A bit of surfing came across the following snippet of humor:

—-

http://www.awesomelibrary.org/road-rage.html

ROTFLMAO!

Make a "SORRY" Sign
According to a regional survey conducted by Drs. Arnold P. Nerenberg
and R. Jerry Adams, over half of drivers in the USA suffer from road
rage.   The average number of incidents per road rager is 27.   That
means that most of us will encounter road ragers many times in our
lives.   Road rage can lead to injuries or even death.   The U.S.
Highway Safety Office has testified to Congress that tens of thousands
of accidents each year can be linked directly to aggressive driving,
including road rage, and is now a leading cause of death for young
children.

A road rager can become upset because you accidentally cut in front of
him or her, or other reasons that were not intentional.   A key factor
in reversing the process is an apology.   Over 85 percent of road
ragers said that they would drop the matter if the other "careless"
driver simply apologized.   Instead, road ragers claim, the "careless"
driver seems to be unconcerned about what they just did and, therefore,
needs to be taught a lesson.

In a car, only one method is effective in conveying an apology: A sign.
  We have found that it is very effective in warding off anger.   In
fact, many drivers actually smile when we raise a "SORRY" sign to them
after we have accidentally done something wrong.   We keep a "SORRY"
sign in the map holder on the driver’s door and the passenger’s door.
It could also be kept under the sun visor if it is fastened with a clip
or rubber band so that it doesn’t hit you in the face when the visor
comes down.

—-

Here’s a better suggestion to those imbeciles who would consider
needing to carry a "sorry" sign around in your car: LEARN HOW TO
FUCKING DRIVE. Put down the cell phone; leave the radio alone, ignore
how your hair looks, and pay attention to the damned road. Don’t give
up the task of "learning to drive" as soon as you pass that mediocre
excuse for a licensing exam. That way, we can *ALL* get to where we are
going safely, efficiently, and without incident.

Learn to drive, and improve driving conditions for everyone. That way
no "sorry" signs are needed.

About the only reason I can see for having a "sorry" sign is if you
were moronic enough to be the author of the crap posted at the site
above.

Of course, if you’re retarded and/or from Colorado, this doesn’t apply
to you.

While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm

Smart. Like a rock.

"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Realist wrote:
> Two Race-Denying Lies Coming out of the New Orleans Swamp

> by H. Millard

> LIE 1: RACE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH LOOTING, ETC.

> The flat earth believing, race-denying, craven neocon blenders and
> Bush-shills are such crackpots that it’s getting more and more
> difficult to listen to them without busting a gut with laughter at
> their stupidity and intellectual cowardice.

> I heard a caller to neocon Radio Pudgy’s program the other day who
> said that he lived in St. Tammany Parish which is right next to New
> Orleans. The caller then told Pudgy that the caller knew the real
> reason why people were acting so bad in New Orleans and so nice in St.
> Tammany Parish. I perked up and was ready to be enlightened.

> The caller’s explanation: "New Orleans is mostly Democrat and St.
> Tammany Parish is mostly Republican." I kid you not, that’s what the
> guy said. He was serious. Radio Pudgy, ever the shill for the neocon
> version of Republicanism, agreed with that stupid assertion by his
> silence.

> Now, I indicated above that some people who won’t face reality about
> race are stupid and cowardly, but there are others who are just so
> brainwashed or conditioned that they’re no longer capable of thinking
> straight about the subject. Maybe Pudgy’s caller falls into this
> category. Maybe he doesn’t belong in the rear of the bus to Hell with
> those in the first category — stupid and cowardly. These goofballs
> are usually so afraid of being called "racists" or "haters" that
> they’ve become more like scared rabbits than human beings.

> In my book, it’s never wrong or hateful to tell the truth. The truth
> is simply the truth. It is something that has no hate or love or any
> other emotion attached to it. It is a fact. Period. All facts,
> including those regarding humans, should be treated as dispassionately
> as saying two plus two equals four. And, if facts are presented and
> then are proved wrong, unbigoted people will accept the new facts.
> That’s how we advance our knowledge; putting everything right out in
> the open and not by hiding facts, as we are doing with race, because
> some don’t like the facts.

> And, speaking of facts, here’s a few more that illustrate how goofy
> the caller, Pudgy and other neocons are about race and how they jump
> to any conclusions, no matter how silly, to avoid bringing up race. It
> may be divined when the surface is scratched and we look at facts that
> these dopes most certainly do not shave with Occam’s Razor.

> According to statistics I’ve seen, St. Tammany Parish is about 33
> percent Democrat and about 43 percent Republican. Thus, there’s about
> a 10 percent difference in favor of Republicans in the parish. New
> Orleans, on the other hand, is about 43 percent Democrat that about 30
> percent Republican. So, there’s about a 13 percent difference, but
> this time it’s in favor of the Democrats. "Well, boy howdy, that 10 or
> 13 percent difference sure do make a big difference, don’t it, Ma?"
> Unless of course being a Democrat or a Republican isn’t the real
> reason for the difference in how people are acting. "Golly, Ma, if
> looting and other problems ain’t about political party affiliation,
> what could it possibly have to do with? I can’t figger it out. Race?
> Hmmmm. Nope, I seen them there pictures of the people on TV and, why,
> I jus’ saw bunches of people. Jus’ all red blood bleeding one-size-
> fits-all people. Race ain’t got nothin’ to do with it, Ma. Saying it
> does would be racist and we sure ain’t no racists. Sure, the people
> looting and committing crimes were Black and the people who weren’t
> doing these things were White, but, hey, I don’t notice race, Ma. Why,
> we’re all the same."

> Such thinking is absurd. In fact, race (actually it’s the genes that
> add up to race) is precisely the reason for people acting differently.
> People do what their genes have programmed them to do in different
> situations. When we look at the statistics of how humans act and react
> to different stimuli — such as the aftermath of a hurricane — we
> clearly see that race is always a factor. Or, to put this in starkest
> terms: Statistically speaking, Blacks act Black and Whites act White.
> Does environment play a role in how people act? Of course, but it is
> still, ultimately, our genes that cause us to act and react to the
> environment in ways that are often different with different races.

> Here are a few more statistics that hammer home my point: St Tammany
> Parish (the good acting parish) is about 87 percent White and only
> about 9.9 percent Black. Orleans Parish — which is primarily New
> Orleans (the bad acting parish) — is only about 27 percent White and
> 68 percent Black.

> Anyone who is honest has to admit that race was the main reason for
> the way people were acting — good and bad. Of course, honesty is not
> what Pudgy and the other neocons are about. They’re about lies and
> propaganda.

> LIE 2: RACE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESIDENT BUSH’S
>  SLOW RESPONSE

> I also saw a column this week by one of those peculiar Bush-shill
> neocon Black writers. You know the type. They’re the buttoned-down
> Blacks who all look and sound as though they’re White bloodless Young
> Republicans in blackface. They’re loved by the White neocon
> Republicans because they give cover to White Republicans whenever the
> inevitable charge of "racism" is leveled against Republicans by other
> Blacks who know that many Whites are still afraid of the Mau Mauing
> and won’t stand up for themselves. Anyway, this Bush-shill jerk wrote,
> as could be predicted by anyone who has seen any of the stuff she
> writes, that race had nothing to do with President Bush’s slow
> response to the problems in New Orleans. She didn’t buttress her
> assertion with anything new, just the usual propaganda about what a
> swell guy Bush is and how he loves all God’s critters including,
> presumably, baby kittens.

> Her column was so stupid that it isn’t even worth taking it apart to
> rub her nose in the crap she rewrote from the faxed talking points she
> probably got from Bush HQ. However, I’m bringing her column up because
> it contains a basic unspoken fallacy that underlies her defense of
> Bush: a denial that race is a factor in human affairs and thus
> shouldn’t even be discussed. To this, all of nature screams
> "NONSENSE!"

> Discussing anything that involves the performance of humans without
> discussing race is like discussing the performance of a car without
> discussing make and model. You can’t intelligently explain the
> behavior of humans by taking humans, and the genes that make humans,
> out of the equation. And, that’s what the race deniers try to do.

> Again, discussing race is absolutely essential to understand why
> things got so screwed up in New Orleans. The mess had race written
> over every soggy inch it.

> However, and notwithstanding what I wrote above, my guess is that the
> Black neocon writer was more than likely right to the extent that Bush
> probably didn’t react more slowly to the problems because of the color
> of most people in New Orleans. Instead everything went slower and got
> more screwed up right from the start because of the way the people in
> New Orleans reacted first to the impending storm and then to the
> aftermath. This behavior, like all behaviors, was gene-related — and,
> thus, race is implicated. If people won’t obey our basic White society
> gene-generated ideas of how to act and react but, instead, engage in
> criminal and anti-social behavior, then the process naturally slows
> down. The human problems — the failure to evacuate, the looting, the
> crime, the social dysfunction — were totally wrapped up with race
> because those causing them were mostly of one race: Black. And, the
> root causes of these problems were and are endemic in the Black
> community, because they come from the genes. New Orleans with a
> hurricane was like Los Angeles with a Rodney King riot. Different
> excuse, same behavior. It’s repeated over and over.

> http://www.newnation.org/Millard/index.html

Fine article, well worth reposting and emailing.

John

Hi,
I was commuting to work on Route 9 West in MA today, it’s 2 lanes each
direction and I was going about 45 mph in the L lane..  Up ahead were 2
vehicles in the narrow U-turn lane between the Eastbound/Westbound
lanes; one car pulled into traffic about 300 feet ahead of me, which
was cutting it close.  There was no time for the 2nd car, a Saab, to
pull in, but when I was <100 feet from her, the 2nd car pulled in
slooowwwllly and was basically not accelerating at all after she got
into the L lane.  I slammed on my brakes, swerved a little into the R
lane, and missed the U-turning car by a few feet.

Had I hit a vehicle in the R lane, would I have been liable (as opposed
to the U-turner), even though I was trying to avoid a collision with
the Saab?  If the Saab were untouched, then I don’t know if it could be
held liable or if I could prove that the driver was driving
negligently.

Despite all the honking around her, the woman driving the Saab seemed
completely unfazed and probably had no idea that she almost totalled
her car today.  

Appreciate your thoughts,
John

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html

SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
making a personal call on his cell phone.

The accident happened at the intersection of 9th Street and Imperial
Beach Boulevard last Tuesday. Eva Smart, 85, was within a few feet of
the curb in a crosswalk when a municipal bus rounded the corner and hit
her. Smart died in the hospital of multiple injuries.

Smart was walking home from an outing with her daughter when the
accident occurred. Family members left flowers at the curb where Smart
was killed, with a note reading, "Mama, we love you so very much."

Witnesses said the driver, Jesus Villaneuva, was talking on his cell
phone when the accident occurred. Villaneuva, 60, has worked for the
transit system for 12 years.

While it is not illegal to talk on cell phones while driving in
California, San Diego municipal bus drivers are prohibited from using
cell phones to make personal calls. Calls are only allowed in the case
of emergencies.

Officials say they are seeing more and more cases where cell phones
threaten public safety.

"You see your everyday driver driving with cell phones. Other drivers
and pedestrians need to be aware that they are not paying attention,"
said Franco Del Rosario, of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. "We get
complaints about it all the time. Swerving in and out of traffic, not
stopping for stop signs."

Villaneuva’s case is being referred to the district attorney for
possible prosecution, NBC 7/39 reported. He has been placed on
administrative leave.

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/speed21e_20050921.htm

Bill to raise truck speeds races toward House vote

Some highlights:

"The House Transportation Committee voted 13-1 Tuesday to raise the 55
m.p.h. speed limit for trucks to 60 m.p.h. on rural interstate
highways. The speed limit for passenger vehicles would remain at 70
m.p.h."

"State Police experts say the wide speed disparity — California is the
only other state with a 15-m.p.h. difference between truck and
passenger vehicle speed limits — creates more hazards for motorists
than if the speeds were uniform."

"It’s not speed, but conflicts in speed that cause accidents," said
State Police Lt. Thad Peterson, head of the traffic services section.
"When you have people driving different speeds you have more lane
changes, they speed up and slow down. A lot of decision-making occurs
there."
—————
Amen brother!!!

Driving along expressway, coming up on a group of cars, I end up
behind on the left.  The right lane is not congested as far back as I
am, but is moving slower.  So the left lane is the one that should end
up open soonest.  I realize that the car on the right just seems to be
one that will move into my lane.  Don’t ask me how, but most of you
know what I mean.  You just know the blond is an idiot.

So, there is an SUV in front of me, and the blond in the black car to
the right.  Just as soon as the SUV’s rear bumper is about five feet
in front of blondie’s front bumper, she moves over.  Only problem is
that I am parked six feet behind Mr. SUV.

So, blondie gets about four feet into my lane before the loud honking
sound kicks in to her tiny brain.  In the mean time I still have some
room to maneuver if I have to, but not much.  She moves over just a
split second before I would have had to take evasive maneuvers such as
applying my brake.  I had already, of course, released the gas pedal,
and had the foot hovering over the brake in case it became necessary
to stop.  So in the end, she failed to have an accident because I saw
what she was going to do, and controlled the situation in such a way
that I barely had to slow down, and the chance of an accident was
reduced to a negligible amount.

What amazes me is that, before this, when I hooked up with the SUV,
she was still in front of him, and just blocked by the other cars.  So
before I got there the SUV was the last car, but it HAD NOT BEEN the
last car for over a minute.  What kind of idiot drives a car, checks
the left lane to see if it is clear, sees it will be some time in the
next five minutes, and then just moves over when what he remembers was
the last car goes by?

You could blame me, and say I drove in such a way as she could not see
me.  However, when I am in situations like this, I make sure to ride
the center of both lanes as much as possible, and to move over as I
approach the car in the right lane.  I make sure I can WATCH the other
driver’s face.  (Hmmm, maybe that is what warned me…)  Thus I KNOW
she could have seen me.  She just never looked.  

Think about it though.  Never looked, and had so little peripheral
vision, that she could not see something maybe 30 to 50 degrees left
of center.  How could any person without glasses make this mistake
even without looking?  Yet this person is allowed to drive.

I want to fly to England and buy one of the good condition citroen 2cvs
and have it shipped over to the usa
it will be over 25 years old.  does anyone know how to do this?  If you
do please tell me step by step, thanks

Curious as hell about this.

Was taught by the parents to drive in general on a 65 Chevy with an auto
tranny.

Then the parents taught me to drive a stick on a 67 Dodge 3-on-the-tree
Dart.

None of them had a tach.

I presently drive a 5-speed sedan with a tach but I never notice it as I
shift based on what my ear (and obviously "experience")  tells me.

Obviously I understand what the  tachometer is for but…..my friends
and relatives various vehicles are universally automatics and almost all
– depending of course on the options they took – have tachometers on
them.

What’s the point of the tachometer on a vehicle with an automatic
transmission?

Seriously, based on my understanding of WHY the tachometer exists, why
are there tachs on vehicles with automatic transmissions?

When will this poor negro chant end? There are many poor in the
appalachians but little crime. West Virginia, one of the poorest states
in USA always ranks in the top five for the least crime.

Jay

http://www.newnation.org/index2.html

That 200 billion they are proposing to rebuild NO amounts to 400K per
evacuee based on 500,000 leaving town? Pay up and love it. Why not buy
each negro a Harlem-Davidson?