raider179 was right...

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Sixpence
I don't get it, everyone wants the power to govern to be in the hands of the states and towns, but then wants to tell them what they can do.

We live in a dry town, we like it that way. We have a low crime rate and there isn't alot of riff raff. Now someone in another part of the country is trying to tell us we are wrong to have a dry town? Gee, with people like that around, who needs the feds to tell us what to do. If you want to drink and party, live in a town that allows it. You have that choice if you choose to drink.

The same with walking around naked in public, we don't wanna see bums(or anybody) walking around naked in public, and we don't allow this in our town. But some liberals are going to tell us we have to let them walk around naked because we are taking their choice to walk around naked away? Huh?

We want people to buckle up in our town, when multiple people are thrown from a vehicle, it puts a strain on our limited resources. It is alot easier to tend to victims who are close together than it is to find and tend to them when they are hundreds of feet apart. Now some liberals are going to tell us that we can't have that law cause we are denying their choice to be thrown from the vehicle?

Your right to choose? I agree. You have the choice not to live in a dry town. You have the choice not to live where they have a seat belt law. And you have the choice to live where you are allowed to walk around naked.

Not one of those instances have any basic rights been violated.


The problem, in my mind, is the power of the feds to make everyone conform. Beetle made the statement that 49 out of 50 states have a seat belt law, and this is a statement that people in these states want the law, but that is not the case. And maybe someone has brought this up.

Reagan blackmailed the states years ago, if you didn't raise your drinking age to 21, you didn't receive any federal highway funds. And the feds have been doing this ever since(maybe it was done before him, but that is the first one I remember). If I read correctly, that is why alot of states have the seat belt law that otherwise would probably not have it.

So if you want to live in a state that does not have a seat belt law, you can't find one. But you have choice, and if a majority don't want to have a seat belt law, you choose to vote for someone with balls enough to tell the feds they can stick the money where the sun don't shine(even though you paid those federal taxes)

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
Mr Toad, you didn't show your source for that quote. Was it this?  I am about to print that off to read while I enjoy another cup of tea! I'll comment on it when I've read the whole thing.

Not heard anything from jackal - I guess he's on the yellow bus already.

That was one, this is the other.

http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=213

[J_A_B]

"And again, this darwin doesn't just kill himself, but is thrown into the person in the front seat and breaks his neck. Now the person who was wearing a seat belt and would have survived the accident is dead because of the darwin in the back seat."

I saw this one posted a few times.  It isn't accurate.

What's accurate is if a heavy unsecured object in the back of the car comes loose in a sudden stop and hits the front seat occupant in the back of the head, whether the guy up front has a belt on or not is pretty inconsequential--he winds up just as dead either way.  That is, of course, assumming the unbelted guy up front somehow avoids putting his head through the windshield.  An actor by the name of Tom Mix died in that manner in 1940 (his suitcase hit him), and seatbelts had nothing to do with it seeing as his car didn't have them.


Anybody who claims that NOT using a belt is somehow safer overall is ignorant and foolish.  That's fact.

I wouldn't much care if seatbelt laws were repealed; a person should have the right to make stupid choices when he's the only person who is likely to suffer from it.  Since there's virtually no drawback to using a belt and a lot of gain, not using one is indeed quite stupid.



J_A_B

[beet1e]

Blimey Toad! It comes to 54 pages of A4 sized text! I'll read it from the screen. Sounds like it was written by an NRA man though. I thought this bit was funny -

In 1991, there were about a dozen states that refused to pass a seat belt law and many more states did not pass a motorcycle helmet law. To "encourage" those states to pass such laws, members of Congress resorted to their usual method of extortion and blackmail to force states to do things that the citizens in those states did not want. That is, Congress in 1991 passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, in which had provisions in the Act threatening states that did not pass both a seat belt and helmet law by October 1, 1993 with the loss of control over a certain portion of federal highway funds.

Now I know what jackal means about bending over and waiting for the vaseline. Did any of you guys see that scene in the Ted Bundy movie?

Jackal! I forgot to refresh the browser!

Sure. It`s getting a little old having to explain this to you over and over, but read the last 3 to 4 pages of this thread. Sound familiar? It should. The difference is we are not rolling over and just accepting it.

Erm... it's all done and dusted - in 49/50 states and in all Canadian provinces.  Texas has had a seatbelt law for many years.

We are not just rolling over and saying "Government knows what`s best for you". What we don`t like , we won`t accept. What we don`t accept, we change. It is not given away freely and not an "it`s over because someone else says so" issue. That`s the difference.

You're not trying hard enough. With 49/50 states already having implemented a seatbelt law, there's only NH left - and the police chiefs want a setbelt law there - nothing to do with the federal govt.  In light of these facts, your ranting makes you look like an infant having a tantrum and stomping on its soiled diaper.

It`s freemom of choice, our rights and our constitution and the very foundation of this country being trampled.

Nothing to do with the constitution. As sixpence has pointed out, there's nothing about driving in the constitution. It is not a constitutional right, it is a privilege. But you admit you're being trampled. I thought you guys kept guns to guard against that very scenario - fat lot of use...

The U.S. is what is being discussed here, not some dreary fantasy land where everyone is happy with whatever comes down the pike.

If you mean Europe, we don't have 'pikes. The only pike is a type of freshwater fish.

And... the last bastion of freedom, none other than the "Live Free or Die" state will be implementing a seatbelt law. Better get your possé of men up there with guns to fight it off!

tick-tock, tick-tock...

[Toad]

NH has not voted on it and it's 9 months since it is introduced. Not a good sign for the Nannies.

Further:

What is equally most interesting, motorcyclists are more politically astute then those of us who driver autos, vans and trucks and, therefore, since the 1991 Transportation Act, motorcyclists across the U.S. have been lobbying members of Congress to rescind that provision in the Act that threatens a loss of control over a certain portion of the federal highway tax funds if a helmet law is not passed.

After about 8 years of such lobbying, Congress did finally get the message and rescinded the helmet law penalty as of 1999. This shows what lobbying efforts will do when properly organized and effectively moved in the right direction.

The fact is, motorcyclists did some threatening of their own, that is, they singled out those politicians in Congress who supported helmet laws and worked to defect them in the next election, while supporting candidates for office who opposed helmet laws

So the Nannies are vulnerable.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2
At least the girly men here still admit that it is government intrusion..

I am glad you finally agree with me, why should the feds tell a town or state what they can or can't do

[Toad]

In 1991, there were about a dozen states that refused to pass a seat belt law and many more states did not pass a motorcycle helmet law. To "encourage" those states to pass such laws, members of Congress resorted to their usual method of extortion and blackmail to force states to do things that the citizens in those states did not want.

That is, Congress in 1991 passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, in which had provisions in the Act threatening states that did not pass both a seat belt and helmet law by October 1, 1993 with the loss of control over a certain portion of federal highway funds...

Reading comprehension is a stumbling block for you, isn't it?

[J_A_B]

"It is not a constitutional right, it is a privilege. "

At one time, the Constitution spelled out what the government could do, as well as what it couldn't.  Nowdays, too many people think the only powers the government lacks are those specifically denied it.  That's not how it was meant to be.  Every time the "not a right but a privilege" argument is used to justify taking away more freedom, a piece of America dies.

I distrust bureaucracy in any form.  I distrust big government as well as big business.  Large organizations have a way of becomming corrupt.  

J_A_B

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by J_A_B
"It is not a constitutional right, it is a privilege. "

At one time, the Constitution spelled out what the government could do, as well as what it couldn't.  Nowdays, too many people think the only powers the government lacks are those specifically denied it.  That's not how it was meant to be.  Every time the "not a right but a privilege" argument is used to justify taking away more freedom, a piece of America dies.

I distrust bureaucracy in any form.  I distrust big government as well as big business.  Large organizations have a way of becomming corrupt.  

J_A_B

I think you are right, the town and states right to govern themselves being taken away sucks

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e

  Erm... it's all done and dusted - in 49/50 states and in all Canadian provinces.  Texas has had a seatbelt law for many years.  

  That`s what you are not getting. No, not only is it not done, it hasn`t even gotten started yet. Once again, we don`t just roll over and accept things because someone else says so. I realize while you are used to assuming the position it is hard for you to comprehend.

and the police chiefs want a setbelt law there

  And yet another misunderstanding by you concerning our system The police chiefs have little or no more influence and say in the matter than anyone else. Here we don`t bow and make sacrifices to police chiefs or any other law enforcement. They are payed to do a job, nothing more. They are paid to abide by the peoples wishs, not the other way around. We don`t do the king and Queeny thing here.
  The Sherrif of our county is a low life clown. He is carrying less than any weight at the moment and his time is very short. He is a disgrace to the badge and law enforcement everywhere and is being dealt with by the people, not the other way around.
  Another example of the thing you pretend not to understand. We don`t acept things we don`t agree with. What we don`t accept, we change.

Nothing to do with the constitution

  It has everything to do with the constitution and freedom of choice and rights.

 

As sixpence has pointed out, there's nothing about driving in the constitution. It is not a constitutional right, it is a privilege.  

 The only thing that I have seen pointed out by sixpence here is non-related. Vasoline stock is not being discussed here.
  Nothing in the constitution about breathing either, but I think we will keep it around.
  A privlige dealt out by who/what/where? BS. We make the autos, we drive them. It is our choice as people and no one elses. You act as if the God of cruising, while residing in the castle of privliges, at sometime or other waved his wand and graciously bestowed on us the 'privlege" of driving cars. That`s hilarious and sort of Kingy/Queenyish in some fairy tale scenario.

  What I would like to know is what concern it is of yours what our laws, constitution and rights are in relation to you? You certainly have no input one way or the other. You seem to be overly happy with having someone else make the decisons on what you can and cannot do.  ( Unless of course you been blowing smoke on this too) So where does the concern come from?
  Bet it`s that pesky old freedom issue that is getting under your skin again. It obviously bothers you a lot that folks would actualy have the right or the audicity to expect to have input concerning what does or does not happen to them.
  You claim to be happy where you are at and have expressed many times in your acceptance to let your government deal with what is "best for you".

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
That`s what you are not getting. No, not only is it not done, it hasn`t even gotten started yet. Once again, we don`t just roll over and accept things because someone else says so. I realize while you are used to assuming the position it is hard for you to comprehend.

Well that goes against the FACTS, but as it's coming from you, that's no surprise.  

Once again, we don`t just roll over and accept things because someone else says so.

Once again, 49/50 states have seatbelt laws. TX has had its seatbelt law since 1985.

The police chiefs have little or no more influence and say in the matter than anyone else. Here we don`t bow and make sacrifices to police chiefs or any other law enforcement.

Well let's see how it turns out in NH then. It may take a while for the law to go through, but there's going to be enormous pressure to bring the Granite state into line with the other 49.

We don`t acept things we don`t agree with. What we don`t accept, we change.

Well in that case, I guess you fully accept and agree with your seatbelt law, given that it has existed since 1985.

What I would like to know is what concern it is of yours what our laws, constitution and rights are in relation to you?

My opinion doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop me from having one, and expressing it here. You know - it's a freedom thing. Surely you of all people can understand that.

You seem to be overly happy with having someone else make the decisons on what you can and cannot do.

Nope. If I thought seatbelts were stupid, I would not wear one. I would risk the fine. In Britain, the national speed limit is 70mph. I don't agree with that. Like many other people, I'll cruise at 80/90. I have never been caught. If ever I do get caught, I'll take my lumps and pay the fine. We don't live in a society where you can be arrested for taking pictures of trains, or tasered by the police for sounding the horn.

[Jackal1]

Sure beet, sure.
Save them up and try to come up with more "I`m pretending not to understand" statements and save a little space. Put them in all at one time. Makes for bigger laughs as you are getting a little repetitive.
Check back in from time to time.

[lazs2]

holden get's it.... what cost is enough that you can take away someones freedoms?

It is all an illussion in any case since...  the supposed savings were never passed on to the sheep like sixpense.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
 My opinion doesn't matter

Exactly!

Sorry I missed it the first time around.
We agree on something.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Exactly!

Sorry I missed it the first time around.
We agree on something.  

Earlier, you assured me that

We don`t acept things we don`t agree with. What we don`t accept, we change.

Given your vehement opposition to seatbelt laws, but given that the 1985 TX seatbelt law is still there twenty years after it was introduced, it seems that your opinion doesn't count for anything either. :D