Forum Replies Created
October 6, 2009 at 6:46 pm in reply to: RANT: More bike lanes created for bike thugs to ignore #676839
Penman: nice comeback, your proved wrong by RCW and resort to weak sarcasm. You seem to be of the mindset of a lot of drivers that sharing the road is what happens when your not using it. At which point any obstacle is expected to remove it self immediately. Sadly for you, reality, and the letter of the law doesn’t see it that way. oh well, lets talk about bike licenses! and that one guy I saw once who ran a stop sign
I barely take time to spell check, and now your saying there is some sort of intelligence standard on the WSB? your trying to kill me with lolzOctober 5, 2009 at 6:18 pm in reply to: Huge Rant to parking patrol in junction lot outside Fresh Bistro #678689
I think people on here just like the hear the sound of their own voices. Logic is a difficult concept. I should start a new thread every day that I don’t get a hug at work.
look at the history of the “ask an officer” section of the times/pi this comes up about once every 4 months, and the interpretation of the law is different every time. Also, this answer is hardly definitive because the last sentence is totally subjective.
This is a pretty basic exercise for criminal justice students. Please find *any* law that supports your statement of police being obligated to “protect and serve”… while your at it, try to produce a picture of a Seattle or king county police cruiser that says the phrase.
The sad truth is the phrase is associated with police, because it was featured in many TV shows. The sadder part is that people actually believe it.
This country was founded on the concept of individual freedoms (bill of rights) and that extends to freedoms of others from unjust prosecution (Amendment 4), to your own freedom to defend your person, and property (Amendment 2). It’s very depressing to me when people approach this with statements like “this is new to me” and “one of those conspiracy theory’s” frankly you sound uneducated about the reality of our criminal justice system, as do most people when they imply that the law has the ability to pre-emptively imprison someone for the “potential” for breaking a law.October 5, 2009 at 12:56 am in reply to: Huge Rant to parking patrol in junction lot outside Fresh Bistro #678680
Complaining about free parking is largely a symptom of the american entitlement complex. Property owners can use their property as they see fit, just because your used to wall mart giving you a 12 city blocks to park for “free” doesn’t mean every other business has to as well. Americans are spoon fed to believe that the highly federally subsidized act of driving extends to the private sector, it doesn’t. Driving isn’t a right, the sooner people figure that out, the better off everyone will be. Please to be reading the book “the high cost of free parking” to avoid the cranial rectal inversion.
TDe: your belief is a very common liberal fallacy, you may want to brush up on some rudimentary civics to comprehend the reality of our legal system.
RE speeding van: They wanted an address for where the van was now, just saying you saw a speeding van, what did you expect them to do? send out an APB on white vans in the city? please explain what you thought they should have done.
RE Safeway story: unless the manager calls, who represents the occupant of the property, the alleged drinkers could have permission to be on the premises. Your a third party, this is like your neighbour trying to call the police on your house guests for trespassing, because they thought they might do something illegal, which is the same judgement you made.
pro tip, the police don’t exist to “help you” they exist to apprehend those who have allegedly violated laws, so that the courts can prosecute them when appropriate. This is a common liberal misconception, about to commit a crime doesn’t count.
CMP has made the best argument so far.
I’ve said this before, but it makes no sense to me that Admiral is 30 mph but roads like 35th and Fauntleroy are still 35 mph.
How do we get the city to lower the speed limit on 35th and Fauntleroy to 30mph? That would clear up the confusion for everyone.
we should add more lanes, its the bike thugs!, the condos fault, off leash dogs, and people are prowling your car while you wait for the light. These are the things going on in your neighborhood, trust your gut!
What are the best steps we can take to make sure 15 and 12 year old boys are illegal?
This is the same forum where people were adamant on their right to have their unaltered cats roam where ever they want. Nutering is going to fall on deaf ears. But I am sure you will get lots of “OOOOOH KITTENS!!!” type responses.
I think its pretty obvious that the holy spirit was involved. Oh and the marriage is between a man and a woman. And jesus had a pet dinosaurSeptember 18, 2009 at 6:55 pm in reply to: RANT: More bike lanes created for bike thugs to ignore #676831
Yo JanS, I am really happy for you and I’mma let you finish, but BDG is the craziest poster on WSB of all time.September 17, 2009 at 5:20 pm in reply to: RANT: More bike lanes created for bike thugs to ignore #676825
I saw a person that wasn’t white so I locked my doors. My gut told me it was the right thing to do.September 17, 2009 at 4:05 pm in reply to: RANT: More bike lanes created for bike thugs to ignore #676823
quick! someone pipe in with a quip that’s pure opinion that has no basis with facts or the law.September 17, 2009 at 3:35 pm in reply to: RANT: More bike lanes created for bike thugs to ignore #676821September 17, 2009 at 5:57 am in reply to: RANT: More bike lanes created for bike thugs to ignore #676819
Tacomachine: share works both ways. share doesn’t mean other people get to use the road until you want them out of your way. Riding two abreast is not only safer for cyclists in 30mph zones, which is most streets in the city, its perfectly legal per RCW 46.61.770.
oh noes! panhandlers! poor people who can talk to you for no reason! SAVE THE CHILDREN
oh look my post got deleted! thanks WSB!
I agree AL, but posting that someone is a criminal in dicey circumstances is poor taste in the very least.