Fairweather

This is the most popular one, and I hear it a lot from my road bike friends. But by this same logic, I shouldn't have to license my motorcycle either, no? I mean, I own a car too, so the logic flows, right? Ridiculous. It's your logic that doesn't flow here. Is the tax burden of your motorcycle equivalent to your automobile? Cuz I sure see an awful lot of lunatics on crotch rockets. Some of them even murder cyclists and get away with it. The solution to an enforcment problem is not taxation. But I'm willing to meet you halfway - we adopt the dutch model, in the event of an accident the motorist is always at fault unless it can be proven otherwise, and I'll support licensure, and perhaps even modest ADDITIONAL taxation of cyclists. No dice; too many stupid/crazy/angst-filled bicyclists. As for motorcycles, yes, they cost about the same to license as cars. My 2001 750cc Honda is $57/year; my 2012 Toyota Yaris is $78. Your logic is still flawed. Edit: Ok, deal! Since the legal burden you just described is the status quo, I accept your revisions. When shall we begin taxing these entitled scofflaws?

I don't ride on the streets. Too dangerous. I ride trails and big hills that you probably wouldn't handle well anyhow. In any event, I don't necessarily "want" to ride with you--I simply extended an invitation to you, that is, to join us on one of our rides. And you still are welcome to do so.

This is the most popular one, and I hear it a lot from my road bike friends. But by this same logic, I shouldn't have to license my motorcycle either, no? I mean, I own a car too, so the logic flows, right? Ridiculous.

I believe bicyclist are required by law to observe the traffic laws already. FW, aren't you the small government, don't tax me or tell me what to do guy? And you are proposing that some group (guessing you are not a bike commuter) should be infringed upon by the government? very consistent and considerate you are. Being a jackass is not a reason to be taxed. If so, then there would be a tax for everyone on this spray forum. No, but demanding hundreds of millions of public dollars' worth of infrastructure and mitigation needs a financial sponsor. If anything, it seems cyclists should be grateful to motorists.

Last time I checked, the law says you're supposed to stop for someone entering a crosswalk. This includes bicyclists too. Unfortunately, the HTT two wheelers don't think this law applies to them. Pete, not sure how you can excuse someone reaching inside someone's car and punching them in the face. These cyclists are out of control.

Great story on KIRO today. IMO, it's time to tax bicyclists who use public streets--and ask them to obey the same laws as everyone else.

Ouch! Looks like his poll numbers are in a free-fall: USA Today Poll WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans now disapprove of the way President Obama is handling his job, while Americans' assessment of the way he is handling the economy has hit a nadir for his nearly 5-year-old presidency, according to a new Pew Research Center poll published Friday. Forty-one percent of those polled approve of how he's handling his job, while 53% disapprove. That's a 14-point drop since December, according to Pew. Obama's job ratings on the economy have been underwater for more than four years, but the current measure is the worst of his presidency — 31% approve of the way Obama is handling the economy, and 65% disapprove. The Pew survey, which was conducted Oct. 30-Nov. 6, found that majorities disapprove of the way the president is handling five of six issues tested. Terrorism was the lone exception, with 51% approving of his performance, and 44% disapproving. But even on terrorism, his ratings are lower than they were earlier this year, according to the poll. Obama's slump resembles the trajectory of George W. Bush, who saw approval of his job performance rating tumble 12 points, from 48% in December 2004 to 36% at the same point in his presidency, according to Pew. Also notable was Obama's considerable slide in the poll among those who identify themselves as independents. Only 32% of independents approve of his job performance, while 61% disapprove. In December, 53% approved and 39% disapproved. Like Bush, Obama retains broad support among members of his own party, though the share of Democrats who give him a positive job rating has fallen 10 points over the past year, from 88% to 78%. Obama's job rating among Republicans, extremely low last December at 12%, has changed little since then. The president, who has been battling the fallout from problems with the rollout of his signature health care law, received negative ratings on health care policy, with 37% approving of his performance and 59% disapproving. The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, was completed before Obama apologized in an NBC News interview Thursday that some Americans are losing their health insurance plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act, despite his repeated assurances over the past four years that Americans could keep their plans if they like them.

Really? What changes has he offered? and he almost certainly has ignored FISA. Of course, we have no way of knowing since he hasn't bothered with the "transparent" government he promised. You can absolutely say that Bush opened the door, but Obama has not only walked through it, he's having a party on the other side where anything goes. Well, now you're back to makin' stuff up. There is no evidence that Mr O has gone rouge and run around the FISA as the Bushies did. Friggin' A - you and the American Taliban are going ape shit over a medical plan that was passed by Congress and then vetted by your handpicked majority of the SCOTUS. Jesus, get over it and try and come up with an agenda that people might actually vote for instead of trying voodoo and storm the Bastille tactics. And just for giggles - here's what Obama has proposed for FISA improvements. At least he recognizes it is a rule of law. ________________________________________________________ The president's proposed measures focused on reforming Section 215 of the Patriot Act and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, under which the NSA's surveillance programs are considered lawful. The reforms would focus on creating more oversight and greater transparency, particularly through modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which currently authorizes the surveillance through highly classified opinions. Obama specifically discussed creating a special advocate who could challenge the court on the basis of privacy and constitutional concerns. He also expressed support for making more information public, and upon his directive, the Department of Justice released the legal rationale for the government's collection activities under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The president added that the NSA would be creating a civil liberties and privacy officer, as well as launching a website to serve "as the hub for further transparency." And finally, Obama announced an independent task force of outside experts that would review the government's surveillance efforts, in terms of both privacy rights and impact on foreign policy. The group would produce both an interim report within 60 days and a final report by the end of the year with findings and recommendations Jim, you should cite the source for this copy/paste. I suspect it's from a left-rag, but if it suits your worldview, it's all good. If it's really true, I'd just ask you this: why didn't Obama pursue it when he had majorities in both the House and Senate 2009-2011? On another matter, I'm not sure how referring to Republicans or even the Tea Party as the "American Taliban" promotes your viewpoints. Kind of silly, really. I'm not a big fan of these guys either (although I am intrigued by Rand Paul's small-"l" libertarian bent), but Taliban? really?

The Patriot Act passed 98-1 in the Senate. But if you prefer to believe it was all GW's doing, feel free.

GW didn't have a "transformational" domestic agenda like Obama does. And I don't like Obama's agenda. Simple as that.

"burned"? Put the post up there mr archivist. Should be an easy little project for you. You do jump around man, I was lamenting folks calling folks liars without giving them the benefit of doubt for possibly making a mistake and you come up with this… wow Yes, I was one of the many Americans advocating trials for bush, cheney, and anyone else involved in in any way, the torture of prisoners captured in the "war on terror"… Others have been convicted in past for waterboarding people as a war crime. Put them in the justice system and let them defend that. A lot of us were wondering why not these guys? Why not now? That ship has sailed. It ain't gonna happen. Our current president didn't feel that would have been worthwhile somehow. I disagreed with him on that. Still do. dubya's presidency for the most part is difficult to defend IMO but you go ahead on… I didn't agree with much of what he did, or tried to do. He was without a doubt the worst president I have seen in my lifetime. Truth is, none of these guys are gonna be anything close to perfect. It's a tough job for a lot of reasons. I did like his strong push for Immigration Reform toward the end of his second term. That bill should have passed. He fought hard for it too. He also gets credit for fighting the scourge of AIDS in Africa along the way… I try not to pine for the good old days as I age but it's tough sometimes. I will commit to trying harder to heed your request not to read your posts though. I find you often make little sense, and it is a waste of time for me. d I think your context is a bit off. I have no problem with folks who say "this was the worst president in my lifetime, blah, blah, blah..." I do it too. But when you compare the often criminal legacies of LBJ/McNamara or, say, Nixon against the war criminal Bush I lose you. You can maybe make a weak case that they are equivalent. No doubt LBJ condoned the killing of soldier/citizens who crossed over in Vietnam. (And then there's the war itself.) And, of course, Bush never carpet bombed Bagdhad with B52s. Finally, not a peep here over Obama's massive escalation of drone killings in places we're not even at war with. My point here is not so much the lies. Rather, it is the silence these last 5 years from guys like you on an ever-growing list of Obama indiscretions.

Really? What changes has he offered? and he almost certainly has ignored FISA. Of course, we have no way of knowing since he hasn't bothered with the "transparent" government he promised. You can absolutely say that Bush opened the door, but Obama has not only walked through it, he's having a party on the other side where anything goes.

Um, because he does it so often--and it's so plain to see he knew it wasn't true from the start re "you can keep you insurance, doctor..." He knew it was in the legislation even as he was saying it. Of course, you are one of the guys who was calling for GW to be put on trial and "burned." Yea, you're real civil. Don't like my opinon? Don't read it. Not gonna dignify this with a response, tough guy. f

yeah, but you hated him even well before the obamacare lies, so I wonder if this is a case of someone who finally found their excuse to latch onto? I don't remember you ever getting this upset about GW Yes, with each new lie Obama confirms what I have believed to be true about him all along. So what? Bush never threatened my personal freedom in a big way--or stole my health insurance coverage.

I agree, Carter was a stand-up guy. And I think Christie will be a great president in the same vein, although with more economic savvy. It's bad enough that Obama tells all these lies. What sets him apart is the arrogance and contempt he displays for the truth as he tries to get out of his lies with yet more lies. "Uh, no, that's not what I said..."

it wouldn't be the first time someone got impeached for tapping Of course, there's no evidence (yet) that Obama wiretapped his political opponents--only our foreign allies. For his domestic opponents he uses the IRS.

Took all of 90 seconds. "Impeach Bush" -->Jim--> <10years + >5years. I must say, Jim has a full ten pages of Bushhate just in that 5 year span alone, so it's kind of surprising when he calls for calm and compliance now. ObamaCare aside; do you, Jim, now call for the impeachment of president Obama based on his wiretapping excesses?

Sadly, the only person as loony as Obama on foreign policy turns out to be...John McCain. But I don't think that McCain would have the "audacity" to lie about what he had said previously in public on a major issue. WTF? Does Obama not realize there are cameras running when he opens his hole? And some of them even have replay buttons.

All true. But I do think Obama needs to be called to account for his constant lying and laughable revisions. Censure seems reasonable given the arrogance and disregard for promises he has continuously displayed. Here's another one of my recent favorites: [video:youtube]n6ePJXR216c

In the same skit you posted he throws down the rule book for what has to be in a car for it to be legal for you to drive. This is the same thing. I am quite amazed at the reluctance of a significant portion of your country that doesnt want to join the rest of the civilized world with respect to health care. Almost as interesting as watching Rob Ford Avoiding the mire that is your shitty healthcare system is what we need to avoid down here. Yes, I agree, everyone in Canada has equally long waiting lines. (Except for the wealthy canucks who come down here for complex care.) Anyhow, in the end it boils down to this: some people trust government, and some don't.

Not trying to hit too hard here, but you were boderline hysterical back in the day, and I recall that you were calling for impeachment over wiretapping among other things. How 'bout now?

At a minimum: Repeal Obamacare. Censure the president.

Yes. Turns out they prefer a curious combination of Jimmy Carter (economic incompetence), Woodrow Wilson (arrogance and intoxication with power), and Richard Nixon (lies, paranoia). what should we do? more questions. always more questions.

Yes. Turns out they prefer a curious combination of Jimmy Carter (economic incompetence), Woodrow Wilson (arrogance and intoxication with power), and Richard Nixon (lies, paranoia).

you can find my reply @jmace