So let me get this straight rich gits with chauffeurs get priority over everyone else because why, why the fuck, why? So do you or do you not count a professional driver in the car with one, just one fucking person actually travelling to a destination. That other person is just a labour saving device and not a person going to a destination, yet the rich git in the back gets priority over the nobodies who can not afford a limousine with an associated driver. Should a taxi with one passenger be in the HOV lane or not, reality is no but in order to favour limousine passenger, oh yeah.

So car safety should take into account in the other half of "Its how you drive the car more than what you drive that get's you into trouble", assuming a two car collision and one making a mistake whilst the other is just an innocent victim of that mistake. "So is is what you drive and how others drive, that gets people into trouble".

So the whole system should be revised because statistics prove it is extremely dangerous and causing a huge amount of pain and suffering. Just barely reasonable for the past and most certainly not good enough for the future.

Michelle Slaughter
Earl Gallows
Trigger Winchester
Otis Hangem
Billy Bob Guilty

-

I saw one of those driving through a parking lot once. It saw every light pole as an oncoming car, so the headlights would go bright, dim, bright, dim, endlessly. It was hilarious.

The technology in 1980 was . . . not fully developed.

I knew a guy, years ago, who had the magic touch for that - he'd just flick the rearview mirror and it would shine the headlights of the car behind us perfectly back in the driver's eyes. I wish I would do that.

I'm ok with them watching porn, as long as they don't have to see that rampart violence that litters TV.

Let's teach our kids that if someone fucks with them, it's ok to fuck them back.

It is not a necessity. Not any more than a computer, an internet connection or a dishwasher. It's a matter of convenience and enjoyment. People want to watch their shows. And to watch them, they need to be able to do just that. They don't care that they get channels they don't want to get. What difference does it make for them?

Hmm... couldn't we simply do away with them instead of me? I mean, it does accomplish the same purpose.

The problem is that the only real option you have is abstaining. You don't want this behaviour? No cable TV for you. Because there's no such thing as a "channel mix" that you want. Have you ever taken a look at the average "basic mix" of channels? Nobody, absolutely nobody, on this planet would choose these channels. No matter what his interests.

If you're not happy with this, your choice is to do without. Not only without the channels you don't want, but also the ones that you would want. Don't want Sports and Bible TV? Ok, no SciFi for you either.

And most people would rather grin and bear it than abstain. Essentially what it means to them is that they don't get the 100+ channels promised but actually just about 10, with 90+ more that could as well not exist.

Cable? It's the only reason for having a TV anymore.

Why make your kids cry? www.thepiratebay...

Where is it, and how does one get there?

When the iPhone first came out it didn't have apps. People where expected to use the browser for 3rd party apps.

Are you volunteering to feed and provide health care to all these unwanted babies you want to force women to bear? No? You hate Obamacare? Then you aren't really pro-life, you're pro-overpopulation. You want those babies born, but how to care for them, how to feed all those extra mouths, well, that's someone else's problem, not yours, huh? You willing to go to war, kill off some other mouths so those babies can eat? And you think the mother can always find a way to feed her child if you make her desperate enough? And if she can't do it, then I suppose you'd blame her and call her a bad mother.