More to the point, what happens when a black guy does it? OMG...end of the world...

Good points and the Tea Party thing is an ongoing fantasy that Fox likes to propogate. Hannity spit it out tonight. The whole point isd the entire system keeps diverting attention from the fact that most people are fed up with ALL government, bot parties and all the special interest groups. The fact they all try to play the "others" off on each other is just more fuel for the fire.If the Tea Party could assert itself and divorce itself from the Republicrats effectively, they could be the third party needed.

Indeed...

The real issue is that each of the big three have client states and their interests never seem to align. Each trys to get leverage over the other 2.

Exactly, the whole insanity is that effort in action, and Republicrats really, really suck at it.

I tend to throw it all back. I posted an article on Maxine Watters babbling about Trump, and labeled her all the same, only added "corrupt criminal" since she is also that, but she is more racist that the KKK klowns.

Oh, it is all a fabrication, but the sad thing is, a chunk of America really believes in it and will persecute you for it. I have had a few battles on FB with them and chased them off with "facts". They don't like "facts".

Well, I have a reservation in for an Elio 3 wheel car, at 84 mpg and PZEV. I think it is cool, and gets me the economy I want for my 62 mile one way commute. I have a 2015 Hyundai Elantra that gets 40 mpg, and is comfy. No emissions required if you live outside the UGB of the socialist state of Portland.

Well, that does seem to cover it, it is just a bogus a label as any other the left label machine has created.

Look at the total capability, we got a haevy duty Allison tranny with it, but for power and torque, I don't think it can be beat (and no, it does not do "rolling coal"). Although, starting in 2012 I think, they now need to add DEF (Diesel exhaust fluid) which is an intense pain in the ass. My son is an E7 army mechanic, and also got his ASE cert, and says DEFT was a huge boondoogle that does more damage than good. But, aside from that, I have had my baby 13 years and had few issues except the damn breaks will eat pads/and or lock up (last event cost me 1800, with Chrysler picking up another 1000), but you can monitor them yourself. My real opinion is , other than the redundancy of 2 wheels in the rear for flats, duallys are totally useless in snow. I could not get it to go in 2" of snow with no weight in the rear one year, so you may want to really think the dually part, the 4 wheels seem to go anywhere. I do like the fact I can get parts aftermarket pretty easilly, I replaced both my mirrors (and I didin't even know they folded up) for 100.00 and they fit perfect except for the gaskets. I have gotten other parts on Amazon cheap as well, so it is easy to keep up. I have a real issue with Ford's customer service so I will never buy another. If I was going to get another, it would be a Ram 3500 4WD, and skip the dually.

The moment it impacts me, in any way, it becomes my problem, and I am going to do what I can, and the legal system is wholly inadequate to the task, too many costs, too much corruption and politics.

Yup, let it go to the courts.

I don't see any point in 'rollin' smoke' to get the government to change its mind about whether or not it can control you. It is very likely that the government will react to prove they can sending their enforcers with weapons and use the courts to 'legitimize' their actions. Trying to prove a tyrant doesn't have power to convince him not to use power encourages the tyrant to use violence to prove he has that 'right'.

If my neighbor is burning boat hulls in his yard all day, ostracizing is wholly inadequate.

I go back to a cost to me, and many others. This action encumbers me. The person encumbering another without agreement, has essentially assaulted them. There should be a cost associated with this in some manner. Plaintiff in court with a precedent for the cost could work.

I personally view this as a role for government to play. However, it should just be to assign that a cost should be attributed, and let the market proceed. My metric for government action is where a completely unregulated market will converge on a local minimum (e.g. a large company burning boat hulls). This is such a case.

Maybe we are saying the same thing.

Absollutely. I dont want to pay for the education of kids that someone else decided to bring into the world purportedly for their happiness.

To the left, everything is racial. If you are a white person and prefer vanilla ice cream, you are a racist. Same with preferring white chocolate to dark chocolate
same with preferring milk chocolate over dark chocolate.

Its truly nuts about this racism stuff. As long as one grants people of all races the same human rights, whats so bad about preferring people of one race or another ?? Anyway, most things that are declared "racist" today really have to do with cultural background and beliefs, and not DNA

I think we are beating a dead horse, because I think we agree on the principles. The government should not accept funding from its citizens without their express consent. The parks, lands, reserves, etc. owned by the government should probably be divested in the same way that schools need to be moved to a private system.

I am a proud Objectivist man whose ancestors came over from Europe to avoid the tribal ethic and pursue their own happiness. American is not a race, religion, color, or creed. It is an ideal.

The historical presence of certain races in the country does not constitute any part of the American dream. It is, rather, the spirit of individualism and sense of life that distinguishes America from all other countries.

Let those who seek to engender racism against minorities , "racialism" against non-minorities, or accuse other's of racism for judging behavior rationally be damned.

But how can a government which taxes its citizens to supposedly purchase the public lands have private property rights. I could understand if the "town" was a private corporation with stockholders who put up the money to buy certain spaces and then own them- but the taxation part of our government I think nullifies any right they have to control those spaces.

Aha! I have figured it out. "Angry white guy" is supposed to be a code for a certain kind of discontented taxpayer (who is not also a registered Democrat)? Or no?

Public areas are owned by the public, whatever that is. Pollution would have to be governed by public laws. We could have judged the effectiveness of that system by taking a stroll through the Central Park in the 1980's, before the "I-am-a-taxpayer" argument became popular enough to force politicians to enforce certain laws.

Since the only public spaces would, in Objectivism, also be government facilities, then police, military, or judicial rule would govern those spaces.

Regarding the public sphere polluting the private sphere, yes, you are absolutely correct; it is a violation of rights.

When you have common "public" areas, there are no property rights established really, so there is no prohibition on pollution. If it drifts onto someones land, I would see that as violation of rights.

Possibly the last group that for some unknown reason is "allowed" to be profiled.

You didn't know its all your fault that the Vegas shooting happened? You look just like him... Oh right, profiling based on race, gender, etc. really does suck.

Here's the good news! We can profile the author of this article as a racist liberal, and we wouldn't even be telling him something anyone else didn't already know.

Yes, why should government intervention be necessary to keep people from behaving obnoxiously? Social ostracizing is a perfectly acceptable form of behavior modification. If a dog shits on a lawn, is the owner of that lawn or the owner of that dog responsible to clean up the mess? The dog owner. I ostracize any dog owner who behaves in such a way.

A second point: ownership is not a one-way street. You pay for people to take your garbage away and put it in landfills because you don't want disease in your house. You basically pay someone to dispose of what you own. That some large chemical conglomerate pollutes a river doesn't mean all that waste doesn't belong to them. They have still not legally transferred that property to another party. They need to clean up their own dog shit. And I believe most cities have laws against not picking up after one's dog.

I want to believe that works, but how is there a market for clean air?
It seems to me, that pollution, including noise pollution is a only a charge to others, a involuntary servitude, and that cost should be paid by the user (creator of the pollution) to the affected, in accordance with a market price. Is that what you mean?