Busted By YouTube

[krotch]

Just to make sure that you really know about driving in Germany, please tell me what is the basic rule they use when driving around residential area other than the speed limit.

Hell if I know. I'm not German. In residential areas, I'm usually not going the speed limit or over it, as it's impossible to do it safely. The roads are either too small, there's too many blind areas, etc. Then ppl will also park in the road to make the road even smaller.

As for basic rule, as I mentioned, I'm not German. So haven't a clue. I've spent 5 years driving in the US, 3 years in UK, 1 year in Korea, 2 years in Japan, and 2 years in Germany.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

How can you drive safely if you are breaking the posted speed limit? Speeding increases the chance of an accident and increase the severity of an accident.

So the all knowing government with their numbered signs know whats "safe" ? So 75 mph won't kill you but 85 mph will because thats what the sign says?

If there are no laws against it, then he has every right to chill in that lane. Sure, it'd be quite inconsiderate, but he'd still be allowed.

I don't know where you live but around here you are wrong. If 80% of traffic is doing 80 mph and you are in the passing lane doing 65 mph, you will be ticketed.

 

[alg7_munif]

Hell if I know. I'm not German. In residential areas, I'm usually not going the speed limit or over it, as it's impossible to do it safely. The roads are either too small, there's too many blind areas, etc. Then ppl will also park in the road to make the road even smaller.

As for basic rule, as I mentioned, I'm not German. So haven't a clue. I've spent 5 years driving in the US, 3 years in UK, 1 year in Korea, 2 years in Japan, and 2 years in Germany.

How can you comment on the driving education in Germany if you haven't take the education yourself? If you have taken the driving education in Germany then you will know what is the basic rule for driving around residential area in Germany.

 

[LoneWolf]

Our highway system was designed for 120+ MPH

Citation, please?

 

[Tolyngee]

If he was passing you on the right, that means you could have been in the right lane without any harm to your travel time.

He said "saw an opening to change lanes and just sped right by me"

He didn't say "sped by me TO THE RIGHT"

 

[wfalcon]

When did I say you should do a 160mph on the US highway 151?

You didn't, but that was what sparked the topic of the thread.

I don't know where you live but around here you are wrong. If 80% of traffic is doing 80 mph and you are in the passing lane doing 65 mph, you will be ticketed.

Let me guess - California?

 

[vengence]

He said "saw an opening to change lanes and just sped right by me"

He didn't say "sped by me TO THE RIGHT"

your right. If that is what actually happened, then my bad. Otherwise, my point still stands.

 

[krotch]

It's called reckless driving, and people have been fined for it before, so he does not have the right to chill in that lane.

If he's allowed to be in the lane and he's doing the speed limit, it's not reckless driving. I live in Kaiserslautern, where we have a 4 lane street in front of my apt. 2 one way, 2 the other way. You can be in any lane you want to be.

Now you can get fined for doing an excessively slow speed, but no one cares what lane you're in when you do it. You just get fined for going too slow.

He said he was in the left lane, there has to be two lanes for that to occure.

He never said anything about what lane he was in. Now he did mention that he pulled up to him at a red light. But is it a 3 lane red light or a 2 lane? (as in, 2 straight, 1 turning or 1 straight, 1 turning)

So the all knowing government with their numbered signs know whats "safe" ? So 75 mph won't kill you but 85 mph will because thats what the sign says?

Did I say the government knows what's good or not? If you have an issue with the posted speed limit within a specific section, bring it up at a town meeting or something. Deciding to speed doesn't solve anything.

What if an area that is at 75 mph, use to be at 85 mph, but years before, they had a constant stream of accidents due to the higher speed limit.

I don't know where you live but around here you are wrong. If 80% of traffic is doing 80 mph and you are in the passing lane doing 65 mph, you will be ticketed.

No, I'm not wrong. I'm talking about a 4 lane road within city limits, where you are allowed in the right or left lane. There's also no passing lane.

As for highway, that's all state specific. You'd need to see what your local laws are regarding the matter.

How can you comment on the driving education in Germany if you haven't take the education yourself? If you have taken the driving education in Germany then you will know what is the basic rule for driving around residential area in Germany.

Because I go through a crammed course to get my license to drive in Germany. Many things are omitted, as I should already know them. A German basic rule was apparently not part of it and they didn't see it fit for me to learn it.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

Let me guess - California?

The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia, yes.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

Did I say the government knows what's good or not?

You said driving faster than the posted limits is dangerous. The government sets the limits. I was commenting on how their arbitrary numbers are still dangerous, technically.

If you have an issue with the posted speed limit within a specific section, bring it up at a town meeting or something. Deciding to speed doesn't solve anything.

Been there done that. I was basically told changing the limits would cut into their budget.

What if an area that is at 75 mph, use to be at 85 mph, but years before, they had a constant stream of accidents due to the higher speed limit.

What if it was more rainy on the previous years? What if there was an explosion in the puppy population that runs across the street? What if more kids ran across the street with their ipods on oblivious to the world around the? What if what it what if what if...

No, I'm not wrong. I'm talking about a 4 lane road within city limits, where you are allowed in the right or left lane. There's also no passing lane.

Ok go try it then. Impede some traffic near a cop (bonus points if the cities budget is in peril... now would be a good time) and see if you don't get a ticket.

As for highway, that's all state specific. You'd need to see what your local laws are regarding the matter.

and..................? I thought that was kind of obvious....

 

[Draax]

It terms of safe driving speed, I'll take the word of a civil engineer over the word of someone with a sense of entitlement any day.

 

[vengence]

If he's allowed to be in the lane and he's doing the speed limit, it's not reckless driving. I live in Kaiserslautern, where we have a 4 lane street in front of my apt. 2 one way, 2 the other way. You can be in any lane you want to be.

Now you can get fined for doing an excessively slow speed, but no one cares what lane you're in when you do it. You just get fined for going too slow

If in your in CA then you can be fined for going the speed limit under the part of the law that reads

and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property

If your in the UK you can be fined for "'Failure to make safe, reasonable progress'"
In all states of the US, it can be called reckless driving if the officer believes your speed to be in a fit of road rage. Going the speed limit does not make you immune no matter what lane you are traveling in. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[krotch]

You said driving faster than the posted limits is dangerous. The government sets the limits. I was commenting on how their arbitrary numbers are still dangerous, technically.

Yes, did say that going above the posted speed limit provides more danger, but that doesn't mean I agree with the speed limit. Nor that I agree with the government setting that limit.

What if it was more rainy on the previous years? What if there was an explosion in the puppy population that runs across the street? What if more kids ran across the street with their ipods on oblivious to the world around the? What if what it what if what if...

And those what if's are exactly what you're less likely to see as you increase your speed.

Ok go try it then. Impede some traffic near a cop (bonus points if the cities budget is in peril... now would be a good time) and see if you don't get a ticket.

I drive in the left lane at the posted speed limit every single day, when I enter my city's limits. I don't like driving in the right lane as sections of it are bumpier than the left lane. No tickets for the past 2 years of doing it. If traffic around me is doing above the speed limit, who cares. They can get the tickets, but I wouldn't.

and..................? I thought that was kind of obvious....

Yes and if your state says to stay out of the left lane, unless passing, then you stay out of it. If they don't have laws on it, then you're more than welcome to sit in the left lane and do the speed limit. It'd be inconsiderate to those who are speeding, but whatever.

 

[krotch]

If in your in CA then you can be fined for going the speed limit under the part of the law that reads

Nothing to read there.

If your in the UK you can be fined for "'Failure to make safe, reasonable progress'"
In all states of the US, it can be called reckless driving if the officer believes your speed to be in a fit of road rage. Going the speed limit does not make you immune no matter what lane you are traveling in. Sorry to burst your bubble.

All of that doesn't matter what lane you are in. All you've told me so far is that in the UK, you can't go too slow. Then for your statement in the US, that pretty much means, gunning it from a standstill. Like the speed limit is 60 mph and I just went 0 - 60 mph in 3 seconds.

Most countries have minimum and maximum speed limits for roads. In Germany, you have to be able to do 60 kph to be allowed onto the Autobahn.

 

[vengence]

Nothing to read there.



All of that doesn't matter what lane you are in. All you've told me so far is that in the UK, you can't go too slow. Then for your statement in the US, that pretty much means, gunning it from a standstill. Like the speed limit is 60 mph and I just went 0 - 60 mph in 3 seconds.

Most countries have minimum and maximum speed limits for roads. In Germany, you have to be able to do 60 kph to be allowed onto the Autobahn.

If you can't read then I guess we can't have a discussion.

 

[krotch]

If you can't read then I guess we can't have a discussion.

Can't help it, if your sentence seems to go on, but there's nothing there.

If in your in CA then you can be fined for going the speed limit under the part of the law that reads

Part of the law that reads what?

 

[Apathy]

i work nights, so im usually not on the road when other people are. the roads are generally clear between the times that i wake up and goto bed, so i feel that i have the right to speed. i also know that i am a better drive than most people that i know.

why go 60mph when you can go 100mph? i love my new tires on my 06 subaru impreza. they ensure that i get to work in at timely and safe manner. next car will be an sti when they fix the body and get rid of the ugly family look.

 

[Draax]

so i feel that i have the right to speed.

/facepalm

 

[Ibanezfoo]

Part of the law that reads what?

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.

(c) The Department of Transportation, with respect to state highways, and local authorities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may place and maintain upon highways official signs directing slow-moving traffic to use the right-hand traffic lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or preparing for a left turn.
Amended Ch. 545, Stats. 1974. Effective January 1, 1975.

21650. Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:

(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing that movement.

(b) When placing a vehicle in a lawful position for, and when the vehicle is lawfully making, a left turn.

(c) When the right half of a roadway is closed to traffic under construction or repair.

(d) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.

(e) When the roadway is not of sufficient width.

(f) When the vehicle is necessarily traveling so slowly as to impede the normal movement of traffic, that portion of the highway adjacent to the right edge of the roadway may be utilized temporarily when in a condition permitting safe operation.

(g) This section does not prohibit the operation of bicycles on any shoulder of a highway, where the operation is not otherwise prohibited by this code or local ordinance.
Amended Ch. 58, Stats. 1988. Effective January 1, 1989.

21753. Except when passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall safely move to the right-hand side of the highway in favor of the overtaking vehicle after an audible signal or a momentary flash of headlights by the overtaking vehicle, and shall not increase the speed of his or her vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle. This section does not require the driver of an overtaken vehicle to drive on the shoulder of the highway in order to allow the overtaking vehicle to pass.

Amended Sec. 9, Ch. 440, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.
Amended Sec. 40, Ch. 724, Stats. 1999. Effective January 1, 2000.

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

Amended Ch. 252, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

Forgot one:

22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

(b) Whenever the Department of Transportation determines on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that slow speeds on any part of a state highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the department may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected along the part of the highway for which a minimum speed limit is established.

Subdivision (b) of this section shall apply only to vehicles subject to registration.
Amended Ch. 364, Stats. 1979. Effective January 1, 1980.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

I just noticed a contradiction in these laws! It says "or in compliance with law" regarding driving slow, yet the other laws make no regard to that and say that if you are driving slow enough to be unsafe you must move over. Interesting!

 

[TerraPhantm]

I believe over here in PA slower traffic has to keep to the right even if all traffic is traveling at or above speed limit. Not that many people listen abide by that rule, but it is there. Out here people do drive pretty quick tho, I've found myself driving 95mph in the right lane and still getting passed consistently on a number of occasions.

 

[krotch]

I just noticed a contradiction in these laws! It says "or in compliance with law" regarding driving slow, yet the other laws make no regard to that and say that if you are driving slow enough to be unsafe you must move over. Interesting!

It just means you can go slow, if your vehicle is incapable of going fast, due to safety regulations. Like you can't be doing 80 mph, if you're going down the highway in a semi truck carrying an 8 bedroom home.


Anyways, a list of states for the "keep to the right" laws.

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

Not sure how up to date the site is.


TerraPhantm>>

According to the site, PA doesn't allow use of the left lane, except to pass or to allow other vehicles to merge onto the highway. Also mentions that you can use it if you are travelling at speeds greater than traffic flow.

The last part doesn't make much sense to me. I'd assume if most of the traffic flow is slow, that the left lane wouldn't be open. Also if you are speeding, I wouldn't want to sit in the left lane anyways. Easier to pick out the speeder.

 

[Kristofff]

How can you drive safely if you are breaking the posted speed limit? Speeding increases the chance of an accident and increase the severity of an accident..

Driving on a road where EVERYONE else is speeding and you want to be a grandma and drive at or below the speed limit is a danger. There is nothing inherently unsafe about driving faster than an arbitrary number on a sign on the side of the road. Driving recklessly at/above/or below the speed limit is much more dangerous than driving safely and responsibly at any speed. And no, don't throw the bullshit meme that anything above the posted limit is unsafe because that is a bullshit fallacy.

They don't know "left lane is for fucking passing, not sitting in it for the hell of it."

.....

If there are no laws against it, then he has every right to chill in that lane. Sure, it'd be quite inconsiderate, but he'd still be allowed.

You are either confused on your stances on this topic and live in cognitive dissonance or you just like the argue the opposite because you are an annoying prick. Pick a side and stick to it, because you know damn well he was talking about a moral right, and not whats written in law. Someone could very well cause an accident by being an indignant asshole and sitting in the left lane, being a passive-aggressive bitch.

/facepalm

Spit out your illogical nonsense about why speeding is evil (or your annoying semantics of the definition of the meaning of "Right" so everyone can know to ignore you) so you can be mocked and ridiculed or GTFO of the thread.

 

[krotch]

Driving on a road where EVERYONE else is speeding and you want to be a grandma and drive at or below the speed limit is a danger. There is nothing inherently unsafe about driving faster than an arbitrary number on a sign on the side of the road. Driving recklessly at/above/or below the speed limit is much more dangerous than driving safely and responsibly at any speed. And no, don't throw the bullshit meme that anything above the posted limit is unsafe because that is a bullshit fallacy.

Explain to me what "safely" is in this reference? What's safe? You can be well aware of your surroundings, but when it only takes a second for you to come up to an object that's 100 ft away, that doesn't give a lot of reaction time. Not very safe. It of course becomes worse as the speeds increase and add in that the driver might not be aware.

There's also the unpredictable drivers which you have no control over. You can be driving as "safely and responsibly" as you want, but hit them at a high speed and you're done.

You are either confused on your stances on this topic and live in cognitive dissonance or you just like the argue the opposite because you are an annoying prick. Pick a side and stick to it, because you know damn well he was talking about a moral right, and not whats written in law. Someone could very well cause an accident by being an indignant asshole and sitting in the left lane, being a passive-aggressive bitch.

I prefer that ppl follow the laws and if they have other rights (such as sitting in the left lane going slow), that they may exercise them.

Spit out your illogical nonsense about why speeding is evil (or your annoying semantics of the definition of the meaning of "Right" so everyone can know to ignore you) so you can be mocked and ridiculed or GTFO of the thread.

Seems to me that majority follow me, since they did vote for those appointed over them to create the laws, regulations, etc.

 

[Ockie]

Driving on a road where EVERYONE else is speeding and you want to be a grandma and drive at or below the speed limit is a danger. There is nothing inherently unsafe about driving faster than an arbitrary number on a sign on the side of the road. Driving recklessly at/above/or below the speed limit is much more dangerous than driving safely and responsibly at any speed. And no, don't throw the bullshit meme that anything above the posted limit is unsafe because that is a bullshit fallacy.


You are either confused on your stances on this topic and live in cognitive dissonance or you just like the argue the opposite because you are an annoying prick. Pick a side and stick to it, because you know damn well he was talking about a moral right, and not whats written in law. Someone could very well cause an accident by being an indignant asshole and sitting in the left lane, being a passive-aggressive bitch.



Spit out your illogical nonsense about why speeding is evil (or your annoying semantics of the definition of the meaning of "Right" so everyone can know to ignore you) so you can be mocked and ridiculed or GTFO of the thread.

It would be great if you can reply to a single post without insulting the person and throwing names. It does nothing for your argument other than weaken it.

 

[vengence]

Can't help it, if your sentence seems to go on, but there's nothing there.



Part of the law that reads what?

Perhaps you should read the quote that is directly under that.

 

[JSpecGC8]

Why do some people think that speed kills? There is nothing wrong with speeding if safety is kept in mind.

Because they do not have safety in mind and 160mph is not something I would have 3/4ths of the people around me do.

I have built cars MADE to go that fast on the circuits in Japan, I have built motorcycles that were built to do that on the tracks but to be honest I have went to several driving schools and such to be able to do so properly!

Some joe blow on the street has not and its dangerous!!

 

[Freezebyte]

In Soviet Russia, speed busts you!!!

 

[Draax]

Spit out your illogical nonsense about why speeding is evil (or your annoying semantics of the definition of the meaning of "Right" so everyone can know to ignore you) so you can be mocked and ridiculed or GTFO of the thread.

Is that the best you can do? One massive ad hominem.
Well done ... well done.

 

[Kristofff]

Because they do not have safety in mind and 160mph is not something I would have 3/4ths of the people around me do.

I have built cars MADE to go that fast on the circuits in Japan, I have built motorcycles that were built to do that on the tracks but to be honest I have went to several driving schools and such to be able to do so properly!

Some joe blow on the street has not and its dangerous!!

Speeding doesn't equal only 160 MPH so why are you arguing it like that is what he said? Surpassing an arbitrary number is not inherently dangerous. Not speeding can actually be dangerous, depending on the traffic circumstances.

Is that the best you can do? One massive ad hominem.
Well done ... well done.

I rest my point.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

What's safe?

Being bubble wrapped and locked in an underground bunker.... everything other than that has a risk associated to it. If driving is so dangerous, take a train.

There's also the unpredictable drivers which you have no control over. You can be driving as "safely and responsibly" as you want, but hit them at a high speed and you're done.

Whats high speed? You can crash at 30 mph or less and be "done".

I prefer that ppl follow the laws and if they have other rights (such as sitting in the left lane going slow), that they may exercise them.

Sounds like you support a police state.... police states are infinitely more dangerous than "speeding".

Seems to me that majority follow me, since they did vote for those appointed over them to create the laws, regulations, etc.

They also make wars, lock up innocent people, infringe on the Constitution, etc. Sounds like you guys picked some real winners there.

 

[krotch]

Being bubble wrapped and locked in an underground bunker.... everything other than that has a risk associated to it. If driving is so dangerous, take a train.

too much risk in a train

Whats high speed? You can crash at 30 mph or less and be "done".

You can walk 1 mph, fall, and die too.

Sounds like you support a police state.... police states are infinitely more dangerous than "speeding".

I usually break most road going laws, but I don't attempt to say that it's not dangerous that I do.

I do support the right for ppl to exercise their rights.

They also make wars, lock up innocent people, infringe on the Constitution, etc. Sounds like you guys picked some real winners there.

Start wars, yes, but lock up innocent ppl and infringe on the constitution? Haven't seen a senator, congressman, or other political leader go out and handcuff an innocent person or infridge on the constitution. Also, there's a Supreme Court to uphold the constitution.

As for wars, I can understand Operation Enduring Freedom, but I'm not so keen on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yes, the Iraqi ppl have more freedoms now, than under the prior regime, I just don't think we should have gone in there to begin with. Guess time will tell if we made the right choice in that.

 

[Kristofff]

Explain to me what "safely" is in this reference? What's safe? You can be well aware of your surroundings, but when it only takes a second for you to come up to an object that's 100 ft away, that doesn't give a lot of reaction time. Not very safe. It of course becomes worse as the speeds increase and add in that the driver might not be aware.

There's also the unpredictable drivers which you have no control over. You can be driving as "safely and responsibly" as you want, but hit them at a high speed and you're done.

Beep boop my robot logic has told me your speed of 67 MPH is hazardous to everyone's health. Please reduce your speed to 60 MPH or lower, regardless of what your traffic and road conditions dictate is safe.

I prefer that ppl follow the laws and if they have other rights (such as sitting in the left lane going slow), that they may exercise them.

So its OK if its allowed by law, even if it may cause accidents for absolutely no positive trade off, when someone wants to be a passive-aggressive bitch? Like I said in my response to you, "Pick a side and stick to it, because you know damn well he was talking about a moral right, and not whats written in law."

Seems to me that majority follow me, since they did vote for those appointed over them to create the laws, regulations, etc.

You know just as well as I do that we had no say in anything regarding the speed limits on those signs. The best we can do is vainly try to have them changed. The only thing that actually gets them raised is the fact that everyone speeds.

It would be great if you can reply to a single post without insulting the person and throwing names. It does nothing for your argument other than weaken it.

It doesn't weaken my arguments at all. It only weakens the ability of people with defensive or self-conscious tendencies to accept criticism or their incorrectness when its not delivered in nice pleasant euphemisms and elementary explanations to guide them through the reason.

 

[Ockie]

It doesn't weaken my arguments at all. It only weakens the ability of people with defensive or self-conscious tendencies to accept criticism or their incorrectness when its not delivered in nice pleasant euphemisms and elementary explanations to guide them through the reason.

Criticism isn't insulting and calling names

 

[vengence]

infridge on the constitution.

Have you been paying attention to Guitmo?

 

[krotch]

Beep boop my robot logic has told me your speed of 67 MPH is hazardous to everyone's health. Please reduce your speed to 60 MPH or lower, regardless of what your traffic and road conditions dictate is safe.

Law says there's a maximum. It also states that in adverse road and weather conditions to reduce speed. Nothing about increasing speed, cause you deem it safe.

So its OK if its allowed by law, even if it may cause accidents for absolutely no positive trade off, when someone wants to be a passive-aggressive bitch? Like I said in my response to you, "Pick a side and stick to it, because you know damn well he was talking about a moral right, and not whats written in law."

If they are allowed to do it, they can. It might annoy me and other drivers, but they are allowed. Also if you're such a safe driver, shouldn't cause any accidents.

You know just as well as I do that we had no say in anything regarding the speed limits on those signs. The best we can do is vainly try to have them changed. The only thing that actually gets them raised is the fact that everyone speeds.

It's called a petition. Usually speed limit change petitions are trying to lower the speed limit, for the safety of the residents within an area. Those who like to speed tend to not bother petitioning, as they think exactly as you do. That nothing will come from it.

I personally have never bothered to petition to increase speed limits, as I'm perfectly fine with them. The rest of the time that I wish they were higher is in an area that I won't live in very long. It'd be too time consuming to petition for changes that wouldn't ever happen while I'm there, if they were accepted.

 

[Freezebyte]

I missed it when my state had "Reasonable and prudent" as our highway speeds. Then the goverment threatned to take our highway rebuilding funds away. Ironic considering we actually had less car crashes and highway fatalities during those few years then with the goverment regulated speed limit. Go figure

 

[krotch]

Have you been paying attention to Guitmo?

Have you been paying attention to who actually runs the place? The President can tell them not to do this or that, but he can't actually stop it. If he had that much power, we wouldn't have crimes in the US.

 

[vengence]

Have you been paying attention to who actually runs the place? The President can tell them not to do this or that, but he can't actually stop it. If he had that much power, we wouldn't have crimes in the US.

Really? REALLY? I'm honestly stunned.