Yes, it is. And I heartily encourage you to mention that to any member of the Nassau or Suffolk County Police Departments who are regularly on the LIE, among that traffic. Driving significantly slower than the mass of traffic around you creates a public danger. As long as everyone’s moving the same speed, relative velocity’s minimized, and the entire roadway is safer.
It’s all well and good to sit on the moral high ground and yell ‘THIS IS ILLEGAL!!!’, but the reason for those laws is to prevent fatalities. And they do. They encourage people to drive in a concerted manner. And you can also feel free to talk to the police departments around Boston, Philadelpha, Baltimore, D.C., Richmond, Atlanta, and all along the United States Interstate system. They’ll tell you the same thing.
Incidentally, this is also expressly why the speeding fines are so much higher in Pennsylvania along I-80 - it goes through Pennsylvania Dutch territory, and the interstates are open to horse-drawn traffic. They have their own lane, and they have safety equipment to ensure visibility, but because they cannot accelerate to maintain pace, the Pennsylvania State Police are much more aggressive and rigorous in the enforcement of those laws. Because that’s the better way to serve the public interest there - you have to slow down to ensure you don’t cause an accident because of a blind curve.
It doesn’t help with the deer, of course, or the fact that driving I-80 in Pennsylvania is literally 300 miles of ‘rock… tree… tree… rock…’ and nothing else for six hours solid - but believe it or not, these patterns of behavior that have existed for decades even after the introduction of the speed limit not only have valid purpose, they’re tacitly accepted and approved of by the law enforcement communities in those areas, and the communities at large.
3 Likes
No more fucked up than the days the media actually debated how feasible it was Sarah Palin could see Vlad Putin from her back porch.
3 Likes
Trump: I am fine with it and that is all it matters. It doesn’t matter to me if he is not even a real doctor. As long as he tells me what I want to hear, I am cool.
2 Likes
So is the name on the letter #1 still alive, #2 ever been Donald’s doc, #3 if it had no value then why not go full Rand Paul and create your own professional organization so you can self accredit?
4 Likes
3’s easy: that’d take some creativity and industriousness.
And black people are arrested for more crimes…except ones that are shot dead. So shoot more black people and prevent future crimes.
No? Seems a little over the top, because we have laws against that for FSM’s sake!
If you really have that big of an issue with speed limits, and think you have that strong of a case for abolishing them (you don’t, but go with it anyway), then why aren’t you at the NY legislature lobbying that they be abolished? Instead, you are advocating for ignoring the law, because you don’t like it and think YOU have a much better solution.
If you have a better solution, then go through the process and change the laws to reflect your better solution. But once you start advocating that people should be able to pick and choose which laws they should obey, you are advocating anarchy.
2 Likes
Or how she brought pizzazz to John McCain’s campaign even though she had no business being one step away from assuming the Presidency should anything have gone south for McCain while in office. Her pizzazz btw ran out in short order, and they were still trying desperately to sell her to the country as a fresh face (even though she had nothing upstairs to go with that face).
They’ve learned absolutely nothing since then…
I’m confused: “BORNSTEIN–Jacob, M.D., 93, passed away peacefully at home on February 18…”
So is the good doctor still living or not?
Have I said I have an issue with speed limits, or are you reading that into an analysis of social behaviors and a statement that individual deviation at high speeds is dangerous - something multiple traffic studies have verified for over thirty years?
Can We depend on the organization to take this guy to task? I have been involved with a professional credentialing organization in the past and they don’t take too kindly to a member or former member using the credential if it has lapsed.
Someone from that organization is probably working on it now.
1 Like
The letter had no value either so it’s a matched set!
1 Like
This is not a true statement. A mix of people going 55-70 will be way safer than a roadway where everyone is going 85. At 85, you are moving 125 feet per second. You blink, and you have traveled 60 feet. The bottom line, your reaction time cannot keep up with 85 miles an hour in case there is something unexpected happening. Say a car trying to merge with another car in its blindspot.
On top of that, not all cars can handle 85 miles an hour. Sure, the high end ones can. But the cheaper cars older than 5 years old? My 2001 Hyundai would fall apart at 85. Other cars are too light to travel that fast in windy conditions. See for reference my Hyundai again. In high winds, you are white knuckling just to stay in your lane. Forget adding 85 mph on top of that.
At the end of the day the only real danger comes from people who think they can go 85 in a 55. Going 30 over the speed limit should be treated like a DUI. Or at the very least, reckless driving. And I don’t care if there are cops doing the same thing. I know way too many cops to trust their opinion on safety (I know one who almost blew his hand off holding a lit firework because ‘the warning are just for libtards who don’t know what they are doing’).
1 Like
Well, lets be clear then
Your original post on this was, whether you intended it to be or not, an effort to provide cover for this doctor lying about his credentials, because “lots of people do it”. You then dovetailed that meme into “everybody speeds” so its all ok…why,its even safer than going the speed limit when everyone is speeding.
Lets follow that argument through. Its OK if doctors like about their credentials…in fact, its probably safer if all of them do.
All of this for what was, by all accounts, a completely BS letter on how “healthy” Trump is. Which you know, given the erratic nature of Trump’s mental state, lying about the state of his health is a VERY dangerous activity.
3 Likes
In Puerto Rico, car jacking became a thing in the early 90s and most of them, if not all, occurred late at night, lots at red lights. The Government urged people not to remain at red lights after 10, , but to stop, look, then move if no traffic coming from the green light directions. During a visit in that period, a relative wryly cracked to me “Last night I ran 4 green lights…”
2 Likes
When asked by MSNBC about using the title in his signature without maintaining membership, Bornstein said that the title “has no value” but that he will continue to use it.
I thought something that “has no value” is trash you throw away. So The doc can add “Hoarder” to his letterhead and resume.
1 Like
She doesn’t have anything better to do? Who gives a shit.
There are literally hundreds of lies and scandals the media didn’t have time to adequately cover, and this is the one they choose to bring back? For what? A response to the absurd allegations regarding Clinton’s health?
I don’t watch Maddow because I can’t stand her. But she and her team at least usually do some decent reporting. This is pretty garbage.
For those who have not seen the letter:
The language use here is not what a competent doctor would use. No doctor would say that tests were “positive”. Positive for what? AIDS, VD? And just how would Bornstein know about the health of long dead former Presidents I’d like to ask considering he did say Trump was the healthiest candidate ever in the history of candidates. I assure all that my blood pressure is exactly the same at trump’s and I am of a similar age. My MD is not astonished that my BP would be 110/65 considering I’m in decent shape.
6 Likes
No, my initial post on this was not ‘an effort to provide cover’ - and for the record, an effort to do something cannot be ‘whether you intended it or not’ because it directly supposes intent. You’ve established the aim of the effort - ie: the intent. So if you’re going to assign my initial intentions (you know, tell me what I was making an effort in order to do), at least don’t try to weasel on it by saying ‘whether you intended it to be or not’. Or, if you’re going to acknowledge that you can’t know my express intentions, don’t then claim to do exactly that by dictating the goal toward which I was expending effort.
At the very least, if you’re going to play semantics like that, don’t fuck it up by contradicting yourself in consecutive phrases.
The intial post was ‘this is not unusual. It is not right, and it is not moral, but it is not unusual’, at which point, I compared it to another activity - which I identified as a violation of the law - which is also not unusual.
That then tangented into a discussion of the relative safety of deviating from established and expected traffic patterns, which you objected to.
