Of course Braden and Mexicans are in the same group...North Americans. No one denies this, but huge number of people would deny that applying the United Nations recognized demonym for someone from the United States of America to anyone from North America or South America makes sense. It doesn't makes sense. It is a cause for confusion.

Confusion or clarity? In everything that I have learned over my life, clarity is always better than confusion.

If you think in your own unique way, then just be sure to translate your thoughts to a message that will have the meaning you intend to convey when the recipient reads it. It gets to the point that we're using the same words, but we're speaking two different languages.

Technically they are from the Americas or North American. Perhaps we could even say that they are "Pan-American", but that's really gets confusing because we don't have demonyms for referring to being from either one continent or another.

You can choose to be confusing or you can choose not to be confusing, the choice is yours to make. However, you should know that if you refer to a Canadian as an "American", then I'm going to think that you mean they reside in one of the fifty states or the capital of the United States of America. A lot of people are going to think that's what you mean. Do you want to understood or misunderstood? That choice is also yours.

Can they? Can a small group of students ruin it for a larger group of students who would have liked to hear Rice speak? Is it ever proper to suppress speech (unless we're talking about someone lying in a crowded theater, "Fire!")? No, it's really not proper to suppress anyone's speech. They had open to them any number of other avenues to protest while respecting the same freedom of speech that they themselves were using. A small minority has silenced someone that they don't like. Not that a large majority would make silencing Rice any better...it most certainly would not. If we're to have the freedom of speech in the United States then we must act in a freedom of speech manner. If we cannot respect for each other the freedom of speech then we should most certainly not expect the government to respect the people's freedom of speech. This small group of students and faculty stole from other students an opportunity to hear a great American speak. Their victims are angry and they have a right to be angry. They have a right to be angry because a small group of students chose the anti-freedom path of enforced silence, rather than the pro-freedom path of engagement and open debate.

Braden, what part of North American and South American do you not get?

You can't separate "North" from "American". You also can't separate "South" from "American". In the context that you're referring to someone from Bolivia as an "American", your saying that the person is from the continent of "America" which doesn't exist in the English language and therefore you're not making any sense. Calling that person a "South American" or saying that they're "from the Americas" actually makes sense because South America exists as a continent in the English language and the Americas exist as two continents and even more cultural regions (hence "Americas" being plural).

You can also speak in other ways confusing to a lot of people, or you can choose to go with the norm and actually make your words have some meaning in English. Do you prefer to speak to be understood or speak to be misunderstood?

Pan is a prefix meaning "involving all members". In the case of the Pan American Games, the name comes from both the Spanish-language continent of "America" and the English-language reference to both North and South America as "the Americas". By putting the word/prefix "Pan" in the name, the organizers have effectively rendered all confusion null and void by delivering the same effective meaning in all the languages of the Pan American Games. In Spanish, adding "Pan" means that you're getting all of the countries of one continent. In English, adding "Pan" means that you're getting all of the countries of two continents. One message, one meaning, and two ways to get there.

Logic would dictate that anyone residing in North America or South America would be considered North Americans or South Americans. Easy, simple solution that involves no confusion. Though I do find it odd that it's acceptable to take Americans' national identity and just give it to all North Americans and South Americans. I suppose all Europeans may be called Germans.

Now I understand your nickname. That must have been a severely traumatic event. Atlanta is enough to send shivers down your spine.

I think you're understating just how many people this design would tick off. I could see this used in an area designed for pedestrians and bicyclists where it is intended that people would park their cars on the exterior of the area and then walk or bike everywhere. However, at any other intersection, it's just going to piss people off and public officials would lose their jobs very quickly over this one.

Raise your hand, how many people actually watched the You Tube video?

*Raises hand*

The United States is officially called the "United States of America". While people may refer to the USA by many other names, its one and only official name is the "United States of America".

What should Americans be called? United Statesians? That sounds awful...and it might tick off the United Statesians that hail from the United Mexican States. Perhaps we should be known as New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, South Carolinans, Tennesseans? No, that's reserved for when Americans are talking to each other. "Estadounidense" to refer to Americans is perfectly fine in Spanish, but it doesn't make since when translated literally into English.

This isn't some super nationalistic conspiracy to lay claim to the word "America".This is simply a natural evolution from a reasonable effort to categorize the world in a way that has some meaning. To that end, some people argue that North America is only Canada, the United States, and Mexico & that Central America is more properly considered as it's own continent like Europe is frequently considered its own continent. Geographically, do we want to study the continent of Afroeurasia? Africa is, afterall, connected to Europe by 102 Miles of the Suez Canal compared to 139 miles connecting Panama to Columbia. Ultimately the argument over the continents could go on forever and not get anywhere. Neither is considering the word "America" without considering the language it's being spoken in going to go anywhere. We need to learn to translate for meaning and not just what words literally translate to.

If we choose to take offense because we choose not to translate words properly, then we're just setting ourselves up for an absolutely meaningless conflict.

I'm not arguing against their right to protest, I am merely asserting that they are wrong in their speech. You have the right to speak...you don't have the right to be correct. Their objections to the things they allege Condoleezza Rice participated in are perfectly fine (setting aside agreement or disagreement). It is their assertion that Condoleezza Rice should have been barred from speaking at commencement that I have a problem with.

Saying that these people should not have protested her speaking in no way infringes upon or seeks to silence their right to speak out against Ms. Rice's alleged actions during her time in the Bush Administration. I only seek to defend that line between speaking freely about your view and attempting to silence your opponents. They crossed that line, I'm defending it. You don't have the right to silence your opponents or to protest for the silencing of your opponents.

North America and/or South America =/= America.

The big deal is that those protesters should show more tolerance for points of view that they don't agree with, instead of silencing their opposition. According to these people, we have the freedom of speech so long as we agree with them, otherwise shut up and don't speak out.

These people's idea of freedom of speech is silence.

https://www.youtube.com/...=UUcEPmwpXKrKzZahqjwpIAsQ

There we go, in the English language, America = the United States of America.

In Spanish, America = the continent.

Twain, that's something that was right in this situation. The University administration did not bow to the protesters. Rutgers' President was not backing down on Rice speaking. He saw it as an opportunity for discussion. Condoleezza Rice decided not to come because she felt she would distract from the students. That's something these protesters could learn from...being more concerned for others than for themselves.

No, motorists should have the right of way, but a duty to safely pass bicyclists. The onus needs to be on the bicyclists because if they get stupid, they get dead. Bicyclists have way more to lose and very little to do to prevent bad incidents. qzjul, When bicyclists have a line of cars behind them...they need to pull off and let the cars go by. Those that do garner the thanks of the drivers and encourage drivers to show bikers more respect because the driver is receiving due respect. Speed limits are not just a maximum, they are the speed you should be going or you should be pulling over to let faster drivers go by. Bicyclists that ignore the law against impeding the normal flow of traffic should be pulled over and ticketed. Respect is a two way street and a lot of the motorists in the area I live are fed up with the local bicyclists expecting the motorists to respect them and giving no respect in return.


There are some roads where bicyclists just need to be banned from on account of it being impossible for a motorist to safely pass them. If not banned, then the police on mountain roads need to strictly enforce the law against impeding traffic. This is particularly true where I live. One person here wrote a letter to the editor that basically said that bicyclists were not welcome on the mountain roads because they weren't being respectful of motorists.

After a handful of less than 50 students staged a sit in protest against Ms. Rice speaking at commencement and despite Rutgers President Robert Barchi defended the selection of Rice to speak.

First of all, kudos to the Rutgers President for defending the selection and not bowing to pressures from students and faculty. Secondly, if I were graduating from Rutgers, I would withdraw from the graduation ceremony because these un-American individuals have led Ms. Rice to withdraw her commitment. I hope that the only graduates present for this ceremony are the students that were protesting. Thirdly, I hope that all other people contacted to speak refuse or, if they accept, that they walk up, stand around for five minutes, then tell the students, "That's what the silencing of free speech sounds like," and sit back down.

My dad always told me that the bigger load had the right of way...since a vehicle driver is unlikely to be harmed in a crash with a bike, they don't have death as an incentive to not be stupid. Bikers, however, should remember that they have death as an incentive to treat every driver a potential idiot.

Bicyclists should also try not to be idiots themselves and they should strive to follow all relevant laws, including the law against obstructing the normal flow of traffic (which TN has).

Ever heard of neighborhood watches? Private citizens that help the police. Seems to work pretty well for a lot of people.

It's funny that you say that their is no such thing as baiting someone to steal...have you heard of the bait cars that police departments use to catch car thieves? The police cast their bait and wait to see who takes it, then they shut the car off and arrest the suspects.

http://www.usatoday.com/...nge-student-shot/8445731/

Read the article first to get more background.

I think that main points important to the case in this article are:

1. Markus Hendrick Kaarma told a hairdresser that he was just waiting to kill a kid. In this incident he was belligerent and the police were called.

2. The prosecutors are accusing Kaarma of setting up a trap for a thief by leaving the garage door noticeably open and leaving a purse with personal items in plain view.

3. Kaarma walked out the front door to stand in the driveway in front of the Garage.

4. The article indicates that Diren Dede was saying, "hey" or "wait"


It is important that we acknowledge a person's right to defend themselves and their property through the use of reasonable force up to and including deadly force.

As presented in the article and assuming that the prosecution can prove its case, there are two problems with Mr. Kaarma's assertion that I can see as a layman when it comes to the relevant laws.

#1. I see this as the big problem. This private citizen is baiting people to commit a crime and then trying to use that as an excuse to kill someone. If crime has gotten so bad that you'd like to take an active part in finding and stopping criminals, then you should approach your local law enforcement to see how you can help them. Maybe you have a building that the police can bait and then arrest criminals. Mr. Kaarma was not cooperating with the police in a sting, he was running his own personal sting operation. When someone fell for the trap, Mr. Kaarma did not call the cops out to his sting operation so that they could arrest Mr. Dede. Instead, Mr. Kaarma chose to confront the intruder.

#2. Mr. Kaarma did not confront Mr. Dede from inside his home (his castle). He did not confront Mr. Dede from a door from the home to the garage. He confronted Mr. Dede in such a way as to prevent Mr. Dede's escape. In the confrontation there is an indication that Mr. Dede was trying to disengage from his activity without the need for the use of force.


The prosecutor must prove their case. However, if the full scope of evidence is consistent with the information in the article, then this is not the castle doctrine. If the full scope of evidence is consistent with the information in the article, then this is murder.

The Federal Government as it is now...or 50 nations. You know, I'd rather have the 50 nations over the federal government as it is coming to exist.

This country was suppose to have a strong, but limited federal government. In the things that they had jurisdiction over, the federal government was meant to be strong. In all other things, the people were meant to have the choice of first 13 and now 50 different sets of laws to live under. I get to live under the set of laws I prefer and you get to live under the set of laws you prefer.

No, it's involving the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Education. They get their training and then they are allowed to act independently on most issues. Now, if you're calling the Department of Education a law enforcement agency, then that's fine. My counter point would be that the DoE has no business being a law enforcement agency. Forget that, they don't have a reason to exist at all. Education is NOT the federal government's job.

I suppose I should have specified that this was on the basis of things that the US Federal Government has any business actually doing at the beginning of this. I guess I thought that several of the other reasons would make it clear that this was about the things that the federal government should and should not be doing.

Housing and Urban Development is the exclusive purview of the states.

This is important because the US is a federal republic. Some aspects of government are assigned to the federal government exclusively, some to both the federal government and state governments, and some to the state governments exclusively.

Housing and Urban Development goes a little bit further down the lines than just state government authority and lies mostly with local governments. Heck a portion of the responsibility for planning housing and other urban development best lies directly with the people getting together with city leaders to decide how they want their cities to grow. This is why I simply said to eliminate the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Goodness Atryn, read the document...the whole document. For a few operations they have to inform the FBI and if using court order surveillance must have the cooperation of the FBI or another specified department. They have undergo firearms and law training, which I suppose we should be grateful for...but they are still not a law enforcement agency subject to the additional scrutiny by elected officials and the people that the FBI, etc. are. At the point that the Department of Education needs to exercise a search warrant, it should be involving a law enforcement agency anyway.

Cabinet Departments By Order of Succession

Department of State - Detailed review needed to determine where the Fed. Gov. doesn't need to be.

Department of the Treasury - Detailed review needed to determine where the Fed. Gov. doesn't need to be.

Department of Defense - Detailed review needed to determine where the Fed. Gov. doesn't need to be.

Department of Justice - Detailed review needed to determine where the Fed. Gov. doesn't need to be.

Department of the Interior - Detailed review needed to determine where the Fed. Gov. doesn't need to be. "Where" in this case can probably be taken rather more literally than others. As much land for which the Fed. Gov. is responsible as possible should be released to state control.

Department of Agriculture - Perhaps rename it to Department of Agriculture and Health. Then, move the Centers for Disease Control, FDA, National Institutes of Health, and other health related endeavors here.

Department of Commerce - Eliminate. Move NOAA and the Patent and Trademark Office to appropriate remaining departments (specifically Transportation and/or Treasury and/or Interior respectively).

Department of Labor - Eliminate. Re-create some functions at other federal agencies only as it becomes known that they are needed, but they should never be significant functions.

Department of Health and Human Services - Eliminate or reduce it's responsibilities to only Health. See Department of Agriculture for important agencies that need to be retained under a cabinet level department.

Department of Housing and Urban Development - Eliminate.

Department of Transportation - Detailed review needed to determine where the Fed. Gov. doesn't need to be. (An aside, I did not know the Coast Guard went from Treasury to Transportation to Homeland Security.)

Department of Energy - Remove as cabinet level position. Conduct a thorough review of exactly what the agency actually does and relocate surviving functions to the Department of the Interior.

Department of Education - Move Federal Student Aid to the Department of the Treasury. Move federal role for the National Technical Institute for the Deaf and Gallaudet University to the Department of the Interior. Eliminate the remainder of the department.

Department of Veterans Affairs - The VA should expand its relevant agencies to assume the functions of eliminated departments related to military veterans (including promoting employment and education for veterans).

Department of Homeland Security - Detailed review needed to determine where the Fed. Gov. doesn't need to be. Move the Secretary of Homeland Security into the line of succession after the Attorney General.



Just starting with Cabinet positions.

I'm not sure that giving a blanket deputation to Offices of Inspector General really qualifies as Department of Justice oversight of law enforcing by IGs. It certainly doesn't mean that the Department of Justice has officers in place so that the Offices of Inspector General can act when needed. In fact what this really means is the the IGs don't answer to the DoJ on law enforcement matters unless they really screw up. Those deputized IG officers work for their respective IG. They should have to go to the DoJ (or another qualifying policy authority [NCIS on Naval Bases, etc.]) to get officers to go with them to enforce laws if an IG office feels that it is needed.

Citation: https://www.ignet.gov/...ndards/agleguidelines.pdf

By average American, let me include businesses in that as they have a lot of average Americans coming into contact with the federal government on a day-to-day basis.

Pang, the point is that the Federal Government's overreaches are growing and the people a getting tired of the BS. The government needs to get out of people's lives. They need to stop regulating every aspect of our lives and just let us live. Liberate the markets from the government and liberate the people too. Guess what, left the their own devices can take care of themselves. The federal government should have next to no direct interaction with the average American on a day to day basis. State governments need to have a little more day to day direct interactions with the people and local governments still more.

Unfortunately, all levels of government have taken a stranglehold on the economy and are squeezing the life and opportunity right out of everyone. These huge governments aren't needed. Washington says that it's so hard to balance the budget, but it'd be easier if they'd shed all the things they don't need to be in. State and local governments need to make it as easy as filing for a business license to open most businesses.

Arthog, given that the US Federal Government is meant to have little to nothing to do with education in the US, it makes little sense at all to have a cabinet level education agency in the federal government. Individual state departments of education are of course needed...because it's actually their job to regulate public schools within their states.

Atryn: http://en.wikipedia.org/...s#Department_of_Education

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...a-the-war-a_b_875967.html

I did not say that the Department of Education has an army. However, they do have an armed police force and given that they are suppose to be over "education", there is simply no need for them to have anyone armed with the exception of building security. Any actual police work should be handled by agencies created for that purpose.

Local school districts don't create police forces if they want school resource officers in their schools, they hire their local police departments to supply the officers. If the DoE needs police work done, then they should go through the Department of Justice.

Martian, the number of US agencies that have police forces and military-esque SWAT teams is growing outrageously. The Department of Education has one such organization at its beck and call. The idea that the US should have a Department of Education is questionable at best and the idea that they should have hired guns at their disposal is flat wrong. I certainly believe in abolishing these parts of the government. If the Department of Education finds something that justifies the deployment of armed agents, they should have to go through Department of Justice to do it. Any US agency that does not have any business being armed should be disarmed.

Any regulations that unnecessarily restrict the economy have no business existing. In many ways, the next Civil Rights movement may well need to be one for the Freedom of Trade (by exchange of goods, exchange of labor through unions, exchange of labor without unions, etc.). The right of people to determine their own economic future without the unnecessary interference of government is going to have to be fought for. Does this mean I want a smaller government at all levels? Yes. Completely abolish government? No. The idea of government minding its own business that comes out of anarchism is a strong and good idea.

qzjul, I call bullfluff on those who say we have a free market right now. The market is nowhere near free right now (in the US). Even believing in limited government intervention in the market still qualifying as a free market, it's not a free market right now. You can make markets move by freeing them. Free markets have made several nations great. The most successful regulations in history have come when the government has intervened to restore free markets (after some businesses have gained too much power). Now government regulations have shackled the markets to mediocrity.

American Pizza Chains Ranked: Papa Johns > Pizza Hut> Dominos > Little Caesars

Though I might change the top two rankings as I have yet to fully assess how Pizza Hut's new crust changes things. To be honest, when you're ordering from a large chain, you do sacrifice some quality. However, they usually don't cost as much as a local restaurant/chain and there is consistency in the pizza. Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, and Dominos all make a fine pizza for a large delivery chain. Little Caesars only charges $5, so you get what you pay for.

Oh and if you haven't had Dominos since they changed their recipe in 2010, then you should give them another try and base your opinion on the new recipe.

Every time we raise the minimum wage, there is a new cheap labor.

Let's do something to move the economy...like approving the Keystone Pipeline. Can we remove anti-freedom regulations? Simplify the tax code? Get federal, state, and local government noses out of places they don't belong?

Ultimately it doesn't matter what you try to do at the bottom if the middle can't move forward too.

Major, no Pizza Pizza is not the same as Little Caesars in the US. Little Caesars is prohibited from using their "Pizza! Pizza!" slogan in Canada where they operate and compete with Pizza Pizza.

qzjul, when you speak of raising the minimum wage, you see the people who will "benefit" from the higher minimum wage. I see the people who will be fired because their employers can no longer afford them. I see the people who don't get hired because a small business can't afford to give them the entry level position. I see the "beneficiaries" who see their cost of living increase to the point that they have received no benefit at all. Because I see the people who are victimized by increasing the minimum wage, I see it as an attack on those people.

Take off your blinders. Let's talk about how the business environment can create a greater demand for employees. Let's talk about how we can make it easier for people to opt out of working for anyone other than themselves. Let's talk about how we can create an environment in which some current minimum wage jobs become higher paying jobs because that's what it takes for businesses to find employees for those positions. Guess how many people get hurt when we create an environment that increases the maximum wage...none.

Because there is nothing to forgive.

Some people think compassion is voting for the government to spend other people's money to help still other people.

True compassion is seen in disaster recovery when strangers buy bottled water and distribute it to people in need, when they help sort through the wrecked belongings of families for precious memories, and all the other things people do in disasters to lift their neighbors up. True compassion is seen in the St. Jude's Dream Home Giveaway fundraiser that takes place in local areas all over the US to help pay the bills at St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital. True compassion is seen in people donating their change to Children's Miracle Network Hospitals, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. True compassion is giving of yourself to help others.

If recent actions by the Bureau of Land Management are any indication, then we're likely too late. Not that state and local governments are much better in the US, but the Federal Government has far and away exceeded its authority. It may well be too late to stop the corrective action that is needed in the US. If that is the case, then I hope we can at least mitigate the corrective action to a Constitutional Convention...even if it means an amendment that breaks the US up into two or more nations. The US Federal Government is behaving as if the people are not sovereign in the US and that's intolerable.

When did talking about the reality of people acting to their own self interest make anyone an ass? That's what companies do and that's what people do. That's what both companies and people need to be freer to do. People who create barriers to economic advancement in the name of fairness are not being fair to anyone and especially not economically disadvantaged individuals.

Corporate America has an interests in having employees that can readily move into the next position above them. For instance, when a shift supervisor where I work indicated that he wanted to move to a location closer to home, I was trained to replace him. That position fell through for him, but the next time a position opened up, he was moved to that location and I was immediately moved up to shift supervisor. Markets that were freer even 10-15 years ago than they are today would correct for companies that do not take better care of their employees. Why? Because even those companies have an interest in training their workers to do more work for them, but then if they were not taking care of their employees those employees were readily able to take those skills to another company that was willing to pay them more and give them further training. In other words, abusive companies would and did face higher turnover rates and human resources costs. It's a lot cheaper for a company to keep their employees happy when those employees can easily leave than it is to keep replacing employees. In this day and age of razor thin margins, turnover costs can be the difference between profit and loss.

Except for the facts, this is a pretty good theory. Unfortunately those pesky facts get in the way. Take a grocery store, when the minimum wage is low, they're able to employ more people to go retrieve carts from the parking lot. When you increase the minimum wage, they're budgeting considerations are still the same for cart pushers, they just can't afford as many cart pusher hours, so they cut hours or they let someone go. You've either cost several people some pay or one (or more) person all their pay.


Are some of you people really saying that some people don't deserve to have jobs that start them climbing the ladder to good pay? Are some of you people really saying that businesses shouldn't be able to offer the very lowest entry level jobs to people so that those businesses can train their new hires to skilled labor positions (and the increased pay that goes along with it)?

3 Miles to pass 2 semis on a wet road when he was going 70 miles per hour. There aren't a lot of roads that I'd feel comfortable going more than 70 on when they're wet. Did this idiot expect him to pull in behind the semis just so that he could then go as fast as he darn well pleased? In these conditions, 3 miles is not far at all.

No Pang, government doesn't need to mandate on-the-job training, businesses will provide that training if we set a minimum wage low enough that they have an incentive to hire people even though they are going to have to train those people on-the-job. I'm saying that in considering where a minimum wage should be set at, businesses should get credit for the fact that they do provide training to workers. Retail workers can absolutely move up and advance careers. However, if you set a minimum wage too high, then retailers are not going to hire the people who could most benefit from training in a retail environment. The higher the minimum wage, the fewer opportunities there are to get on the ladder to then be able to move up.

Why haven't people mentioned more money being put into the economy, because more money will be taken out due to inflation. If there is any benefit to a higher minimum wage, it is minimal because the minimum wage is a cannibalizing idea.

As for the people who don't aspire to a greater position or at least to one that pays them a wage that they're comfortable with, why are we even talking about these people? I see no reason to reward someone if they just want to be a cashier all their lives. Hey, if you can live your life the way you want to just being a cashier, then good for you, but if you need to make more money to live the life you want to live, then you need to decide to be something more than just a cashier.

If someone is disabled, then we're talking a completely different story than minimum wage. Frankly, some "disabled" people are beginning to be actively recruited not for what they lack, for the way their "disability" causes their mind to work. Autistic adults are being recruited by major technology companies for repetitive tasks that take advantage of the autistic mind's ability to concentrate. This isn't exploitation either, autistic employees learn to interact better with people from the simple fact that they have a regular job to go to. They get paid a fair wage or salary and they're becoming more valuable employees for simple fact that they're gaining experience. SAP for instance has looked at this situation and realized that there was a lot of untapped potential in a group of people marginalized in the jobs marketplace. I grant you that not all disabilities can have such happy results, but I am saying that a higher minimum wage is not a consideration for the best interests of these people, instead companies need to have some form of added value to disabled people. http://www.marketplace.org/...-value-autistic-employees

Pang: I do not feel that have a starting point wage below a "livable" wage is exploiting workers, provided that government has set the conditions for these workers to get on-the-job training and then a higher wage and then more on-the-job training and then still higher wages. If we look to set a livable wage as the minimum then we are ultimately asking businesses to hire people to a wage that many of them are not worth. Set it at a level below this, so that very few people are left with only the option of gaining unpaid training and skills so that they are worth the minimum wage. If a company is paying someone a wage and providing them with training, that training is un-monetized compensation and companies need to get credit for providing that extra compensation.

Meant to edit a typo.

You know what you really need MilitantOrgy? You need this a-wipe to do this to some redneck in his/her big old truck. "I'm sorry officer, he was so close to the road that I didn't see him as I tried to get out of the way of this road raging moron that was going to kill someone." "What do you mean he was the road raging moron. In that car? C'mon, I may be a redneck, but I'm not stupid...no one driving a pinball is going to road rage like that idiot was."