Darwin Strikes Again

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/ervin-mckinness-driving-drunk-tweet-yolo-dies-car-crash-dui-_n_1880348.html

Ervin McKinness, a 21-year-old aspiring rapper, tweeted about driving drunk at 120 mph minutes before dying in a fiery one-car crash that killed the rapper and four others.

It's amazing how these geniuses of poetry never get ahead.

The presidential race just got one vote tighter.

Such a tragedy........

Guess the cure for cancer and Nobel Prize in Physics will alternatively have to go to someone else this year.

The government needs to protect these people. They should make laws against drinking while driving, texting while driving, reckless driving and exhibition of speed.

It could have saved this poor young mans life.

Every life is precious.........

that's fucking hysterical.

Originally posted by: Cocytus
God damn I miss Dick.

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
The presidential race just got one vote tighter.

Cold blooded. I like it.

Good. Drive drunk, and especially when you brag about it, you deserve to fucking get killed. Looks like this crash took out four assholes at once. Good riddance.

4 dead criminals. Love it. Saving the US taxpayer one criminal pos at a time.
_______________________________________________________________
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making it easy for them in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it" Ben Franklin

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
The presidential race just got one vote tighter.

Funniest post of the week
_______________________________________________________________
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making it easy for them in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it" Ben Franklin

Originally posted by: Mockery

The government needs to protect these people. They should make laws against drinking while driving, texting while driving, reckless driving and exhibition of speed.

Free to decide to drink and drive 120 MPH, decide to kill your kids, your wife, your parents, you. Yeah its your body, but you can't decide not die when a drunk idiot hits you at 120 MPH.

Freedom - it means killing people and doing it because any and all government is much worse. Macro Anarchy 2012

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93

Originally posted by: Mockery

The government needs to protect these people. They should make laws against drinking while driving, texting while driving, reckless driving and exhibition of speed.

Free to decide to drink and drive 120 MPH, decide to kill your kids, your wife, your parents, you. Yeah its your body, but you can't decide not die when a drunk idiot hits you at 120 MPH.

Freedom - it means killing people and doing it because any and all government is much worse. Macro Anarchy 2012

I'm truly sorry it irks you that your last two hundred laws against this shit didn't work......but perhaps the next five thousand will.

Perhaps one day, if you try hard enough, you will realize that laws do not control the actions of men. That those who control their actions govern men.

Then you will understand the futility of your argument for more and more laws that nobody pays any attention to.......to hiring more and more cops to enforce those laws that even they don't want to pay any attention to.

We can't and shouldn't save everyone......as this current exhibit just illustrated. So stop punishing everyone else in trying to do so.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/14/2012 12:17:37 PM

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93

Free to decide to drink and drive 120 MPH, decide to kill your kids, your wife, your parents, you. Yeah its your body, but you can't decide not die when a drunk idiot hits you at 120 MPH.

All philosophical disagreements aside.......didn't exactly that just happen, despite all of your laws?

Sort of the point I was going for.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93

Originally posted by: Mockery

The government needs to protect these people. They should make laws against drinking while driving, texting while driving, reckless driving and exhibition of speed.

Free to decide to drink and drive 120 MPH, decide to kill your kids, your wife, your parents, you. Yeah its your body, but you can't decide not die when a drunk idiot hits you at 120 MPH.

Freedom - it means killing people and doing it because any and all government is much worse. Macro Anarchy 2012

Yet there are laws on the books for this. So, how did it get prevented again?

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93

Originally posted by: Mockery

The government needs to protect these people. They should make laws against drinking while driving, texting while driving, reckless driving and exhibition of speed.

Free to decide to drink and drive 120 MPH, decide to kill your kids, your wife, your parents, you. Yeah its your body, but you can't decide not die when a drunk idiot hits you at 120 MPH.

Freedom - it means killing people and doing it because any and all government is much worse. Macro Anarchy 2012

Yet there are laws on the books for this. So, how did it get prevented again?

Fucking Anarchist.........

2005 Nissan Sentra

Not my first choice of vehicle for traveling at 120mph.

Originally posted by: Coba|t

2005 Nissan Sentra

Not my first choice of vehicle for traveling at 120mph.

Somewhere at Nissan someone is very proud of this guys achievement.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Coba|t

2005 Nissan Sentra

Not my first choice of vehicle for traveling at 120mph.

Somewhere at Nissan someone is very proud of this guys achievement.

I don't even think the stig could get a Sentra up to 120mph. Everyone is convinced this was a result of drunk driving, I think someone should investigate for mechanical failures.

Originally posted by: Coba|t

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Coba|t

2005 Nissan Sentra

Not my first choice of vehicle for traveling at 120mph.

Somewhere at Nissan someone is very proud of this guys achievement.

I don't even think the stig could get a Sentra up to 120mph. Everyone is convinced this was a result of drunk driving, I think someone should investigate for mechanical failures.

@ The Stig.......haahhaah

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93

Free to decide to drink and drive 120 MPH, decide to kill your kids, your wife, your parents, you. Yeah its your body, but you can't decide not die when a drunk idiot hits you at 120 MPH.

All philosophical disagreements aside.......didn't exactly that just happen, despite all of your laws?

Sort of the point I was going for.

No, it did not. He broke the law. What happened was the law stopped 1000 people from doing it, and 1 person broke the law.

But all laws are wrong. The man was within his Constitutional rights to drive 120 mph when drunk. Anything, ANYTHING that might have stopped him is wrong.

And if there was a something that did not stop him that PROVES a complete and utter failure. Sure some people might say that it was an attempt to balance freedom and safety that left room for the person to act recklessly. But the test of a law is if it is 100% effective 100% of the time. Any law not 100% effective is a waste, and any law 100% effective is a totalitarian state, therefore all laws are bad

Every law is wrong, all forms of government are absolutely wrong. Absolute and complete anarchy is the only solution or you are a pro government stooge who wants a nanny state. Got it.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93

No, it did not. He broke the law. What happened was the law stopped 1000 people from doing it, and 1 person broke the law.

Ahh, I see........so more cops could have prevented this tragedy then. Much as with our prison system.....perhaps we can have a cop assigned to every individual so that we can further enforce such compliance.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
But all laws are wrong. The man was within his Constitutional rights to drive 120 mph when drunk. Anything, ANYTHING that might have stopped him is wrong.

Anything that should have stopped him was already in place, numbnuts......but the guy went ahead and did it anyways. Nothing short of having common sense, or a police department controlling his brain, would have changed this morons outcome.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
And if there was a something that did not stop him that PROVES a complete and utter failure. Sure some people might say that it was an attempt to balance freedom and safety that left room for the person to act recklessly. But the test of a law is if it is 100% effective 100% of the time. Any law not 100% effective is a waste, and any law 100% effective is a totalitarian state, therefore all laws are bad

Yes, all laws are bad........

/forums/showthread.asp?forumid=9&threadid=483292&page=22

As I illustrated here with my reiterated support to uphold the Constitution.

Stupid laws are stupid......much like nuclear bombs and lawyers (that are also needed) we should only try to use them when we absolutely have to (with no other viable options). Not to solve every fucking little issue we have in our lives.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
Every law is wrong, all forms of government are absolutely wrong. Absolute and complete anarchy is the only solution or you are a pro government stooge who wants a nanny state. Got it.

Repeat the lie enough times until even you believe it. Until you have your own ideological dogma memorized. Sadly, saying it doesn't make it true........it doesn't make it reality......it just makes it words that reverberate with your tongue and senselessly bounce around in and out of your head.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/14/2012 1:19:51 PM

- I never suggested more cops. Way to tell me what I think or make up what I said

- I spoke about his Constitutional rights and that all other laws were bad. But if you pretend I say you don;t support the Constitution I guess it makes it easier for you to argue


- All laws outside of the Constitution are bad. You said it in your rebuttal. How is that a rebuttal?


- Stupid laws are stupid. Wow, ephiphany. All laws are stupid outside of the Constitution. No law can ever be smart unless 100% effective, but if 100% effective it is a totalitarian state. Wait, post how I am saying you don't support the Constitution even though I not only never said that, but specifically said you ONLY support that.

Repeat the lie enough times until even you believe it. Until you have your own ideological dogma memorized. Sadly, saying it doesn't make it true........it doesn't make it reality......it just makes it words that reverberate with your tongue and senselessly bounce around in and out of your head.

Oh irony, you've done it again.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
- I never suggested more cops. Way to tell me what I think or make up what I said

Well son of a bitch.....now you know how it feels.

Fun isn't it?

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
- I spoke about his Constitutional rights and that all other laws were bad. But if you pretend I say you don;t support the Constitution I guess it makes it easier for you to argue

Huh? WTF OVER.....My inability to articulate an argument just called and it wants it's sentence back.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
- All laws outside of the Constitution are bad. You said it in your rebuttal. How is that a rebuttal?

No all laws that violate our Bill of Rights or conflict against the United States Constitution are bad.

But I can see how someone who clearly can't differentiate could make that distinction.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
- Stupid laws are stupid. Wow, ephiphany. All laws are stupid outside of the Constitution. No law can ever be smart unless 100% effective, but if 100% effective it is a totalitarian state. Wait, post how I am saying you don't support the Constitution even though I not only never said that, but specifically said you ONLY support that.

How about this.......excessive laws are stupid. redundant laws are stupid.

Which was my initial point that you got all bent out of shape about. We don't need laws against texting, cellphones, speeding, or even DUI's when we already have one that covers all of that called RECKLESS driving.

A nice compromise to millions of unneeded and unnecessary laws is boiling down your objective to elegant first principles. It also saves a lot of fucking time, money, and headaches. Can't keep your shit bucket between two lines and/or you measurably and provably endanger other people......a fucking ticket. Not exactly the anarchy you pretend I support.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93

Oh irony, you've done it again.

Yes.......the irony of you telling me what I think.......but how dare someone do that back to you. The irony of calling another person lawless and an anarchist, but then mocking them for upholding the Constitution. The irony of calling me all this, with a straight face, and not understanding a single fucking anything that I have typed to you thus far.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/14/2012 1:44:15 PM

There needs to be a law that says you must get sterilized if you go on welfare.
_______________________________________________________________
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making it easy for them in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it" Ben Franklin

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
There needs to be a law that says you must get sterilized if you go on welfare.

Or, from a more libertarian perspective, the acknowledgement that any additional kids that you have once you sign up for welfare will no longer be funded (ie encouraged).

Or, from a truly libertarian perspective, there should be no fucking welfare.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/14/2012 2:00:33 PM

- wait, you feel people misquote you so you intentionally misquote others? Interesting admission.

Originally posted by: Mockery

.. all laws that violate our Bill of Rights or conflict against the United States Constitution are bad.

How about this.......excessive laws are stupid. redundant laws are stupid.

Which was my initial point that you got all bent out of shape about. We don't need laws against texting, cellphones, speeding, or even DUI's when we already have one that covers all of that called RECKLESS driving.

A nice compromise to millions of unneeded and unnecessary laws is boiling down your objective to elegant first principles. It also saves a lot of fucking time, money, and headaches. Can't keep your shit bucket between two lines and/or you measurably and provably endanger other people......a fucking ticket. Not exactly the anarchy you pretend I support.

You support laws that are not part of the Constitution, but that are not in conflict with the Constitution. Only correct or comment if I am wrong to cut down on excessive, redundant commenting.

You support a reckless driving law, but not an additional set of laws that are excessive or redundant that are already covered by the reckless driving law.

Reckless driving law did not stop this guy so it is a useless law, is that correct? I am not asking for more laws, I am not asking for more police, I am not asking for more government. I am asking a question based on a series of statements

Originally posted by: Mockery

The government needs to protect these people. They should make laws against drinking while driving, texting while driving, reckless driving and exhibition of speed. **edit** (Bigguns 93 opinion that this was a sarcastic statement)

Originally posted by: Mockery

I'm truly sorry it irks you that your .. laws against this shit didn't work

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
Yet there are laws on the books for this. So, how did it get prevented again?

Fucking Anarchist.........

Post edited by Bigguns 93 at 9/14/2012 2:08:49 PM

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93

You support laws that are not part of the Constitution, but that are not in conflict with the Constitution.

Yes......

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
You support a reckless driving law, but not an additional set of laws that are excessive or redundant that are already covered by the reckless driving law.

I could certainly support a reckless driving law, defined by the State, so long as that law doesn't conflict with the USC.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
Reckless driving law did not stop this guy so it is a useless law, is that correct?

Not all laws are useless.....I never made that argument (you made it for me). Laws are intended to be a guiding principle of governance. They are not absolute and they are not always going to be followed. Too many laws dilutes the currency until they begin to lose meaning. Once this happens laws can no longer be sufficiently enforced.......not without a domestic police force that is so large that it is completely unsustainable.

Does that explain my position better? Why I favor laws......but only prefer minimalist laws?

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
I am not asking for more laws, I am not asking for more police, I am not asking for more government. I am asking a single question based on a statement

Hopefully I just answered it.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/14/2012 2:11:38 PM

Rather than spread ourselves thin.......

I would rather favor a system that has a few laws that are thoroughly and strictly enforced.......

Than have a country with a million laws that nobody knows, nobody listens to, and nobody can truly enforce consistently.

It's a preference thing and this is what I believe. I'm not saying that States can't have a trillion little insignificant laws, or that they can't do this, I'm just saying I don't like this implementation and will continue to mock relentlessly against it.

Bigger isn't always better.......it is usually just more burdensome.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/14/2012 2:19:12 PM

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
The presidential race just got one vote tighter.

Thanks I needed to read that today.

I know this is odd, but they really do need to do something about texting while driving.
There really would be only one way to enforce it & have people not texting. It's a fucked up idea but you'd have to install a device in cars that make the cell phones not usable unless you have bluetooth function built into the car. & that the cell phone can only be used with the builtin bluetooth function.

Now i know most of you are gonna cry no way they can't do that. But ya know what? I ride my motorcycle & i can't tell you how much more you see & realize how many idiots are always texting while driving.
If i'm ever hit by one of them & if i survive it, i'll sue them to the point of them not having a penny to their name till the day they die.

just use the voice to text feature if you need to send a text while driving. its that easy.

Bigguns, you are such an idiot. This type of stupidity is why I stopped bothering to post in my last thread. Does driving drunk put others at risk, i.e. infringe upon others rights to a reasonable expectation of safety? The obvious answer is yes. So no, you can't decide to drive drunk.

Does driving a nissan sentra at 120mph even sober put others at risk, infringing on their rights to a reasonable expectation of safety? Again, the answer is fairly obvious.

Montana was on the right track with their speed laws. You can drive as fast as is safe, with regard to the road conditions, traffic, type of car, etc. But if the cops catch you driving like a dipshit, you are SOL.

But keep telling yourself that a libertarian system would be anarchy, please. Tell yourself over, and over, and over. Ignore this entire post, and next time there is a thread on speeding, please rehash your tired, obtuse, moronic line of reasoning.

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink
such an idiot. This type of stupidity is why I stopped bothering to post

Hold that thought, it should be easy, its the only one inside the big hollow ball at the top of your neck.
Post edited by Bigguns 93 at 9/15/2012 6:34:27 PM

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink
such an idiot. This type of stupidity is why I stopped bothering to post

Hold that thought, it should be easy, its the only one inside the big hollow ball at the top of your neck.

I didn't know you wore a novelty thought bubble too DRF! So much for being special....

The girl that cuts my hair told me last week her son has had 3 close friends die texting while driving . . . wtf!

in other good darwin news

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/america_basher_backfire_dKswUjW6LBShGc2uKrGyIM


Post edited by Killet at 9/18/2012 4:20:57 PM

Originally posted by: Killet
The girl that cuts my hair told me last week her son has had 3 close friends die texting while driving . . . wtf!

in other good darwin news

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/america_basher_backfire_dKswUjW6LBShGc2uKrGyIM

hhahaahah.........for once I'm glad that those American flags are being made in China. Eat a toxic dick sand monkey.