Oregon vs California law graphic

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

others.
Barry Bonds is not a member of the "Super Rich" by any means - his
wealth would be sneered at by the real power brokers
(e.g. Rothschild's, Rockefeller's and their ilk).

He's more than rich enough to qualify for what you claimed.

Keating and Lay got slaps on the wrist - if a blue collar criminal
stole equal value, the combined sentences would run into the tens of
thousands of years.

Nope.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Nonsense. Read the California Vehicle Code (and the California
Driver's Handook specifically has a sections about bicycles, and this
is the material driver's have to learn to get a license (to pass the
written test).
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln tells them
that they must merge into a bicycle lane before turning across it.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike has a serious
of statements about drivers' responsibility around cyclists. It
specifically mentions left turns and has some diagrams to emphasize
the point.

Do California drivers actually pay attention to the drivers' manual
beyond rote memorization for the tests? If so, their (California
drivers') behavior is highly unusual.

You claimed they didn't know the law. They do know it. When they
ignore it, it is done on purpose.


And I was going to bring cheese.
Do you feel oompelled to comment when you can't think of anything
sensible to say?

Like Zaumen's "idiot" comment above?

It's quite approprate given your childish behavior.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

others.
Barry Bonds is not a member of the "Super Rich" by any means - his
wealth would be sneered at by the real power brokers
(e.g. Rothschild's, Rockefeller's and their ilk).

He's more than rich enough to qualify for what you claimed.

What crime has Barry Bonds been convicted of?

Keating and Lay got slaps on the wrist - if a blue collar criminal
stole equal value, the combined sentences would run into the tens of
thousands of years.

Nope.

Citation?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Only when those things do not offend the ruling classes, e.g. abortion
(since the rich can easily travel to a country where abortion is legal
if they want one). Also, many laws are not enforced against the super
rich, since they can cause police and prosecutors to lose jobs and are
hard to convict since they have better legal representation that the
prosecutor's office.
Conspiracy theory.

Pay attention to the real world. Here is hint, the laws as written
are NOT the real world.

Non sequitur.

Well, Zaumen quote the laws as if they govern real world events.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Nonsense. Read the California Vehicle Code (and the California
Driver's Hand[b]ook specifically has a sections about bicycles, and this
is the material driver's have to learn to get a license (to pass the
written test).
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln tells them
that they must merge into a bicycle lane before turning across it.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike has a serious
of statements about drivers' responsibility around cyclists. It
specifically mentions left turns and has some diagrams to emphasize
the point.
Do California drivers actually pay attention to the drivers' manual
beyond rote memorization for the tests? If so, their (California
drivers') behavior is highly unusual.

You claimed they didn't know the law. They do know it. When they
ignore it, it is done on purpose.

Knowing the law enough to answer multiple choice questions on a test and
understanding and retaining the information are two different things (in
the real world).
[i]
And I was going to bring cheese.
Do you feel [c]ompelled to comment when you can't think of anything
sensible to say?

Like Zaumen's "idiot" comment above?

It's quite approprate given your childish behavior.

Citation?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Z. wrote:


LOL. We have our own city utility. It's not going to do anything that
would create a political controversy. So we get our squabbles about
stop signs and speed limits. With a very engaged citizenry, nobody is
going to try to put an electric plant in anyone's back yard. Not in
our town, so it wouldn't even get off the ground.

That's what I thought. See, the rest of the world is not like Palo Alto.
Those electric plants have to go SOMEWHERE, else Palo Alto goes dark. So
your NIMBY problems are not like your neighboring cities, are they?


Ask Barry Bonds if laws are not enforced against the "super rich".
Also ask Charles Keating, Kenneth Lay (by seance), and a host of
others.

Are you agreeing with me?
Because pointing out a few people in trouble by no means shows that
"important" issues are not settled by rich people. Why, pray tell, is
there a "bump" in the income tax slope, for example? Makes no sense,
except if you are on the high side of the bump.

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Only when those things do not offend the ruling classes, e.g. abortion
(since the rich can easily travel to a country where abortion is legal
if they want one). Also, many laws are not enforced against the super
rich, since they can cause police and prosecutors to lose jobs and are
hard to convict since they have better legal representation that the
prosecutor's office.
Conspiracy theory.

Pay attention to the real world. Here is hint, the laws as written
are NOT the real world.
Non sequitur.

Well, Zaumen quote the laws as if they govern real world events.

Tell that one to the judge the next time you get a moving violation.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

others.
Barry Bonds is not a member of the "Super Rich" by any means - his
wealth would be sneered at by the real power brokers
(e.g. Rothschild's, Rockefeller's and their ilk).
He's more than rich enough to qualify for what you claimed.

What crime has Barry Bonds been convicted of?

The trail is still pending. Your claim was special treatment for the
wealthy, which would keep someone with his income out of court if
you were right.

Keating and Lay got slaps on the wrist - if a blue collar criminal
stole equal value, the combined sentences would run into the tens of
thousands of years.
Nope.

Citation?

Read the newspapers.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Do California drivers actually pay attention to the drivers' manual
beyond rote memorization for the tests? If so, their (California
drivers') behavior is highly unusual.
You claimed they didn't know the law. They do know it. When they
ignore it, it is done on purpose.

Knowing the law enough to answer multiple choice questions on a test
and understanding and retaining the information are two different
things (in the real world).

There's a driving part of the test too.[i]

Like Zaumen's "idiot" comment above?
It's quite approprate given your childish behavior.

Citation?

Idiot.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

LOL. We have our own city utility. It's not going to do anything
that
would create a political controversy. So we get our squabbles about
stop signs and speed limits. With a very engaged citizenry, nobody is
going to try to put an electric plant in anyone's back yard. Not in
our town, so it wouldn't even get off the ground.

That's what I thought. See, the rest of the world is not like Palo
Alto. Those electric plants have to go SOMEWHERE, else Palo Alto goes
dark. So your NIMBY problems are not like your neighboring cities, are
they?

The claim was that our NIMBY drivers want the speed limit low in their
neighborhood as they speed through everyone else's neighborhood. That
sort of attitude is pretty much universal in the U.S.

Ask Barry Bonds if laws are not enforced against the "super rich".
Also ask Charles Keating, Kenneth Lay (by seance), and a host of
others.

Are you agreeing with me?
Because pointing out a few people in trouble by no means shows that
"important" issues are not settled by rich people. Why, pray tell, is
there a "bump" in the income tax slope, for example? Makes no sense,
except if you are on the high side of the bump.

Probably because it was done by lawyers who never thought of
plotting it on a graph when the wrote the legislation. Knowing
even basic differential calculus is not a requirement for a law
degree.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB