Aeao

I mean... That is a theory. I don't like it but it's still better than war. Arguably the cold war and proxy wars prevented a major war...

I dont think of it as a perfect win obviously because of the proxy wars like Vietnam and Korea. Those wars specifically gave me a bucket full of nice medals but cost me every single one of my uncles. There were other proxy wars though.

Anyway my point is 2 fold.

1. Arguably that strategy prevented a much bloodier war between Russia and the US but there were still better ways to handle that without any war.

And 2) if you ignore the proxy wars the "cold war" approach is one way to avoid war, I guess. The government equivalent of the obnoxious drunk guy flexing his muscles and saying "you don't want none of this bro"... It's better than a war but not my favorite strategy. Although I might not like that approach it did prevent a war, it was better than a war.... So... Good job?

Again the proxy wars ruin that but they were unnecessary and didn't change much for the US or Russia. Obviously they did a lot of damage to the countries we fought in. My point is the cold war approach didn't need that to prevent the war. It actually pushed us closer.

I'm just saying the "I've got a bigger gun" diplomacy... Well it's definitely a strategy that is better than war...

One day he will rule, I hope he lets us live.

Sure wink and oddly enough spark plug cleaner smells a lot like perfume wink

I got you bro.

Just to piss you off.

As you can imagine I spend a lot of time writing my internet comments in a very calculated and specific way. There is meaning and motive to every word and every phrase.

Normally that motive is to specifically and exclusively bother you. It's a very big part of my life.

Op said they were on a bike. Op said there were two designated bike lanes. Ok said car nearly hit them.

One of two things must be true.

Car entered the bike lane. A thing that happens often.

Op was riding in the traffic lane instead of the two designated bike lanes, then posted about it, and specifically mentioned the two bike lanes they were not using for no reason other than to make themself look bad. A thing that doesn't happen often.

You see how short one explanation is compared to the other? Yeah the short explanation is probably what happened. It's the most likely explanation.

I don't believe in wars (don't message me, yes there was a way to end your specific example thru diplomacy. Look it up on google)

Anyway I always go with "I admire you're bravery" because that doesn't go against my beliefs but still shows respect for what they had to do.

I love that part of the internet.

Kinda like "guy code"

"Was said he was with you last night"

"Yep, all night. Cleaned the spark plugs in my car and drained the blinker fluid. Couldn't have done it without him "

But instead it's "parent code"

"Yeah fortnight is closed. They close it so everyone can get a good night's sleep and be ready for the morning!"

I was going to tell a personal story about telling my son McDonald's was closed when I was broke or in a hurry but it reminded me of another cute store.

My son broke his arm in a McDonald's once. Hyper extended his elbow. Got a couple pins.

Anyway a year or so later they completely remodeled that McDonald's.

We drove by the demolished building during the remodel and my son shouted "that's what you get for breaking my arm! Who's broken now!"

Adorable vengeance served adorably cold.

We aren't going by anecdotes. We are going by what's most reasonable to assume.

Op had an option to not be in danger then. They were in the car lane to feel the drama.

That's you making a wild leap to blame the bike.

I'm using what's called occums razor. Op mentioned the bike lanes. Op didn't say anything about being in the main road.

It's more reasonable to assume they were using the bike lanes they mentioned. It's unreasonable to assume they were in the road and only mentioned the bike lanes to us in order to make themselves look bad. That doesn't make sense.

Nor did the cyclist. Two wrongs don't make you right.

Again there is no reason to assume the cyclist isn't in the bike lane or is breaking any kind of law. You just decided entirely on your own that they must be in the road.

I saw a car driving on the bike path just yesterday. Not even a bike lane, I completely separate path on the side of the road separated by a big ditch. They drove on the bike path to avoid traffic lights.

You're picking and choosing assumptions that suit your preference.

That's pretty rich considering you're assuming OP (on a bike) specifically mentioned two designated bike lanes, decided to ride in the road instead, then told all of us so we would know he's a jerk.

If they were riding in the road they wouldn't have mentioned the bike lanes at all so they looked like the "good guy"

"So I was stomping on some kittens right, then this guy cut in line at Walmart right in front of me! What a jerk"

Why would someone include the part of the story that made them the bad guy?

You are the one assuming whatever fits you're narrative the best. You must drive a BMW and are here to troll bike riders.

We don't know how it's pronounced. It's an actual name from old English days.

I say ay-ee-ay-oh