# I'm White. I'm White. Just a doggone minute, I'm White.



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Oh, Yeah, she's gonna walk with that defense. A very, clean thoroughbred white girl. Or, as some might say...very, very white.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dui...-clean-thoroughbred-white-girl-005705323.html


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

So white she is blonde.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Thoroughbred. I like that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

She's thoroughbred white, not some crossbred. Gah.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Notice something interesting
She was charged with,"speeding, disregarding a stop sign, simple possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under the influence,"

All made up fake crimes that harmed no one in any way.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Notice something interesting
> She was charged with,"speeding, disregarding a stop sign, simple possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under the influence,"
> 
> All made up fake crimes that harmed no one in any way.


DUI is fake, and harms no one? Seriously. Running a stop sign and speeding kills every minute of every day

You ain't no Thoroughbred.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

She might want to check her F2 cross just to make sure. She might be surprised to find there are no thoroughbreds anymore.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> AmericanStand said: ↑
> Notice something interesting
> She was charged with,"speeding, disregarding a stop sign, simple possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under the influence,"
> 
> All *made up fake crimes* that harmed no one in any way.


You seem confused.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> Notice something interesting
> She was charged with,"speeding, disregarding a stop sign, simple possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under the influence,"
> 
> All made up fake crimes that harmed no one in any way.


How many little kids have you had to put in bodybags, because someone was speeding and ran a stop sign? My count is four.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> How many little kids have you had to put in bodybags, because someone was speeding and ran a stop sign? My count is four.


I quit the volunteer fire department after 7 years because of a wreck involving children. I could not handle it.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

That's funny if not so sad. Thoroughbreds were created by crossbreeding in the first place, so she's ignorant on several fronts. With her behavior and that attitude, I would apply the WT label rather than sullying the name of a fine horse breed.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I agree. What worries me is that she may never understand her ignorance.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

This pretty much says it all.



> According to the report, Cutshaw said, “I’m a white, clean girl.” When questioned what that means, she said, “You’re a cop, you should know what that means.”
> *The officer wrote in the report: “Making statements such as these as a means to justify not being arrested are unusual in my experience as a law enforcement officer and I believe further demonstrate the suspect’s level of intoxication.”*
> Cutshaw reportedly had a 0.18 percent blood alcohol level after taking a breathalyzer test. The legal limit in South Carolina is 0.08 percent.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> What worries me is that she may never understand her ignorance.


She will once the hangover is gone and she reads the arrest warrant.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She will once the hangover is gone and she reads the arrest warrant.


That hangover will last as long as Mel Gibson's or Robert Downey Jr.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

We all build our heavy chain of regrets one link at a time. She just got one.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Idiots come in all colors.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Idiots come in all colors.


I guess her white privilege card expired.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> DUI is fake, and harms no one? Seriously. Running a stop sign and speeding kills every minute of every day
> 
> You ain't no Thoroughbred.


Corrrect. All fake. 
Reread the link she didn’t harm anyone. 
All those things are about potential harm. 
Kinda like being arrested for thinking about slapping your aggravating neighbor. 
It seems wrong to me to punish people for what they might do.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Corrrect. All fake.
> Reread the link she didn’t harm anyone.
> All those things are about potential harm.
> Kinda like being arrested for thinking about slapping your aggravating neighbor.
> It seems wrong to me to punish people for what they might do.


I see. Speed, run stop signs, drive drunk, it is all OK until that day, and it will come, you hit a car and kill a mother with her three kids, or a dude on a motorcycle.

Got it, all fake charges.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Idiots come in all colors.


 Yes they do, but she didn't become that ignorant all on her own, should I speculate as who taught her?



AmericanStand said:


> Corrrect. All fake.
> Reread the link she didn’t harm anyone.
> All those things are about potential harm.
> Kinda like being arrested for thinking about slapping your aggravating neighbor.
> It seems wrong to me to punish people for what they might do.


Driving under the influence is an act and against the law without her causing injury or property damage.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

flewism said:


> Driving under the influence is an act and against the law without her causing injury or property damage.


You missed my point. It’s a fake law. It was created to make something that harms no one a crime.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The girl hurt no one except for perhaps feelings.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Or, a drunk and enraged soon to be ex husband staggers up to his wife's place of employment with a Remington 870 in his hand, walks into the lobby and demands from the desk clerk to know where his wife is, while pointing the shotgun at them with his finger on the trigger. Security arrives and demands he drop the weapon and lay down on the ground. He refuses and states they should understand what he is going thru since they are guys. Only after they issue their final warning with guns drawn does he lay down the shotgun and put his hand behind his head.
At that point, they should walk him to the curb, empty his shotgun and hand it back to him, issue him a stern warning and send him on his way?. It falls under the "No harm no foul" rule right?
This isn't even a well thought out trolling thread.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Actually I like the way the guards in your scenario handled it. It has happened many times like that in the past. 
The guy in your post was actually committing the crime of trespassing and could’ve been removed.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> The girl hurt no one except for perhaps feelings.


If I'm ever charged with a crime, I need you on my jury.


----------



## AZSongBird1973 (Jun 10, 2018)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She will once the hangover is gone and she reads the arrest warrant.


I'm sure she'll call mummy and daddy and they'll take care of their little princess.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

flewism said:


> If I'm ever charged with a crime, I need you on my jury.


 I agree


----------



## AZSongBird1973 (Jun 10, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> Corrrect. All fake.
> Reread the link she didn’t harm anyone.
> All those things are about potential harm.
> Kinda like being arrested for thinking about slapping your aggravating neighbor.
> It seems wrong to me to punish people for what they might do.


I don't know how you see these as fake charges. True that she didn't harm anyone...this time...by the grace of God. But she did speed, run a stop sign, have weed, and was intoxicated. Girl was ridin dirty!! How are those fake charges??


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

AZSongBird1973 said:


> I don't know how you see these as fake charges. True that she didn't harm anyone...this time...by the grace of God. But she did speed, run a stop sign, have weed, and was intoxicated. Girl was ridin dirty!! How are those fake charges??


 Did she harm anyone ?
No. 
So each of these laws are punishment for things that MIGHT happen. 
Not really the way our nation was founded and far beyond the first steps to the thought police and being arrested for what’s in your DNA.


----------



## AZSongBird1973 (Jun 10, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> Did she harm anyone ?


No, I just said that. Did you read all of what I wrote? And just because she didn't hurt anyone doesn't mean she didn't break laws.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

AZSongBird1973 said:


> No, I just said that. Did you read all of what I wrote? And just because she didn't hurt anyone doesn't mean she didn't break laws.


 Sorry I had a glitch there and had to rewrite most of what I had intended to write. 
Correct she did break the law but they are bad laws that we shouldn’t have in our country.


----------



## AZSongBird1973 (Jun 10, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> Sorry I had a glitch there and had to rewrite most of what I had intended to write.
> Correct she did break the law but they are bad laws that we shouldn’t have in our country.


I surely don't understand your philosophy at all. Please explain how you see speed limits, traffic control, driving under the influence, and drug possession laws as bad laws.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

All are about what might happen. Not what did.
I think laws like this are what have lead to people generally ignoring the law.
Do you come to a full stop at every stop sign. Let the car rock back on its springs before leaving again?
Ever drove with ANY alcohol in your system ?(hint you always have some)
Ever sped ?
Ever had a pipe or lighter ?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Maybe she will learn a lesson. I know that it only took one me getting caught. It was in the 80's ,no wreck just a regular check point. $750 for a lawyer and a jury trial in another state. I was found not guilty , now the only time I drink and drive is on the farm on the tractor....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> Maybe she will learn a lesson. now the only time I drink and drive is on the farm on the tractor....


 I suspect the only lesson she will learn is to keep her mouth shut about white privilege. 

Driving a tractor on your own farm while drinking os actually a crime in some states.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I suspect the only lesson she will learn is to keep her mouth shut about white privilege.
> 
> Driving a tractor on your own farm while drinking os actually a crime in some states.


I don't know if that true here but the state patrol don't ride thru my fields and around my fence lines...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> I don't know if that true here but the state patrol don't ride thru my fields and around my fence lines...


Lol here enjoy a cold one till they do !


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> How many little kids have you had to put in bodybags, because someone was speeding and ran a stop sign? My count is four.


And was that person convicted or murder ?

Sorry you had to go through that.
Was it as part of your time in law enforcement ? I’ve always suspected that would be the worst part of that job.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I see. Speed, run stop signs, drive drunk, it is all OK until that day, and it will come, you hit a car and kill a mother with her three kids, or a dude on a motorcycle.
> 
> Got it, all fake charges.


 Don’t you think that should be against the law ?


----------



## AZSongBird1973 (Jun 10, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> All are about what might happen. Not what did.
> I think laws like this are what have lead to people generally ignoring the law.
> Do you come to a full stop at every stop sign. Let the car rock back on its springs before leaving again?
> Ever drove with ANY alcohol in your system ?(hint you always have some)
> ...


So preventative laws are bad? In other words we should allow things to be what they may and then pick up the pieces after something actually happens? If your child or grandchild happened to be riding their bike as this lady is speeding thru the neighborhood and runs the stop sign and God forbid, kills them, would you feel the same as you do now? That there should be no regulation? Laws may are absolutely different than when our forefathers founded our country but life is no where near the same as it was then. Laws and rules are created as a result of something. Hunter I were reading the his school handbook the other night. It discusses what the rules are. Some of them are surprising to see in an elementary school handbook. He asked me why and I told him it's probably because at some point it actually happened so they had to make a rule. No gum in the classroom...a result of kids sticking it under the desk spitting it on the floor and distraction. No driving under the influence...a result of people loosing lives.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Of course they’re bad. Think about it the best preventative law would’ve been the kids couldn’t write any bicycles. Or perhaps They couldn’t leave the house.
See that’s the problem with preventative laws you want to prevent other people from bothering you without being inconvenienced yourself.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

I don't know whether she is a thoroughbred or not but I feel confident in my belief of which end of the horse she represents.


----------



## AZSongBird1973 (Jun 10, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> Of course they’re bad. Think about it the best preventative law would’ve been the kids couldn’t write any bicycles. Or perhaps I couldn’t leave the house.


So anarchy is a better option? We would implode in short order.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Read the book Lord of the Flies.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> And was that person convicted or murder


She was convicted of felony DUI, and vehicular homicide.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Of course they’re bad. Think about it the best preventative law would’ve been the kids couldn’t ride any bicycles. Or perhaps couldn’t leave the house.
But that’s not what you want is it ?
You want laws that let you do what you want to do and prevent others from doing things that might annoy you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> She was convicted of felony DUI, and vehicular homicide.


 Well that seems pretty reasonable.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> You missed my point. It’s a fake law. It was created to make something that harms no one a crime.


Except the whole driving is a privilege not a right!

As a privilege the powers that be can impose any restrictions they like and can get away with!


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Did she harm anyone ?
> No.
> So each of these laws are punishment for things that MIGHT happen.
> Not really the way our nation was founded and far beyond the first steps to the thought police and being arrested for what’s in your DNA.


Nope drunk drivimg is an illegal act, running a stop sign/light an illegal act. 

These aren't things she might do these ate acts if found guilty she did commit, consequently she may be charhrd


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I thought the news article was hysterical, that's why I posted it. I mean, after all, it's been years since I heard a policeman say "We're gonna let you go, because you're white"


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

I like the children should stay inside and never leaving the house. They need to do like the Japanese kids and get high grades in advanced mathematics and science, but that will never happen like this girl, most of American children wallow in mediocrity, mimic their idols wearing age inappropriate clothing and having children while still being children themselves. Then expecting their parents to bring up their children and the state welfare to foot the bill.

Children are the most expensive problems we have in America from tagging (graffiti ) to death injury and destruction on the highways there is a guardrail a half mile from my home and it is always being rebuilt because of drunks and texting fools. if not for stupid people we would have enough money to rebuild our infrastructure. It's not just the damage it is the cost of labor and parts to rebuild all the stuff they tear up. I would love for the states to leave the damage for a month so people would see the total waste and destruction of these cretins. maybe then people would understand there are no victimless crimes. Wait for it, soon most drugs will be legal, prostitution and lowering the age of consent to 12 or 14 this is the result of the kind of thinking in some of the posts where if we make everything legal there will be no crime -- just a line of dead bodies from one coast to the other and who's going to pay to bury all these morons ? maybe the people that post such nonsense I very much doubt that as everything is fine until it's their blood and family or it comes out of their money.

A Bernie Sanders utopia until we go broke.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> You missed my point. It’s a fake law. It was created to make something that harms no one a crime.


It's a real law ! There are many I don't like but rules are rules. Me being a passenger in a vehicle with an open beer can cost me over $200 even if my driver has not had one in 20yrs. I'll pay the ticket if caught but it still is wrong IMO.....


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

This is one of those points where I am conflicted. If I hold fast to the principles of government in which I believe, including general opposition to arbitrary law and punishing "pre-crime", I would not outlaw traffic violations including drunk driving, but would nail people to the wall if they harmed someone else, probably with execution for death or serious injury. At a practical level, I am afraid that given the nature of addicts, no deterrent would be effective and the cost with the balance skewed in such a way would be unacceptable, unless we eventually executed addicts who caused harm until we ran out of them.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

AZSongBird1973 said:


> So anarchy is a better option? We would implode in short order.


 No our nation did fine for many years without laws about the future. 
You don’t make everything legal you still leave laws in place about doing harm.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Did she harm anyone ?
> No.


If she had, she would have been charged with that as well.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You are right they are real laws but they create fake crimes. 
My mistake.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

IndyDave said:


> unless we eventually executed addicts who caused harm until we ran out of them


It would take a long time to run out of addicts, but I believe it would be worth the effort.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> If she had, she would have been charged with that as well.


EXACTLY !
If she was Harming anyone she would been charged with that.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Indy it sounds like what you are referring to is "absolute freedom" which I'll admit to sometimes looking at with a wishful eye, but those days have passed and that is not the case here. And absolute freedom is not anarchy by itself. The original American principal of absolute freedom also walked arm in arm with absolute consequences. It becomes clear to me when separating rights and privileges what the difference is. The Bill of Rights was never intended, in spite of modern culture, to be considered with the same oversight as basic rules of law.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> No our nation did fine for many years without laws about the future.
> You don’t make everything legal you still leave laws in place about doing harm.


Very good point. When my grandparents were young adults, if you followed the Ten Commandments and paid your taxes you would never need to worry about a brush with the law. Today, I wonder how many laws I break in a day without realizing it.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

4tu said:


> A Bernie Sanders utopia until we go broke.


We can't go broke. I remember Hillary saying once, that we would just print more money.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So each of these laws are punishment for *things that MIGHT happen*.


No. There is no "might".
She did all those things.
Your arguments are ridiculous.
But you already know that.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

IndyDave said:


> Very good point. When my grandparents were young adults, if you followed the Ten Commandments and paid your taxes you would never need to worry about a brush with the law. Today, I wonder how many laws I break in a day without realizing it.


They will let you know if they can catch you. Stay under the radar....


----------



## RonM (Jan 6, 2008)

I am a retired State Trooper, I saw a lot of carnage to kids as well as adults. It got to the point that I had problems attending autopsies of children, so I didn't go to MX office....She needs to be arrested on all the charges listed and no plea deals..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Perhaps I should explain how icy this affecting traffic. 

Most of the signs you see now would become advisory not absolute. 
In case of an accident violation of any of the advisory cauctions could and would be used as evidence against you.
As far as drug law take a look at how Portugal does it there are no drug laws,no none at all and their society has not fell apart.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No. There is no "might".
> She did all those things.
> Your arguments are ridiculous.
> But you already know that.


I believe the point is that while she broke at least 3 laws, no one was harmed in the process. I would remind you that the common law standard for a crime requires an identifiable individual victim who has sustained actual harm. "Society" cannot be a victim of an arbitrary offense under this standard. Much of our present system of law is based on maritime law rather than common law which was the standard at the founding of the republic unless you were on a ship.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

RonM said:


> I am a retired State Trooper, I saw a lot of carnage to kids as well as adults. It got to the point that I had problems attending autopsies of children, so I didn't go to MX office....She needs to be arrested on all the charges listed and no plea deals..


Pretty much the response I would expect from a state trooper.
But surprisingly I agree with you on the no plea deals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> I believe *the point* is that while she broke at least 3 laws, no one was harmed in the process.


I understand the point he's trying to make.
It's just a ridiculous one.

No one in their right mind would suggest allowing drunks to drive as long as they don't hurt anyone.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I challenge each of you reading this thread and replying to it to answer on this thread in black-and-white the following questions

Do you come to a full stop at every stop sign. Let the car rock back on its springs before leaving again?
Ever drove with ANY alcohol in your system ?(hint you always have some)
Ever sped ?
Ever had a pipe or lighter ?


----------



## FreeRange (Oct 9, 2005)

The Affluenza kid was happy to see this headline I'm sure.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I understand the point he's trying to make.
> It's just a ridiculous one.
> 
> No one in their right mind would suggest allowing drunks to drive as long as they don't hurt anyone.


I understand that you hold to the letter of the law on the book regardless of whether that law washes morally or constitutionally, or any consideration for consequences outside the ostensible purpose for the law. I recall we dealt at great length previously regarding abortion which you rejected as harm to a human being (i.e., murder) solely because it is presently legal. Now you are holding fast to punishing actions which harmed no one solely because there is a law (squarely outside the province of common law, which should be the standard) prohibiting them. Please look up the difference between _malum prohibitum_ and _malum in se._


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> I challenge each of you reading this thread and replying to it to answer on this thread in black-and-white the following questions
> 
> Do you come to a full stop at every stop sign. Let the car rock back on its springs before leaving again?
> Ever drove with ANY alcohol in your system ?(hint you always have some)
> ...


The answers are 
yes and I wait 2 seconds 
no I don't drink so the level would be well below .08
no I don't speed I maintain a safe distance between vehicles so within 5 miles of the speed limit.
Lighters are not considered paraphernalia if not found with other items. I do not smoke either so no ashes in my vehicle, no syringes burnt spoons aluminum foil or cans made into pipes brass screen empty baggies of any size or inability to make conversation answer questions in fact I have not been puled over in at least 10 years, and if I am not acting like a legal eagle or being rude I can say I have only had my vehicle search once and that was a quickie less than a minute and by boarder patrol. 

the argument that because we do not exactly adhere to all laws makes them superfluous or entrapment is all in the mindset of the traveler I don't say there are not laws that could be better defined but I also have cameras so if there is a issue I have evidence.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> I challenge each of you reading this thread and replying to it to answer on this thread in black-and-white the following questions
> 
> Do you come to a full stop at every stop sign. Let the car rock back on its springs before leaving again?
> Ever drove with ANY alcohol in your system ?(hint you always have some)
> ...


What sort of person asks others to give up info that incriminates themselves? A term comes to mind.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Now you are holding fast to punishing actions which harmed no one *solely because there is a law* (squarely outside the province of common law, which should be the standard) prohibiting them. Please look up the difference between _malum prohibitum_ and _malum in se._


It's not "because there is a law".
It's because it makes sense.

AS only argues because he likes to argue, even if it requires him to look foolish.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> I challenge each of you reading this thread and replying to it to answer on this thread in black-and-white the following questions
> 
> Do you come to a full stop at every stop sign. Let the car rock back on its springs before leaving again?
> Ever drove with ANY alcohol in your system ?(hint you always have some)
> ...


1. Yes
2. Not since June, 1976.
3. Yes
4. Never


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "because there is a law".
> It's because it makes sense.
> 
> AS only argues because he likes to argue, even if it requires him to look foolish.


Where do you draw the line between this and charging me with rape because I have working, well, plumbing and potentially could?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> Ever had a pipe or lighter


I used to catch dopers with those little glass pipes, with residue in them. An easy conviction. One year in county jail, usually got probation.

If you are not ready to pay, don't play.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

4tu said:


> The answers are
> yes and I wait 2 seconds
> no I don't drink so the level would be well below .08
> no I don't speed I maintain a safe distance between vehicles so within 5 miles of the speed limit.
> ...


Interesting you only had to weasel twice to answer 4 questions.
You realize that’s what the subject of this thread did and that’s why your answers are very important to show how silly these laws are.
And thank you for driving carefully. I appreciate it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> You missed my point. It’s a fake law. It was created to make something that harms no one a crime.


Friends of mine lost their son and 2 grandsons to someone driving under the influence.
Another friend was driving drunk, missed a curve and died a horrible fiery death.
I've lost a lot of friends and acquaintances to impaired drivers, so I don't think your claim that it harms no one holds water.
Unless you are being sarcastic.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> 1. Yes
> 2. Not since June, 1976.
> 3. Yes
> 4. Never


 Really ? How did you manage to do that ? Did you stop driving in 1976 ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Friends of mine lost their son and 2 grandsons to someone driving under the influence.
> Another friend was driving drunk, missed a curve and died a horrible fiery death.
> I've lost a lot of friends and acquaintances to impaired drivers, so I don't think your claim that it harms no one holds water.
> Unless you are being sarcastic.


 I’m sorry for your losses but you are blaming the wrong thing. 
There are good laws in place to cover those situations.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> I’m sorry for your losses but you are blaming the wrong thing.
> There are good laws in place to cover those situations.


Which laws?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Cornhusker said:


> Friends of mine lost their son and 2 grandsons to someone driving under the influence.
> Another friend was driving drunk, missed a curve and died a horrible fiery death.
> I've lost a lot of friends and acquaintances to impaired drivers, so I don't think your claim that it harms no one holds water.
> Unless you are being sarcastic.


He is technically correct. A person is harmed be a car hitting them, not by the driver being drunk per se. I definitely support very harsh punishment in this kind of case as previously addressed.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

No I’m not lawyer but I would think someone that killed people should be convicted of murder


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> He is technically correct. A person is harmed be a car hitting them, not by the driver being drunk per se. I definitely support very harsh punishment in this kind of case as previously addressed.


A car, like a gun, isn't go out killing people by itself.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Corrrect. All fake.
> Reread the link she didn’t harm anyone.
> All those things are about potential harm.
> Kinda like being arrested for thinking about slapping your aggravating neighbor.
> It seems wrong to me to punish people for what they might do.


Like this hit and run that happened to my son and after getting out of his truck, yelling at him after this window licker hit him going about 50-60mph....who my son said was drunk then fled the scene...highway patrol said if he had hit my son head on we would be having a totally different conversation:


People like you make me sick AmericanStand...it's okay because it isn't your family who may of or could of been hurt.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Grey Mare said:


> Like this hit and run that happened to my son and after getting out of his truck, yelling at him after this window licker hit him going about 50-60mph....who my son said was drunk then fled the scene...highway patrol said if he had hit my son head on we would be having a totally different conversation:
> 
> 
> People like you make me sick AmericanStand...it's okay because it isn't your family who may of or could of been hurt.


Assuming your son did not get injured, I would say that was worth between 10 and 20 years in prison. I, for one, believe that punishing this person harshly rather than punishing drunkenness itself is not only more compatible with our system of law but also would stand as a more effective deterrent than what we do now which clearly is not stopping the problem.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Grey Mare said:


> Like this hit and run that happened to my son and after getting out of his truck, yelling at him after this window licker hit him going about 50-60mph....who my son said was drunk then fled the scene...highway patrol said if he had hit my son head on we would be having a totally different conversation:
> 
> 
> People like you make me sick AmericanStand...it's okay because it isn't your family who may of or could of been hurt.


 And your lack of concern for others has much the same effect on me.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Cornhusker said:


> A car, like a gun, isn't go out killing people by itself.


Exactly. Punish people for harming others, not for possession or use of inanimate objects whether harm is caused or not.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> And your lack of concern for others has much the same effect on me.


I have concern for those who deserve it....


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> Really ? How did you manage to do that ? Did you stop driving in 1976 ?


I didn't add to what was already there.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Assuming your son did not get injured, I would say that was worth between 10 and 20 years in prison. I, for one, believe that punishing this person harshly rather than punishing drunkenness itself is not only more compatible with our system of law but also would stand as a more effective deterrent than what we do now which clearly is not stopping the problem.


 I too think this crime should be punished harshly. 
I’d like to point out that MADD is responceable for many of the drunk driving laws of today. I don’t blame the mothers of victims for being up set but they may not be the best ones to protect people’s rights at the time.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

U


muleskinner2 said:


> I didn't add to what was already there.


 But if you drove after 1976 you drove with alcohol in your system.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> U
> 
> But if you drove after 1976 you drove with alcohol in your system.


Yes, but I have been able to hide it all of these years. You are the only one to discover my terrible secret.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Grey Mare said:


> I have concern for those who deserve it....


 Really ? My concern is for everyone’s freedom. 
I’ve even expressed concern for your son. 
But yet you want to insult me for preferring a different method of deterrence and punishment than you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> Yes, but I have been able to hide it all of these years. You are the only one to discover my terrible secret.


 Lol I didn’t think it was a secret that there is alcohol in all living things. 
But it’s ok I won’t tell on YOU .


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> Really ? My concern
> 
> 
> Grey Mare said:
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Where do you draw the line between this and charging me with rape because I have working, well, plumbing and potentially could?


Now you're being ridiculous too.



AmericanStand said:


> You realize that’s what *the subject of this thread* did and that’s why your answers are very important to show how silly these laws are.


The subject of the thread said stupid things *only* *because she was drunk*.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now you're being ridiculous too.
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread said stupid things *only* *because she was drunk*.


How would you know that, unless you know that all the rest of the time, she didn't say stupid stuff?
Unless, of course, you can read her mind, and see into her past and future. Some kinda freiki stuff, maybe.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Perhaps when she’s drunk is the smartest time of her life ?
Wouldn’t that be scary ?


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

"It happens" Forrest Gump


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Clem said:


> *How would you know that*, unless you know that all the rest of the time, she didn't say stupid stuff?


I read your source and that was the officer's conclusion.
I never said some people don't say stupid stuff all the time though.



> The officer wrote in the report: “Making statements such as these as a means to justify not being arrested are unusual in my experience as a law enforcement officer and I believe further demonstrate the suspect’s level of intoxication.”


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now you're being ridiculous too.
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread said stupid things *only* *because she was drunk*.


No, I'm not being ridiculous. You want to use a pre-crime standard you haven't defined.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> No, *I'm not being ridiculous*. You want to use a pre-crime standard you haven't defined.


Yes, you are.
Denial won't change that reality.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, you are.
> Denial won't change that reality.


The reality is that if you are going to criminally charge people for conditions that *may* lead to an actual crime against an actual victim, you necessarily have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere. Where?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> The reality is that if you are going to criminally charge people for conditions that *may* lead to an actual crime against an actual victim, you necessarily have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere


I realize that, but that has nothing to do with your ridiculous "rape" argument.
One only has to apply a little common sense.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I realize that, but that has nothing to do with your ridiculous "rape" argument.
> One only has to apply a little common sense.


Ah, common sense. In case you failed to notice, if you ask 5 different people what constitutes "common sense" you are going to get at least 6 different answers. If you can't define it, you cannot incorporate it into law, and you can't enforce it in any objective fashion.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

Cornhusker said:


> Friends of mine lost their son and 2 grandsons to someone driving under the influence.
> Another friend was driving drunk, missed a curve and died a horrible fiery death.
> I've lost a lot of friends and acquaintances to impaired drivers, so I don't think your claim that it harms no one holds water.
> Unless you are being sarcastic.


he doesn't care until it's his or friends or family take the last ride, common sense is of no effect on these people (legalistic)


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> Interesting you only had to weasel twice to answer 4 questions.
> You realize that’s what the subject of this thread did and that’s why your answers are very important to show how silly these laws are.
> And thank you for driving carefully. I appreciate it.


 No weaseling if your going the speed limit and stuck up anothers backside when you hit them that is your fault, so separation is part of driving defensively. if you do not understand physics the law of motion then your just another graduate of our dysfunctional school system.
as far as alcohol most people know you can get a reading from old juice but not enough to get a DUI.you must be a Bernie or athletic supporter I can't tell unless I can see that blank stare in a person eyes.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

4tu said:


> you must be a Bernie or athletic supporter I can't tell unless I can see that blank stare in a person eyes.


I supported Bernie Sanders, still do for that matter. No blank stare tho.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> *If you can't define it*, you cannot incorporate it into law, and you can't enforce it in any objective fashion.


It can be and has been defined.
Common sense is not letting drunks drive or run stop signs.
Enough agreed to pass the laws.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lo


4tu said:


> No weaseling if your going the speed limit and stuck up anothers backside when you hit them that is your fault, so separation is part of driving defensively. if you do not understand physics the law of motion then your just another graduate of our dysfunctional school system.
> as far as alcohol most people know you can get a reading from old juice but not enough to get a DUI.you must be a Bernie or athletic supporter I can't tell unless I can see that blank stare in a person eyes.


lol more Weasling 
I didn’t ask how much alcohol you had in your system. 
I asked if you ever drove with it in your system if you drove you had it in your system. Once we establish that everybody drives with alcohol in their system what we’re really doing is setting a arbitrary amount of how much you can drive with before being punished by our artificial crime. 
And yes it’s totally arbitrary one person can be completely in capable of driving at .0 1 Others Can Drive better than average at .25. Yes these are extremes but there are extreme people why should they be punished for other people‘s failures? 
Then I asked about paraphernalia and I get more weaseling paraphernalia doesn’t have to have drug residue on it in all states nor does it have to be multiple items in all states. So in some states all you need is that lighter. 
And the point of all of this is how totally arbitrary these laws are.
In Illinois at one time you committed the action of feloney mob action simply by being with one other person when a crime was committed. You didn’t have to be convicted of the crime they didn’t have to be convicted of the crime it just had to of happened. Technically if you were walking down the street with your friend as somebody else got out of their car did not pay that nickel in the meter they could be convicted of a two dollar ticket and you could be convicted of a felony. 
I know it sounds so insanr that you don’t think it’s ever happened but variations of it happened a lot it’s probably why it was on the books. 
Crimes where the victim isn’t clear nor the crime are what has led so many people just simply be afraid all the time. They know they have probably committed a crime they just don’t know which one. I think that leads to a general disregard the law ybecause after all why bother with the law at all if you can’t be sure


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I laugh when I see this title. It reminds me of a job I was on. It was a white lady named Mrs Black. She had a neighbor that was a black woman named Mrs White. 

_*cant make this stuff up I tell ya 
*_
Anyway, they were best of friends. I was working there one day and there was a rather loud knock on the door. A woman said "I'm black I'm black." 

Mrs Black replied "Well I'm white here." 

I still laugh about that one.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

Irish Pixie said:


> I supported Bernie Sanders, still do for that matter. No blank stare tho.


I think all socialists should register and pay for all the free stuff they want to give away, I mean why should they impose more taxes by virtue of improving other lives when most of us have a struggle trying to keep our own families and children fed educated and help them along life's hard knocks. Socialism is taking from one and giving it to others with bureaucrats as the intermediaries and that has worked so well over the past 50 years we have 4 generations of the same families on welfare and none have worked a day in their life, the women just pop out another kid to get more welfare. seen it and know it's true it's the reason for the downfall of the family. I have seen working people laid off and refused unemployment and made to jump through hoops. and a bunch of other atrocities against American citizens of all colors races and creeds.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

4tu said:


> I think all socialists should register and pay for all the free stuff they want to give away, I mean why should they impose more taxes by virtue of improving other lives when most of us have a struggle trying to keep our own families and children fed educated and help them along life's hard knocks. Socialism is taking from one and giving it to others with bureaucrats as the intermediaries and that has worked so well over the past 50 years we have 4 generations of the same families on welfare and none have worked a day in their life, the women just pop out another kid to get more welfare. seen it and know it's true it's the reason for the downfall of the family. I have seen working people laid off and refused unemployment and made to jump through hoops. and a bunch of other atrocities against American citizens of all colors races and creeds.


Do you think I don't pay taxes now? I live in NY, we have a decent income, own a substantial amount of land, and pay lots of taxes to the federal government that, in turn, is disbursed to other states. No one is silly enough to think that goverment provided programs are free, if it comes from the government it, at least in part, is paid via the taxpayers.

You're confusing socialism with democrat socialism. Perhaps you should Google for further information.

ETA: I simply have to ask a question- 

Are you advocating allowing American citizens (I'm most interested in children) to starve or go homeless? There will always be those that either cannot, or will not, support themselves and their families. What happens to those people? Can you give a detailed outline on how to eliminate welfare programs, that won't allow the innocent children of irresponsible parents to be hungry or homeless?


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Which laws?


AmericanStand, if you answered this question I missed it. I always wished we had at least two more laws:
1. DWS, Driving While Stupid.
2. DWHUA, Driving With Head Up A...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

4tu said:


> I think all *socialists should register and pay for all the free stuff they want to give away,* I mean why should they impose more taxes by virtue of improving other lives when most of us have a struggle trying to keep our own families and children fed educated and help them along life's hard knocks. Socialism is taking from one and giving it to others with bureaucrats as the intermediaries and that has worked so well over the past 50 years we have 4 generations of the same families on welfare and none have worked a day in their life, the women just pop out another kid to get more welfare. seen it and know it's true it's the reason for the downfall of the family. I have seen working people laid off and refused unemployment and made to jump through hoops. and a bunch of other atrocities against American citizens of all colors races and creeds.


Good idea.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you think I don't pay taxes now? I live in NY, we have a decent income, own a substantial amount of land, and *pay lots of taxes to the federal government* that, in turn, is disbursed to other states. No one is silly enough to think that government provided programs are free, if it comes from the government it, at least in part, is paid via the taxpayers.
> 
> You're confusing socialism with democrat socialism. Perhaps you should Google for further information.
> 
> ...


Bad idea.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

gilberte said:


> AmericanStand, if you answered this question I missed it. I always wished we had at least two more laws:
> 1. DWS, Driving While Stupid.
> 2. DWHUA, Driving With Head Up A...


 Bad idea it would overwork the cops to death!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I love the rationalization of defining Socialist Democracy as fair, where the majority, lower income, votes to take from the minority, upper incomes. Sure that's fair.

That is why our Founder built a Republic, and Franklin knew we would destroy it, with Democracy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

gilberte said:


> AmericanStand, if you answered this question I missed it...


 That would have been post 85.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I love the rationalization of defining Socialist Democracy as fair, where the majority, lower income, votes to take from the minority, upper incomes. Sure that's fair.
> 
> That is why our Founder built a Republic, and Franklin knew we would destroy it, with Democracy.


That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but that doesn’t make it correct.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I love the rationalization of defining Socialist Democracy as fair, where the majority, lower income, votes to take from the minority, upper incomes. Sure that's fair.
> 
> That is why our Founder built a Republic, and Franklin knew we would destroy it, with Democracy.


Absolutely correct. 
So how do we create a majority that is upper income ?

Don’t bother creating a majority of middle income. We did that once and the wealthy took it away from them so they could be richer.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Absolutely correct.
> So how do we create a majority that is upper income ?
> 
> Don’t bother creating a majority of middle income. We did that once and the *wealthy took it away* from them so they could be richer.


Your ripe for Social Democracy propaganda.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but that doesn’t make it correct.


Which part are you disputing? That the majority vote to rob from the rich, or that Franklin warned about democracy?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Your ripe for Social Democracy propaganda.


 How do you figure ? It’s just old history.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which part are you disputing? That the majority vote to rob from the rich, or that Franklin warned about democracy?


 I’ll dispute that first line. 
Voting to make them pay their fair share isn’t robbing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I’ll dispute that first line.
> Voting to make them pay their fair share isn’t robbing.


It is when they vote to define what the fair share is.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I’ll dispute that first line.
> Voting to make them pay their fair share isn’t robbing.


They will always have a better CPA. I think mine does a fine job....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you figure ? It’s just old history.


You would not understand if I explained it to you. I don't want to waste my time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you figure ? It’s just old history.


The majority middle class is still very much alive and well. We've been told they are now poor by the democrats who keep moving the bar, but they are still buying homes, cars, computers, iPods and all the other trinkets they want.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The majority middle class is still very much alive and well. We've been told they are now poor by the democrats who keep moving the bar, but they are still buying homes, cars, computers, iPods and all the other trinkets they want.


I wonder who started the businesses that gave the middle class those jobs. 

I bet it was the government. 

I remember when we all got together and voted for the government to give us 160,000,000 jobs.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I’ll dispute that first line.
> Voting to make them pay their fair share isn’t robbing.


Sure it is.
The only confusion is thinking that in either case, rich or poor, that "voting" for it will get you what you want.
The end result in all cases is the GOV'T gets the money and conveniently forgets to redistribute it the way they promised to and the result is people get "robbed".
It doesn't matter if you think it's a capitalist way or socialist, it always ends the same if you allow the gov't to tax your income.
That's why it was unconstitutional to do so for over a century in the U.S.
Things haven't been the same since.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> They will always have a better CPA. I think mine does a fine job....


I was in a meeting one time, and the leader commented that a good Tax Director was worth their weight in gold. They greatly underestimated their value.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Others Can Drive better than average at .25.


Some probably also think they are smarter when they are drunk, but they are wrong about that too.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> You would not understand if I explained it to you. I don't want to waste my time.


You got nothing huh?
Don't want to admit that the wealthy have spent their time and money for years trying to steer wealth away from the poor and middle class?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> It is when they vote to define what the fair share is.


LOL ok who would you have define it?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Absolutely correct.
> So how do we create a majority that is upper income ?
> 
> Don’t bother creating a majority of middle income. We did that once and the wealthy took it away from them so they could be richer.


The "wealthy" didn't take anything from us, we gave it to them in exchange for cheap opulence.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> You got nothing huh?
> Don't want to admit that the wealthy have spent their time and money for years trying to steer wealth away from the poor and middle class?


How much have you allowed them to take from you ???


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some probably also think they are smarter when they are drunk, but they are wrong about that too.


I don't get much smarter when I drink, but I dance a lot better and get better looking too.
Alcohol brings out my natural sex appeal.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Nope not the rich either


HDRider said:


> I wonder who started the businesses that gave the middle class those jobs.
> 
> I bet it was the government.
> 
> I remember when we all got together and voted for the government to give us 160,000,000 jobs.


Nope not the rich either. mostly it was poor or lower class folks.
You really need to think carefully and choose your words carefully < you see people respond to what you actually say to what you want to say.
"I wonder who started the businesses that gave the middle class those jobs. "


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> LOL ok who would you have define it?


Who would I have define how much you can take from me? Not you, not those that only know how to take, and since there are more takers than givers, it is a lopsided vote.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Alcohol brings out my natural sex appeal.


When *women* drink lots of it?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> You got nothing huh?
> Don't want to admit that the wealthy have spent their time and money for years trying to steer wealth away from the poor and middle class?


I got lots, but it is easy to see it would all be wasted on you.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When *women* drink lots of it?


Well, that does help.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> I don't get much smarter when I drink, but I dance a lot better and get better looking too.
> Alcohol brings out my natural sex appeal.


I have noticed women get better looking too when I drink.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> The "wealthy" didn't take anything from us, we gave it to them in exchange for cheap opulence.


Nope the rich and their "bought and paid for" politics have destroyed the institutions that created and maintained the middle class.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You really need to *think carefully and choose your words carefully* < you see people respond to what you actually say to what you want to say.


Et Tu AS


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> How much have you allowed them to take from you ???


Nothing I fight like a Berserker to keep what is mine.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> LOL ok who would you have define it?


On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by *Uncle Sam.*

I bet even you could see how that little exercise in "Social Democracy" would go.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Nothing I fight like a dervish to keep what is mine.


Dervishes don't fight.
They whirl.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Who would I have define how much you can take from me? Not you, not those that only know how to take, and since there are more takers than givers, it is a lopsided vote.


Again you got nothing right? See you weaseled around and said stuff,
* BUT YOU DIDNT ANSWER THE QUESTION!*


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Nope the rich and their "bought and paid for" politics have destroyed the institutions that created and maintained the middle class.


Total BS. I never bought a politician.

How much does one cost? I bet I could afford a couple of small ones.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Again you got nothing right? See you weaseled around and said stuff,
> * BUT YOU DIDNT ANSWER THE QUESTION!*


Sure I did. You just didn't like it, or understand it.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Nothing I fight like a dervish to keep what is mine.


Then why are you the one complaining? Try teaching your method to others . Maybe have free classes online....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Dervishes don't fight.
> They whirl.


He named it right.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I got lots, but it is easy to see it would all be wasted on you.


Then bring it Im not the only one here.
Drop the cons and insults and argue with what you know. You are a smart guy, assume those that disagree with you are at least as smart and use your best logic.
Did you get to your spot in corporate America buy insults and cons or by smarts and hard work? That's what it takes here.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by *Uncle Sam.*
> 
> I bet even you could see how that little exercise in "Social Democracy" would go.


Seems fair since that group has over %80 of the wealth in the nation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> Then why are you the one complaining? Try teaching your method to others . Maybe have free classes online....


 I suspect you didn't understand the question I answered .
The key word there was "LET" I didn't let them take anything.
Have they taken anything is a different question.
You have to be careful in these forums , every word will be important to someone.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Then bring it Im not the only one here.
> Drop the cons and insults and argue with what you know. You are a smart guy, assume those that disagree with you are at least as smart and use your best logic.
> Did you *get to your spot in corporate America* buy insults and cons or by smarts and hard work? That's what it takes here.


By cooperation, and reason, which you display little of.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Seems fair since that group has over %80 of the wealth in the nation.


And those with money took it by violence? Sure let the takers vote it away from the wealthy, by the violence of the majority voting it away.

It is obvious you have a misguided, and skewed agenda. I'm done arguing with you. It is a waste. Claim your victory.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> He named it right.


fixed it to what I actually was thinking of.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I suspect you didn't understand the question I answered .
> The key word there was "LET" I didn't let them take anything.
> Have they taken anything is a different question.
> You have to be careful in these forums , every word will be important to someone.


So you just want to be wealthier and can't because the bad old rich people are holding you back? Go make your own deals as you have been and don't worry about what you can't get... That's exactly what I do...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

why would the majority vote be more violent than the bought and paid for vote?


HDRider said:


> And those with money took it by violence? Sure let the takers vote it away from the wealthy, by the violence of the majority voting it away.
> It is obvious you have a misguided, and skewed agenda. I'm done arguing with you. It is a waste. Claim your victory.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> So you just want to be wealthier and can't because the bad old rich people are holding you back? Go make your own deals as you have been and don't worry about what you can't get... That's exactly what I do...


And that's why the wealthy continue their exploiting the poor.
You joke about the bad old rich people but its true not all but some.
Historically the rich have used violence on the poor when they had the gall to ask of more and even kill those who withheld their labor.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> So you just want to be wealthier and can't because the bad old rich people are holding you back? Go make your own deals as you have been and don't worry about what you can't get... That's exactly what I do...


Are you rich, what percentile?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> By cooperation, and reason, which you display little of.


LOL I will agree that I seldom cooperate with those that are wrong,
Perhaps why I wasn't good at climbing the corporate ladder.
But reason yeah I do just fine with that.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Are you rich, what percentile?


Wealthier than some and poorer than others. Just like everyone else. Weren't you on here a couple of years ago complaining about trying to buy some land that some one didn't want to sell?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> It is obvious you have a misguided, and skewed agenda. I'm done arguing with you. It is a waste. Claim your victory.


Would that be because I don't agree with you?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> Wealthier than some and poorer than others. Just like everyone else. Weren't you on here a couple of years ago complaining about trying to buy some land that some one didn't want to sell?


I don't think so but I have commented on BellyMans thread about a similar topic.
Whats your point?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I don't think so but I have commented on BellyMans thread about a similar topic.
> Whats your point?


Enjoy what and where you are in life and don't sweat the petty things you can't change. I get out bid on properties by some people with more wealth but I do make them pay for it. I sleep very well....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> Enjoy what and where you are in life and don't sweat the petty things you can't change. I get out bid on properties by some people with more wealth but I do make them pay for it. I sleep very well....


 LOL off topic but if you buy a lot of property I've got a couple of questions
Do you "bid" on much that you buy or acquire it in other ways?
When you bid and are outbid isn't it usually someone with less, a lot less than you?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I buy and sell a lot-property, equipment farm and commercial. I don't find I lose out to those with more money but rather more determination. Big difference.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> LOL off topic but if you buy a lot of property I've got a couple of questions
> Do you "bid" on much that you buy or acquire it in other ways?
> When you bid and are outbid isn't it usually someone with less, a lot less than you?


If its a tax sale it's a free for all on bidding.
If its a foreclosure the bank bids on what owed , they have more than me.
I try to find my deals before it goes thru the court system. Like I said its just business and a little fun and games. That's why I leave here every day about this time so I can go play farmer. As far as percentile I have idea about the country but in my little world business is good on rental homes....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I see
I should have thought about that.
Ive found Im usually the cheapest when bidding on something. But the winning bidder is often among the least wealthy bidding on something.
I laugh to myself when I hear others commiserating that so and so Mr Big Bucks is here and we wont be able to buy anything. I worry that Ive overpaid If I get it and he doesn't.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> If its a tax sale it's a free for all on bidding.
> If its a foreclosure the bank bids on what owed , they have more than me.
> I try to find my deals before it goes thru the court system. Like I said its just business and a little fun and games. That's why I leave here every day about this time so I can go play farmer. As far as percentile I have idea about the country but in my little world business is good on rental homes....


I have some friends that buy foreclosures at auction, and the conspiring that goes on is something I would never had imagined.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ive been lucky when Ive gone to sheriff sales around here, its usually just me and the bank.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Several weeks ago I witnessed 11 acres of rural ground with a 3 bedroom farmhouse and a couple outbuildings sell for a little over 110k. It should resell for another 40k easily and is taxed even higher. At the same time a 10 year old UTV with 6000 miles that books around 4k sold for $8500, while a 1927 Model T sitting in the same barn that Grandma backed it into in 1955 went for less than 4k. Success and wealth are tied to opportunity, courage and a little common sense more than luck.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> You got nothing huh?
> Don't want to admit that the wealthy have spent their time and money for years trying to steer wealth away from the poor and middle class?


What I have seen is the wealthy creating more wealth, the poor and middle class are free to do the same. For whatever various reasons they are not as good at it. Perhaps it would behoove them to watch the wealthy and see how it's done. Hint: it's not blowing your weeks pay on lottery tickets.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Thinking or saying someone should be "registered" simply because they're of a different political persuasion is solely an admission of idiocy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Seems fair since that group has over %80 of the wealth in the nation.


That 80% figure isn't exactly accurate. It doesn't include several things that I consider "wealth" like home values. It consists mostly of liquid assets such as stock n bonds. There are quite a few homes in this country not owned by the top 20%. I own 7 myself and I'm prolly in the bottom 20%.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> And that's why the wealthy continue their exploiting the poor.
> You joke about the bad old rich people but its true not all but some.
> Historically the rich have used violence on the poor when they had the gall to ask of more  and even kill those who withheld their labor.


I don't recall anyone being killed for withholding their labor. More thana few have been killed while attempting to force others to withhold theirs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> How much does one cost? I bet I could afford a couple of small ones.


You may be able to get this one for bail money:
https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/t...rged-with-murder-of-campaign-employee.586050/


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't recall anyone being killed for withholding their labor. More thana few have been killed while attempting to force others to withhold theirs.


 You might want to look into why the governor of PA had his troops attack the Pittsburgh steel workers. 
There’s probably 100 other incidents besides that one.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That 80% figure isn't exactly accurate. It doesn't include several things that I consider "wealth" like home values. It consists mostly of liquid assets such as stock n bonds. There are quite a few homes in this country not owned by the top 20%. I own 7 myself and I'm prolly in the bottom 20%.


 The site I used included wealth in homes. In any case close enough.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> You might want to look into why the governor of PA had his troops attack the Pittsburgh steel workers.
> There’s probably 100 other incidents besides that one.


If I remember correctly the steelworkers had taken possession of the mill, refusing to allow the owners to rightfully fire them and reopen the mill with other labor. I could be wrong on that, but that's usually how that worked back in that time. Had those workers simply quit working and gone back home to whence they came from they wouldn't have been there to be shot at now would they?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> The site I used included wealth in homes. In any case close enough.


Link to that site? Honestly curious here? The reason being is that most of the wealth the average middle class citizen owns is his home. If they have not included that in their math it's a tremendous difference.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I remember correctly the steelworkers had taken possession of the mill, refusing to allow the owners to rightfully fire them and reopen the mill with other labor. I could be wrong on that, but that's usually how that worked back in that time. Had those workers simply quit working and gone back home to whence they came from they wouldn't have been there to be shot at now would they?


Which strike are you referring to? Do you have a link?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Link to that site? Honestly curious here? The reason being is that most of the wealth the average middle class citizen owns is his home. If they have not included that in their math it's a tremendous difference.


http://wealthometer.org/US/calculator2.html#ergebnis1
I’m not sure about the accuracy but on that one it takes just $2,750,000 to make the 1%


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Which strike are you referring to? Do you have a link?


 Nope
Like a lot of things in my life that I have learned about in the past there’s not always a link to it but I’m sure it’s in Google and history books.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Which strike are you referring to? Do you have a link?


The one involving Carnegie, the pinker tons and several thousand workers at homestead pa. No link, sorry, watched a good documentary on the builders of this country during the industrial revolution a while back. They covered Carnegie, ford, Rockefeller, Edison, tesla and several other industrialists. Quite interesting stuff.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> http://wealthometer.org/US/calculator2.html#ergebnis1
> I’m not sure about the accuracy but on that one it takes just $2,750,000 to make the 1%


I feel so much better now! Looks like I'm in top 20%!! I came in at 82% mark. Not bad for a high school eddykation and never having earnings above poverty level eh? Maybe next year I can get in the top ten?!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The one involving Carnegie, the pinker tons and several thousand workers at homestead pa. No link, sorry, watched a good documentary on the builders of this country during the industrial revolution a while back. They covered Carnegie, ford, Rockefeller, Edison, tesla and several other industrialists. Quite interesting stuff.


It's the Homestead Strike, and you aren't remembering correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's the Homestead Strike, and you aren't remembering correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike


Just read your link.... Which part did I miss remember?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> you aren't remembering correctly.





> Yvonne's hubby said: ↑
> If I remember correctly the steelworkers had taken possession of the mill, refusing to allow the owners to rightfully fire them and reopen the mill with other labor


From your link:


> The strikers were determined to keep the plant closed


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope. Wrong again.

From my link: "*Frick locked workers out of the plate mill and one of the open hearth furnaces on the evening of June 28*. *When no collective bargaining agreement was reached on June 29, Frick locked the union out of the rest of the plant.* A high fence topped with barbed wire, begun in January, was completed and the plant sealed to the workers. Sniper towers with searchlights were constructed near each mill building, and high-pressure water cannons (some capable of spraying boiling-hot liquid) were placed at each entrance. Various aspects of the plant were protected, reinforced, or shielded.[18]"

The sniper towers and water cannons were to keep the union workers OUT of the mill.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Wrong again.
> 
> From my link: "*Frick locked workers out of the plate mill and one of the open hearth furnaces on the evening of June 28*. *When no collective bargaining agreement was reached on June 29, Frick locked the union out of the rest of the plant.* A high fence topped with barbed wire, begun in January, was completed and the plant sealed to the workers. Sniper towers with searchlights were constructed near each mill building, and high-pressure water cannons (some capable of spraying boiling-hot liquid) were placed at each entrance. Various aspects of the plant were protected, reinforced, or shielded.[18]"
> 
> The sniper towers and water cannons were to keep the union workers OUT of the mill.


Of course. They had no business in the plant if they weren't employees. Since they had refused to renew their contracts they were no longer employees, just a mob of trespassers (violent thugs) intent on disrupting normal operations. Had they simply refused to work and gone on holiday with their families there would have been no need for violence at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Wrong again.


Yes you are, but nevertheless you persist.
YH was correct.

You stopped reading too soon.



> The strikers were determined to keep the plant closed. They secured a steam-powered river launch and several rowboats to patrol the Monongahela River, which ran alongside the plant. Men also divided themselves into units along military lines.
> 
> Picket lines were thrown up around the plant and the town, and 24-hour shifts established. Ferries and trains were watched. Strangers were challenged to give explanations for their presence in town; if one was not forthcoming, they were escorted outside the city limits.
> 
> ...


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I supported Bernie Sanders, still do for that matter. No blank stare tho.


Sending you the secret handshake.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

First cleanup.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> why should you be appreciative ?? It has nothing to do with you ?
> I realize you are just jerking peoples' chains.
> If you aren't, then you are an idiot.


Why would I appreciate someone driving carefully ?
Because my friends and family and myself spend a lot of time on the road. 
That has a lot to do with me.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That 80% figure isn't exactly accurate. It doesn't include several things that I consider "wealth" like home values. It consists mostly of liquid assets such as stock n bonds. There are quite a few homes in this country not owned by the top 20%. I own 7 myself and I'm prolly in the bottom 20%.


If you own 7 homes it’s not likely you are in the bottom 20%.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> If you own 7 homes it’s not likely you are in the bottom 20%.


Don't confuse owning property with having lots of wealth.
It's a liability until you sell it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

[QUOTE="Yvonne's hubby, post: 8120348, member: 18164“]Had they simply refused to work and gone on holiday with their families there would have been no need for violence at all.[/QUOTE]

There was never a “NEED” for violence.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> [QUOTE="Yvonne's hubby, post: 8120348, member: 18164“]Had they simply refused to work and gone on holiday with their families there would have been no need for violence at all.


There was never a “NEED” for violence.[/QUOTE]
True, the lawful property owner could have simply deeded everything over to the union bosses and walked away from his millions of dollars worth of investments. Somehow that doesn't sit well with most people. Many of us like to think that what we have legally earned and purchased is our property to do with as we see fit. Especially not to just hand it over to a bunch of thugs. I'm rather reluctant to allow others free reign to take my stuff... How about you?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> If you own 7 homes it’s not likely you are in the bottom 20%.


Surprisingly I just learned that I am in the top 20%!! See my post #193 on previous page.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SRSLADE said:


> Sending you the secret handshake.


Is that the new one- mess up your hair and double fist bump? Ooops. I wasn't supposed to tell.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is that the new one- mess up your hair and double fist bump? Ooops. I wasn't supposed to tell.


SHHHHHHHHHH


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

HDRider said:


> I have some friends that buy foreclosures at auction, and the conspiring that goes on is something I would never had imagined.


It's down right criminal around here. I'll bid against anybody around here except my lawyer. The rest all conspire and bid rig. I had to out bid my ex-realtor on one he wanted to flip.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Buying on the courthouse steps can be a different experience than buying the mom and pop place at the estate auction down the county road.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> Why would I appreciate someone driving carefully ?
> Because my friends and family and myself spend a lot of time on the road.
> That has a lot to do with me.


laws like those mentioned , and others are written for people who can't think for themselves. so they should do you a lot of good.
while you and yours are out driving, how many times do you think that you were not killed by someone who obeyed the law and stopped at a stop sign ?? 
Never, is not the answer..


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What I have seen is the wealthy creating more wealth, the poor and middle class are free to do the same. For whatever various reasons they are not as good at it. Perhaps it would behoove them to watch the wealthy and see how it's done. Hint: it's not blowing your weeks pay on lottery tickets.


Yeah, but screwing people out of wages and creating tax loopholes for the upper level is very effective.
That condescending BS is gonna need an extra cup of coffee for me to be able to swallow it.
I'll be back later.............

Meanwhile google Cheryl Stanton.
She's one of the many defendants in my appeal that should be heard soon, hopefully in a month or so.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> laws like those mentioned , and others are written for people who can't think for themselves. so they should do you a lot of good.
> while you and yours are out driving, how many times do you think that you were not killed by someone who obeyed the law and stopped at a stop sign ??
> Never, is not the answer..


Lol Im begins ng to see where you are going. You think that there must be a law about everything. People don’t have to have a law to show some sense. 
Even if people don’t obey the stop sign law every time every people don’t have to die. There is evidence thousands of people run thousands of stop signs thousands of times a day and people don’t die. 
So why would changing that from a law to an advisory make anyone safer ? That’s how most treat it today. 
There are millions of uncontrolled intersection is in this country that don’t even have a stop sign again evidence that we don’t need the law.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TripleD said:


> It's down right criminal around here. I'll bid against anybody around here except my lawyer. The rest all conspire and bid rig. I had to out bid my ex-realtor on one he wanted to flip.


How does one conspire to rig the bidding at an auction that is open to the public? The last property I bought was sold at the court house steps. I opened the bidding, was out bid by the bank that held the mortgage. No harm no foul, I later purchased the property via a realtors listing for several thousand less than I had offered on the courthouse steps. No conspiracy, no rigging. Kinda stupid on the banks part but I'm not complaining.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How does one conspire to rig the bidding at an auction that is open to the public? The last property I bought was sold at the court house steps. I opened the bidding, was out bid by the bank that held the mortgage. No harm no foul, I later purchased the property via a realtors listing for several thousand less than I had offered on the courthouse steps. No conspiracy, no rigging. Kinda stupid on the banks part but I'm not complaining.


 You rig it when the three guys would have shown up agree not to bid against each other.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is that the new one- mess up your hair and double fist bump? Ooops. I wasn't supposed to tell.


Reminds me of the fox news "terrorist fist bump" They always crack me up. I even like their new motto "fox news... consistantly rated just ever so slightly below the onion for accuracy."


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol Im begins ng to see where you are going. You think that there must be a law about everything. People don’t have to have a law to show some sense.
> Even if people don’t obey the stop sign law every time every people don’t have to die. There is evidence thousands of people run thousands of stop signs thousands of times a day and people don’t die.
> So why would changing that from a law to an advisory make anyone safer ? That’s how most treat it today.
> There are millions of uncontrolled intersection is in this country that don’t even have a stop sign again evidence that we don’t need the law.


You do not know me at all.
those uncontrolled intersections still have rules. 
if the rules are not followed, people get hurt.
my car was totaled by an idiot who figured , like you, that the law doesn't apply to him. he ran a red light..
my daughter was T-boned by an air headed gal just like the one in this thread. she ran a stop sign.
broke my daughter's neck.. long time recovering.
I hope some day someone like you runs a stop sign, and the two of you meet..
those signs along the highway are not for you.
they are for us to protect us from people like you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> You do not know me at all.
> those uncontrolled intersections still have rules.
> if the rules are not followed, people get hurt.
> my car was totaled by an idiot who figured , like you, that the law doesn't apply to him. he ran a red light..
> ...


 Good grief why would you wish such things on people ?
Haven’t you read what I’ve been writing ? I want people to drive in the safest possible way. 
I probably spend more time on the road than you. I’ve probably lost more friends and family on the road than you. 
I don’t think your way works. 
Look at the carnage on the highway 
I think freedom and making people responsible for what happens is the correct response able way to achieve that. 
I also believe that taking actual freedom from one person to make another Theoretically safer is wrong. 
I believe that about the First Amendment I believe it about the Second Amendment I believe that about driving.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> You rig it when the three guys would have shown up agree not to bid against each other.


And? So they don't bid against each other.... No one is rigging anything. You are still free to bid, or not bid. It's how public auctions work. If you want it, bid. If they want it they are free to bid higher.... This bidding goes on until only one person wants to pay the top price.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And? So they don't bid against each other.... No one is rigging anything. You are still free to bid, or not bid. It's how public auctions work. If you want it, bid. If they want it they are free to bid higher....* This bidding goes on until only one person wants to pay the top price*.


thats the point they agree ahead of time who wins and so don't have to run the price up to that point it would have been otherwise.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> thats the point they agree ahead of time who wins and so don't have to run the price up to that point it would have been otherwise.


That's your choice. If they want it they still have to outbid you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> You do not know me at all.
> those uncontrolled intersections still have rules.
> if the rules are not followed, people get hurt.
> my car was totaled by an idiot who figured , like you, that the law doesn't apply to him. he ran a red light..
> ...


One of my rules has worked well for me over the years.... Never drive faster than you can stop in the distance that you can see the road is clear and will remain clear unti you are passed. Intersections are one of deadliest places on the highway! Slow down! Be sure everyone at the intersection is doing what they are supposed to do before entering the "dead zone"! Having a green light does not mean you are safe! It only means you have been granted the right of way from a legal standpoint. As grampa often reminded me, lotta folks in the cemetery had the right of way.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

[email protected] said:


> You do not know me at all.
> those uncontrolled intersections still have rules.
> if the rules are not followed, people get hurt.
> my car was totaled by an idiot who figured , like you, that the law doesn't apply to him. he ran a red light..
> ...


Do you really think thatxegregiously over-regulating every aspect of our lives makes us any safer? If it did, our society would be free of danger of any kind. Why are you treating American Stand like a sociopath for suggesting that we should apply deterrent punishments to actual harm done to prevent it from happening rather than having everything we do regulated right down to which hand we use to unzip when we take a leak?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's your choice. If they want it they still have to outbid you.


Lol what about when I’m not there ?
You see there is another guy on the other side of the deal that is getting ripped off.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And? So they don't bid against each other.... No one is rigging anything. You are still free to bid, or not bid. It's how public auctions work. If you want it, bid. If they want it they are free to bid higher.... This bidding goes on until only one person wants to pay the top price.


The rigging I heard about would be some guys pumping the price so the other guy had to over pay. The sad thing was the only thing they got out of was revenge on the highest bidder.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

That’s usually the plan when one of them is the seller.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol what about when I’m not there ?
> You see there is another guy on the other side of the deal that is getting ripped off.


Nobody gets ripped off. The property gets sold to the highest bidder period. If you are not there to bid that's ok too.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> That’s usually the plan when one of them is the seller.


In my experience with courthouse door auctions it is usually the bank that ends up as the winning bidder. Most real estate speculators aren't foolish enough to put that much money into a distressed property. We like to make money, not lose it. But then bankers rarely understand market values. If they did they would not rely on the real estate industry to determine them.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In my experience with courthouse door auctions it is usually the bank that ends up as the winning bidder. Most real estate speculators aren't foolish enough to put that much money into a distressed property. We like to make money, not lose it. But then bankers rarely understand market values. If they did they would not rely on the real estate industry to determine them.


You have addressed an interesting point that I really don't understand. The example standing out in my mind is that of a distressed hotel with a lot of potential. The bank had foreclosed on it with $4.9M owed and they wouldn't budge although it wasn't worth nearly that much. About a year later, the bank sold it to someone else for $400K. Do you have any idea what is up with that?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> You have addressed an interesting point that I really don't understand. The example standing out in my mind is that of a distressed hotel with a lot of potential. The bank had foreclosed on it with $4.9M owed and they wouldn't budge although it wasn't worth nearly that much. About a year later, the bank sold it to someone else for $400K. Do you have any idea what is up with that?


Yep, bankers have little to no understanding of real estate values. That is just not where their minds go. For example. On my last property purchase I wanted the property for reasons no one else would want it for. It adjoined another property I owned that had a right of way issue that could be easily resolved if I owned this property as well. The bank was owed $25k, it's appraised value was $5k. I opened the bidding for $5k, bank bid $6k, I came back at $10k, bank bid $15k. I got out. Told the banker I would match their bid. No way! They needed 25! Month later real estate sign appears in yard. I call realtor and they have it listed for $11.9. I told them fine.... I'll take it. At closing table bank gets a check for a bit over $8k after commissions, legal work etc. they could have simply taken my offer on sale day, given me a deed and put $14,900 in their pocket. I like it better the way it worked. Saved myself $3k, built the new road to my other property for less than a grand, fixed up the home and rent it out for $400 month. But then I'm not a smart banker.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

IndyDave said:


> You have addressed an interesting point that I really don't understand. The example standing out in my mind is that of a distressed hotel with a lot of potential. The bank had foreclosed on it with $4.9M owed and they wouldn't budge although it wasn't worth nearly that much. About a year later, the bank sold it to someone else for $400K. Do you have any idea what is up with that?


Because the bank is not in the real estate business. They will try and get what they can out of it then sell for less. Whoever forecloses first will eliminate the lesser liens. A second mortgage will cancel out the third mortgage or lesser. A first mortgage lien will cancel out a second and so on. Its state specific though. Not all are the same necessarily I am told. 

What happened to one of our hotels was almost the same thing. Second lien foreclosed but the first lien was still in play at 3 mill. The second lien was 500k. It sold but the guy that bought it (250k) found out he still had to pay the first lien. That and asbestos made for deep pockets which he had. I think he was able to make a deal with the first lien holder for less though.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I remember one auction in Galveston County where two neighbors were bidding on a piece of wetland between them. You couldnt do anything with it except mow it. Could never build on it at all. Not even a gazebo. It was 1/8 acre. Was listed at 500 dollars. They bid against each other and got it up to 25k before one left it alone. I would have let my neighbor buy and mow it if had been me.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mreynolds said:


> Because the bank is not in the real estate business. They will try and get what they can out of it then sell for less. Whoever forecloses first will eliminate the lesser liens. A second mortgage will cancel out the third mortgage or lesser. A first mortgage lien will cancel out a second and so on. Its state specific though. Not all are the same necessarily I am told.
> 
> What happened to one of our hotels was almost the same thing. Second lien foreclosed but the first lien was still in play at 3 mill. The second lien was 500k. It sold but the guy that bought it (250k) found out he still had to pay the first lien. That and asbestos made for deep pockets which he had. I think he was able to make a deal with the first lien holder for less though.


This was a one Leon only that left the bank in sole ownership of the property. For around $2M the backers probably would have gone for it, but not at $4.9M


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

IndyDave said:


> This was a one Leon only that left the bank in sole ownership of the property. For around $2M the backers probably would have gone for it, but not at $4.9M


Thats more likely what happens most times. But then tax liens take precedence over first mortgages lol so its not at all easy to navigate. Its like walking through a minefield.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mreynolds said:


> Thats more likely what happens most times. But then tax liens take precedence over first mortgages lol so its not at all easy to navigate. Its like walking through a minefield.


No tax lein. Just a straight sale.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nobody gets ripped off. The property gets sold to the highest bidder period. If you are not there to bid that's ok too.


 How do you figure ? If bidders Collude the seller isn’t getting a highest and best price.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Around here it’s common for a bank to have an auction amount as high as a house bought on the regular market 
But yet you’re buying it with unknowns as far as plumbing plans etc.

So what happens is usually the bank buys it at the foreclosure auction, it sits empty for a year or two while kids play in it ,thieves steal the pipes and wiring and ruin sheet rock , floors and ceilings. Perhaps a fire from somebody camping out and then they accept a tiny fraction about two years later when the banking commission starts wondering why the assets are still on the books.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> Good grief why would you wish such things on people ?
> Haven’t you read what I’ve been writing ? I want people to drive in the safest possible way.
> I probably spend more time on the road than you. I’ve probably lost more friends and family on the road than you.
> I don’t think your way works.
> ...


I just went from debating with you to having pity on you.. among your other shortcomings,you do not know how to read either..
OK, i'll say it, you are correct and you win.
I have other , more pleasant people to talk to..


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you figure ? If bidders Collude the seller isn’t getting a highest and best price.


That work “COLLUDE” is a very important word. Quite common in a variety of dealings. Results of COLLUSION could be bid rigging, etc.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I'll refer back to an earlier post- courthouse auctions and foreclosures are not the same as private auctions. I actually quit dealing with the former as I found more opportunity with the latter. If you are a regular at these types of sales you'll recognize the players and if you do your homework you'll have less chance of getting run up.
Big ticket auctions are like any other business venture- usually filled with sharks.
There are no easy quick pay off schemes. Folks usually find that out in the first 30 years or so of living.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How does one conspire to rig the bidding at an auction that is open to the public? The last property I bought was sold at the court house steps. I opened the bidding, was out bid by the bank that held the mortgage. No harm no foul, I later purchased the property via a realtors listing for several thousand less than I had offered on the courthouse steps. No conspiracy, no rigging. Kinda stupid on the banks part but I'm not complaining.





AmericanStand said:


> You rig it when the three guys would have shown up agree not to bid against each other.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> And? So they don't bid against each other.... No one is rigging anything. You are still free to bid, or not bid. It's how public auctions work. If you want it, bid. If they want it they are free to bid higher.... This bidding goes on until only one person wants to pay the top price.


There are other ways to rig the bidding as well.
It wasn't a house being auctioned, but its contents that one of my neighbors fell victim to, but his isn't the first time I've heard this scam.

The auctioneer had some friends in the bidding group, probably about half the number - small crowd, just a few locals.
He had a very pretty girlfriend there that apparently was good at distracting the owner while a lot of this went on. 

My neighbor had set minimum bids on a few things, like a car, but not on everything and as I said above, wasn't paying close attention. Doh!
They had already "gotten him" on a few of the more valuable items when he finally realized they were taking opening bids on the car that was about 10% of his minimum that he had set.
The auctioneer knew that but was in on the scam, hence the reason his buddies were there to clean up.

I'm sure there are other scams out there, but the point isn't the income level of so-and-so, it's the simple fact that not everyone is in business to honest and fair.
To think so, is to be extremely naive.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you figure ? If bidders Collude the seller isn’t getting a highest and best price.


It sounds as though you do not understand the concept of an auction, or real estate values. A preice of real estates value always comes down to one thing and only one thing. It's value is determined by what one feller is willing, ready, and able to pay, and what the other feller is willing to accept on any given day. One very good way to find out that number is to advertise the property to be sold on a given day to any and all interested parties at auction. When The property is sold to the highest bidder allowing any and all qualified buyers the opportunity to bid, it has just brought its highest and best price. Makes no difference as to the reasons some may have for not bidding, the only bid that counts is the highest available that day.


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10216817156286203




Irish Pixie said:


> Is that the new one- mess up your hair and double fist bump? Ooops. I wasn't supposed to tell.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

OMG! Is there a correct hand to use on the zipper? I wonder if I've been using the right one? Have I unintentionally harmed others by using the wrong hand? That's gonna keep me awake for days! Thanks a lot!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

However you feel, it is just your opinion. But if I agreed with you then we'd both be wrong.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It sounds as though you do not understand the concept of an auction, or real estate values. A preice of real estates value always comes down to one thing and only one thing. It's value is determined by what one feller is willing, ready, and able to pay, and what the other feller is willing to accept on any given day. One very good way to find out that number is to advertise the property to be sold on a given day to any and all interested parties at auction. When The property is sold to the highest bidder allowing any and all qualified buyers the opportunity to bid, it has just brought its highest and best price. Makes no difference as to the reasons some may have for not bidding, the only bid that counts is the highest available that day.


You miss the point
If both the buyers and sellers are not bidding freely openly and separately the auction is rigged
Auctions can berigged in both directions.
They can be rigged against the seller and for the buyer.
If all of the buyers agree to let one guy have it for less than one of them would have paid they are in effect stealing that much from the seller. Lets say there are three bidders that buy at tax auctions in a particular county and they get together and agree that each of them will take every third sale then they don't have to bid the price up as far as they would have. Saving them money and stealing the difference from the seller.
Another way to rig against a seller is to intimidate or confuse potential buyers away. This is common In my county but Im not sure if its on purpose. The paper announcement will say the sale is on the courthouse steps but Sherrif will sit inside out of the heat then just before the sale pick a empty room or even have it in the hall. sometimes he uses the stairs inside the courthouse which is technically correct even if its not what people expect. Blame it on heat and air conditioning.
They can be rigged for the seller and against they buyer. 
Just put a few colluders in the bidding audience to raise excitement and bring the bids up then they work the real bidders up to the point where the last one drops out. at that point one of two things happens the auctioneer awards the bid to him he is surprised because he was thinking he didn't have the last bid but happy to "win" the item. 
OR in a auction with no minimum or one less than the winning bid they "award" the item to the fake bidder. In the first case the difference between what the next to last real bidder bid and what the ending bid was is the amount stolen from the buyer. In the second case The item is what is stolen from the buyer.
They can also be rigged for or against a particular buyer. The easiest way is for the auctioneer to simply not recognize bids against him or by him..


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

If you put the perphlamagrat in the gologrommeter it may result in a confuglumate.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

An auctioneer's reputation is a priceless thing. They can also be reported to the state licensing agency, and the ones I frequent take their name seriously.
I would be considered, I think, an experienced auction buyer. I buy land, property, heavy equipment, etc. I will travel on a regular basis across multiple states for items, and I still run into familiar faces. I have never, once, been approached by an auctioneer or by buyers to collude on a sale. I have been to po dunk auctions where the auction resembled more of a garage sale than a professional business, but any shenanigans was caused more by ineptness than corruption. An auctioneer makes their money based on a percentage; it isn't in their best interest legally or financially or professionally to "cut deals." Joking around with the big money buyers before an auction isn't the same as collusion; neither is discussing the details.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX I Totally agree with you.
Its very rare for the auctioneer to put his reputation on the line.
But it happens
I think its far more common for the buyers or the sellers to coulude.
I too haven't been approached I thing its cause my friends are not that kind of people and Im not close to the few at the sales where there are very few regular bidders.
I also think its happens on a pretty informal basis most of the time.
At the local livestock auction Ive seen buyers just before the auction at that point where they are talking to the auctioneer publicly say very loudly "Ive got to buy XX cattle then Im out of here" or"the prices of cows are up a lot this week".
Nothing criminal just subtle hints to the other buyers there.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Auctioneers have their own tendencies. Some run a quick cadence because speed forces a quick decision/bid; that isn't the same as running up a price. I've seen bidders run up prices because they knew a buyer wasn't going to stop until they won. Also not the same as collusion. In most cases they are either just new to auctions and just "have to have something" or they already have their own buyer. I've seen auctioneers start at a price that seem to indicate it was someone's opening bid when it was just their own, or during multiple bids on an item to jump from $25 increments to $50 or $100; still doesn't mean anything crooked.
Suspicion of wrong doing in auctions tends to come moreso from those who either didn't win or felt the item just wasn't worth what it brought, high or low.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Bidder A opening the bid and runs it up like a fool with his tax return. Won't stop regardless.
Bidder B throws out his highest bid right away. (ie opening bid is $2000 and he bids $20000)
Bidder C waits until the bidders thin from 6 to 4 to 2 and then when last call is shouted he then bumps the bid.
Which one is fixing the auction? Hint- I've done them all.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

LOL yeah Ive done all those too sometimes its a matter of reading the crowd some times its just being cranky at a auctioneer bidding things up in too small increments and sometimes its just waking up at the last moment realizing "wow that's a deal"


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Clem said:


> Reminds me of the fox news "terrorist fist bump" They always crack me up. I even like their new motto "fox news... consistantly rated just ever so slightly below the onion for accuracy."


Funny and true...


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How does one conspire to rig the bidding at an auction that is open to the public? The last property I bought was sold at the court house steps. I opened the bidding, was out bid by the bank that held the mortgage. No harm no foul, I later purchased the property via a realtors listing for several thousand less than I had offered on the courthouse steps. No conspiracy, no rigging. Kinda stupid on the banks part but I'm not complaining.


Bidders 4 thru 6 all conspire with each other . If you don't bid on this one I wont bid on the next one. Bidder 1 and 2 show up each time regardless of who else might show up....


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Auctions are like poker. You can have the greatest laid plans and strategies and watch while some other fool wins that farm ground or the junk tractor. Other days things just seem to fall in your lap and you look around in wonderment at the crowd of bidders that suddenly seemed to fall mute at the perfect time.
You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

TripleD said:


> Bidders 4 thru 6 all conspire with each other . If you don't bid on this one I wont bid on the next one. Bidder 1 and 2 show up each time regardless of who else might show up....


I've discussed property with other bidders/acquaintances beforehand. Some have disclosed what they are willing to pay. I however, did not spend time and miles on the road to let something slide as a courtesy to someone else, that I could have made money on. Just doesn't happen.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> I've discussed property with other bidders/acquaintances beforehand. Some have disclosed what they are willing to pay. I however, did not spend time and miles on the road to let something slide as a courtesy to someone else, that I could have made money on. Just doesn't happen.


Like I said in a previous post I just wont bid against my lawyer....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> Auctions are like poker. You can have the greatest laid plans and strategies and watch while some other fool wins that farm ground or the junk tractor. Other days things just seem to fall in your lap and you look around in wonderment at the crowd of bidders that suddenly seemed to fall mute at the perfect time.
> You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them.


 I only consider it a win for the other guy if he gets it for less than I would pay. 
After all off if he pays more than I would he obviously paid to much......


----------

