"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:23pOa.20182$C43.1807@no-spam
>
> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> > But still, bicycle lanes are a good idea. And well worth spending
> > the 1% or so of highway dollars which we spend on such things.
>
> What do you think about requiring registration fees for commuter-quality
> bikes? (Ie, not the little pink one with the white tires that the little
> girl is riding out in front of my house, or the BMX bike that the little
> dude down the street rides out in the field?)
>
> It seems like a modest registration would help cyclists justify the
expense
> of additional bike lanes, and it would prevent people from suggesting that
> bike lanes are subsidized by drivers.
>
Would you actually want a registration and the costs that it would entail or
maybe just a fee or tax or whatever on bicycle sales, which would be
earmarked toward bicycle paths, etc. The question I am asking is if the
costs of the registration bureaucracy outweigh the benefits it could
provide? Certainly I wouldn't mind spending another $10-$20 bucks on a new
bike, but I'd hate to keep paying registration fees as it sits in the garage
while I sit on the couch.
Actually, they didn't. They just didn't want to second-guess the people on
the scene. Pretty obvious to all except you right-wingnuts that the
situation was poorly handled.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"sinistersteve" <sinistersteve@no-spam> wrote in message
news:M5LOa.12322$Ph3.1130@no-spam
> I'm not justifying the police shooting....the Grand Jury did that for me.
In
> fact, I don't like the idea of police using deadly force, but sometimes
the
> have to.
>
>
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vgmpev9bb01532@no-spam
> > In this case, and many like it, we're not talking about criminals
pursuing
> > their occupation. But YOU are definitely talking about a Police State
> when
> > you justify a person's death because she "wasn't cooperating with the
> > police".
> >
> > "sinistersteve" <sinistersteve@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:_GIOa.9321$wk6.2271@no-spam
> > > Occupational hazard of being employed as a criminal. All jobs have
> certain
> > > hazards that can harm you.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:vgj0ca45bipafd@no-spam
> > > > And that's more important to you than life?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "sinistersteve" <sinistersteve@no-spam> wrote in
> message
> > > > news:4n8Oa.23347$Ey6.11274@no-spam
> > > > > She sure as hell wasn't cooperating with the police.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:vgb8cuc681jcb9@no-spam
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Let's see - the cop was half-way into the car on the driver's
side
> > and
> > > > his
> > > > > > bullet entered James near the hip and traveled up her abdomen --
> and
> > > > > you're
> > > > > > trying to tell me that she was in the driver's seat driving off.
> > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Another thing that is obvious is the fact that the police chief is
recommending a suspension to the officer solely on the principle that the
blacks will burn down their neighborhoods if they get his head on a silver
platter.
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vgn8uvip2p7a1e@no-spam
> Actually, they didn't. They just didn't want to second-guess the people
on
> the scene. Pretty obvious to all except you right-wingnuts that the
> situation was poorly handled.