sighted. It requires them to have wanted only weapons from the past to be included in the "right," but for them to not state that.If they wanted only pre-1789 weaponry allowed via the 2nd amendment, they would have written that. They didn't.
purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: Lawrence Welk cranked up to 10 r
smitty04: "This is about saving their lives, as well as the lives of others on the road,"Locking up all Black people would cut crime in half.Both are examples of discrimination.
Darkviking: [i6.photobucket.com image 300x385]Why all the hate for Snowbird?
Fade2black: smitty04: "This is about saving their lives, as well as the lives of others on the road,"Locking up all Black people would cut crime in half.Both are examples of discrimination.So? Discrimination is a natural part of society, even if you won't admit to it. Not everyone is equal.
stiletto_the_wise: Earguy: Fine. EVERYBODY gets the test, if it takes a lot of senile drivers off the road.The olds would still be the only ones having a problem with it. Inside they know what a menace they are behind the wheel, but they're too proud to admit they need to stay off the road.
Dinjiin: Randomly: Old people vote, crazy people don't.How'd this guy get into office then?
doczoidberg: How much will they friggin charge for the test?That's really the only problem is see.
ennuie: what do you think people who fail the test are going to do? Stop driving? Maybe some of them. But many of them will continue to drive unlicensed (and therefore uninsured).
yukichigai: doczoidberg: How much will they friggin charge for the test?That's really the only problem is see.In my mind it's something akin to the eye test you have to go through to get your Driver's License. It's simple enough that the person taking your application at the DMV office can perform it, perform it correctly, and isn't too put out by the whole thing.Really, this should be viewed from the same perspective as an eyesight test. It's a proposed test to check on a VITAL ABILITY FOR DRIVING. Nobody really is up in arms over the "unreasonable demand" that you verify you can read roadsigns before they let you on the road.Hell, my only objection is that its only supposed to apply to those over 80. If you ask me, EVERYONE applying for a Driver's License should be given a "basic cognitive test".
sgnilward: Which way to the farmers market?A)Doesn't matter stomp on the gas instead of the brakeB)Doesn't matter stomp on the gas instead of the brakeC)Doesn't matter stomp on the gas instead of the brakeD)All of the above
purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: I just so happens that I have Lawrence Welk cranked up to 10 right now.
GeneralJim: Earguy: Fine. EVERYBODY gets the test, if it takes a lot of senile drivers off the road.You win. This is the way to do it. It's WAY too easy to KEEP a license most places. In Hawai'i: LOTS of drinking ---> LOTS of drunks ---> LOTS of drunk driving ---> LOTS of lost licenses. Mopeds and bicycles are big here, and a surprising number use them because it's that or nothing. So, people without licenses can still get around. People unable to think properly should not be driving. Never happen, though, because the state is heavily Democratic.LOL yeah it's Obama's fault.This has nothing to do with political alignment, friend.
It does NOW.
kabar: L.D. Ablo: Good.Winters are hell down here in Yuma, Arizona because of the old drivers. Earlier, I was behind someone who came to a stop while making a right turn. Nothing blocking the path. I waited a bit, then honked.He gave me the finger.It's just a matter of time before that guy hurts himself or others.I spotted this in town a few weeks ago:[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 299x400]As a fellow Yuman, THIS. My hate for snowbirds knows no bounds.
Do you think people study improving mass transit for fun or do you think that maybe there needs to be a demand to drive improvement?
I'll see your and raise you
Yes, "average", if you take the strict numerical mean. But your graph shows 2/3 of the cities beat, or equal, single-passenger vehicles.
GeneralJim: . . . uses more energy per person-mile traveled, on average, than traveling with one person in a car.
There then is the very large question as to what constitutes a firearm suitable for public ownership. Most Republicans consider themselves to be constitutional orientalists, except when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Because when the constitution was originally written, firearms were single shot, very slowly hand-reloading muskets. The framers of the constitution could not possibly have meant for the 2nd amendment to include semi-automatic weapons, as those weapons simply did not exist.
Adolf Oliver Nipples: You think the NRA is a powerful lobby? They don't have shiat on the AARP. Old people will never, ever be disqualified from driving because the AARP will never allow it, even if it can be proven that they kill 30,000 people a year.
The problem with that chart is that while all those cities have rail transit systems that would probably qualify as light rail under FTA rules, a number of those are also heritage streetcar lines that are operated with historic equipment. The bottom four systems on that list, River Rail Streetcar (Little Rock), MATA Trolley (Memphis), the Kenosha Streetcar, and the Galveston Island Trolley are all heritage systems operated with restored historic vehicles on short systems (about 10 miles or less of total track.) In comparison, the four top systems, the San Diego Trolley, MAX (Portland), TRAX (Salt Lake City), and MetroLink (St. Louis) are all much larger systems (35-53 miles of track each) with contemporary vehicles (that are presumably more energy-efficient.) The top four cities are also much larger and denser than the bottom four cities, and since the chart is based on energy use per passenger-mile (1 passenger carried 1 mile), it's also much easier for them to attract higher ridership to offset the vehicles' energy consumption.
Begoggle: This has nothing to do with political alignment, friend.
whidbey: Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 28 2017 12:00:03
Runtime: 0.449 sec (449 ms)