Driver to drive?

[Joel Koltner]

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2009.07.21.20.53.29.968569@example.net...

FWIW, the food was surprisingly good - probably because the inmates do
the cooking.

Did you have access to, e.g., books/magazines to read? Playing cards?

If so it seems like it's mostly a big inconvenience than actual punishment.


BTW, I would think that you were probably happier than the cops "lost" your
weed and just charged you with over-boozing rather than possession, yes?

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmo]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:51:12 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:27:46 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:59:13 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt

Fascinating that such a free country's citizens let retarded nazis like
you and your mentalities endure.

You never did get around to answering my questions about the charges,
bail and jail time.

He also seems to have a very odd definition of "free".

You are clueless as to what 'my definition' of any fucking word is,
much less the word "free".

But really, Gunner, why do you keep feeding this troll?

You're an idiot, Rich.

And why isn't
it "Gunnar"?

He still thinks he is in the field.

Thanks,
Rich

What are you thanking the idiot for?

 

[life imitates life]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:55:40 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:

FWIW, the food was surprisingly good - probably because the inmates do
the cooking.

Cheers!
Rich

They do in ALL jails. It comes down to how retarded the state is about
what they buy to feed them with, which comes down to the local jail
billing the state as much as possible for something that the real cost of
was as cheap as possible. The result is that ALL populations suffer.
Both the tax payer population, and the inmate population, many of which
are taxpayers that were illicitly jailed by Nazi pigs that do not know
what their oath is.

The modern "Law Enforcement" environment in the US is the biggest
failure of what this country is about thus far. Now that Obama is here
to finish things off, you can stick your head between your legs and kiss
what America once was goodbye.

I saw the Chicago riots and many examples since. I know what they are
about.

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:04:40 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2009.07.21.20.53.29.968569@example.net...
FWIW, the food was surprisingly good - probably because the inmates do
the cooking.

Did you have access to, e.g., books/magazines to read? Playing cards?

If so it seems like it's mostly a big inconvenience than actual punishment.


BTW, I would think that you were probably happier than the cops "lost" your
weed and just charged you with over-boozing rather than possession, yes?

Do you actually feel that he should have spent ANY time in jail for his
"crime"?

Having "weed" is a goddamned misdemeanor in all 50 states, you retarded
dumbfucks!

That means that the retarded Nazi pigs should NOT even be gumming up
the jails with arrests for petty misdemeanor crimes like simple
possession of weed. IN ANY STATE AT ANY TIME. For that matter, they
shouldn't even be gumming up the courts with it either. Other than the
FACT that they do it for monetary gain alone.

GET OVER IT, you retarded pieces of shit (Nazi Pigs). Learn the same
facts that the cops that do not pull the horseshit you pull have learned.
Get off your little high horses, ya stupid bastards. There are plenty of
cops that do not pull the same crap you retarded bastards pull.

 

[Joel Koltner]

"UltimatePatriot" <UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org> wrote in message
news:8iac65hn74nvglaiclebpijr840n0c225p@4ax.com...

Do you actually feel that he should have spent ANY time in jail for his
"crime"?

No, not personally, but I accept that if I break laws, even if they're
ill-conceived, it should come as no surprise if I end up in jail (or whatever
the prescribed penalty is for breaking the law in question).

Having "weed" is a goddamned misdemeanor in all 50 states, you retarded
dumbfucks!

It depends on your history, how much you have, and whether or not they think
you're intending to deal -- it can absolutely be a felony in some states.

Other than the
FACT that they do it for monetary gain alone.

Sure, and some small towns use traffic enforcement more as a means of
generating their own funding than a targeted desire to increase traffic
safety. At the end of the day, though, we are a democracy, and we get what we
"deserve" -- allow your small town police department to grow to such a size
that taxes can't fund it (and you're unwilling to raise taxes), you get
aggressive traffic enforcement. Allow the DEA to grow to such a size that
taxes can't fund it, you get laws regarding the amount of fines, property
confiscation, etc. that are more about funding operations than actually
reducing drug crime (much less addressing some of the actual problems of drug
abuse).

There are plenty of
cops that do not pull the same crap you retarded bastards pull.

There are plenty of good cops and a small number of bad cops. I do expect
that the majority of cops are like the majority of people, though -- they
ended up with a job they can perform reasonably well, but they haven't
necessarily thought all that deeply about how much of what they do they really
believe in and which bits they're doing because, well, it's their job and they
took an oath, even though they disagree with it.

They are probably zero Sheriff Taylors out there anymore, though.

Are you familiar with this story? -->
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/05/texas.police.seizures/index.html

---Joel

 

[krw]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:13:10 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:17:10 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


You got me there. How is a CO detector different than any other code
item? Just to make the point, they must be AC powered and *DO*
require renovation to the electrical system.

I wanna hear this twisting....

He was not referring to code items, idiot. He was referring to the
state of the building, and what compliance policies cover to that effect.

We all know you can't read Dimbulb. That's one (but only one of many)
reason you're AlwaysWrong.

 

[krw]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
<hornetd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 20, 11:17 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne



horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 3:39 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne

horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:12 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:50:40 GMT, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article <3mv765da9sgkg1k9t2iiq8lovjgea4m...@4ax.com>, jk <kles...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:

 There was a transition period
allowed to give plenty of time for the switch over, mean while, they
simply did things like 480 volts in a 240 volt receptacle..
A particular inspectior in a particular jurisdiction might have
allowed this, but it would not be to code, and ther eIS NO GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE any where in the NEC.

Well, no, but any attempt at forcing compliance with a code that didn't exist
at the time the installation was made falls under the Constitutional
prohibitions against ex post facto legislation...

Fire codes do this all the time, particularly in commercial and rental
units.  Smoke and CO detectors being prime examples.

OK Explain how requiring the installation of smoke or CO detectors in
rental or commercial properties after the enactment of the enabling
legislation is the same as applying the current electric code to a
preexisting installation.

They're both ex post facto laws.  The buildings were existing long
before the law was passed.

To be an ex post facto law the the requirements you are complaining
about would have to require a change to what is already built.

Complaining?  No, just stating a fact.  Yes, the building was already
built.

Requiring the addition of smoke, CO, and explosive gas detectors to an
existing building as a condition of a renewal of the use and occupancy
only regulates the future condition of the building and then only as a
condition of it being used in a certain way such as rental property.

...and commercial property, and not on change of residents.
*IMMEDIATELY*.  Same with sprinkler systems.

The code in question would be an ex post facto law if it required that
the existing electrical plant be brought up to current code, that the
pitch of the stairs be changed, or that the width of doorways that met
the code at the time of construction be changed to match a new code
requirement in the absence of a change in use.  The difference is
admittedly subtle but there is a difference.

You got me there.  How is a CO detector different than any other code
item?  Just to make the point, they must be AC powered and *DO*
require renovation to the electrical system.

I wanna hear this twisting....

Site

Building. Or do you mean "cite", as in "citation". Vermont, 2006-7
and still going on. All existing commercial and rental structures
were required to install *wired* CO detectors and commercial buildings
were/are (not sure of the deadline) required to install sprinkler
systems. The VFW I frequented didn't know where they were going to
get the $100-$150K to install sprinklers (they also needed a 6" water
main to supply it would have to get a right-of-way to). Now, tell me
that ex post facto laws are illegal.

 

[krw]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:27:46 -0700, Gunner Asch
<gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:59:13 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:17:53 -0700, Gunner Asch
gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:

Fascinating that you have had so much contact with cops over the
years...isnt it?

Fascinating that such a free country's citizens let retarded nazis like
you and your mentalities endure.

You never did get around to answering my questions about the charges,
bail and jail time.

Embarassed?

Clearly not, but DimBulb should be too embarrassed to post.

 

[krw]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:55:40 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:20:19 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

So how many occasions HAVE you done time? And what were the convictions
for? Dope or child molestation Id bet

Failure to pay corruption money. (caught with no mandatory car insurance,
despite the fact that I was the injured party - some dildobrain rear-ended
me at the "Yield" sign at the top of the exit ramp.)

Did "four days" - you report to the county jail after work on Friday
night, sit there Sat. and Sun, and they wake you up about 4 AM on
Monday morning so you can get back to work.

Hell, in VT they would have you report at 8:00PM (after diner) on
Friday and let you out at noon (before lunch - notice the pattern?)
Sunday. That was counted as three days. An acquaintance did a month
that way.

 

[krw]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:07:20 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
<Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:46:14 -0700, Gunner Asch
gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:

Ive just been toodling along, now I guess Ill have to take it out of
idle.

Thanks!

Strange, the things that retarded twits do that makes one feel that he
needs to thank the other.

You guys do know that it is the little things like this that define you
as being less than human, right?

We know you can't read DimBulb, but do try harder.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:04:40 -0700, Joel Koltner wrote:

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2009.07.21.20.53.29.968569@example.net...
FWIW, the food was surprisingly good - probably because the inmates do
the cooking.

Did you have access to, e.g., books/magazines to read? Playing cards?

Yeah, in the county slam, where I went for failure to pay corruption

money. They even had a cribbage board! Also a whole freaking gym.

If so it seems like it's mostly a big inconvenience than actual punishment.


BTW, I would think that you were probably happier than the cops "lost" your
weed and just charged you with over-boozing rather than possession, yes?

That was a different time; that was only the city slam - they had pretty
much nothing but baloney sandwiches. When they put me in the room,
everybody there immediately asked, "Got a cigarette?"

But, yeah, I didn't mind at all that the herb had disappeared on that one. ;-)

Yes, I've been incarcerated more than once. It didn't kill me, so it must
have made me stronger. ;-D

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:18:39 -0700, Joel Koltner wrote:

"UltimatePatriot" <UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org> wrote in message
news:8iac65hn74nvglaiclebpijr840n0c225p@4ax.com...
Do you actually feel that he should have spent ANY time in jail for his
"crime"?

No, not personally, but I accept that if I break laws, even if they're
ill-conceived, it should come as no surprise if I end up in jail (or whatever
the prescribed penalty is for breaking the law in question).

Having "weed" is a goddamned misdemeanor in all 50 states, you retarded
dumbfucks!

It depends on your history, how much you have, and whether or not they think
you're intending to deal -- it can absolutely be a felony in some states.

Other than the
FACT that they do it for monetary gain alone.

Sure, and some small towns use traffic enforcement more as a means of
generating their own funding than a targeted desire to increase traffic
safety. At the end of the day, though, we are a democracy, and we get what we
"deserve" -- allow your small town police department to grow to such a size
that taxes can't fund it (and you're unwilling to raise taxes), you get
aggressive traffic enforcement. Allow the DEA to grow to such a size that
taxes can't fund it, you get laws regarding the amount of fines, property
confiscation, etc. that are more about funding operations than actually
reducing drug crime (much less addressing some of the actual problems of drug
abuse).

There are plenty of
cops that do not pull the same crap you retarded bastards pull.

There are plenty of good cops and a small number of bad cops. I do expect
that the majority of cops are like the majority of people, though -- they
ended up with a job they can perform reasonably well, but they haven't
necessarily thought all that deeply about how much of what they do they really
believe in and which bits they're doing because, well, it's their job and they
took an oath, even though they disagree with it.

They are probably zero Sheriff Taylors out there anymore, though.

Are you familiar with this story? --
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/05/texas.police.seizures/index.html

I must admit that every time I've been busted for drunk driving, the cops
were impeccably polite and well-behaved - mind you, this was in
Minnesota, and I'm white. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Joel Koltner]

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2009.07.22.01.25.46.242860@example.net...

Yes, I've been incarcerated more than once. It didn't kill me, so it must
have made me stronger. ;-D

Well, Rich, you're clearly choosing to live your life a bit outside the
accepted "norms," so the fact that you're willing to deal maturely with the
consequences of those choices (e.g., you're not out to murder the cops who
arrested you nor call up the ACLU for the cops not letting you read Penthouse
while incarcerated) and openly express your views (rather than saying you
believe one thing and doing another as some politicians do) is pretty
respectable. There might even be a small town in, say, Texas that would vote
you in as mayor if you ever had the desire.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

Crossposted just to share with the s.e.d folks:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:04:06 -0500, Karl Townsend wrote:

1.

Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.

Depression is when you lose yours.

Recovery is when Obama loses his.

2.
Al Gore, Bill Clinton & Barrack Obama go to heaven,
God addresses Al first. ''Al, what do you believe in?''

Al replies: "Well, I believe that I won that election, but that it was
your will that I did not serve. And I've come to understand that now.''

God thinks for a second and says: "Very good. Come and sit at my
left.''
God then addresses Bill. "Bill, what do you believe in?''

Bill replies: "I believe in forgiveness. I've sinned, but I've never
held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope no grudges are held against
me.''

God thinks for a second and says: "You are forgiven, my son. Come and
sit at my right.''

Then God addresses Barrack. "Barrack, what do you believe in?''
He replies: "I believe you're in my chair."

LOL! Thanks!
Rich

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
<hornetd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 19, 3:39 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne



horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:12 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:50:40 GMT, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article <3mv765da9sgkg1k9t2iiq8lovjgea4m...@4ax.com>, jk <kles...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:

 There was a transition period
allowed to give plenty of time for the switch over, mean while, they
simply did things like 480 volts in a 240 volt receptacle..
A particular inspectior in a particular jurisdiction might have
allowed this, but it would not be to code, and ther eIS NO GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE any where in the NEC.

Well, no, but any attempt at forcing compliance with a code that didn't exist
at the time the installation was made falls under the Constitutional
prohibitions against ex post facto legislation...

Fire codes do this all the time, particularly in commercial and rental
units.  Smoke and CO detectors being prime examples.

OK Explain how requiring the installation of smoke or CO detectors in
rental or commercial properties after the enactment of the enabling
legislation is the same as applying the current electric code to a
preexisting installation.

They're both ex post facto laws.  The buildings were existing long
before the law was passed.

To be an ex post facto law the the requirements you are complaining
about would have to require a change to what is already built.
Requiring the addition of smoke, CO, and explosive gas detectors to an
existing building as a condition of a renewal of the use and occupancy
only regulates the future condition of the building and then only as a
condition of it being used in a certain way such as rental property.
The code in question would be an ex post facto law if it required that
the existing electrical plant be brought up to current code, that the
pitch of the stairs be changed, or that the width of doorways that met
the code at the time of construction be changed to match a new code
requirement in the absence of a change in use. The difference is
admittedly subtle but there is a difference.

I can detect that you have not been observant about all the retrofits
that have been mandated by ADA.

 

[krw]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:39:55 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2009.07.22.01.25.46.242860@example.net...
Yes, I've been incarcerated more than once. It didn't kill me, so it must
have made me stronger. ;-D

Well, Rich, you're clearly choosing to live your life a bit outside the
accepted "norms," so the fact that you're willing to deal maturely with the
consequences of those choices (e.g., you're not out to murder the cops who
arrested you nor call up the ACLU for the cops not letting you read Penthouse
while incarcerated) and openly express your views (rather than saying you
believe one thing and doing another as some politicians do) is pretty
respectable. There might even be a small town in, say, Texas that would vote
you in as mayor if you ever had the desire.

Hell, Minnesota might just "elect" him Senator.

 

[Richard Cranium]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:08:20 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
<Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote:

<<<<<Snip>>>>>

Have you ever committed a selfless, honorable
act in your entire life?

He sure did Archie; he DEFINITELY did. Last week he saved your life.

He killed a shit-eating dog!

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:18:39 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

It depends on your history,

In an absolute Nazi state, sure.

how much you have,

99 times out of 100 they had no business nor cause to be looking to
find it to begin with.

and whether or not they think
you're intending to deal

You're an idiot. They have laws, which have parameters,and that has
nothing to do with "what they think".

-- it can absolutely be a felony in some states.

Nobody was talking about dealing, dipshit. Simple possession is not a
felony in any state.

 

[Capt. Cave Man]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:30:16 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
hornetd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 20, 11:17 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne



horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 3:39 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne

horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:12 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:50:40 GMT, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article <3mv765da9sgkg1k9t2iiq8lovjgea4m...@4ax.com>, jk <kles...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:

 There was a transition period
allowed to give plenty of time for the switch over, mean while, they
simply did things like 480 volts in a 240 volt receptacle..
A particular inspectior in a particular jurisdiction might have
allowed this, but it would not be to code, and ther eIS NO GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE any where in the NEC.

Well, no, but any attempt at forcing compliance with a code that didn't exist
at the time the installation was made falls under the Constitutional
prohibitions against ex post facto legislation...

Fire codes do this all the time, particularly in commercial and rental
units.  Smoke and CO detectors being prime examples.

OK Explain how requiring the installation of smoke or CO detectors in
rental or commercial properties after the enactment of the enabling
legislation is the same as applying the current electric code to a
preexisting installation.

They're both ex post facto laws.  The buildings were existing long
before the law was passed.

To be an ex post facto law the the requirements you are complaining
about would have to require a change to what is already built.

Complaining?  No, just stating a fact.  Yes, the building was already
built.

Requiring the addition of smoke, CO, and explosive gas detectors to an
existing building as a condition of a renewal of the use and occupancy
only regulates the future condition of the building and then only as a
condition of it being used in a certain way such as rental property.

...and commercial property, and not on change of residents.
*IMMEDIATELY*.  Same with sprinkler systems.

The code in question would be an ex post facto law if it required that
the existing electrical plant be brought up to current code, that the
pitch of the stairs be changed, or that the width of doorways that met
the code at the time of construction be changed to match a new code
requirement in the absence of a change in use.  The difference is
admittedly subtle but there is a difference.

You got me there.  How is a CO detector different than any other code
item?  Just to make the point, they must be AC powered and *DO*
require renovation to the electrical system.

I wanna hear this twisting....

Site

Building. Or do you mean "cite", as in "citation". Vermont, 2006-7
and still going on. All existing commercial and rental structures
were required to install *wired* CO detectors and commercial buildings
were/are (not sure of the deadline) required to install sprinkler
systems. The VFW I frequented didn't know where they were going to
get the $100-$150K to install sprinklers (they also needed a 6" water
main to supply it would have to get a right-of-way to). Now, tell me
that ex post facto laws are illegal.

How did they get classified as a business?

Install a mini-halon system, and drop down masks. That would have to
be cheaper with no easement rights needed.

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmo]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:31:09 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:27:46 -0700, Gunner Asch
gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:59:13 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:17:53 -0700, Gunner Asch
gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:

Fascinating that you have had so much contact with cops over the
years...isnt it?

Fascinating that such a free country's citizens let retarded nazis like
you and your mentalities endure.

You never did get around to answering my questions about the charges,
bail and jail time.

Embarassed?

Clearly not, but DimBulb should be too embarrassed to post.

How can I answer to a pile of horseshit that he is making up?

I know it was hard to accomplish, but you managed to be even more
retarded than he is, Keith. Good job!