Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

riqster

(13,986 posts)
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:01 AM Mar 2015

I was almost speeding today. Should I have gotten arrested?

I had the cruise set to 70, as is legal. The needle was kinda sorta on the right edge of the 70 hashmark, but it was on 70 nonetheless. So I was legal, but on the edge of going 71. Should a cop have given me a ticket?

Probably not. I'm just a guy who was not quite OCD enough when setting the cruise control before the morning commute. Even in Ohio, the cops don't write you up for going 70 MPH in a 70 zone.

But had it been Hillary Clinton behind the wheel, eedjits from across the political spectrum would be tarring and feathering her for doing something legal.


18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I was almost speeding today. Should I have gotten arrested? (Original Post) riqster Mar 2015 OP
The fact that Hillary scares the shit out of the reighwing so much madokie Mar 2015 #1
Interesting way of looking at it. riqster Mar 2015 #2
>> BlueJazz Mar 2015 #3
Of course! How silly of me. riqster Mar 2015 #4
Um. No. There is no reason to overact. In_The_Wind Mar 2015 #5
Generally, not unless you're 5 - 10 mph over the limit... freebrew Mar 2015 #6
In Ohio, it's "Nine, you're mine." riqster Mar 2015 #16
Were you hiding anything illegal in your trunk? RiverLover Mar 2015 #7
Good point, and this is not rocket science... Sancho Mar 2015 #8
So "legal"... sendero Mar 2015 #9
No, but I think your analogy is off. I see it more like TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #10
I actually care more about bath salts. riqster Mar 2015 #11
I'm terribly sorry about your child and thanks. TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #13
No worries. riqster Mar 2015 #14
You need a better analogy, Hillary can't drive snooper2 Mar 2015 #12
OK, that made me Snaugh. riqster Mar 2015 #15
ROFL! Jamastiene Mar 2015 #17
SpeeeeeeedGHAZIIIIIIIII! riqster Mar 2015 #18

madokie

(51,076 posts)
1. The fact that Hillary scares the shit out of the reighwing so much
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:04 AM
Mar 2015

raises her appeal to me tremendously.

 

BlueJazz

(25,348 posts)
3. >>
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:09 AM
Mar 2015

"But had it been Hillary Clinton behind the wheel, eedjits from across the political spectrum would be tarring and feathering her for doing something legal."

But you have to understand, it was the WAY she did it. There's a right way to go 70 mph and a wrong way to go 70.
Democrats seem to always do it the wrong way.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
7. Were you hiding anything illegal in your trunk?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:35 AM
Mar 2015

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

for which only you had the key?

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
8. Good point, and this is not rocket science...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:36 AM
Mar 2015

Hillary had good reason to fear GOP moles in the government as much as foreign "spies".

http://time.com/3066032/cia-brennan-feinstein-senate/
CIA Apologizes for Snooping on Senate Staff Computers

Benghazi, Benghazi!

----------------------

We all know that lots of politicians (Jeb, Scott Walker, Colin Powell, etc.) legally had private servers simply to avoid endless and annoying FOI requests. Jeb released 10% of his emails and caused a mess with private information, SS#'s, etc. in the messages.

----------------------

It's widely reported that the server was backed up in a couple places (gmail, McAfee). Those parent companies sell products for security and encryption. The Clintons clearly had resources and contacts to hire a competent IT manager.

----------------------

If 50,000+ emails went to other gov senders and receivers over 4 years, then obviously everyone knew the email address was not a government address. If something was "missing" that was required by law, how hard would it be for anyone of 50,000+ others to produce their copy? Some State folks have already said they knew that Hillary and Colin Powell had private email accounts.

----------------------

No one has reported any email leaks (unlike Edward Snowden). Even so, her staff has reported that the email was only non-sensitive messages. The staff reported that she had alternate ways to send secure messages.

-----------------------

Is it weird that no one has mentioned text messages? Assuming there were thousands of those - are they recorded? There's no such thing as a personal phone company as far as we know.

-----------------------

Chances are that Hillary was smart enough to avoid putting stuff into email that would come back to haunt her, which is why she says, "Release the emails!". More than likely, she is saying, "Throw me into the briar patch!" because there is stuff more embarrassing to plenty of others more than Hillary. The State Department won't likely release a lot of those emails.

-----------------------

Bottom line: It was smart to anticipate the crazy GOP scandal hunters, and she took advantage of the same methods that lots of public figures were using to avoid random, out-of-context, imaginary conspiracies. A conspiracy happened anyway! The guy on CPAN now is a typical conspiracy idiot (Drucker). Hopefully, DUers are smarter than to fall for the Faux News crap, but the Hillary haters can't help jumping on the bandwagon.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
9. So "legal"...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:36 AM
Mar 2015

... is your standard of acceptable behavior? Pretty low bar IMHO. I see folks here villifying politicians of both parties for doing things that were "legal", and rightfully so.

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
10. No, but I think your analogy is off. I see it more like
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:17 AM
Mar 2015

we have Jill and she sold "bath salts" often used as an ecstasy substitute, we don't think Jill actually sold them as drugs but circumstances are that it is nearly impossible to be definitive but quite a few want to extend benefit of the doubt.

Others vehemently claim to not care about bath salts and never have though it is curious that some of these folks helped make bath salts illegal and certainly never made a peep about the ban until they heard Jill had a connection and all the sudden the substance is a big nothing burger.

There is no thought that Jill would be in trouble with the law, the ban was after she had after she was out of that game but that doesn't follow that the bath salts are okay or that it doesn't affect the evaluation of Jill's judgment for a new job because we knew bath salts were poison, the law just hadn't caught up yet.

Maybe there is space between not illegal and fine and dandy and vice versa like sometimes things are illegal and not otherwise objectionable at all as well.

*example only...I don't care about the bath salts really but I do care about transparency for government and no I do not want public servants acting as their own information gatekeeper and storage.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
11. I actually care more about bath salts.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:18 AM
Mar 2015

Since they are one reason my son is dead. But I do see your point, of course.

If the HRC bashers across the Internet and other media were making as nuanced a case as yours, I'd probably not have an issue with their assertions. Thanks.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
17. ROFL!
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:59 PM
Mar 2015

But were you tempted to speed? Who is to say you didn't really go 71 mph for even a millisecond? I demand a full investigations. CALL CONGRESS RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I was almost speeding tod...