Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on September 17, 2005, 09:49:59 AM
-
sorta...
He asked in one of his seven questions about Waco... "Do you obey laws?"
The implication here is that either I obey them and therefore must agree with all laws or.... I sneak around and break em so as not to get caught or..
I am a coward. I obey laws that I find reprehensible... ones that are unconstitutional and immoral... I do it out of fear or laziness.
The last is probly the case. He's got me.
When I was young I could have bought a really neat thompson sub machine gun but... it had no papers and I was scared because the firearms act of '34 made them illegal. I knew that the act was unconstitutional but.... I obeyed
In '69 I coulda bought a lahti 20 mm semi auto cannon.... the new act of 68 made them illegal (they were mail order legal before that)... I didn't buy it because I was frieghtened of my government even tho they were obviously infringing on my rights.
now... I still try to keep up with every silly little incremental gun ban they come up with... There are a few firearms I would enjoy owning and shooting but can't... some states are better than others... I will no doubt move away from the blue voters...
I have no idea how many unconstitutional laws I will obey in the future but I will probly try to comply untill they make my culture of the gun untenable.
lazs
-
No biggie. I wear my seatbelt when I see a cop on my bellybutton or pulling over traffic up ahead. I suppose you wear a helmet when you ride yer bike.
I even ran a stop sign once.
It was right on my corner. I'd lived there for over a decade.. one morning it suddenly appeared. Stuck on my property, sitting right in the middle of the view from my living room window is this big ugly red stop sign.
I was furious. But I knew better than to fight city hall.
I got a post hole digger and a coupla sacks of concrete, got buzy with some midnight road crew work.
The stop sign(s) are now on the corners of the vacant properties across the street, turned 90 degrees & stopping traffic on the cross street.
A few weeks later, I got a ticket for running my stop sign.
I didn't say a word to the cop.. and I paid the ticket promptly. I thought my ex was gonna hyperventilate laughing.
-
on the seatbelts.... I wear the lap ones in my hot rods but don't wear the shoulder ones in the Lincoln or work car... I take my seatbelt ticket every 5 years or so.... these days.... so many sheep are wearing em that cops kinda don't even notice.
speeding... an infuriating law that makes no sense... I break speed limits on a regular basis but...
the penalties for all these things are small... a couple bucks... a little time pulled over..
The gun ones.... if my barrel is an eighth of an inch too short or the wood an eighth too short..... a $10,000 fine and.... 5 years in prison for a felony that removes all my rights as a citizen forever! And... I chance the ninjas doing a no knock raid on my house in the middle of the night and destroying or confiscating everything I own.
The latter stuff makes cowards out of a lot of us.
lazs
-
No Laz.. we're not cowards.
We're Pragmatists.
-
I wear the seat belts. They are pretty picky about this in my fine county. Usualy it is used for a reson to pull you over and jack you up for other stuff.
I don`t wear the skid lid on the bike. Don`t have to by law here.
No illegal weapons, so I don`t have to worry about that.............as of yet. :) ( The ninjas may get POed because I speak out against their tactics. Nothing I can do about that.)
I respect those in uniform up the point that they quit respecting me in the same manner, then the dung hits the fan. At that point , to me, they become another jerkoff hiding behind a shield and disrepecting their position and those that serve with pride and honor in their position.
My fine county law enforcement is crooked as a snake for the most part. Has been for 30 years or more. It`s a known fact in the county and other places in the state. There are some very good officers, but they are the minority and usualy don`t last long.
I recently fought a scam in a small community around here concerning mass numbers of tickets for running a stop sign on a county road. I won. I have no problem fighting for something when I know I`m right. It has cost me in the past and will cost me in the future I am sure. I`ve never been able to bend over for anyone. It just is not my way.
-
I feel about the same about cops... they got a job to do and for the most part they are just like me... that is the problem...they are cowards like me too.... they enforce laws that they find unconstitutional and busy body because we have taken the right for them to decide away... they are running scared just like the rest of us.
We all fear the government... when did that happen? Isn't the government supossed to fear us?
lazs
-
I wear my seat belt because I feel bad for the poor EMT's who arrive on a scene to find body parts all over the place. Oh, and to save my life for my kids
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Isn't the government supossed to fear us?
lazs
Ahhh, but they do. Yes indeedy.. else the government would not have no less than 6 seperate bureaucracies dedicated to preserving their primacy by invading our homes, listening to our phones, monitoring our movements, regulating our possesions and denying our rights and privacy.
FBI
DEA
BATF
NSA
IRS
DHS
and theres more....
What to do to protect your rights? Think about it... and like all good tacticians, pick yer battle wizely.
-
It does seem that they get rushed in their grab for power.. each time one of the groups you listed gets too far out there and adds too many therms to fast to the pot that is boiling us poor dumb frogs...
We go "ouch" and stomp em.... the new kinder and gentler IRS is one example... when it looks like we are fed up and gonna dump the whole system they ratchet down the heat a little and then work it back up a lot slower.
none of them could really stand against us. Even combined.... we still outnumber em like 5,000 to 1.
I think the only reason we put up with it is that most of us fear freedom and individuality... like the man in the misserable marriage who goes out and get's remarried 4 months after his divorce...
the rest of us that value individuality and freedom... well... we are just.... not to brave.
The founders pretty much lost everything including family members when they oppossed the brits.
Why does anyone suppose that the penalties for a tiny and harmless gun violation are more severe than for violent crime? Because they have to slap down the people who want freedom and are individuals especially hard...
Same for drugs but... drugs addict so the penalties have to be harsh to stop new people from trying em... still... bad law.
lazs
-
on the seatbelts.... I wear the lap ones in my hot rods but don't wear the shoulder ones in the Lincoln or work car... I take my seatbelt ticket every 5 years or so.... these days.... so many sheep are wearing em that cops kinda don't even notice.
And right there we see Darwins theory at work, once again. :huh
Don't know about you but I wear seatbelts for my personal safety, not because I'm afraid of a ticket. :lol
-
that is fine and I think that you are doing the right thing in wearing them but.... I would never presume to force you to.
any risky behavior including motorcycles or swimming or hiking or boating or even taking a shower without a saftey harness can be considered to be darwin at work...
perhaps some day the race will consist of nothing but non risk takers but... Just as I don't think we should depend on the government to defend us and to never tyranize us....I don't believe we should outlaw risk taking.
lazs
-
Motoring is dangerous enough with any safety - and wearing a seatbelt is such a simple and non cumbersome thing to do that anyone choosing not to use it is IMO running for the darwin award.
To be honest, I chuckle every time I see a spot marking the head of the driver/passenger in the windshield after an accident. I'm 100% sure none of those people will leave the seatbelt off the next time they commute. That is if they still have any control of their limbs after a broken neck.
-
I reserve the right to chose and I hugely resent the attitude of folks that figure that they have any right to make decisons of any kind 'for my own good'.
You certainly have a right to your opinion.
That does not extend to the right to enact laws to enforce your opinions.
Let Darwin Decide. All my life, I've lived by the adage of 'you pay's yer money, you takes yer chances'. Enjoy your life, live it as you see fit, but keep yer damn nose outta my affairs, my choices are my own.
-
exactly hang... I don't think mr ripley sees it that way tho...
lazs
-
Deleted.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
that is fine and I think that you are doing the right thing in wearing them but.... I would never presume to force you to.
any risky behavior including motorcycles or swimming or hiking or boating or even taking a shower without a saftey harness can be considered to be darwin at work...
perhaps some day the race will consist of nothing but non risk takers but... Just as I don't think we should depend on the government to defend us and to never tyranize us....I don't believe we should outlaw risk taking.
lazs
I think you are missing the point, it isn't about not being a danger to anyone but yourself. Let's say you are driving along and lose control of your car. You are thrown from your vehicle and your body parts are all over, something out of a horror movie. Who comes to clean it up? You? Your family?
No, someone else, someone who has to deal with it. So as far as seat belts go, I do not see how a mandating wearing them is infringing on your rights. First of all, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Second, where not wearing a seat belt can cause mental trauma to others, I do not see why a law mandating wearing them is bad or infringes on your freedoms or rights.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I feel about the same about cops... they got a job to do and for the most part they are just like me... that is the problem...they are cowards like me too.... they enforce laws that they find unconstitutional and busy body because we have taken the right for them to decide away... they are running scared just like the rest of us.
We all fear the government... when did that happen? Isn't the government supossed to fear us?
lazs
Cops are cowards, but not like you, they follow these laws to keep food on the table and thier wife and kids with a roof.... because getting fired and or sued is a daily concern.
I'm a strong advocate of the right to bear arms.. and since I'm the cop (retired now), it's my call on what to do.. officers usually never have to take away legally registered / transported firearm, but they can and will.
If I DONT take your firearm after a domestic disturbance call and someone gets hurt, I get sued and fired knowing at the very least, I stood up for the right to bear arms.
I worked a 1 man car on grave yards in East LA, every A hole had a gun, decent folks knew this and carried thier own.
I let quite a few decent folks drive off with thier weapons intact.
I personally couldnt take a mans weapon in a war zone leaving him and his family defenseless. Even as a 22 year old snot I made those judgement calls and got very lucky none of them murderd someone an hour later becase I'd get sued for sure, maybe even fired as the city looked to cut thier losses.
Other cops I know would take this guys gun in a second to avoid the chance of getting sued/fired.
Cops will risk thier lives for you, but not thier carrers.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I think you are missing the point, it isn't about not being a danger to anyone but yourself. Let's say you are driving along and lose control of your car. You are thrown from your vehicle and your body parts are all over, something out of a horror movie. Who comes to clean it up? You? Your family?
No, someone else, someone who has to deal with it. So as far as seat belts go, I do not see how a mandating wearing them is infringing on your rights. First of all, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Second, where not wearing a seat belt can cause mental trauma to others, I do not see why a law mandating wearing them is bad or infringes on your freedoms or rights.
On that basis, lets outlaw skydiving, mountain climbing, scuba diving & snorkeling, and any other life-challenging pursits that 'others' have to clean up after.
Cripes, what a wuzzified argument..
Life for some people involves challenging death.
Pussify your world, install seatbelts on your couch, sell yer damn car, bar your door and mail order yer groceries.. and stay the hell outta my world, cause that sure as hell ain't living life on terms I can accept.
-
again... hang nails it.... rescue workers and police fire etc... their job is to clean up... dead people are a drag to take care of and sometimes they are messy.... motorcyle wrecks and skydiving accidents and people drowning can be EXTREMELY unpleasant to view and clean up after...
should all those people be disallowed their sports or transportation because of that? Of course not. I can't believe that sixpense even seriously brought that up but then I rarely understand what he is thinking or what he uses for reasoning.
marine.... I believe that we are saying the same thing... livelyhood and freedom issues make cowards of us all... most cops I know will do what they can to act according to their morals and concience but.... as you say... their livelyhood and often, very freedom depend on them sometimes inforcing unconstitutional laws that they don't agree with... not just gun laws either..
lazs
-
I reserve the right to chose and I hugely resent the attitude of folks that figure that they have any right to make decisons of any kind 'for my own good'.
That's probably what every looter in NO were thinking while committing the act. To hell with laws. To hell with other persons property.. Only thing that matters is what I want.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
On that basis, lets outlaw skydiving, mountain climbing, scuba diving & snorkeling, and any other life-challenging pursits that 'others' have to clean up after.
Cripes, what a wuzzified argument..
Life for some people involves challenging death.
Pussify your world, install seatbelts on your couch, sell yer damn car, bar your door and mail order yer groceries.. and stay the hell outta my world, cause that sure as hell ain't living life on terms I can accept.
Nice apples to oranges comparison, I didn't realize people need to skydive to work everyday or people can skydive in front of my house.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
again... hang nails it.... rescue workers and police fire etc... their job is to clean up... dead people are a drag to take care of and sometimes they are messy.... motorcyle wrecks and skydiving accidents and people drowning can be EXTREMELY unpleasant to view and clean up after...
Again, the old apple to oranges, you compare skydiving to driving. People do not have to skydive to work everyday, nor can they do it in front of my house. Not only do the workers have to clean up the mess(which you state is their job and they should have to deal with it? waaa?) You have the poor woman who hears the crash and comes out of her house and finds a poor lad laying in the middle of the street with his head cracked open like an egg. But if she can't handle it she's a wuss!? lol!
Sure, you can sky dive, but you skydive from the empire state building, guess what? You get fined!
People are such wusses cause they don't want body parts in their streets? Wow
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Nice apples to oranges comparison, I didn't realize people need to skydive to work everyday or people can skydive in front of my house.
Automobiles were around for 50 years before somebody put a seatbelt in em, 25 years more before some liberal twit decided to mandate their use by infringing on my right to make my own damn decison regarding their use.
Now, it's illegal to use a cell phone, but not illegal to eat a burger or put on lipstick while driving.
Assinine nanny laws just piss me off. If I don't want to wear a seat belt or a helmet, what freakin right does the state have to mandate their use? For what? My own protection? Horsecrap. To bolster the states grip on the public's pocket via the 32 million a year they collect in fines and satisfy the big fat cat insurance company lobby.
It's a bull **** law, propped up by liberal PC weenies that delight in deciding for other people what they should or shouldn't do.
If I die popping my head on the concrete, that's just too damn bad. I paid my money, took my chance and tossed snake eyes. Darwin wins. In no situation is it any of yer damn business what color leathers I wore, what state agency approved the helmet or who put the inspection sticker on the bike.
You wanna legislate my choice in hugahunk next?
Government should be buzy improving road signage, road conditions, putting cops on the borders and getting illegal immigrants the hell outta my country.. not pissing away manpower, courts and my damn tax dollars entertaining idiot nanny state helmet and seatbelt laws.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Again, the old apple to oranges, you compare skydiving to driving. People do not have to skydive to work everyday,
Nor do they have to drive to work everyday. They have a choice in their mode of transportation.
Not only do the workers have to clean up the mess(which you state is their job and they should have to deal with it? waaa?)
It is the job they have chosen. They either have to deal with it or choose another job.
You have the poor woman who hears the crash and comes out of her house and finds a poor lad laying in the middle of the street with his head cracked open like an egg.
She chose to go look at the scene. Nice try at invoking sympathy for the elderly too.
I chose to go out of my house and look at a motorcycle wreck one night. The first thing I saw, and the farthest from the accident, was the poor guys helmet. Good thing he had it on. Thirty yards away was a pile of brain on the pavement.
Sure, you can sky dive, but you skydive from the empire state building, guess what? You get fined!
Driving in the Empire State Building will get ya a hefty fine too. Take yer bag of mixed fruit and try to sell it somewhere else.
The only real argument for statutory compulsion for seatbelt usage is the theory that it holds a driver in their seat, enabling them to control the automobile better, possibly reducing the likelyhood of a collision with another. This is offset by a lack of data and the possibility of causing entrapment in the case of a single vehicle accident. I can't wait for someone to sue the state for compelling them to wear a seatbelt that trapped them in a car, resulting in 3rd degree burns or something of that nature.
I always wear mine by the way. Have since about 2 years after I started driving, which was 16 years ago.
-
the rest of us that value individuality and freedom... well... we are just.... not to brave.
Pansy.
You guys think Jail Time is bad?
Or how about a paltry fine?
Revolutionary thinkers way back 230 years ago accepted the possible consequences of death by hanging and quartering to kick the bellybutton of those overstepping their bounds.
Me?
No one has overstepped me yet. They will reap the day in which they do.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No one has overstepped me yet. They will reap the day in which they do.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Nor do they have to drive to work everyday. They have a choice in their mode of transportation.
But they can't choose which road the business is on
It is the job they have chosen. They either have to deal with it or choose another job.
So if you make the job unbearable and no one chooses to do it, who does it? And that being said, why make the job worse?
She chose to go look at the scene. Nice try at invoking sympathy for the elderly too.
Not quite, she chose to live on that street. Yeah, maybe you are right, she should turn her head the other way and not help.
I chose to go out of my house and look at a motorcycle wreck one night. The first thing I saw, and the farthest from the accident, was the poor guys helmet. Good thing he had it on. Thirty yards away was a pile of brain on the pavement.
So, you are on record that safety devices do not make a difference? Oh wait, I see further down you wear yours all the time, weird.
Driving in the Empire State Building will get ya a hefty fine too.
Right
The only real argument for statutory compulsion for seatbelt usage is the theory that it holds a driver in their seat, enabling them to control the automobile better, possibly reducing the likelyhood of a collision with another. This is offset by a lack of data and the possibility of causing entrapment in the case of a single vehicle accident. I can't wait for someone to sue the state for compelling them to wear a seatbelt that trapped them in a car, resulting in 3rd degree burns or something of that nature.
Or for an emt to sue a victim who was thrown from the car cause the emt was looking off the road for said victim and snapped his leg falling in a hole
EMT: Sir, just relax, we are going to get you out
Victim: my...my wife and daughter, are they ok?
EMT: Officer! We have two more that were in the car, they must have been thrown, can you search the sides of the road?
I always wear mine by the way. Have since about 2 years after I started driving, which was 16 years ago.
Huh, go figure
Driving is a privilege, and they only thing they ask is to wear your seat belt and this tramples your rights and freedoms? And i'm a liberal? Seems you use this term quite liberally, I guess that makes you a liberal too, eh?
-
I'm with Sixpence all the way in this debate.
I always wore a setbelt ever since they started putting them in cars, and long before it became mandatory in 1983. Why? Because it makes perfect sense. That's why. I don't see it as an "infringement of liberty". If you use a passenger air service, do you argue with the FA when asked to buckle up? Hmmm, some do.
I always remember the lame arguments folks here came up with just ahead of the seatbelt law - stuff like "a seatbelt will wear my clothes out".
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I'm with Sixpence all the way in this debate.
lol, i'm doomed! ;)
What they see it as is something that their decision effects only them, and it doesn't, it effects the whole community. That being the case, the community should have a say in the matter.
They are also taking the liberal side of the debate. Some years ago here in Ma., the first attempt at a seat belt law sent the liberal core up in arms. The bill was defeated, and the libs staged a party, but no one really showed up or celebrated. The bill was attempted again and passed, it would be a turning point to a more conservative Ma, even electing a republican gov which years ago would be unheard of.
-
Before cars, riding a horse was a privilege. Registration,
license plates, riding licenses. Hooking the plate to the tail.
And oh, the air pollution.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
But they can't choose which road the business is on
[/B]
Surely they can. Don't like the road, go to a different business.
So if you make the job unbearable and no one chooses to do it, who does it? And that being said, why make the job worse?
Q1: First, it's supply and demand. Second, decades of an absense of mandatory seatbelt laws certainly did not result in a lack of EMT's.
Q2: That question has no place in a discussion about legislating another facet of my life.
Not quite, she chose to live on that street. Yeah, maybe you are right, she should turn her head the other way and not help.
Yes, quite. She chose to live there and she chose to go out to gawk at an accident scene. I do no presume to tell anyone what they should or should not do, unlike the nanny-state advocates that support this type of legislature.
So, you are on record that safety devices do not make a difference?
[/B]
Not at all. Of course they do, in many instances. In that particular one, they didn't. That is not justification for another intrusion on my life.
Oh wait, I see further down you wear yours all the time, weird.
[/B]
I'm curious as to why you find the fact that I choose to wear my seatbelt weird.
Or for an emt to sue a victim who was thrown from the car cause the emt was looking off the road for said victim and snapped his leg falling in a hole
[/B]
Again, you have failed to grasp the fundamental concept here. That EMT chose his profession and chose to go off looking for a victim. Statutory compulsion vs choice belongs in that bag of mixed fruit.
I always wear mine by the way. Have since about 2 years after I started driving, which was 16 years ago.
Huh, go figure
It is possible to believe in a right and disagree with or not partake of an action at the same time. Should firearms be legal? Absolutely. Do I own one? No. Should a natural, unrefined or processed substance that alters ones state of mind (pot) be legal? Absolutely. Do I smoke it? No.
Driving is a privilege, and they only thing they ask is to wear your seat belt
[/B]
False statement.
[/B]and this tramples your rights and freedoms? And i'm a liberal? Seems you use this term quite liberally, I guess that makes you a liberal too, eh? [/B]
I really am sorry that you don't see how legislating behaviour such as this is yet another infringement on everyone. As far as the liberal tag, I didn't paste it on you, in this thread at least. It has come to define those in favor of increased governmental control over everything. It once defined a philosophy of limited government, so I'll take that old label if you want to try to paste a label on me.
-
sixpense... it would seem that you would outlaw motorcycles and bicycles too... they are transportation but they make really messy corpses and injuries when they make contact with a car.... we certainly wouldn't want an ambulance driver or policeman to see anything messy now would we?
By your logic since there is no reason to not drive a seat belted car and motorcycles are dangerous.... we should get rid of em.
what I don't understand is that you think a bloated floater of a swiming accident corpse is fine for people to see but a guy going through the windsheild is not?
No matter how many people wear seatbelts.... you are gonna have really messy and/or fatal wrecks... grandma is gonna see some headless or crushed seatbelted in corpse.
If your entire arguement is based on the fact that you are slightly more likely to see an injured or dead person if they aren't forced to wear seatbelts... then you have no arguement. It doesn't matter if you have to drive or not... it doesn't matter if you have to swim or not or skydive or not or ride motorcycles or not.
If you are so frietghtened of seeing an injured person that you would make laws to restrict freedom then you have some real issues to work out... For others.... seeing such a sight might make em want to wear a seatbelt... maybe not. I seen a few head injuries from motorcyle wrecks and some people killed not wearing seatbelts.... I sometimes choose to not wear seatbelts or helmets. It is my life and my choice.
lazs
-
and... lazer has the correct attitude of a free man... he wears a seatbelt because he believes they are effective but he would not even consider to make a law forcing other free men to..
he doesn't own a gun or smoke pot but doesn't tell other free men to.. there is hope for the country so long as this kind of American spirit exists..
contrast this with sixpenses british (the losers)like boston mentaliy of looking for ways to make people do what he thinks is the right thing... I have known women who were less controling than this guy.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
what I don't understand is that you think a bloated floater of a swiming accident corpse is fine for people to see but a guy going through the windsheild is not?
Well, you see, most people can't swim to work, and Six doesn't have a swimming pool in his front yard, so that's why it's OK.
-
ok sob... so what you are trying to tell me is that it is ok to restrict freedom so long as it is.... is what?
People have to drive.... no... have to get to work... soooo... it is fine to make any laws that you want so far as the transportation goes? Ever seen a motorcycle wreck? wouldn't it be in everyones best interest to just outlaw em?
Are you in agreement with sixpense and the brits that it is a sensible law and that restricting freedom is worth it if there is the slightest chance it will keep you or a rescue worker from seeing an extra accident victim that has suffered an injury?
Who are you protecting and why is all I would ask.
have we really sank so low from our revolutionary roots that we feel that we can restrict everyones behavior over every percieved offense to our tender sensibilities?
lazs
-
It's really sad to see lazs completely missing the point. Every injured or dead person creates loss for the government. They do not want to kill a milking cow so they regulate your actions lazs.
See, you're nothing but a cow in the herd.
On the seatbelts - I would gladly wear 4-point belts if my car was prefitted with them if it meant saving me from a serious injury or death one day.
Ever seen any racing accidents? None of them would walk out of them without good and tight seatbelts. Most people who do not wear the seatbelt are too dumb for their own good. They actually believe that they can support their body with their hands if a 30mph collision happens in the town.
The legislators got tired of seeing windshields with tard faces imprinted on them.
-
I think maybe my sarcasm was a little too subtle. I've always worn a seatbelt...at this point, putting it on is as natural as turning the key in the ignition. But I don't give a crap if you wear one, 'cause it's none of my business.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
That is not justification for another intrusion on my life.
So I guess driving on the right hand side of the road is an intrusion on your life?
I'm curious as to why you find the fact that I choose to wear my seatbelt weird.
Well, seeming it is such an intrusion on your life and all
Should firearms be legal? Absolutely.
I agree, but you have a constitutional right to bear arms, you do not have a constitutional right to drive a car.
Should a natural, unrefined or processed substance that alters ones state of mind (pot) be legal? Absolutely. Do I smoke it? No.
So, I guess driving a car under the influence of pot be an infringement on your rights?
False statement.
True statement, you do not have the right to drive a car, it is a privilege
I really am sorry that you don't see how legislating behaviour such as this is yet another infringement on everyone.
I am really sorry you see the infringement on other people is your right. Why do you have the right to my tax dollars? I should have a say in it too.
It has come to define those in favor of increased governmental control over everything.
So law and order is just a liberal takeover?
-
ripley... you may have the point on your first part...
after that you go a little effeminate on us... I not only seen race accidents... I was in em. If you like 5 point harnesses then you should install em.
I think you may have noticed that for miles driven... you are somewhat more likely to get into an unsurvivable wreck in a race car than driving to the store at 25 or 30mph.
I don't believe that seatbelts aren't a good thing to wear... I just don't sometimes.. I have been driving for 50 years... I have been in no wrecks off the track that I needed a seatbelt... I wear lap belts but there are no cars built today that have only lap belts... both my Hot Rods do.
So... 50 years of a strap digging into my neck every minute compared to maybe getting into a wreck where the damn thing will do some good? mostly I pass... but.. the choice should be mine.
sob... I missed the sarcasm... I should have known tho that you were not an advocate of big brother nannyism.
Again... you should wear your seatbelts... they work... you should not be able to tell me (or anyone else) to under pain of law.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SOB
But I don't give a crap if you wear one, 'cause it's none of my business.
But it is, it costs you money that could be spending on booze.
And that pool thing......I couldn't have said it better myself. Whatever you said
-
and six.... I agree that the government has a right to make laws about vehicles.... I am just saying that it is a bad law. It is not bad in that it doesn't work or even that it isn't the best thing for us...
It is a bad law in that it takes away the freedom of individuals for no good reason other than it is better for them... it is like you are saying we need to outlaw greassy food because of all the misery it causes to family and friends and medical staff..
Why not require helmets in cars.... race car drivers use em... they would be a good idea..
lazs
-
driveing under the influence of any drug endangers others. If you made laws that called it murder if you killed someone because you were under the influence then there would be no need for the laws.
How am I taking your tax dollars if I get myself injured or killed in a wreck? I have insurance.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
But it is, it costs you money that could be spending on booze.
It costs me money because he could possibly get in a bad car wreck and die? So what. I could possibly cost me money to cover a lot of things that other people do. Again, I'll take personal freedom over some perceived cost down the road. You give yours away if you want, as that is also none of my business...since I don't now, nor do I ever plan to live in MA.
Originally posted by Sixpence
And that pool thing......I couldn't have said it better myself. Whatever you said
I was actually trying to be as retarded as I could within the bounds of what you had posted previously. Seriously.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and six.... I agree that the government has a right to make laws about vehicles.... I am just saying that it is a bad law. It is not bad in that it doesn't work or even that it isn't the best thing for us...
It is a bad law in that it takes away the freedom of individuals for no good reason other than it is better for them... it is like you are saying we need to outlaw greassy food because of all the misery it causes to family and friends and medical staff..
Why not require helmets in cars.... race car drivers use em... they would be a good idea..
lazs
My support of the law has nothing to do wether it is bad for you or not, what you do with your life is your business. I support it because of the impact it has on others.
-
Originally posted by SOB
It costs me money because he could possibly get in a bad car wreck and die?
Well, it's my money too, I should have no say in it?
Again, I'll take personal freedom over some perceived cost down the road.
There is nothing perceived about it. It costs us money. And I guess having to use the roads to drive is giving up personal freedom? I can't drink and drive is infringing on my freedoms?
I was actually trying to be as retarded as I could within the bounds of what you had posted previously. Seriously.
I know, I was trying to be funny, swing and a miss
-
seat belt law is nothing more than a money maker for the police departments / local government. If I can ride in the back of a pickup truck without any type of safety harness legally, why do I have to where 1 in the front. Police also use this as a good reason to pull you over and look for drunks driving or search for drugs / weapons. But if I don't have to ride a helmet on a motorcycle, why should I have to wear a seatbelt in a car, heck I have to have a helmet to ride a bicycle. The reason there is no helmet / motorcycle law is because the insurance company's got together and found it was way cheaper for them if motorycle wreck victims died intead of living as vegetables. They figured its cheaper if you just die, then them having to pay for all your medical bills in a really bad wreck, you can look that up because its true, so don't tell me that the government or anybody else is interested in my well being because that's total crap.
There was an article last week in my local newspaper that was talking about a lady that got a seatbelt ticket because she was too fat to get the seatbelt around her, it wouldn't fit...The police wouldn't let her drive off in it, and her husband ended up having to go get the car out of inpound and he's been on tv griping for the past week... My thoughts on this were that her wearing a seatbelt should be one of the last things on her mind, she has more important health issues to think about. Also you should have seen the way the police handled this, just trying to get a huge story started, they were all over my local news and everything. Don't police have anything better to do, I know they get bored but don't they have minority's beat or something better to do lol
-
Why not require helmets in cars.... race car drivers use em... they would be a good idea
just like the great comedian George Carlin said once, " pretty soon we're gonna have to where a helmet to J/O"
-
Originally posted by Iceman24
a lady that got a seatbelt ticket because she was too fat to get the seatbelt around her
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
-
for once beet1e we agree on somthing lol
I thought that was pretty funny too, thats what caught my eye and made me read about it in the paper lol
-
sixpense... what effect does my not wearing a seatbelt have on others? I have insurance enough to cover any eventuality.. If it is seeing my dead body that offends you then you really need to toughen up or never leave the house.... little kids getting run over (I have seen that several times) on their bikes is ten times worse than seein an adult killed in a car wreck..
You really have no case except that you may say that it costs less because less people are injured.... Oh??
So tell me... since the seatbelt and helmet laws came into effect.... how much has everyones car and health insurance gone DOWN.... A huge amount right? certainly enough to justify your prissy busybody laws right?
lazs
-
hey Laz I don't think cars or autos as Beet1e would call them go fast enough in his country to actually cause a serious accident lol j/k
-
Originally posted by lazs2
again... hang nails it.... rescue workers and police fire etc... their job is to clean up... dead people are a drag to take care of and sometimes they are messy
Actually, being a Paramedic for 20 years, most of that in a major urban Fire Dept, I can say with authority that dead people are very easy to take care of.
Its the live ones that will be dead soon that are a *****.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sixpense... what effect does my not wearing a seatbelt have on others? I have insurance enough to cover any eventuality.
It drives up my insurance rates, not just yours, and costs me tax dollars. http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/seat_belts.html
"On average, inpatient hospital care costs for an unbelted crash victim are 50 percent higher than those for a belted crash victim. Society bears 85 percent of those costs, not the individuals involved. Every American pays about $580 a year toward the cost of crashes. If everyone buckled up, this figure would drop significantly."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/buasbteens03/#16
"Conversely, safety belt nonuse results in significant economic costs to society. The needless deaths and injuries from safety belt nonuse account for an estimated $26 billion in economic costs to society annually.16 The cost goes beyond the lost lives of unbuckled drivers and passengers: We all pay - in higher taxes and higher health care and insurance costs."
So why should I pay for others stupidity?
-
Originally posted by Iceman24
hey Laz I don't think cars or autos as Beet1e would call them go fast enough in his country to actually cause a serious accident lol j/k
ROFL! Well, my old Beet1e sounded strained at 60mph; it was happier at 50!
Well surely even Lazs, as stubborn as he is, cannot argue against sixpences post here. ^
What I want to know is... what good reason is there NOT to wear a seatbelt in a car? I can't think of one.
The only thing I can think of is that macho men who fancy themselves as ace drivers feel that their image is being tarnished by wearing a seatbelt.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
macho men
Macho men: Old tribal term used to describe those who do not spar with women.
Usualy well accepted and adored by the female of the species and feared by the effiminate male.
-
Ok sixpense... now that everyone complies.... All our insurance for both health and vehicle has gone DOWN what? 50%
All you guys notice the 50% savings in rates that he is talking about? and.... If it really bothers you... I am willing to tell the insurance company that I don't wear seatbelts half the time and they can raise my rates accordingly...
I am willing to pay for my freedom. I am willing to pay for peoples freedom to ride motorcycles and jog and ride bikes and hike and mountain climb or take showers or have a two story house or eat meat or smoke pot or do heroin or whatever... money should not have anything to do with it.
Does everyone recall that when seatbelts started becomeing common and insurance companies gave you a slight reduction in rate if you said you used em? they haven't lowered rates since then.
I am not argueing with his figures at all.... just anyones right to restrict freedom based on getting a better group rate.
And... it has nothing to do with "image" it has to do with choice. I wore 5 place harnesses in race cars enough...
Wouldn't it save us all money if we had helmets and nomex firesuits in cars... bet I could give you numbers that showed at least a 50% reduction in head injuries and burns...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
money should not have anything to do with it.
Well, when you find that utopia, plz tell me where it is. But for now, I have to live in the real world. Again, the apples to oranges comparisons. You talk as if driving is your given right, and it's not, it is a privilege, and all that is asked is you wear your seat belt, and this is denying your freedoms?
You have to wear a safety harness when you go on a ride at an amusement park, is this denying your freedoms too?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
What I want to know is... what good reason is there NOT to wear a seatbelt in a car? I can't think of one.
The only thing I can think of is that macho men who fancy themselves as ace drivers feel that their image is being tarnished by wearing a seatbelt.
Which isn't the point at all, of course.
The point is that people should be given the freedom to do as they wish, not nannied and nagged constantly by big government telling them what is "good" for them.
The seatbelt issue is the same as the motor cycle helmet issue.
I think it's outright stupid not to use them all the time.
However, I also think that if someone wants to be outright stupid and it's not going to harm the rest of us, then it is that someone's RIGHT to be stupid.
If someone chooses not to wear a helmet, loses control of his bike in a graveled turn and goes head on into a hard object... well, he knew the risk up front, made the decision to take the risk and got called to account by the great oddsmaker in the sky.
Not my business or my government's business. It's the rider's business and that's the only person that should be involved in the decision process.
It's that freedom thing.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
You talk as if driving is your given right, and it's not, it is a privilege
Well Golly gee whilikers Mr. Wilson, who is this generous "privilege" bestowed on us by?
I always just assumed since the labor of our country builds the autos that it was a given right. Silly me. A privilege my aching butt.
Most of us are not big into sitting around waiting for government to tell us what we can and cannot do. You see, we are suppsed to be the voice of the government, not the other way around.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Well Golly gee whilikers Mr. Wilson, who is this generous "privilege" bestowed on us by?
I always just assumed since the labor of our country builds the autos that it was a given right. Silly me. A privilege my aching butt.
Most of us are not big into sitting around waiting for government to tell us what we can and cannot do. You see, we are suppsed to be the voice of the government, not the other way around.
well, hey then, screw law and order and let's just all do what we want!
-
Sixpence....
It isn't a "law and order" question.
Law and order deals with stuff like "you right to swing your fist around stops a quarter inch short of my nose".
No other person is at risk or being harmed by a biker without a helmet or a driver not wearing a seat belt.
The biker or driver in question are only putting themselves at risk and that is their decision to make.
It's that freedom thing.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
well, hey then, screw law and order and let's just all do what we want!
Don't tempt me.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The seatbelt issue is the same as the motor cycle helmet issue.
Good point, and it varies from state to state, as it should, like seat belt laws. How is wearing a helmet taking away your freedom to ride a motorcycle? If you feel wearing a safety harness is taking away your freedom, you don't get on the amusement park ride, if you feel wearing a helmet takes away your freedom, you don't get on the motorcycle.
When you are ejected from your vehicle, you are a projectile. You can be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause another accident. If I am sitting in the front seat of a car, and the guy in the back seat is not wearing a seat belt, he then becomes a projectile that can kill me. Look, if you want to be stupid and it only effects you, that's fine, knock yourself out, but if it effects me, I should have a say in it.
I live in a state that has a seat belt law, and if it comes up for a vote, I am going to vote for it. Putting on my seat belt does not take away any of my freedom to drive a car, nor does putting on a safety harness take away my freedom to enjoy an amusement park ride
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I live in a state that has a seat belt law, and if it comes up for a vote, I am going to vote for it.
Some flaws in your argument:
How is wearing a helmet taking away your freedom to ride a motorcycle?
[/b]
It takes away your freedom to ride without a helmet. That is a personal choice; we don't need the government nanny to make that choice for us.
If you feel wearing a safety harness is taking away your freedom, you don't get on the amusement park ride
[/b]
When you enter the amusement park... a "for profit" privately held enterprise that you pay to enter, you have to follow their rules to use their equipment. They could be sued in the event you fell out of the ride and weren't wearing the harness.
The motorcycle or car is your private personal property and you make the rules for that. Before you start, the roads are public and not owned by the government. The government CANNOT be sued if you die from a head injury in a motorcycle crash while not wearing a helmet.
When you are ejected from your vehicle, you are a projectile. You can be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause another accident.
[/b]
Yeah and an asteroid can come screaming in from outer space and hit you on the head and kill you if you're not wearing a motorcycle helmet.
Do we have lap straps and shoulder harnesses for motorcycles? Because by your logic we should... cycle riders always get ejected from their vehicle in a crash so ......
You logic is faulty. Again.
Look, if you want to be stupid and it only effects you, that's fine, knock yourself out, but if it effects me, I should have a say in it.
[/b]
Which is exactly the point. The odds of it having any effect whatsoever on you are so remote as to rival the odds of winning the megalotto.
Putting on my seat belt does not take away any of my freedom to drive a car, nor does putting on a safety harness take away my freedom to enjoy an amusement park ride
[/b]
You continually ignore the obvious. That is YOUR choice. Do as you like.
Just don't think you can nanny everyone else.
And don't think I'm "anti" helmet or seatbelt. I've owned about 6 cycles, 2 airplanes and cod knows how many cars.
I use seat belts, shoulder harnesses and helmets as appropriate for each vehicle. I think only a fool would NOT use them.
HOWEVER, I, unlike YOU, realize that those choices are personal choices, not decisions that a nanny state should be making for every single individual.
Truth be told, there are few people I despise more than folks that think they have the "right" to make personal decisons for others.
Live YOUR life. Let others live theirs. There's no statistically relevant danger to your personal safety from helmetless cycle riders or seatbeltless drivers.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It takes away your freedom to ride without a helmet. That is a personal choice; we don't need the government nanny to make that choice for us.
Right, and you chose to drive on our roads, and we all get together and make the rules for the road, and they are many. If the majority decide we want the seat belt law, it should be so, what is wrong with that?
The motorcycle or car is your private personal property and you make the rules for that. Before you start, the roads are public and not owned by the government. The government CANNOT be sued if you die from a head injury in a motorcycle crash while not wearing a helmet.
But they are our roads, and deny all you want, but the decision not to wear a seat belt effects me, not just you, as I have explained many times. So I should have a say in it.
Yeah and an asteroid can come screaming in from outer space and hit you on the head and kill you
Well, I haven't seen that, but I have seen people thrown from their cars into oncoming traffic
Do we have lap straps and shoulder harnesses for motorcycles? Because by your logic we should... cycle riders always get ejected from their vehicle in a crash so ......
There is nothing we can do about that, being it is more dangerous being tied to a motorcycle in a crash, and I wouldn't say you can't drive a motorcycle, so I compromise. You are comparing that to a seat belt in a car?lol, I knew that silly argument was coming, but keep trying, you are running out of straws
You logic is faulty. Again.
It may be faulty, but it saves money and lives
Which is exactly the point. The odds of it having any effect whatsoever on you are so remote as to rival the odds of winning the megalotto.
Unfortunately, people are thrown from their cars everyday
You continually ignore the obvious. That is YOUR choice. Do as you like.
And you ignore the obvious, your decision effects me
Just don't think you can nanny everyone else.
I agree, I am all for darwinism, but if your darwinism effects me, I should have a say
And don't think I'm "anti" helmet or seatbelt. I've owned about 6 cycles, 2 airplanes and cod knows how many cars. I use seat belts, shoulder harnesses and helmets as appropriate for each vehicle. I think only a fool would NOT use them.
You are missing my point, I don't care what happens to the person who makes the choice, I care how it effects me. And you may find my reasons remote or not valid, but I think they are valid
HOWEVER, I, unlike YOU, realize that those choices are personal choices, not decisions that a nanny state should be making for every single individual.
I agree, and you have the choice to drive or not. Again, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we all get together and decide the rules. You need a license, you have to stop at a railroad crossing, right turn on red, wearing a seat belt. We do that collectively, if the majority decide that not wearing a seat belt effects everyone, but are willing to sacrifice what the consequences will be, then we decide that you do not have to wear one. If the majority decide we want a seat belt law, it should be so.You make it sound like the government is this entity we have no control over, a union is only as good as it's members
Truth be told, there are few people I despise more than folks that think they have the "right" to make personal decisons for others.
I agree, what I despise more are people who think they have the right to make decisions that effect others because they feel it remote or their concerns are not valid
Live life. Let others live theirs. There's no statistically relevant danger to your personal safety from helmetless cycle riders or seatbeltless drivers.
"Conversely, safety belt nonuse results in significant economic costs to society. The needless deaths and injuries from safety belt nonuse account for an estimated $26 billion in economic costs to society annually. The cost goes beyond the lost lives of unbuckled drivers and passengers: We all pay - in higher taxes and higher health care and insurance costs."
It effects me, wether you consider it valid or not, so I should have a say
-
It no more effects you than lightning striking someone effects you.
I tell you now though that you and your nanny ilk will probably be responsible for starting the next American revolution.
Unless you learn to mind your own business... and someone else's use of helmets or seatbelts is NOT your business.
-
The only thing I can think of is that macho men who fancy themselves as ace drivers feel that their image is being tarnished by wearing a seatbelt.
You nailed it right there bud, we're Americans the abive definately applies to us lol... I knoe what your saying about your bettle only going 50mpn, my 1st car was a 79 jeep with a beat up 6 cylinder, would do about 60mph tops on the highway and if the wind blew hard 50mpn lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
It no more effects you than lightning striking someone effects you.
I tell you now though that you and your nanny ilk will probably be responsible for starting the next American revolution.
Unless you learn to mind your own business... and someone else's use of seatbelts is NOT your business.
Again, it effects me you tell me to mind my own business, I am glad I live in a country where people can't do that. God bless America
-
don't know about ya'll but I'm gonna live in a bubble for the rest of my life :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
The seatbelt issue is the same as the motor cycle helmet issue.
No helmets required here in Florida. The law was repealed strictly for economic reasons. To attract motercycle riding tourists. Yet we are required to wear a seat belt in a car. Government at it's most bizaar!
-
yeah same here in TX Cliffra, helmets on motorcycles are optional but u have to where a sreatbelt in a car, I can ride in the back of a pickup without 1 but if I get in the cab I have to put 1 one lol Also people that ride bicycles have to where 1 or they are ticketed, but yet if I put a motor on that bicycle I don't have to lol
-
so six... your reasons are economic? I just got done telling you that wearing helmets in cars and wearing nomex would reduce head injuries and expensive burns by 50%..
would you be for making everyone wear helmets and nomex in cars?
you are a pitiful excuse for a man in my opinion. Not because you think wearing seatbelts is a good idea but because you think you having the right to decide for others is a good idea.
And.... just so you understand... If my mother was as controling as you she would never get another mothers day card..
but sheesh.... I am talking to a wall that thinks ted kennedy is a great American hero.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Again, it effects me you tell me to mind my own business, I am glad I live in a country where people can't do that. God bless America
You and your ilk just keep pushin'.
You'll eventually find out why the 2nd Amendment is in there.
Your seatbelt won't help you then.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
well, hey then, screw law and order and let's just all do what we want!
If you consider some of the crap that is going on within government now as law and order, then HELL YEA, screw it. Your right. I`ll take my chances and along with it my freedom of choice.
You must have terrible back problems after asumming the position on a permanent basis.
-
Sixpence! - I'm still with you...
Originally posted by Sixpence
When you are ejected from your vehicle, you are a projectile. You can be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause another accident. If I am sitting in the front seat of a car, and the guy in the back seat is not wearing a seat belt, he then becomes a projectile that can kill me. Look, if you want to be stupid and it only effects you, that's fine, knock yourself out, but if it effects me, I should have a say in it.
Yes, that's a very good point. When Britain first had a seatbelt law in 1983, it applied only to front seat passenger and driver. Road deaths dropped from around 5000 a year to about 3000. So effective was the law that we even had a shortage of donated organs. But it was found that although the lives of the people in the front of the car were being saved, the rear passengers became projectiles and were causing injuries to those in the front as well as to themselves. So now all cars are fitted with rear seat belts and it's mandatory to wear them.
Sorry Toad, I don't agree that other people dying or being seriously injured does not affect me. Avoidable injuries put extra strain on our National Health Service. The presence of someone injured in an RTA, in an NHS hospital, means that someone else somewhere down the line is not able to get treatment. And if the person is killed, his life assurance has to pay out - a payment of many thousands of £/$/whatever. That means that they have to recover that cost - by higher premiums for everyone else. Thus we are affected by the negligence of those refusing to wear helmets/seatbelts. Why should I have to pay higher life assurance premiums to guard against the life assurance company having to make a large payout on a death that could have been avoided? Why should someone be denied hospital treatment because the last bed was taken by someone with head injuries who wasn't wearing a seatbelt? That's why we have the seatbelt law (1983) and a helmet law (1976). I don't get this "freedom" thing. How does not wearing a seatbelt create more freedom? Either way, you're in your car and have responsibilities to yourself and other road users. What can you do in that car without a seatbelt that you can't do with a seatbelt?
-
Originally posted by Toad
You and your ilk just keep pushin'.
You'll eventually find out why the 2nd Amendment is in there.
Your seatbelt won't help you then.
Ahhh, the threat of a gun taking my right to vote away, I am not afraid
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't get this "freedom" thing.
Of course you don`t because you have been busy giving your`s away.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Of course you don`t because you have been busy giving your`s away.
LOL, I was waiting for some smart arse to come up with that. You forget, there was a time when we didn't have seatbelts. A time when US cars were getting 6mpg. So I have been a passenger in a car with no belts, and a passenger wearing a belt. I couldn't see what "freedom" had been taken from me because of having to wear a belt - which I did anyway, long before the law was passed.
Now get back on that commode and take a bowl of All Bran in there with you to make the trip worthwhile. ;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I couldn't see what "freedom" had been taken from me because of having to wear a belt
Once again...of course you couldn`t see it. You were too busy giving it away.
When you choose not to have freedom of choice and give it away , you have to come up with some excuse for the nadless actions.
Now get back on that commode and take a bowl of All Bran in there with you to make the trip worthwhile.
That wouldn`t be one of my favorite past times, but I would prefer it over having sparring matchs with women .
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Once again...of course you couldn`t see it. You were too busy giving it away.
When you choose not to have freedom of choice and give it away , you have to come up with some excuse for the nadless actions.
Nope - the seatbelt situation here is much the same as it is in many US states. And no excuses - the law makes perfect sense.
Oh I forgot - you don't need All Bran, you have grits!
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Ahhh, the threat of a gun taking my right to vote away, I am not afraid
If it comes to that it won't be votes that get taken.
You aren't my nanny. Get over it. Mind your own life, not mine.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
the law makes perfect sense.
The very fact it is a "law" is what makes it absurd.
Oh I forgot - you don't need All Bran, you have grits!
And you have your vegetable of choice to smack around .
-
Originally posted by Toad
If it comes to that it won't be votes that get taken.
Ok, i'll go hide now while I wait for the great seat belt revolution to start
-
Like I said, just keep pushin' nanny.
The recent eminent domain fiasco and medical marijuana joke didn't go unnoticed.
The increase in Federal power that results of Katrina won't go unnoticed either.
There appears to be a mistaken impression in some quarters that the entire population is made up of nanny sheep.
It isn't.
-
Originally posted by Iceman24
There was an article last week in my local newspaper that was talking about a lady that got a seatbelt ticket because she was too fat to get the seatbelt around her, it wouldn't fit...
They make extensions. Dealerships carry them. They're free from Toyota, probably the rest too. They should come with a complimentary treadmill.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Like I said, just keep pushin' nanny.
What does nanny have to do with it? Like this darwin (http://www.snopes.com/autos/accident/seatbelt.asp), I don't care that he killed himself, I am not his nanny, but if stupid acts like this are going to drive up my insurance and health care costs, I should have a say in that
The recent eminent domain fiasco and medical marijuana joke didn't go unnoticed.
The increase in Federal power that results of Katrina won't go unnoticed either.
There appears to be a mistaken impression in some quarters that the entire population is made up of nanny sheep.
It isn't.
That's fine, but to lump a state seat belt law with federal power increased because of katrina? Sorry, I don't buy that a state seat belt law is going to lead to increased federal power and a revolution
-
How much have your rates gone down since seatbelt/helmet laws were passed?
They haven't even stayed the same... they went up.
You swallowed the hook so deep it's around your last rib.
-
Originally posted by Toad
How much have your rates gone down since seatbelt/helmet laws were passed?
They haven't even stayed the same... they went up.
You swallowed the hook so deep it's around your last rib.
Who is to say they wouldn't be higher?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The very fact it is a "law" is what makes it absurd.
The reason a law was needed was because there were many stupid/stubborn people who would not wear a seatbelt even where one was provided.
And please, remind me: What is it I can't do while driving my car wearing a seatbelt that I could do if I was not wearing one? I want to know what "freedom" I could look forward to by not wearing one. Then I might go out and buy one of those white shirts with a thick black diagonal stripe that looks like a seatbelt, and I'll wear it when I drive. :D
As for whether insurance premiums have risen/fallen, there are so many other factors affecting them - car performance (much higher than 30 years ago) inflation, theft...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
And please, remind me: What is it I can't do while driving my car wearing a seatbelt that I could do if I was not wearing one? I want to know what "freedom" I could look forward to by not wearing one.
You could look forward to the most important freedom of all, that being freedom of choice.
It would also free you up in case you needed to reach over into the passenger side to slap someone around. An out of hand female for example.
It would give you much more flexibility to assume the bent over position that you seem to prefer above freedom.
-
The insurance debate is ridiculous. By reading some of the comments here you would think that insurance companies collect your premiums and place them in a cigar box for safe keeping, never to be used unless there is a loss on your behalf.
Actualy your premiums are invested on high return investments. They don`t gather dust waiting on disaster to strike.
And also insurance companies purchase...guess what? Insurance. :)
-
Still doesn't alter the fact that payouts are considerably higher when seatbelts are not worn, as they weren't when there was no law to enforce it. As I have already pointed out, the road death toll here was cut by about 40% or 2000 per annum. That's a lot of life assurance policy payouts.
-
I`m sure the insurance companies of the world are very touched at your concern for their well being and willingness to buy into any load dished out.
Their payouts has absolutely no effect on you or me other than to be used as excuse to raise premiums.. It`s a scam. One that seems to be working great.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Who is to say they wouldn't be higher?
Careful, those hooks sting when they exit by the aft stairs.
Your rates will NEVER go down. Real simple; those are the insurance companies' profits. They are not voluntarily going to reduce rates because it cuts profits.
Instead, to make Wall Street happy, each year they will find another hoop for you to jump through, another way to raise rates.
You nannies could have everyone driving around in a Volkswagen Passat GLX (V6) (rated #1 in class for safety), mandatory nomex driving suit, six point harness and helmet with governors to limit speed to 25 mph and your rates STILL wouldn't go down.
It's PROFITS.
But even then folks like you would look at each other with those knowing nanny eyes and say.."but the rates could have gone up".
-
Ok, so you say it doesn't cost us money, I say it does
-
until they wire cars so you cant even start them unless the seatbelt is buckled, or its a automatic death penalty for not wearing one, you still have a choice...your just going to have to pay a small fine every now and again...
bet if we dropped the law right now, the number of seatbelt wearers wouldnt drop, weve already made it a automatic movement upon entering a car for everyone thats going to do it anyway...
-
Well, since you're so concerned about money, why don't you address a real problem?
From NHTSA:
In 2003, 30 percent of all fatal crashes during the week were alcohol-related, compared to 53 percent on weekends. For all crashes, the alcohol involvement rate was 5 percent during the week and 12 percent during the weekend.
If you think seatbelts drive up your rates (and you are wrong; desire for more corporate profit drives up your rates), I have to guess that the drunk driving states give you a hissy fit about rates.
What's your solution? What nanny-state magic fix do you propose?
The can be NO DOUBT alcohol is a much more serious problem than seatbelt usage.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, since you're so concerned about money, why don't you address a real problem?
From NHTSA:
If you think seatbelts drive up your rates (and you are wrong; desire for more corporate profit drives up your rates), I have to guess that the drunk driving states give you a hissy fit about rates.
What's your solution? What nanny-state magic fix do you propose?
The can be NO DOUBT alcohol is a much more serious problem than seatbelt usage.
Already tried, prohibition didn't work, and if seat belts don't work, the same will happen
-
LOL!
So you won't even TRY to address a more serious "insurance rates" problem?
The people that are REALLY a threat to you on the road AND in rising insurance rates are drunk drivers.
Scared to take that one on eh?
-
PC fingers twitch on PC triggers.
...forgot to take the PC saftey off.
Toad, most folks when requested to think and apply simple logic come up with the damndest responses when they hit the PC barrier.
Nice Pavlov demonstration, though!
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL!
So you won't even TRY to address a more serious "insurance rates" problem?
The people that are REALLY a threat to you on the road AND in rising insurance rates are drunk drivers.
Scared to take that one on eh?
lol, you are making my point, it is illegal to drink and drive. If you get caught it is a stiff fine and repeated offenses will put you behind bars, as it should. And I suppose there is no proof that the law has not reduced drinking and driving? I guess that is taking away your right to choose to drink and drive, huh? A true blow for freedom
Wearing a seat belt does not deny you the freedom to drive. You can't walk down the street naked, you have to wear clothes in public, I guess your right to choose has been taken away eh? Another blow for freedom, start the revolution
-
That's the way it has always been explained to me. Less injuries = less premiums. And it's not just cars. Bike helmets (for eg.) = less of a drain on health care costs.
So is that BS? I've never considered that, because it made sense to me.
But maybe a paralell can be drawn with taxation. One thing I know about new taxes, fees, or whatever... is that they never go away. Once the initial reason for the tax is satiated, there will always be something new to fill the void and require the continuance of that tax.
Back to insurance companies. Less injuries means less payouts. We know their motives. So the question is (and is being asked here already):
Do the insurance companies just soak up the profits from less payouts, or do the rates fairly reflect our taking measures to protect ourselves?
I guess at this point, really, we're gonna need numbers.
-
Drunk drivers are putting your rates in the stratosphere.
The DD rates and trends don't change; they only go up.
What's your solution nanny?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Drunk drivers are putting your rates in the stratosphere.
The DD rates and trends don't change; they only go up.
What's your solution nanny?
I support drunk driving laws, like I support the seat belt law
The name calling Toad, cmon
-
If the apron fits, wear it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
If the apron fits, wear it.
Hey, if you can't come up with a good point, come up with a good one liner, well done
-
You can't come up with either one. Well done.
-
Simmer down.
What are the numbers...? Toad....?
-
I don't believe insurance companies publish categorized payout info. Feel free to search.
Maybe Mary Poppins can help ya.
-
Then upon what do you base your anger with them?
A guess?
-
I base my anger upon the fact that there's way too many people trying to run other people's lives.
As you can see, it's one of the few things that does truly anger me.
Ya know what would make the world a much better place? If everyone tended their own garden and have the courtesy to let their neighbors do the same.
-
But Toad... it's not that complicated.
If everyone driving around without seatbelts are gonna personally cost me money, then screw that freedom, because it infinges on mine.
Now the question is, do people driving around with seatbelts actually save me money?
I don't know.
The whole thing is one giant question to me at this point. But you've made up your mind, and I wanna see what you're seeing.
-
Rates haven't shown a long decline as seat belt laws and cycle helmet laws were passed. Au contraire... they've risen. "But maybe they would have risen more.." Pffft.. they rise as much as the companies decide to raise them, as much as they can get away with without state insurance regulators coming down on them asking indelicate questions.
Your own life history with car insurance undoubtedly squares with that.
Compare how much "safer" cars are now with cars just 10 years ago. Many technological safety improvements now standard on just about everything. Did your rates go down over the last 10 years? Only if you crossed the magic "25 years old" barrier. It had nothing to do with seatbelts.
The only reason insurance rates are high is because insurance companies want to make large profits.
As I said before, consider the "utopian" ideal: everyone driving around in a Volkswagen Passat GLX (V6) (rated #1 in class for safety), mandatory nomex driving suit, six point harness and helmet with governors to limit speed to 25 mph.
Do you REALLY think the insurance companies would just lie down and cut rates a significant percentage to reflect the new "no loss" situation on our highways.
Your common sense tells you they'd find a way to RAISE rates.. it's what they do.
Seatbelts are just one more red herring they whip out of their axes to provide cover for rate increases.
And the nannies just smile and swallow.
-
PROPERTY/CASUALTY INSURER FINANCIAL ASSETS, 1999-2004
(http://server.iii.org/yy_obj_img/img_735302_1_0.gif)
-
"Nannies"
Please. Certainly we can talk without the lame go-to words. That works for some, but it doesn't look good on you. Speaking of...
That was about the largest block of text I've ever seen written by you that didn't include a myriad of links and gigantic walls of quotes. What happened?
So yippy. I'm left with rhetoric that's supposed to be self-evident (yeah right).
Thanks.
-
That graph might as well depict the number of chickens slaughtered for wings. "$ Billions" and an upward line and nothing else. How informative. Obviously Intelligently Designed.
-
It couldn't be any plainer; insurance companies assets are huge and rising every year. The major players in the industry made over $50 billion before taxes in 2004.
When have your rates gone down? Other than getting past the magic age 25?
Can't help ya if you can't see it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
That graph might as well depict the number of chickens slaughtered for wings. "$ Billions" and an upward line and nothing else. How informative. Obviously Intelligently Designed.
I am ever so sorry. I thought the title was in the .jpg
I went back and clipped it as soon as I realized it wasn't.
Please... please... forgive me.
-
But Toad, the price of a can of coke has gone up. So what does that prove?
And maybe the price of that can of coke would be even higher if not for the fact that people didn't try to open the container with their tongue. Or something.
Throw me a bone. Because I wanna know. I wanna see exactly what it is that you are bothered by.
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2004/04/30/miner.jpg)
Come on self-supporting data-miner. Don't fail me now. 'Cuz this time you actually might be right.
-
LOL - a lot of hot air over such a piffling issue. But despite all the hot air, I still don't have an answer to the freedom question, ie what does my car seatbelt stop me from doing that I could be doing if if I didn't have to wear one? What great "freedom" am I missing out on? So far the only answers I'm getting are gibes and snide remarks, so I guess the other side doesn't really have a case. So...
... Toodle Pip.
-
How about the freedom to choose whether to wear a seat belt or not?
The freedom to take responsibility for your own actions.
-
That graph prooves it isn't costing me money?
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/buasbteens03/#16
"Conversely, safety belt nonuse results in significant economic costs to society. The needless deaths and injuries from safety belt nonuse account for an estimated $26 billion in economic costs to society annually. The cost goes beyond the lost lives of unbuckled drivers and passengers: We all pay - in higher taxes and higher health care and insurance costs. "
I know, that is nothing but government propaganda
And on the alcohol thing(which backfired on ya big time), we do have dry towns in the state. And they are well to do towns with low crime rates, good schools, etc.(go figure)
Is their majority choosing to have a dry town taking away the freedom of others to have a packy in their town? What, you are going to threaten them with guns and call them nannies because they want a dry town? Tell them that by having a dry town the government is going to take over our lives and force a revolution?
Again, what freedoms do wearing a seat belt take away? The freedom to choose? So having a law that keeps people from walking around in public naked is taking away your freedom to choose not to wear clothes?
If a town or state chooses to have a seat belt law, that is their choice. If they don't want people walking around naked, it's their choice. Law, order and democracy is the downfall of our country? You want to walk around naked and feel like your right to choose not to wear clothes has been taken away?
Every law you disagree with is your freedom taken away?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How about the freedom to choose whether to wear a seat belt or not?
The freedom to take responsibility for your own actions.
Fine. That's all good.
If it weren't for the fact that you and me gotta pay for it.
That's the word on the street, anyways.
So far? I haven't heard anything different.
Folk's so-called "freedom" ends at the point where it dips into my wallet. Capice?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Every law you disagree with is your freedom taken away?
Pretty much... There are laws which define marraige and those who fall outside those definitions believe their freedoms are restricted.
-
Neat web page you linked to, Sixpence. A flick of the scroll-wheel gives us this:
"Safety belt usage saves society an estimated $50 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity, and other injury-related costs.15
Conversely, safety belt nonuse results in significant economic costs to society. The needless deaths and injuries from safety belt nonuse account for an estimated $26 billion in economic costs to society annually.16 The cost goes beyond the lost lives of unbuckled drivers and passengers: We all pay - in higher taxes and higher health care and insurance costs."
Booyah.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Pretty much... There are laws which define marraige and those who fall outside those definitions believe their freedoms are restricted.
And there are laws that say you can't walk around in public naked, and there are those who feel their freedoms are restricted.
Wearing clothes does not take away your freedom to walk down the street, nor does wearing a seat belt take away your freedom to drive down it
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Wearing clothes does not take away your freedom to walk down the street, nor does wearing a seat belt take away your freedom to drive down it
It does take abolish my right to walk down the street naked. And for what? Society's victorian mores stemming from religious dogma founded in Genesis.
I think I have a case before the 9th District Court of Appeals.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It does take abolish my right to walk down the street naked. And for what? Society's victorian mores stemming from religious dogma founded in Genesis.
I think I have a case before the 9th District Court of Appeals.
Scientology?
-
the point's been lost.
I hugely resent the Nanny State and it's Lip-Service PC mindless citizens deciding for me what I should or shouldn't do.
You can toss out every single reason the Nanny State has you programed to reply with, simple point is I would prefer to reserve for myself the right make up my own mind and act accordingly with regards to my personal wellbeing without Judical Review by the Nanny States courts.
That includes seat belts.
This is not a discussion about weather or not it's a good idea to wear 'em.. it's about the Nanny State deciding the issue for me then penalizing me if I should disagree.
If I wear 'em or not ain't ANYBODY elses decision. Mine. Not theirs. To regulate such a thing is a violation of my personal liberty and affront to the personal fredoms implied in the constitution.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
the point's been lost.
No, it was never there...
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
This is not a discussion about weather or not it's a good idea to wear 'em.. it's about the Nanny State deciding the issue for me then penalizing me if I should disagree.
If I wear 'em or not ain't ANYBODY elses decision. Mine. Not theirs. To regulate such a thing is a violation of my personal liberty and affront to the personal fredoms implied in the constitution.
And as far as the $ cost to society: the cost of my decision to take up base jumping and as a result become a quadriplegic is exactly the same as the cost of my decision to not wear seatbelts and as a result become a quadriplegic. Lost time, medical bills, rehab, all cost the same.
The cost of becoming a quadriplegic while horseback riding or slipping on an icy sidewalk is also the same.
Perhaps government can legislate away more freedom and make these activities safer for the public wallet.
-
Ok, let's say thisdarwin (http://www.snopes.com/autos/accident/seatbelt.asp) 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.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And as far as the $ cost to society: the cost of my decision to take up base jumping
So I guess being required to use a parachute would take away your freedom of choice?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So I guess being required to use a parachute would take away your freedom of choice?
The fallacy in your arguement is the fact that the parachute in base jumping is analogous to the car in driving. And yes I am required to use a horse when riding a horse.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
If I wear 'em or not ain't ANYBODY elses decision. Mine. Not theirs. To regulate such a thing is a violation of my personal liberty and affront to the personal fredoms implied in the constitution.
Bingo.
-
six... you never answered a single question... did your medical and car insurance rates go down? Better... did the rate of rise in cost go down?
I can't believe that I am explaining freedom to an American male... you are trying to turn this place into beetles mom's version of england.
So... again... why not just have the insurance companies charge more for people who say that they probly won't be wearing their seatbelts 100% of the time? even more for those who go 50%?
And... what if wearing helmets and nomex fire suits could save.... oh... 10.... no.... 20 yeah that's the ticket 20 BILLION dollars a year in health care costs!!! would you then be for the feds mandating and dictating to the states that everyone wear helmets and nomex in their cars?
then of course... head straps and 5 point harnesses would be looking pretty good right?
you really should move to britan. You really don't belong here.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The fallacy in your arguement is the fact that the parachute in base jumping is analogous to the car in driving. And yes I am required to use a horse when riding a horse.
ok, i'll play, let's see, what's the ratio here in ma. for a given day for car drivers and base jumpers, a million to one? Two million to one? Let's just say that base jumpers equaled car drivers everyday, hmm, my guess is you would see alot more base jumping accidents. So would it be fair to say that that many base jumpers would send health costs through the roof?
Now we don't want to take away the freedom of base jumping, but studies show that wearing knee and elbow pads will greatly reduce knee and elbow injuries and reduce health care costs and the state requires you to wear them. Has your freedom to base jump been taken away?
Again, you can't walk around in public naked, you are required to wear clothes. Is this an infringement on your freedom to chose?
And again, this darwin (http://www.snopes.com/autos/accident/seatbelt.asp) 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.
Newton's law, the car has stopped, but you are still going 65mph, not only can you kill another in the car, you can be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause another accident.
-
let's see.... wearing seatbelts or helmets is like going around naked... how? oh... the not wearing is indecent? it offends people? I believe the latter is probly correct for those with a nanny complex..
You really don't get the whole American thing do you? but then.... look where you are from... you guys haven't understood freedom for a few generations now.
If someone wants to base jump with any kind of equipment he wants that is fine with me so long as he pays his own bills.... if you weren't the mother from hell you socialist you would agree.
lazs
-
Just how much freedom and freedom of choice are you willing to give up because someone else tells you it is the right thing to do and WE know what`s best for you?
You willing to give all freedom of choice up and let a group of people make all your decisions for you?
Once you start giving up your freedom and freedom of choice it can easily steamroll everyone.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can`t be put in a positive or negative light to you if you wish someone else to have control over you. It`s called being gullible.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can`t be twisted, distorted , spoon fed to you and passed into law. It`s like polls that are ran. Most polls usualy come out with highly positive results for the ones who called for the poll in the beginning. Third party, non-biased polls?? No such thing. There is always someone willing to sell out for their own personal, short time benefit.
What if........
As has been well covered over the years, too much TV watching can be bad for your health. A law is passed to limit your viewing time to one or two hours per week. Why? Because others have decided "we know what`s good for you".
Too much PC use is bad for you. It damges eyesight. It causes carpal tunnel injuries, etc, etc. A law is passed limiting you to one hour a week of PC use. Why? Because others have decided "we know what`s good for you".
Too much news service such as local newspapers cause anger , public unrest and can even lead to rioting. A law is passed making local printings illegal. You will be limited to one news publication a week. It will be written, printed and distributed by the government. Why? Because others have decided "we know what`s good
for you".
Some cars are produced safer than others. A law is passed. One car will be produced and manufactored by government chosen and ran companies. Everyone will drive and own the same car. Why? Because others have decided "we know what`s good for you".
Like them ideas? Didn`t think so. Get your head out.
Sound far fetched? So did traveling to and landing on other planets a very short time ago. Keep bending over and freely giving up your freedom and right of choice and you will find why what once was considered science fiction is now fact.
-
The correct way to address the problem is to make seat belt usage a part of the insurance contract.
You are free to use or not use a seat belt as you wish. However, if you are in an accident and injured while not wearing a seat belt, the insurance company does not have to pay any medical costs on you. Same for a motorcycle helmet.
The individual's right to choose is preserved.
The insurance companies... those benevolent "we only have your best interest at heart", not-for-profit, charitable organizations... don't have to pay out any money at all for some guy that takes a header through the windshield.
Something like that would be far more acceptable but that way Nanny doesn't get to be the boss so it won't happen.
-
Any law that has a purpose other than preventing antisocial behavior is unjust and counter liberty.
Seatbelt law is a prime example of the majority democratically stripping the rights from a minority.
Hamburgers and cigarettes kill more people than riding in an auto without wearing a seatbelt does.
Next thing you know your ilk will be lobbying to regulate tobacco and fast food.. oh wait you guys are allready doing that.
Are there really so few of us left who value liberty more than our physical safety?
Some few of us are happy to know that we don't have a mommy to pick us up when we fall anymore.
-
It's too long ago for me to remember all the anti-seatbelt hysteria leading up to the 1983 law, but I'll try...
In the mid 1960s in Britain, car usage looked set to rise exponentially. More cars were coming out, and with more and more powerful engines. The number of RTA fatalities began to rise in proportion with the number of cars. c1967, a new law was passed, requiring that front seatbelts must be fitted to all 1965 cars (meaning 1965 and onwards). But there was no law saying that you had to wear them. Take up was only about 1/10. With vastly more traffic on the roads in the 1980s compared to the 1950s, and with high speed roads like motorways claiming heavy losses of life, the government decided it was time to act. Up until that decision was made, there were two possible scenarios: - Do nothing - in which case the headlines would have been "Avoidable road deaths remain high despite seatbelts - government fails to act" - or...
- Seatbelt law - now 9/10 front seat occupants use them - fatalities reduced by some 2000 per annum.
We chose the second scenario. Remember, the law was passed by a democratically elected government, and has not been repealed by their opposition since coming to power in 1997.
I'm not interested in discussing insurance costs, insurance company profits. That's small beer compared to the REAL costs which are being saved - 2000 lives - every year in Britain alone.
And before you trot out the tired old chestnut of "the right of those drivers to choose whether or not to belt up", it has to be said that many drivers have responsibilities outside of the car. I have no respect for such pig-headed arrogance when the end result might be that an avoidable death results in one more grieving widow and several children who no longer have a father - just because HE decided he didn't need a seatbelt. The law is there to protect his spouse and offspring, not just himself. And... the vast majority of us don't want our hospitals cluttered up with RTA injuries, thereby depriving needy cases of a hospital bed.
Wearing a seatbelt is a negligible inconvenience at most. There is NO case for not wearing one. It has nothing to do with "freedom", "nanny", "gullibility" or any of that crap.
Seatbelt laws exist because most people want them to exist. Tough shirt if you're not one of them.
-
Seatbelt and helmet laws are what happen when democrats and republicans put aside petty partisan bickering and come to get on the really important issues.
-
well, you can always circumvent the tyranny of the government's seat belt law by taking public transit, the irony.
i wear mine all the time without a second thought, it's more of a reflex action when i get in. i wear one not because the govn't forces me to, but because of common sense from driving 30k a year in all sorts of weather and people conditions.
-
I take public transportation when I feel like it, I appreciate that it's there for the people that need it, and I appreciate that it's my decision not to take it if I don't want to.
I wear my seatbelt all the time too, yet I don't feel that I have the right to force others to.
-
I take public roads when I feel like it, I appreciate that they' re there for the people that need them, and I appreciate that it's my decision not to take them if I don't want to.
I drive on them all the time too, yet I don't feel that I have the right to force others to.
-
Good. Then I presume you extend the same logic to seatbelts.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
the government decided it was time to act.
We chose the second scenario.
:rofl
Irony in it`s finest form.
Bend Over Bob standing beside of the road waiting on the rush delivery of Vasoline. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Snip
Do the insurance companies just soak up the profits from less payouts`snip?
..that would be my guess.
Insurance companies seem to be a business of profit.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
:rofl
Irony in it`s finest form.
Erm... you were saying? Better read this (http://www.bmpllp.com/CM/Publications-Articles/SeatBeltDefense.asp) Forty-nine of the 50 states have mandatory seat belt laws and all passenger vehicles sold today have clear warnings to wear your seat belt at all times.
:aok
-
BTW. I wear my seatbelt regardless of the distance and whatever the law is.
Flashback to when I was ten. Didn't wear my safety belt (even though in school I was taught that I should wear one) so I was bouncing around in the car then WHAAAM! I got slammed against the inside of the car. Snapped collar bone, had blacked out from a concussion. Shortly after the impact, when I came to, I was on my back in the car trying to put my seatbelt on. LOL. I knew it was wrong that I wasn't wearing it and didn't want others to think that I was stupid. My right side was numb, I was in a fog. After about 30 seconds of trying to get my belt on, just couldn't do it. Was too numb on my right side.
*Oh joy* the experience of getting my collar bone set in the doctor's office. Was not a pleasant experience.
My mom and my sister were wearing theirs and they didn't get a scratch.
Yeah, the seatbelt goes on before I drive. No brainer.
-
My Ex is the Vice President of an Insurance company. Some of the bitterest fights we've had over the years has to do with the morality of Insurance Companies in the way they do business when it comes time to stand up to their obligations to the insured.
Suffice to say that they are definitly in business to make profits. BIG freakin profits. And they do NOT, repeat DO NOT have the 'intrests of the insured' as the driving force behind their corporate stategy for increasing those profits.
They also have an exceptionaly powerful lobby in Washington.
You, The People, Are Being Raped.
-
I wear my seat belt all the time, the law. No biggy really, I've got to the point that I feel uncomfortable not wearing one. If someone feels they don't want to wear a belt - so be it. It's a personal choice.
-
Exactly, Monk.
-
I would not be against anyone who wore seatbelts getting a reduction in their insurance preimium or anyone who didn't getting a raise in cost of their premium..
Just looking at beetles post shows where we are headed... He says that forceing people to do things has nothing to do with nanny state.
At least the girly men here still admit that it is government intrusion.... for how much longer ? who knows? soon we will probly be just like the brits here and simply meekly accept any government reduction in our freedoms as "for our own good"
lazs
-
Well Lazs - from what I've read it seems that 49 out of the 50 states have seatbelt laws. I guess that means that the (democratically elected) legislators of those states are all bad and mean.
Don't feel bad. We went through all the heartache you're going through now more than 20 years ago. As in so many things, America is finally catching up with the rest of the world. It will hurt for a while, but the pain will pass.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Erm... you were saying? Better read this (http://www.bmpllp.com/CM/Publications-Articles/SeatBeltDefense.asp) :aok
LMAO
You didn`t read it yourself did you? :rofl
Did you happen to notice what site it was on?
Do you know what year it is? How about what day?
ROFLMAO
Thanks for making my case. An ambulance chaser site reproducing an article whining about the inadmissability of wearing or not wearing seatbelts in ambulance chasing suits in Texas.
If you happen to have a can of spray paint handy, please just scroll BENDOVER WAS HERE on this one.
-
Sixpence...do you think there should be laws regulating what we eat?
Just think of all the heart attacks that would be avoided if eating red meat were outlawed!
Since that would help keep health insurance costs down(and one of your arguments was you should have a say in anything that could affect your pocketbook),shouldn't eating red meat be illegal,or regulated?
You stated,"why should I pay for(seatbelt laws)anybody else's stupidity?"
Then why should anyone pay for someone else's stupid eating habits?
Having stated that,I'm going to go fire the grill up.:D
-
LOL - I read enough. Do you dispute the fact that 49 out of the 50 states have a seatbelt law? Well, that's all I was looking for.
Toodle Pip!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
LOL - I read enough.
Yep, just enough. Just enough to make a clown out of yourself as usual. You didn`t read enough to know it was an ambulance chaser site.
I`d stick to female sparring partners if I were you and leave U.S. law to those of us who are citizens here. We have and old saying here....It ain`t over till the fat lady sings. She has strep throat at the moment.
-
Hey Jackal, let's stick to the FACTS, shall we? Now, is it or is it not true that 49 out of the 50 states have a law requiring car occupants to wear a seatbelt? Just answer the question - no gibes, no snide remarks - think you can do that?
Oh, and I hear there are plenty other fat ladies over there.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Hey Jackal, let's stick to the FACTS, shall we?
Facts are not one of your stronger points. You seem to avoid them or twist them any any given opportunity.
Sort of like gleaning a one liner out of an article and quickly posting it without realizing what site it was on and that the subject matter was an ambulance chaser whine regarding the fact that the wearing or non-wearing of seatbelts is INADMISSABLE in the state of Texas. That means it is not admissable, just so you will know.
-
No, you're still avoiding the FACTS which would form the answer to my question. As you have dodged yet again, I will repeat the question:
Is it true that 49 out out of the 50 states have a law which makes the wearing of seatbelts in cars mandatory?
Now, it's a very simple question - take your time - I want to hear it from YOU.
Facts are not one of your stronger points. You seem to avoid them or twist them any any given opportunity.
Oh pardon me, but Physician, heal thyself. Will you accept a link from Wikipedia? Well here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire
New Hampshire is the only state with no mandatory seatbelt law for adults, no motorcycle helmet law for adults nor mandatory vehicle insurance for automobiles.
So, dear Jackal, do you now concede that your "nanny" gibes aimed at Great Britain might just apply to certain other countries? Hmmm? :aok
-
Beet, you get my email? :cool:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No, you're still avoiding the FACTS which would form the answer to my question. As you have dodged yet again, I will repeat the question:
Is it true that 49 out out of the 50 states have a law which makes the wearing of seatbelts in cars mandatory?
Have you had a look at what is being discussed in the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Maybe you can find a clue there if you are not too busy viewing ambulance chaser sites. :rofl
So, dear Jackal, do you now concede that your "nanny" gibes aimed at Great Britain might just apply to certain other countries?
And what "nanny" gibes would that be?
Sparring with females has really rattled your jelly, huh?
Now, it's a very simple question
Well I hope you eventualy get it worked out because it seems to be beyond your capibilty as it stands.
I want to hear it from YOU.
Well excuuuuuse me. :rofl
See this ----->.<-------? Look real close. It`s the world`s smallest violin. I broke it out especialy for you to play "My Heart Bleeds For You". :D
Stick to sparring with women. You will feel better.
-
You know, it's kinda cold and low to bring into the argument a personal embarrasing issue of the person you're arguing with especially when that personal issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with your argument.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
ok, i'll play, let's see, what's the ratio here in ma. for a given day for car drivers and base jumpers, a million to one? Two million to one? Let's just say that base jumpers equaled car drivers everyday, hmm, my guess is you would see alot more base jumping accidents. So would it be fair to say that that many base jumpers would send health costs through the roof?
The cost to society of me being hurt base jumping is exacly the same as if I recieved the injuries in a non-belted auto accident. Murder is relatively rare so perhaps legislation prohibiting it should be repealed, as only common things should be regulated.
Now we don't want to take away the freedom of base jumping, but studies show that wearing knee and elbow pads will greatly reduce knee and elbow injuries and reduce health care costs and the state requires you to wear them. Has your freedom to base jump been taken away?
It has if I want to jump naked.
Again, you can't walk around in public naked, you are required to wear clothes. Is this an infringement on your freedom to chose?
The answer is absolutely yes.
And again, this darwin (http://www.snopes.com/autos/accident/seatbelt.asp) 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.
The driver is at fault for not requiring restraint of his passengers.
Newton's law, the car has stopped, but you are still going 65mph, not only can you kill another in the car, you can be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause another accident. [/B]
So momentum sould be outlawed?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The cost to society of me being hurt base jumping is exacly the same as if I recieved the injuries in a non-belted auto accident.
ok, so you say if there were the same amount of base jumpers as drivers, health care costs wouldn't change, if you think so, I guess there is nothing that will change your mind
Murder is relatively rare so perhaps legislation prohibiting it should be repealed, as only common things should be regulated.
Murder to seat belts, interesting
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.
The driver is at fault for not requiring restraint of his passengers
Hmmm, wouldn't this take away his freedom to choose?
Again, you can't walk around in public naked, you are required to wear clothes. Is this an infringement on your freedom to chose?
The answer is absolutely yes.
Ahh, the "I have thrown in the towel answer", my work here is done
-
Ya might as well give up Holden. It's obvious that logic and reason are not used by these guys. It's almost as if they read the responses and rebuttals to their posts with the sole purpose of refuting the other persons opinion with no thought to whether or not they might not be approaching the question from the right direction to start with.
Was it Twain? "never argue with an idiot. he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience"
Not directed at any one person specifically, simply because ya ain't supposed to in here. But it does apply to a lot of the back and forth rhetoric.
Let the witty "I know you are but what am I" banter begin.
-
Sixpence...no answer?
-
Can't quite give up yet...
Originally posted by Sixpence
The cost to society of me being hurt base jumping is exacly the same as if I recieved the injuries in a non-belted auto accident.
ok, so you say if there were the same amount of base jumpers as drivers, health care costs wouldn't change, if you think so, I guess there is nothing that will change your mind
No, I said that if I were hurt (for instance broke my back) the cost to society would be the same regardless of the cause of the accident.
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]
The driver is at fault for not requiring restraint of his passengers
Hmmm, wouldn't this take away his freedom to choose?
[/b]No, he would still be free to choose to be irresponsible.
Again, you can't walk around in public naked, you are required to wear clothes. Is this an infringement on your freedom to chose?[/i]
The answer is absolutely yes.
Ahh, the "I have thrown in the towel answer", my work here is done [/B]
I guess you do not understand the definition of freedom. If your choices of behavior are restricted by law, then law is restricting your freedom.
In our society we have chosen to restrict our freedoms for the sake of a well fuctioning society. I am not free to rob banks for example. This restriction of my freedom is obviously acceptable, as if I chose to rob, it would infringe on others rights to be secure in their persons or property.
My freedom to be unsafe in my personal behavior is what the seat belt law is all about. To be responsible for one's own actions may be the ultimate freedom. To say that my freedom is restricted because society must pay the bills for medical consequences is restricting my freedom because of a choice of the government to pay for those consequences. If they government doesn't want to pay all it has to do is stop writing checks and hold me financially responsible.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
You know, it's kinda cold and low to bring into the argument a personal embarrasing issue of the person you're arguing with especially when that personal issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with your argument.
Yea, it`s a lot more interesting when someone comes in and drags up a soapbox, gives this little speech that has nothing to do with anything.
If it is upsetting you so much curl up with your NFL doll and go night night sweet cheeks. :rofl
Make sure the safety belt and bed rails are up. I don`t want you to start costing us money.
-
The correct way to address the problem is to make seat belt usage a part of the insurance contract.
You are free to use or not use a seat belt as you wish. However, if you are in an accident and injured while not wearing a seat belt, the insurance company does not have to pay any medical costs on you. Same for a motorcycle helmet.
The individual's right to choose is preserved.
The insurance companies... those benevolent "we only have your best interest at heart", not-for-profit, charitable organizations... don't have to pay out any money at all for some guy that takes a header through the windshield.
Something like that would be far more acceptable but that way Nanny doesn't get to be the boss so it won't happen.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
If it is upsetting you so much curl up with your NFL doll and go night night sweet cheeks. :rofl
Make sure the safety belt and bed rails are up. I don`t want you to start costing us money.
LOL, Damn now that's funny :rofl
-
Toad, our litigous state would never allow what you propose. Can you se the lawsuits against insurance companies . in the .01 % chance that wearing a seat belt is the cause of death for you?
I am all for wearing seat belts, do it all the time. Saved my face when I was rearended in Dallas on Wednesday morning early.
Either way, it's the laws restricting my rights that concern me.
-
Originally posted by Toad
However, if you are in an accident and injured while not wearing a seat belt, the insurance company does not have to pay any medical costs on you. Same for a motorcycle helmet.
I like the idea, but I think any is too strong. There are injuries that seatbelts cannot prevent that should still be covered. This of course opens the can of worms for the lawyers to jump in and argue which do, which don't, and why their client deserves 498 billion dollars, of which they will only take a nominal percentage as a fee.
But ......
damn that's a big but...
...that is another problem that needs to be addressed by itself.
The increasing ease with which we allow, plead, rally for ourselves to be restricted in our own actions is disheartening. Common sense answers like what Toad suggested are buried beneath the pile of political dung and the corruption of deep pocketed lobbyists that permeates our system.
Not to mention the loud mouthed nanny state proponents that shrilly cry out their rhetoric, ignoring the very principle that allows them to do so.
-
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)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
You know, it's kinda cold and low to bring into the argument a personal embarrasing issue of the person you're arguing with especially when that personal issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with your argument.
Indeed, I've been trying to get that through to jackal myself. The problem is, he's spent all his time in this thread saying how we in Britain lie prostrate at the feet of government while they "take away our freedom" by way of a seatbelt law, and then it turns out that 49/50 US states have that same law - including Texas! :lol He needs to use personal attacks because his case is entirely devoid of fact, so I'll forgive him.
Jackal, yet again you fail to concede, and yet your case that *we* have "given away our freedom" has been blown away by a hurricane. Yeah feel free to stick to stick to the insults. It seems that FACTS are not your style. Have you had a look at what is being discussed in the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Maybe you can find a clue there if you are not too busy viewing ambulance chaser sites.
Have you had a look at what is being discussed in the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Maybe you can find a clue there if you are not too busy inventing fresh personal attacks, which by the way are in violation of the T&C of this board.
Face it, dude. The fat lady is in your back yard, singing like a canary.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well I am surprised. When the rights and wrongs of a seatbelt law were first being discussed, it seemed as this was a new concept in the states of those voicing protest. I knew that some states had such a law, but I didn't realise it was 49/50 until I googled that up last night, with New Hampshire being the last bastion of "freedom".
OK, so if medical coverage in your insurance contract is made void by not wearing a seatbelt, and you sustain life threatening injuries, who/which hospital is obligated to treat you? When we've discussed medical treatment in the US in earlier threads, I have been told that a hospital cannot refuse treatment if your condition is life threatening. Suddenly the hospitals could be faced with hundreds of accident victims, and would have to treat them even though they're not insured. Is that right? Also, what happens if you're driving, wearing your seatbelt, and get into a frontal collision - your seatbelt/airbag save you, but you suffer serious injury caused by the rear seat passenger, who was NOT wearing a belt, being thrown forwards into the back of your seat? It starts to get complicated. You can guarantee that the insurance company would try to wriggle out of that one...
And... rather than voiding your insurance contract by driving around without a belt, would it not be better to leave the law as it is and let folks drive around without a belt if that's what they want, and just collect the fines for non compliance?
-
beetle is makeing my point.... I am a coward... the seatbelt law is a very bad.... immoral law and I obey it most of the time even if I don't want to... the helmet law is even worse and ,since it is harder to get around... I obey it more often.
sixpense and others.... peoples freedom does not depend on if you or even a majority get a break on your insurance rates or not...
I have nothing against you getting a break on your insurance tho if you claim you wear your belts 100% of the time... or a helmet etc. You couldn't not cover someone if they didn't wear a belt but you could give breaks to those who did... Point is... the insurance companies have not passed on any supposed savings in any case.
As for dry counties... they are immoral laws too so far as I am concerened... I don't drink but I bet that there are quite a few in dry counties that do and find the restrictions on their freedom immoral.
In the end... we have 5 million laws on the books... all of us break a couple a day without even knowing it... at some point there will be so many laws that no law will have any importance.
Like I said... beet proves the original premis of the thread... we allow inusrance companies and busyboddies to make laws restricting our freedom and we do nothing.
I couldn't live as they do in england... it is a depressing place to me.... I am afraid that the girly men like sixpence are nannying us into just another england nanny state except for more elbow room...
And... those of us who know better... do nothing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Indeed, I've been trying to get that through to jackal myself. The problem is, he's spent all his time in this thread saying how we in Britain lie prostrate at the feet of government while they "take away our freedom" by way of a seatbelt law, and then it turns out that 49/50 US states have that same law - including Texas!
Once again you miss the boat there slugger. What has been said is not that they have "taken away", but that you have "given them away" freely. You are trying to pass off the act that are quite happy with the fact that your freedom of choice no longer exists. Big difference there. A lot of us here are not so happy about the fact that our rights and freedom of choice is being trampled. Figured you might be able to glean that from the thread.
. if you are not too busy inventing fresh personal attacks, which by the way are in violation of the T&C of this board.
Take off the robe and sit down. Lmao
Somehow it just doesn`t ring right coming from someone who gets around 75% of their posts modded. Give us all a break and don`t fall off that pedestal just yet. Mandatory parachute laws are not in place and you might get injured, causing your countrymen great expense. :rofl
Face it, dude. The fat lady is in your back yard, singing like a canary.
Dude??? :) ROFLMAO
That`s not the fat lady singing and it`s not like a canary. A lot of us are not too pleased with our rights being jacked up as you can tell. That`s eagles you are hearing. It`s not only in the back yard, but the one across the street, across town and across the country. I beleive there are possible changes in sight because citizens are getting POed and are voicing their beliefs and making a pretty clear message of cease and desist. There will always be the bend Over Bob`s here just like everywhere else, but a lot of U.S. citizens have had just about enough of the overstepping of what our country is founded on. As you know, when enough people in the U.S. get behind something and get POed, things have a way of getting done. Damn the Bend Over Bob`s, full speed ahead. :)
rather than voiding your insurance contract by driving around without a belt, would it not be better to leave the law as it is and let folks drive around without a belt if that's what they want, and just collect the fines for non compliance?
Yea , that would be the subservient thing to do if you like government, lobbyists and insurance companies dictating what you can or cannot do and raping you on every issue. Roll over and play dead. The answer to everything.
A much better idea would be to, once again, take back control of our laws, regain our rights and remind government that Jesse James at least had the decency to use a gun when robbing.
The BIG thing you are missing here is that you think the issue is seat belt laws or no seat belt laws. It is not. Freedom and rights, our constitution itself and the abusing of it is the issue.
The good news is, I just saved a bundle with Geico. I`m snuffing the lizard. :)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
OK, so if medical coverage in your insurance contract is made void by not wearing a seatbelt, and you sustain life threatening injuries, who/which hospital is obligated to treat you?
[/b]
None. Darwinism at it's best. I bet that sounds harsh but I'm one of those that figures if you're that stupid, and get held accountable for your stupidity, I and the rest of society shouldn't be held accountable for your stupidity.
your seatbelt/airbag save you, but you suffer serious injury caused by the rear seat passenger, who was NOT wearing a belt, being thrown forwards into the back of your seat?
[/b]
First of all, you're getting into the "hit by a meteorite" category. The answer however is the same as the above. Who's the "aircraft commander"? The guy at the wheel.
If his passengers don't belt up, who's ultimately responsible? The aircraft commander. You should see what the fine is for an airline captain that allows the aircraft to be pushed back from the gate with people standing in the aisles. The fact that it's a 747 and he can't even see the multiple aisles from the cockpit is ignored.
And... rather than voiding your insurance contract by driving around without a belt, would it not be better to leave the law as it is and let folks drive around without a belt if that's what they want, and just collect the fines for non compliance?
No. See previous 3 pages.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No. See previous 3 pages. [/B]
:rofl
That suggestion sounds vaguely familiar.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Once again you miss the boat there slugger. What has been said is not that they have "taken away", but that you have "given them away" freely. You are trying to pass off the act that are quite happy with the fact that your freedom of choice no longer exists. Big difference there. A lot of us here are not so happy about the fact that our rights and freedom of choice is being trampled. Figured you might be able to glean that from the thread.
In 49/50 states, including TX, you have a seatbelt law. Erm... can you please explain in what way the legislative process has differed in those 49 states from the way the same law was passed in Britain, such that you might add some measure of credence to your assertion that "What has been said is not that they have "taken away", but that you have "given them away" freely. You are trying to pass off the act that are quite happy with the fact that your freedom of choice no longer exists." ??? Because it sounds to me that said freedom of choice no longer exists in Texas nor in any other state except NH. :lol
And... if you're just now getting so bent out of shape about a seatbelt law, don't you think you've left it rather late? Surely the time to start crying would have been 20 years ago when said laws began to be passed??? (I believe IL had a seatbelt law as long ago as ~83) Because now the law is so deeply entrenched that you'll never be rid of it.
Good luck with the evacuation, Jackal. Your bowels I'm talking about! ;)
-
The seatbelt & speed limit downgrade package was forced down the throat of the states during the gas crunch 25 years ago by tying compliance with highway funding.
No seatbelt law, no federal dollars for the state.
States rolled over.
It's always about the money, ain't it?
-
It's the Golden Rule; he who has the gold makes the rules.
The States have so given in to the creeping Federalism that they are now dependent on sucking the Federal teat.
The Feds merely threaten to withhold funds... which, ever so ironically and beautifully are collected from the States... and the States roll over like a submissive puppy.
But this is the way it should be... in the mind of Mary Poppins.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's the Golden Rule; he who has the gold makes the rules.
The States have so given in to the creeping Federalism that they are now dependent on sucking the Federal teat.
The Feds merely threaten to withhold funds... which, ever so ironically and beautifully are collected from the States... and the States roll over like a submissive puppy.
Hmmmm, there's a lesson for Europe in there. Fortunately the good people of France & the Netherlands had the good sense to say NO to the constitution, so now the constitution is DEAD. I hope it stays dead.
So, when will NH capitulate and introduce a seatbelt law? tick-tock, tick-tock ;)
-
What's the New Hampshire state motto?
Your clock stopped.
-
BTW, as Hang pointed out, the State seat belt laws were extorted from the States by the Feds.
Something of which all you Poppins can be justly proud... after all, the extortion was "for their own good".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
At least the girly men here still admit that it is government intrusion....
lazs
Hey mister, you calling me a girly man? (studmuffingot wink dude here).
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
BTW, as Hang pointed out, the State seat belt laws were extorted from the States by the Feds.
Something of which all you Poppins can be justly proud... after all, the extortion was "for their own good".
Don't go blaming the Feds. In New Hampshire's case, it's the NH police chiefs who want a seatbelt law.
NH Seatbelt law proposed - http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050109/FP_002.htm
For the first time ever, New Hampshire's police chiefs favor a mandatory seat-belt law and will actively support legislation to create what would be the Granite State's first law requiring everyone to buckle up.
If approved by lawmakers, New Hampshire would join every other state in the nation, Puerto Rico, and every province in Canada, all of which have mandatory seat-belt laws. Currently, only young people in the Granite State -- 17 or under -- have to buckle up.
Departing from its traditional position against a mandatory seat-belt law in keeping with New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" philosophy , the association of police chiefs has changed its tune -- partly because of an alarming number of fatal car crashes last year -- and it now overwhelmingly supports such a measure.
A mandatory seat-belt bill submitted by a New Hampshire doctor who is also a state representative, will have the backing of the chiefs association for the first time ever.
"It, quite frankly, is a departure from what the association has followed in the past," said Plaistow police Chief Stephen Savage, president of the association. "We have not been in support of seat-belt legislation in the past. We felt it ought to be voluntary. The issue was raised once again about a mandatory seat-belt law, and at the general meeting in the fall, it was put to a vote. It passed with only two dissenting votes."
Savage himself was one of the two chiefs voting against it, but he said he yields to the wishes of the majority and will "wholeheartedly support the position of the association."
"Times change and I guess people do," he said. "There is compelling evidence that it is necessary -- including an alarming rise in fatalities."
Last year was a particularly deadly year on New Hampshire's roadways. Fatal car crashes claimed the lives of 167 people -- up from 119 the year before.
According to statistics from the New Hampshire Department of Safety through Nov. 1, at least 41 people killed in car crashes in the Granite State last year could be alive today if they were wearing seat belts.
Dr. Joseph Sabato Jr., who is chairman of a safety group that held a safety summit where the statistics were presented, said the number of people killed who weren't wearing seat belts is probably much higher.
However, in 38 percent of the cases, no determination could be made whether seat belts were worn or not.
Ten years ago, Sabato founded a grass-roots group to put an end to a string of fatal car crashes in the Derry area, which claimed the lives of many young people. There was one common denominator among the victims of those fatal car crashes: Not one was wearing a seat belt, Sabato said.
Even back then, Sabato wasn't convinced that a mandatory seat-belt law was the answer, having moved to New Hampshire partly because of its reputation for having fewer regulations and laws than Massachusetts and other states.
The late Harry Richardson of Derry, a driving instructor, convinced Sabato that a law was needed to get more people to buckle up. The two successfully lobbied for a youth seat-belt law.
An emergency room doctor for 23 years, Sabato has treated thousands of accident victims. He is the former emergency services director for Parkland Medical Center in Derry.
He said people who aren't buckled up tend to have more serious injuries and more broken bones than other car-crash victims. That also translates into higher health-care costs, he said.
"The state and its citizens pick up the extensive cost of the freedom to not use seat belts," he said. "In fact, everyone else is subsidizing those who are injured or die when they could have been saved by seat belts. The fiscally responsible move is to look for every opportunity to reduce costs and save lives. Increasing seat-belt use would save many lives."
Sabato, who lives in Windham, is an emergency room doctor at Southern New Hampshire Medical Center in Nashua and medical director of the Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services.
The legislation to establish the state's first mandatory seat-belt law was introduced by state Rep. James Pilliod, a pediatrician from Belmont.
Under the legislation, not wearing a seat belt would be a secondary offense. That means police would not be allowed to pull someone over simply because someone in the car wasn't buckled up. Police could, however, cite the driver for not wearing a seat belt or for having passengers who weren't wearing seat belts, if they stopped the car for another traffic violation.
Peter Thomson, coordinator of the Governor's Highway Safety Agency, said he strongly favors seat-belt use, but said he had not seen the proposed legislation. He said he needed to discuss the bill with Gov. John Lynch before announcing what position the new administration would take. Lynch has just taken over as the state's new governor, succeeding Craig Benson.
Thomson said seat-belt use in the Granite State is on the rise. Based on annual statewide surveys, seat-belt use has increased from 16 percent in 1984 to 63 percent last year.
"Obviously, I'm in favor of having everybody buckle up," Thomson said. "Wearing a seat belt is a life-saving choice. You stand a 50 percent better chance of surviving a crash if you're wearing a seat belt."
That article is from the NH newspaper, the Eagle Tribune, on January 9th of this year.
Seems like there's nothing wrong with my clock!
Tick-tock, tick-tock..... :D
:aok
-
And the Police Chiefs are somehow special because? They should have the right to decide because?
Note that seat-belt bill was introduced by Rep. James Pilliod in January. It is now September and the bill has not passed. Perhaps you're dancing a bit too early. Time will tell. I wouldn't count your nannies before their hired.
Interesting to note that you Nannies support government extortion and bribery.
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...
....In addition to using blackmail and extortion to force states to pass laws, Congress also uses bribery, another criminal offense in the private sector. In the 1991 Transportation Act there are provisions for federal grants (bribes) for states that pass seat belt and helmet laws to be used for enforcement of such laws.
That means, states that "sell" their citizens’ freedom to keep fully intact federal highway funds, are also rewarded with grants, and members of the press are not only silent about such blatant tyranny, but castigate state legislators for refusing to join-in the congressional conspiracy to violate the Bill of Rights.
But that is still not the whole sordid story about Congress and the fuel tax laws which create those federal highway funds. Congress not only engages in blackmail/extortion and bribery in the distribution of such funds, but passes such tax laws under false pretenses.
When passing laws that establish the amount of the fuel tax per gallon, nowhere in such laws does it say that states must first pass adjunct laws of any kind, such as seat belt or helmet laws, as a condition for receiving back such funds. Such conditions are created by members of Congress only when it comes time to distribute such funds.
The fact is, Congress passes the fuel tax laws with the understanding that such taxes would be returned to the states for road construction and repair needs in each state. In a given year, some states might not receive all of such fuel taxes collected; others might receive even more than what was collected in the state. However, in either case, the return of fuel taxes has nothing to do with the passage of other laws Congress wants the states to pass.
Of course, it's standard procedure; they've done it before. But the ever expanding Federalism is detrimental to finding better solutions too.
Congress used federal highway funds to bribe states into setting a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour, long after it became obvious that such a low speed limit did no good for safety.
Highway funds are or have been contingent on drug-free workplace laws, metric conversion, and removing billboards from highways. Colleges must allow military recruiters on campus or face the loss of federal funds.
This reduces the effectiveness of our federal system, a system designed to allow state experimentation in order to find the most effective solutions.
For example, if a state better way to monitor driver safety than a point system, they can’t use it without losing federal funds. If a state finds that something other than seat belts can provide better safety in an accident, they must still require seat belts--with primary enforcement--or they will lose federal funds. If states experiment with contractor pay, they run the risk of losing federal funds. The list goes on and on and on.
Nannies.... Champions of Big Government.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
In 49/50 states, including TX, you have a seatbelt law. Erm... can you please explain in what way the legislative process has differed in those 49 states from the way the same law was passed in Britain
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. It`s far from over along with a lot of other issues that have came to light in recent events. People are waking up to the fact that if you put total trust into lobbyist and government you are screwing up BIG TIME. It takes some doing for a lot of folks have become very complacent and live with a "don`t rock my boat" attitude. The boats have been rocked. The natives are restless. 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.
If you are happy with your laws at the price of freedom of choice and or willing to accept it as fact, so be it. What goes on there I could care less about. What goes on here I care very much about. that`s the difference.
And... if you're just now getting so bent out of shape about a seatbelt law
Thanks for, once again, showing the total lack of comprehension of what is being discussed here. As stated before and selectively over looked by you is that the subject is not just about seat belt laws or no seat belt laws. It`s freemom of choice, our rights and our constitution and the very foundation of this country being trampled. Not only do you pretend you can`t see the forest for the trees, you are blocking the light out by burying yourself in the leaves.
The U.S. is what is being discussed here, not some dreary fantasy land where everyone is happy with whatever comes down the pike.
-
Mr Toad, you didn't show your source for that quote. Was it this (http://www.atch.com/abate/cdl/seatbeltlaws.html)? 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.
-
"The state and its citizens pick up the extensive cost of the freedom to not use seat belts," he said. "In fact, everyone else is subsidizing those who are injured or die when they could have been saved by seat belts. The fiscally responsible move is to look for every opportunity to reduce costs and save lives. Increasing seat-belt use would save many lives."
So we have apparently established the cost of giving up our freedom of choice in regards to our personal safety.
I wonder what is the price of giving up our freedom of choice in regards to our personal speech?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Not heard anything from jackal
Since Vox is not enabled here you will just have to read it like the rest of us.
Try looking directly above your post. Be sure you have that robe all the way off and don`t get it caught over your head. It seems to be blocking your vision. :)
-
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)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Mr Toad, you didn't show your source for that quote. Was it this (http://www.atch.com/abate/cdl/seatbeltlaws.html)? 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
-
"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
-
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? :huh
Jackal! I forgot to refresh the browser! :lol 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... :p 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! :rofl
tick-tock, tick-tock...
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
"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
-
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
-
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".
-
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. :lol 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. :lol 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Originally posted by beet1e
My opinion doesn't matter
Exactly!
Sorry I missed it the first time around.
We agree on something. :)
-
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. :p:D
-
Beet, could you sort of either give us a time limit or a page limit on or about what time you will quit posting the same thing and still expect the answers that have been given you over and over?
It certainly would cut down time spent.
Thanks
Given your vehement opposition to seatbelt laws
Let`s see it`s been explained how many times now? Seat belt laws have very little to do with it. There ya go. I know how hard it is for you to get a grip on.
-
Originally posted by 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
Originally posted by Sixpence
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?
If you want to drink and choose to live in a dry town, you have made a choice.
If you want to walk around naked and choose to live in a town that has a public decency law, you have made a choice
If you want to take oxycontin for pain but live in a town that has a law against the sale of it, you have made a choice
If you don't want to wear a seat belt and live in a town that has a seat belt law, you have made a choice
If we live in a democracy and 90% of a town wants a seat belt law, and 10% don't want it, then what should happen? The 10% are going to rise up and start a revolution?
When you tell the 90% they can't have a drug, public decency, or seat belt law, that is what starts a revolution
-
Since the freedom of hell-bent personal destruction seems to be in vogue....
How do you feel about unfettered drug use? Why should that be regulated when, as Holden said:
My freedom to be unsafe in my personal behavior is what the seat belt law is all about. To be responsible for one's own actions may be the ultimate freedom. To say that my freedom is restricted because society must pay the bills for medical consequences is restricting my freedom because of a choice of the government to pay for those consequences. If they government doesn't want to pay all it has to do is stop writing checks and hold me financially responsible.
Why stop at cars and bikes? Hows about stripping companies from every regulation that would prohibit them from sucking in your grandparents and spitting them out? Gran and Gramps should have the right to be personally destructive as well.
Ooh nooo... No, we won't end up picking up that tab as well. Yeah sure.
It's hard to know where to start, and daunting in its endlessness.
This whole "nanny" thing is chanted constantly by people that I have an easy time picturing as self absorbed, selfish and clueless old men.
It turns out that this aint the Wild West anymore. Yeah... heartbreaker. And chances are that things are so tight that you've got a fence dividing you from a neighbor not more than 20-30 feet away from you. You are one of millions and millions, yet have a decided impact.
It's pretty much high-time that some of yas shelve your utopian "I wanna be a kid again and stink up everything and do whatever I damned well please" freedom ideas. 'Cuz money doesn't grow on trees, old-timers.
Rest assured... Economically, environmentally, and whatever other other E words that may apply... you are going to be dead soon enough and we are going to have to pay for your little self centered joy-rides.
Lazs... phht... "Give me a car that makes a huge mess, give me my guns, and don't make make me pay for the mess I make when I go "splat" all over the interstate." Yeah that's freedom. Tell me lazs - how much came out of your own pocket for your multiple surgeries? Not much? Then who paid for it? Because someone did.
Try to convince some of us to lump your child fantasies with a smile and you're only gonna attract other man-children who've long since passed the age of accountability, and have entered the golden age of screw-you-entitlement . The rest of us... we don't buy it. Because we're staring the bill collector right in the face.
If only we could insert your flowery idealism into an ATM.
-
Originally posted by Nash
This whole "nanny" thing is chanted constantly by people that I have an easy time picturing as self absorbed, selfish and clueless old men.
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err." -- Mohandas Gandhi.... another clueless old man
-
Well that's fantastic, Holden.
Your defence of this bs is to say that freedom allows bs.
Fine. We agree.
It's still bs.
-
How much is your right to bs worth to you Nash...
$10? 100? US or Cdn?
Apparently your freedom is for sale.
-
Apparently your freedom is for sale.
You lost me. How do you get the idea that my thoughts can be bought?
(I aint saying they're not for sale... Everyone's got their price.) :D
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's pretty much high-time that some of yas shelve your utopian "I wanna be a kid again and stink up everything and do whatever I damned well please" freedom ideas. 'Cuz money doesn't grow on trees, old-timers.
Sorry... I assumed that because you want to put a price on mine that your freedom was for sale as well. My mistake.
-
Oh. Yeah... damn, sorry. I get it now.
But yeah, "freedom" does have a price. If you found yourself bankrupt and homeless tonight, and decided to slit your wrists....
.... it takes money (the rest of us) to deal with that.
If you wanna ride without a helmet because you like the feeling of wind blowing between your feathered hair and end up skidding face-first a hundred and fifty feet into a goat's anus.... we're going to pay for it.
Free? That's Freedom?
No... That's dumbarssery. It will always exist - and we'll always end up footing the bill for it.
But puhlease... don't try and make it look like patriotism. Stupid and expensive is all it is.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sorry... I assumed that because you want to put a price on mine that your freedom was for sale as well. My mistake.
How is making a seat belt, drug, or public decency law selling my freedom?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
How is making a seat belt, drug, or public decency law selling my freedom?
Because in their world, you gotta hearken back to like, two hundred years ago, where everything was wide open and you maybe, maybe had to dodge the odd arrow or two but that's about it.
Once you finally set up your ranch or whatever, you got to party like nobody's business. You've pretty much earned it, and if you screw up.... you are way too far from help at that point anyways.
Fast forward to the screw-ups of the dust bowls and the Depression. Those folks.... I think... would look at some of your little baby "whaa I want to do whatever I want when I want to because it's my right to be a baby!" rants .....and be disgusted.
Jump ahead a few years, et voila. WWII. Thousands and thousands of men coming together for a single purpose. Just imagine how your cantankerous petty individualist whining would sound in the face of that?
No, no...
Men of the 60's and 70's... you need to shut up. Because you rode on the backs of much harder men than you. We all do, to this day. You aint entitled to squat. Especially if it means that the sons and daughters you leave behind end up having to pay for it.
"Whaaaah I wanna do whatever I damned well please!"
Really. You either whip out your check books right now, or spare us your right to cost us even further.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Let`s see it`s been explained how many times now? Seat belt laws have very little to do with it.
Erm... seatbelts have been the very focus in this thread for quite some time. See the past 4 pages. Right from the second post by HT. And your first sentence in this thread was about seat belts. And there are more than 150 occurrences of "seatbelt" in this thread. Now you're trying to say that "Seat belt laws have very little to do with it." Too funny. Is that a rabbit I see in my headlights?!
-
"Hows about stripping companies from every regulation that would prohibit them from sucking in your grandparents and spitting them out? "
That about sums up the nursing home industry, actually. Few people realize how truly horrible those places usually are. I sincerely hope that when I'm old, I have the presence of mind to kill myself before ever having to live in such a place. Life in those facilities is a fate worse than death.
Anyway....
While the expenses of someone dying is a common (and in a sense valid) argument for self-protection laws, the fact is everyone dies sooner or later anyway. Laws don't so much prevent such expenses as delay them. With the cost of sustained health care these days, it's far cheaper overall if you kill yourself in a quick accident then linger in the local nursing home for a few years. It's less painful, too, trust me on that one.
Stuff like drug use isn't quite the same as now you're talking about killing other people as a result of your actions as opposed to merely killing yourself. It's kind of like how you're completely free to smash up your own car with a sledgehammer, but do it to your neighbor's and you're in trouble.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Stuff like drug use isn't quite the same as now you're talking about killing other people as a result of your actions as opposed to merely killing yourself.
You can't go there, cause you can say the same for alcohol and guns. The alcohol and guns don't kill people, people kill people.
-
"You can't go there, cause you can say the same for alcohol and guns. The alcohol and guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Alcohol is a drug. Guns are a different matter since they don't impair judgement like most drugs do. A guy holding a Mauser is perfectly capable of making rational decisions. A guy high on cocaine or with a .20 BAC is not. An addict isn't even really capable of deciding whether or not to use the product he craves.
Now, if you want to consume your cocaine in an environment in which your actions are controlled by someone else for the duration of the effect, then that's fine by my line of thought. City dwellers typically have to go to a shooting range to shoot their guns--they don't have the "freedom" to endanger others by shooting out their apartment windows. Some laws ARE good laws. Only an anarchist wants no law whatsoever. The question is where to draw the line.
Fundamentally--
Laws which protect yourself from you own stupidity = bad.
Laws which protect others from your stupidity = good.
EDIT:
Regardless of opinion on which laws are/aren't "good", I'll say this: In general, it should be local governments deciding their own fates and NOT the federal government telling them what to do. The lifestyles of people in Ripley, West Virginia are much different than the way of life in New York City. A national law cannot be made to reflect such differences. Local statutes can. Even on a subject which I am personally against--drugs, for example--I feel that they should be banned at the local level, not federal. Let the people who like them move to a place where they're legal. Then, everyone wins.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"You can't go there, cause you can say the same for alcohol and guns. The alcohol and guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Alcohol is a drug. Guns are a different matter since they don't impair judgement like most drugs do. A guy holding a Mauser is perfectly capable of making rational decisions. A guy high on cocaine or with a .20 BAC is not. An addict isn't even really capable of deciding whether or not to use the product he craves.
So you would ban alcohol?
The question is where to draw the line.
Well, who draws the line? The 90% who want the law, or the 10% who don't?
Laws which protect yourself from you own stupidity = bad.
Laws which protect others from your stupidity = good.
Again, a small town that has limited resources decides they want a seat belt law. They have found through experience that it is alot easier for their emt's and police officers to tend to victims if the victims of a car accident are close together and not scattered hundreds of feet apart. Now 95% of the town favors this, should the 5% who don't draw that line?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Now 95% of the town favors this, should the 5% who don't draw that line?
If 95% of the town wants this law, then isn't it a safe assumption that only about 5% of the town isn't wearing a seatbelt anyway? Or, perhaps they *are* wearing one but don't support the idea of new legislature for a problem that doesn't really exist?
-
Originally posted by VOR
If 95% of the town wants this law, then isn't it a safe assumption that only about 5% of the town isn't wearing a seatbelt anyway? Or, perhaps they *are* wearing one but don't support the idea of new legislature for a problem that doesn't really exist?
Well, I am sure 99% of the people don't do heroin, but there is a law against it
And what about all the people who drive through the town?
-
"So you would ban alcohol?"
I would prefer to live in a "dry" community, yes.
"Well, who draws the line? The 90% who want the law, or the 10% who don't?"
In the case of a majority so clear-cut, there is little to debate. Change those percentages to a 51 vs 49 percent, and suddenly you have a difficult issue. I prefer legal systems which require more than a simple majority to pass new laws since new law typically remains on the books almost forever.
I edited my previous post to better reflect the idea that I prefer most of these "nanny" issues to be decided at the local level. Ideally, communities across the country should have laws which suit their own local needs. People in Kansas don't need lawmakers in Washington telling them how to live. Spreading out the power also has the benefit of reducing the influence of a small group of rich and connected special-interest lobbyists.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, I am sure 99% of the people don't do heroin, but there is a law against it
And what about all the people who drive through the town?
What about the UPS delivery guy? What about being naked in public? What about base jumping? What about a naked FTD florist driving while drunk and watching porn in his car while only wearing his shoulder strap and no lap belt? Amish horse cart drivers? What about a robot with a human brain?
Sure are alot of comparisons and analogies in this thread.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
I would prefer to live in a "dry" community, yes.
If your town wants that, it should be so. The dry towns around here are actually real nice towns that have a high standard of living and a low crime rate. Some give out a handful of liqour licenses to restaurants to serve beer and wine, but there are no liquor stores or bars.
In the case of a majority so clear-cut, there is little to debate. Change those percentages to a 51 vs 49 percent, and suddenly you have a difficult issue. I prefer legal systems which require more than a simple majority to pass new laws since new law typically remains on the books almost forever.
I think on most cases for a law to pass it is alot higher than 51%. If you did that you would have a divided town, and you don't want that.
I edited my previous post to better reflect the idea that I prefer most of these "nanny" issues to be decided at the local level.
That's the way it is supposed to be. And on the nanny thing, I have been called a nanny for supporting this and not once in this thread did I say it was for the safety of the person who buckled up.
-
Originally posted by VOR
What about the UPS delivery guy? What about being naked in public? What about base jumping? What about a naked FTD florist driving while drunk and watching porn in his car while only wearing his shoulder strap and no lap belt? Amish horse cart drivers? What about a robot with a human brain?
Sure are alot of comparisons and analogies in this thread.
:rolleyes:
What is your point?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Erm... seatbelts have been the very focus in this thread for quite some time. See the past 4 pages. Right from the second post by HT. And your first sentence in this thread was about seat belts. And there are more than 150 occurrences of "seatbelt" in this thread. Now you're trying to say that "Seat belt laws have very little to do with it." Too funny. Is that a rabbit I see in my headlights?!
Mmmmm Hmmmm. Seatbelt laws are being used as an example. Freedom and rights are the issue. If you would read the last few pages, as has been suggested many times, you might get a grip on it.
Now...........about that estimate. It doesn`t have to be exact. Not a specific post number or day, just on or about will do nicely.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
What is your point?
Sooooo many infinite possibilities for mischief, negligence, tomfoolery and stupidity and sooooo little legislation.
Could it be that we're doomed? Doomed??
;)
-
Ok nash... one or two points at a time... My insurance paid for my inuries... I have never had a head injury or any injury that was caused by my not wearing a seat belt tho...
but say I had... Injuries and surgery will shorten your life... I come from a family that makes it into their nineties.... would you rather all risk was removed and we just treated old people (the biggest medical expense by far)?
The drug thing.... I have no problem with people using as many drugs as they like.... show up at work impaired and you are fired... or not... depending on how the guy who writes your friggin check feels... if he lets you work and yu injure me.... I sue the crap outta both of you...
If you drive impaired.... you are attempting to kill others. the severity of impairment is important tho.
It really is simple... much more simple than 5 million laws trying to nanny everyones behavior and forcing a semi police state on us with 90% of everything earned being lost in taxes.
You just want to make things complicated.
lazs
-
Oh... and sixpense... I believe that you are entitled to make a dry county but... Anyone not agreeing should be compensated... If that means that they have to drive farther to get booze then you should pay their expense... If they are unable to drive then you should provide transportation for them or deliver their booze at market rates...If they simply can't stand your stuffy tulips anymore... you should pay them top dollar for their home... They should be able to sue you for any inconvienience that your law has caused them.
lazs
-
Fast forward to the screw-ups of the dust bowls and the Depression. Those folks.... I think... would look at some of your little baby "whaa I want to do whatever I want when I want to because it's my right to be a baby!" rants .....and be disgusted.
[/b]
This is TOO funny. Didn't meet many of the people who lived through the Dust Bowl on the Great Plains did ya? Didn't meet too many that made it through the Depression either, I have to assume.
THOSE people are the very people that are the MOST independent, the least happy about having to rely on any sort of govenmental handout or nannying. They hated "being on the dole"; the Dust Bowl years were just an environmental calamity too large for any individual to successfully combat. Note that most of them went looking for work somewhere else if they couldn't make it in the Dust Bowl. Note that many sucked it up and did make it though in the Dust Bowl.
Jump ahead a few years, et voila. WWII. Thousands and thousands of men coming together for a single purpose. Just imagine how your cantankerous petty individualist whining would sound in the face of that?
[/b]
It gets funnier. THOSE men WERE the ones who had lived through the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Men like my father for example. The had the ability to come together and temporarily sacrifice their individual rights to win the war and when it was over, they knew they'd get their individual rights back... heck, that's exactly what they were fighting to preserve.... the individual rights of a free people as oppposed to the dictatorships trying to conquer the world.
Men of the 60's and 70's... you need to shut up. Because you rode on the backs of much harder men than you. We all do, to this day. You aint entitled to squat.
[/b]
We US citizens ride on the backs of men who said
"And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
and then gave their lives and fortunes to make this happen.
As a man of the 60's and 70's, I think it's my responsibility to see that their work, their sacrifice is not lost.
I ask no entitlement other than the rights they fought for and died to give me.
Guess who:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
Oh... he was a man of the '70's; guess he needs to shut up.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
How is making a seat belt, drug, or public decency law selling my freedom?
As far as a seat belt law the only effect of me not wearing belts has on you is the cost to your wallet. The only reason it costs the public anything is because the government has decided to pay for it.
The law usurping freedom of choice is inacted because of optional monetary cost. Our freedom to be self responsible has been sold at so much a pound.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Seatbelt laws are being used as an example. Freedom and rights are the issue. If you would read the last few pages, as has been suggested many times, you might get a grip on it.
Oh I have, jackal, I have. That’s how I know that you’re wrong. You really ought to take your own advice from time to time, and review what’s being discussed. 90% of what’s being discussed here is seatbelt laws and whether or not we should have them. The other 10% includes a few personal jibes etc - you know all about that.
I began in this thread by saying ”I couldn't see what "freedom" had been taken from me because of having to wear a belt - which I did anyway, long before the law was passed.”
– Note, this directly relates to the seatbelt issue.
And your considered response was ”Once again...of course you couldn`t see it. You were too busy giving it away. When you choose not to have freedom of choice and give it away , you have to come up with some excuse for the nadless actions."
You tried to make it sound as if we in Britain had lain prostrate at the feet of our government while the seatbelt law was forced upon us. But then a little research shows that no fewer than 49/50 states have the exact same law!!! – seatbelts must be worn…
But you didn’t like the source of that information, and tried to dismiss it as false by rubbishing the site as an “ambulance chaser” site. But of course, no amount of rubbishing will change the FACTS. But, as it's you, I went in search of another source (two actually) – something that might meet with your approval. I found a Wikipedia link and an NH newspaper site, both of which confirm that 49/50 US states have a seatbelt law – NH is the only one that doesn’t. Yet STILL you refused to concede that 49/50 states have a belt law. But the noose is tightening, and in your desparate attempts to save face, you attempt to deflect attention from the topic at hand – more gibes - before returning to your muscle flexing rhetoric of ”Once again you miss the boat there slugger. What has been said is not that they have "taken away", but that you have "given them away" freely.The difference is we are not rolling over and just accepting it.”
But oh! You are, and you have – it’s been 20 years since TX had its seatbelt law and that law is still there - despite your claims that ”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.”
Not started yet? It's all but finished! - with only one more state to go...
More muscle flexing rhetoric took the form of ”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.”
– one assumes we are still talking about seatbelts (I know I was), and… given the somewhat vociferous opposition to seatbelt laws being voiced in this thread, one could be forgiven for wondering why you still have your nanny seatbelt law in TX, 20 years after its introduction.
And then you finally realised you had lost the argument with regard to the legislative processes involved in the passing of seatbelt laws, given that 49 states including TX have the exact same law as Britain. And… having realised that your sparring/women jibes were getting you nowhere and that you had no more arrows in your quiver, we had the volte-face: Seat belt laws have very little to do with it.
ROFL!!! WTF???!!! After FOUR pages of it?!!! (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
So, if not talking about seatbelts/seatbelt laws, what ARE you talking about? Because I honestly don’t know…
But then again, neither do you.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Nash
Jump ahead a few years, et voila. WWII. Thousands and thousands of men coming together for a single purpose. Just imagine how your cantankerous petty individualist whining would sound in the face of that?
You almost have it... These men paid for our freedom with lives. And now we sell what they passed to us for a few dollars. Even is we are talking of the freedom of choice of whether or not to wear a selt bely or not, (and I know it is just a small piece of freedom) we are still selling at least a portion of their sacrifice.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
And your considered response was You tried to make it sound as if we in Britain had lain prostrate at the feet of our government while the seatbelt law was forced upon us. But then a little research shows that no fewer than 49/50 states have the exact same law!!! – seatbelts must be worn…
And a little research shows that the US government coerced the States to pass seatbelt laws using their ability to withhold funds... collected in most cases by and from the States themselves and passed on to the Federal governement.... from the States.
Congress passed the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 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.
I think it says a lot that you are so proud of government coercion.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So, if not talking about seatbelts/seatbelt laws, what ARE you talking about?
Refer to the last 10 to 20 times this has been answered or just possibly scroll up on this page where it is addressed numerous tiems. Even you should be able to handle that.
Because I honestly don’t know
BS
Now about that estimate since you can`t find any new material. How about within a page or two? Possibly within the range of three to four days maybe?
-
Do front-seat belt laws put rear-seat passengers at risk?
Christopher Garbacz1
(1) Department of Economics, University of Missouri-Rolla, 65401-0249 Rolla, MO, USA
Abstract Cross-sectional economic models of traffic fatalities are estimated to determine the effectiveness of state statutes that require motor vehicle occupants to use seat belts. The estimates provide some support for the theory of offsetting consumer behavior.
In the case of primary enforcement front-seat belt laws, models suggest that rear-seat passengers and nonoccupants may be killed as a result of more dangerous driving by belted drivers.
In the case of secondary enforcement front-seat belt laws, there is no favorable or unfavorable effect that is statistically significant.
Models that employ self-reported seat belt usage rates from the Centers for Disease Control suggest an offsetting effect for rear-seat passengers and non-occupants as in the case of the models for primary seat belt laws.1
Hmmm... primary seat belt laws appear to raise the risk of death for rear-seat passengers and nonoccupants.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And a little research shows that the US government coerced the States to pass seatbelt laws using their ability to withhold funds... collected in most cases by and from the States themselves and passed on to the Federal governement.... from the States.
...and a little more research shows that it's now the police chiefs who are the ones behind the seatbelt campaign in the one remaining state that has no seatbelt law. I think it says a lot that you are so proud of government coercion.
No, I agree with the law in principle. No such coercion exists here, because we don't have "States" or "Feds".
-
There was a Hooters restaraunt or whatever you call it " wing shack", in Arlington, TX that opened up about 2 years ago. This place was packed all the time with people eatin lunch, dinner, or whatever. Obviously it was a very popular place with the public. Well a bunch of housewives and religeous nut jobs got together and decided since "they" don't like to go there then nobody should. They stirred up such a **** storm that abunch of politicians had to get involved and it turned into a big political argument. They ended up closing it down, but all of the radiostations and tv channels encouraged people to picket in front of the Hooters, I bet they had 10,000 people out there at times... In short they did end up reopening, but its just another example of some J/O trying to turn there opinion into a law... Kinda like smoking, I don't smoke but I respect the people that do, and I believe that they have just as much right to sit at a booth in a restaraunt or bar and light up if they want. If "I" don't like it then "I" can go outside or leave... I personally don't like Oprah or Jerry Springer, but you don't see me trying to get they're shows cancelled. I see airbags the same way I see seatbelts, "OPTIONAL" safety devices. Take a look at airbags, should there be a law that says every car "MUST" have an airbag. If you look at the stats I'm sure fatality rates are way lower in cars with airbags... I personally believe we need a law on driving while talking on a cell phone, or driving while putting makeup on as I have seen more accidents happen this way than any other. Like the other posts state, should we have a law that says we have to wear fire proof racing suits and helemts ?... where does it end.
-
Originally posted by Iceman24
where does it end.
Somewhere in the vast, dark void known as Beetle`s mind. :rofl
That`s where all freedom of choice and personal rights go to die.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Somewhere in the vast, dark void known as Beetle`s mind.
LOL! So the US seatbelt laws are all... my fault? :lol:aok
Have a good w/e Jack - I'm getting dinner cooked, followed by some sparring, and...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As far as a seat belt law the only effect of me not wearing belts has on you is the cost to your wallet. The only reason it costs the public anything is because the government has decided to pay for it.
The law usurping freedom of choice is inacted because of optional monetary cost. Our freedom to be self responsible has been sold at so much a pound.
Well, what about other reasons? For that matter, what does the reason matter if that town wants the law? I have given other examples of laws that can be interpreted as a loss of freedom of choice. But if you choose to live there, you have made a choice.
Why take a towns right to govern themselves away?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh... and sixpense... I believe that you are entitled to make a dry county but... Anyone not agreeing should be compensated... If that means that they have to drive farther to get booze then you should pay their expense... If they are unable to drive then you should provide transportation for them or deliver their booze at market rates...If they simply can't stand your stuffy tulips anymore... you should pay them top dollar for their home... They should be able to sue you for any inconvienience that your law has caused them.
lazs
So every time a law gets passed someone has to be compensated? So we will have to pay for someone's clothes? After all, it's costing them money to buy clothes so they can walk around in public.
Oh, and maybe some depends for those who want to wiz in public?
I tell ya what, for every person who wants to be compensated for whatever law, we'll pay for a one way bus ticket
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, what about other reasons? For that matter, what does the reason matter if that town wants the law? I have given other examples of laws that can be interpreted as a loss of freedom of choice. But if you choose to live there, you have made a choice.
Why take a towns right to govern themselves away?
The document sez "We the PEOPLE. Not "We the TOWNS".
Make all the laws your little town likes. If somebody brings yer illegitimate law to the supreme courts and they overule it, guess what? Yer happy lil 'townie majority' loses.
As it should.
-
I don't understand the way of thinking that a new law is necessarily a bad thing.
After all, if there were no laws, we would have... lawlessness.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
...and a little more research shows that it's now the police chiefs who are the ones behind the seatbelt campaign in the one remaining state that has no seatbelt law. No, I agree with the law in principle. No such coercion exists here, because we don't have "States" or "Feds".
1) It WAS coereced here.
2) Police Chiefs here are not the little Princes they are in your country. They're hired and fired by the local mayor and replaced without problems. They don't have the power over people's lives that they have in Jolly Olde.
Their opinion counts for nothing in the case of seatbelts. Let's see what the NH legistlature actually does.
-
yep... beetle proves my point... the point of the thread... laws and punishment have made cowards of us... at the mercy of the sheep... If you don't understand these quotes or agree with em then you are not deserving to be an American... I would as soon you leave.
.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
And beet.... the "police chiefs" are left wing liberal politicians who are "at will" (can be fired if they don't say the right thing) employees to the city manager in most cases...
They are so left wing and frieghtened that they are allmost british
lazs
-
and six... yes... if you make a law you should be financialy liable.. in the case of nudists... you would have to pay them for their homes and trouble to move since they would probly not accept clothes as being good enough....
think about it... if you had to pay for all your meddling you might not be so quick to meddle in other peoples business.
lazs
-
I think we should try George Carlins laws, theres only 2, and I think the world would be a better place....
1.) Don't have sex with kids
2.) Don't kill anybody
I'm fairly confident that in the next 10-20 years all these wussies will have turned this country into a complete mess, if it isn't already now, and we will get to finally have anarchy, where the person with the most guns runs things, and I have allot :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... beetle proves my point... the point of the thread... laws and punishment have made cowards of us... at the mercy of the sheep... If you don't understand these quotes or agree with em then you are not deserving to be an American... I would as soon you leave.
ROFL! OK, I have to admit - I am not deserving to be an American. :D
I wonder how many of your "state legislatures" are actually listening, or reading this thread. With 49/50 states having enacted a seatbelt law, my guess is... not too many! :rofl
-
so beet... which is it? you don't understand the quotes or you simply don't agree with em?
I think your answer will be very enlightening to the Americans here who think that maybe the brits are on the right track.
government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure.
lazs
-
Apparently he thinks there's some sort of validation of the concept because the Federal Government coerced the States into passing the laws.
That's pretty revealing.
Apparently, if you can bring enough force to bear... your ideas are valid and justitfied.
Some folks like to kneel before the throne, I guess.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, what about other reasons? For that matter, what does the reason matter if that town wants the law?
I bow to your debating skills. You have convinced me. You are right. Government should pass unreasonable laws.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't understand the way of thinking that a new law is necessarily a bad thing.
I would never have guessed. :)
After all, if there were no laws, we would have... lawlessness.
One could only dream. The strong would survive , the weak, that wasn`t protected by the strong, would perish. Ya know...sort of the way law is suppose to work here. :)
It`s not the lack of law that is the problem here. It is too many laws regarding manzy panzy issues to the point of stomping on people`s freedom and rights.
Seems like much bigger problems that should be getting the attention it deserves from law makers and enforcers is being pushed to the back burner in order to step on the average, every day Joe. That`s the problem. New is not always good or better. In a lots of cases, such as what is being discussed here, new is a GIANT step in the wrong direction.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I bow to your debating skills. You have convinced me. You are right.
Thnx buddy, I knew you would come around
;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
think about it... if you had to pay for all your meddling you might not be so quick to meddle in other peoples business.
lazs
If that's the price I have to pay to keep nudists out of the parks, I'll pay it. But where we can govern ourselves we don't have have to
-
Nice edit.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Nice edit.
lol, I knew it would bring you back:)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You almost have it... These men paid for our freedom with lives. And now we sell what they passed to us for a few dollars. Even is we are talking of the freedom of choice of whether or not to wear a seat belts or not, (and I know it is just a small piece of freedom) we are still selling at least a portion of their sacrifice.
WWII was fought for the right to not wear seat belts, even in part? I think you belittle their sacrifices by twisting it to serve such a trivial notion. As easy as saying:
"I want to run down Main Street naked, twisting my nipples... because WWII was fought for such freedoms, and the denial of such a right is a selling out of their sacrifice." What would be the difference?
So, while that sounds all noble and patriotic and whatever, it doesn't amount to much. Go ahead and try to pervert the vet's sacrifice so that all it really ever amounted to was just some fight to protect everyone's right to be an idiot. It just doesn't wash with me.
And believe me, I've taken my share of liberties with the law. I'm no saint and never will be. But one thing I have always understood, fundamentally, is that in this world I am free to do just whatever the hell I want. But that's only so long as my wants don't infringe on other people's doing whatever they want. And visa versa and back again.
So here we are. You want to be free to drive without a seatbelt. And I want to be free of paying for your CAT scan. You want to be free to drive your gas guzzling polluting wreck/monster of a vehicle, and I want to be free of paying at the pump and sucking in your pollution. Because Christ, maybe I'd rather use that money to take a vacation instead. Know what I mean?
Tell me the vets didn't sacrifice for THOSE rights. And that they only had yours in mind. You can't.
"Nanny"..... What a bunch of baloney. It's pure self centeredness talkin'.
But sleep well knowing that you'll be long gone cold dead, while your "nanny" cries evaporate into small embarrassed echoes of a time that spawned a dizzied generation that put their selfish wants and child-like impulses well above everyone else's; using the sacrifices of great men in the past as justification, and giving no thought to the generations that follow who they will never meet but will nonetheless wind up paying for it.
Whoohoo! Freedom! I'm gettin' my cake, I'm gonna eat it. This is my gawdamned right, so damn the torpedoes and piss off.
It is nothing less than a cruel joke that we must endure at your mercy.
-
Excellent post, Nash.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I think you are right, the town and states right to govern themselves being taken away sucks
I agree. How do you feel about the right to privacy clause?
Before you answer, you might want to research the extent that this clause has been used to enact federal laws.
At what point do local statutes violate constitutional rights?
-
Mr. Twister.
Heh.
You can choose to honor the sacrifices of great men in the past by following their precepts.
By giving thought to the generations that follow in those long ago footsteps. By living they way they intended us to live.
There's no mystery... except to those who would twist the simple words and clear meanings of the men who sacrificed to form this country and to keep the dream alive down through the past 2+ centuries.
Jefferson spelled it out. Washington warned of the dangers. Heck, they ALL did.
But those who seek to tell others how to live their lives never rest, do they?
TJ:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
GW:
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments."
There can't be any doubt about the Founding Father's view of the overarching Federal power that has been allowed to grow beyond any of their wildest nightmares.
It's clear which faction here dishonors and disregards the sacrifices made by the generations from 1776 thru WW2.
But it's typical of the sleight of hand used. And common. "Hey Rube, you don't see what you think you see. Let me explain it to you my way."
-
Originally posted by Toad
You can choose to honor the sacrifices of great men in the past by following their precepts.
By giving thought to the generations that follow in those long ago footsteps. By living they way they
Your stuff is becoming alarmingly less worthy of a detailed response. What is happening with you?
I'll only answer by saying this:
Despite how you cull (abuse) their words as justification for your recklessness, I am confident that they, if sufficiently conjured, would amass, form a semi-circle around you, and collectively puke on your feet.
-
Nash, I want to be free of nitwit laws. I'd like to be free of nitwits period, but that's not likely so I'll insist on the former.
Now, without waxing philosophical about the sacrifices of my forbearers, without calling into question the basic principles of personal freedom and the principal points of the Declaration Of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; allow me to point out that I.. that is ME, have sacrificed at the altar of freedom more than enough to gain the privilege of demanding my rights as a citizen of this nation and have earned the right to make this simple statement...
The Nanny State, and it's nitwit nitpicking laws is an affront to me, I do not take lightly infringement of my personal liberties, and my decisions regarding my personal safety and the management of my personal life, my privacy and my security are MY OWN, reserved by me, earned by me, paid for by yours truly. As an American Citizen, Taxpayer and War Veteran I do not think that pointing out the erosion of personal liberties by little nips and tucks is something that should be either marginalized or obfuscated.. instead the full light of day should be focused on these cancerous growths on the body of this nation.
YOU, sir; may take yer bogus nitwit ass-hat 'cost- benefit analysis' of the legitimacy for such intrusions on my privacy, fold it up till it's all sharp pointy corners and pack it where the sun don't shine.
-
Thanks Hang.
Ya know, I'm always open ears for advice, and will consider taking my "bogus nitwit ass-hat 'cost- benefit analysis'" and packing it "where the sun don't shine."
That's just gold, and if I make a buck off of that I'm gonna treat you right.
Spare me.
'Cuz you know what? Really...
Your guy's patriotic BS has grown REAL tired. Because it doesn't amount to SQUAT.
You talk a good game.... but the problem is that you've been repeating the same crap for a few years now and its effect is wearing off. Seriously, dude.
Ya start to build a little tolerance to it, and all of a sudden you're thinking "Wait a minute - this patriotic word-play isn't moving me like it used to." I mean... it's like building up a tolerance to booze. It just takes more, but there's nothing more here.... It's the same old crap.
So ya know? Spare me your "nanny" whines. I can hear the headlines now: "Babies lose the right to be Babies." Look at you, all capitalizing "MY OWN".... me me me me me blah blah.
I'm sorry Hang. And remove pacifier. I can hear "I want I want I want" but the rest is just garbled.
-
Whats your point of existence? You wanna silence me because my view is 'tired'? That's yer point?
Yer attitude adjustment medication provided by YOUR 'nanny state' just ain't workin any more is it?
-
Lazs,
It seems like the people in this thread fit into three categories. Those who use seatbelts but who are opposed to a seatbelt LAW probably form the biggest group. And then there are people like you that are opposed to both, and people like me who are opposed to neither.
The only reason I am in favour of the law as it stands in Britain (as well as 49/50 states - LOL) is because it saves lives. If people want to top themselves, surely it's not too much to ask for them to wait to get home to do it, instead of burdening our hospitals.
There's all sorts of NRA-style rhetoric around which tries to discredit seatbelts, but I prefer to stick to the FACTS. And the FACT is that in Britain, the tally of road traffic accident fatalities to front seat occupants of cars was cut by 40% when the 1983 law came into effect - from ~5000 to ~3000. Until it became law, most people just didn't seem interested, and did not wear them. That is NOT the same thing as saying they were opposed to seatbelt use and/or the law enforcing their use.
As to actually having a LAW - you have to understand that government is between a rock and a hard place. If a seatbelt law is passed, they're accused of nannying. But if they do nothing to tackle the problem of RTA deaths and injuries, they're accused of complacency - to the accompaniment of a chorus of "why doesn't the government do something"? You only have to look at post Katrina New Orleans to see the effect on a government's popularity when people are dying deaths that could perhaps have been avoided had the appropriate action been taken when it was needed.
Many people whose lives have been or will be saved by a seatbelt are nowhere as vociferous in their disdain for the seatbelt law as guys like you, Toad, HangTime and Jackal. I'm talking about people who couldn't give a fork either way, but chose to use seatbelts once it became law.
If I were opposed to the existence of the law AND to the use of seatbelts, as clearly you are, then I would do exactly what you do, which is to ride around without one, and just pay the fine in the unlikely event of being caught...
...and as I said earlier, that's exactly my stance with regard to our national speed limit of 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways. I'll drive at the speed I think is safe and appropriate, rather than have that decision made for me by a Whitehall bureaucrat. In some cases, that speed is actually below the posted speed limit.
But Nash is right, and the continued chest-thumping defiance is even more stupid than the chest-thumpers' perception of the law.
Your seatbelts laws are there to stay, and New Hampshire will complete the pattern of uniformity soon enough.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Whats your point of existence? You wanna silence me because my view is 'tired'? That's yer point?
Yer attitude adjustment medication provided by YOUR 'nanny state' just ain't workin any more is it?
What is my point of existence? That's kind of a nut-ball question...
But because I ask nut-ball questions all the time, I'll play: Uhm... I have no idea. I suppose it it began at conception but that would mean picturing my dad doing my mom so I really wanna change the subject if that's cool with you.
Oh, did you mean "point of" as in reason for?
You claim to be a spiritual man, Hang - you figure it out.
I don't aim to silence anyone, Hang. If you say what I think are stupid words, then I'm going to say they are stupid words. That doesn't neccessarily make them stupid, and it certainly does not mean that you should be silenced.
Ridiculed? Perhaps... But we'll deal with that on a case by case basis.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh, did you mean "point of" as in reason for?
:rofl
-
Nash, you've tossed in the towel. You seem to toss in the towel quite a bit... you walked; checked outta the US, moved to Canada. Now, you sit up there on yer perch and pass judgement on those that stayed.
The reason my diatribe has gotten 'old' to your surrender monkey ears is because it's remained consistent. My values have remained the same.
Yours seem to change with the weather, the wind, and the status of your medication. This may be in error.. but considering your lack of focus and tendancy to cave when the load gets heavy, I'm dubious as to your credentials in passing judgement on anything regarding the rights of free men.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Your stuff is becoming alarmingly less worthy of a detailed response.
Translation: The Ritalin and Xanax are finaly kicking in. :)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But Nash is right
:rofl
Nuff said.
-
nash... he got ya... You know that we are right because deep down... you can't justify true democracy if it means 4 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner... deep down I think you know that we have inalienable rights and that they are common sense... we don't have the right to tell you what music you can buy no matter how many people vote to get rid of it because we think it causes youth problems and the expense that may incur..
In fact... you know that expense is not a factor in freedom... just as a motorcycle causes bazillions of dollars a year in needless expense for all of us or swimming... you don't think those things are right to ban no matter how good an arguement the nannies make for us all being better off.
Hang hoisted you on your own petard... you never seem to have any core values and when you do... they can be twisted if they are inconvienent... I say that you really believe that wearing seatbelts should be a personal decision but you are willing to go all tyrannical on making others wear em so long as you don't mind doing it and.... most important... you think you save a buck..
You won't answer hang on the question of if you think peoples freedom depend on the economy or not.. because it is impossible for you to answer without opening up the fact that your answer depends on what works for you.... you don't mind a tyrant so long as it doesn't affect you too much and... it saves you a buck.
guess what... you screw yourself for nothing.... you give them more power and you don't save a nickle.... you don't get that extra vacation you thought you would by making me wear a seatbelt... No rates for anything go down.... nope...
What you get for the bazillions saved is more government and more police to enforce your new laws. Oh... and a precedent... A precident for more control over the people by the government...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh... and a precedent... A precident for more control over the people by the government...
lazs
There it is!
Laid out in black and white in it`s simpliest form.
-
and beet... I do wear seatbelts most of the time. I just don't want it to be a law that I do. Helmets... I probly would rarely if ever wear one.
You keep arguing that it is a good idea to wear em... no one is desputing that. I believe that they save lives and injuries.
The point is... Is it the governments business to save my life or prevent me from being injured even if I know the risks and decide to take my chances?
We have established that suposssedly we saved a bazillion dollars with the new laws... That is your whole point for the passing and justification for them tho right?
So where did the money go? we have established that no rates for insurance or health have gone down.. Probly up... the more people live our medicine will work on the things that happen to them naturally down the road... the rate of profits for insurance companies and health care has risen or stayed the same... no one beniofieted financialy from these laws... cept maybe the government got some more power..
But.... let's say a law could be established that on the face of it... would save the majority some money at the expense of freedom for all.... some would of course lose no tangible freedom because they were not affected and others would lose a great deal because it was important to them...
Would it be better to make the law resticting everyones freedom or would it be better to make those who wished to have freedom pay for any extra expense their freedom incured?
I am willing to tell my insurance company that I don't wear a helmet and that I might not allways wear a seatbelt and willing to pay any extra premiums they feel are fair.... if they are too much... another insurance company will cut their price I am sure.
You who claim to wear one 100% of the time could have a claim nullified if you were found to not be wearing one in an accident.
lazs
-
and nash.... toad may be taking a patriotic tract here but... it is essentialy the right way to look at it when you are discussing freedom and law.. No way to argue that.
You on the other hand... are telling an American that he is not allowed to talk about his founders beliefs or their interpretation of the laws of the land...
Ironicaly enough.... a land that you do not have anything to do with... You are not an American.... I know others might have told you that but it keeps slipping your mind.
If I have to hear about law and the founders... I believe I will listen to someone who has a stake in em rather than some city dwelling canandian.
I know that patriotism makes you sick. We all know that by now... But... You aren't even an American so really.... what's your point?
And that it the gist of it that most people are starting to realize about you..... You don't really have a point... you are all over the map... you don't have a point because your values are flexible and selfish..
It isn't the person who want's personal freedom who is selfish... It is the person who would take it away from him who is selfish.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
WWII was fought for the right to not wear seat belts, even in part? I think you belittle their sacrifices by twisting it to serve such a trivial notion.
So at what level does giving up freedom become non-trivial?
-
oooooh ooooh... I know! I know!
when it affects you personaly. When it affects a freedom you want.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
Your stuff is becoming alarmingly less worthy of a detailed response. What is happening with you?
[/b]
What has happened is that I continue to engage in BBS debate with a person that uses denial as his bolt hole when he paints himself into a corner.
Despite how you cull (abuse) their words as justification for your recklessness, I am confident that they, if sufficiently conjured, would amass, form a semi-circle around you, and collectively puke on your feet.
Now THAT is funny.
And once again it simply shows how totally out of touch you are with the "American scene" despite your apparent conviction that you understand us better than we understand ourselves.
"Cull" their words? You are too funny. Haven't read much Jefferson, have you? Pretty much all he talks about is keeping government out of the lives of the individual citizen and making sure the central government does not grow too powerful.
The American Revolution was all about individual freedom; it was all about preventing overarching governmental intrusion into the daily lives of individuals. The Founders continually warned of the dangers of a powerful central government.
Yet you are in denial. Either you realize your position is hopeless or you know nothing of our early history.
It isn't "patriotism"; it's an awareness of the principals upon which this nation was founded. Nanny state ain't it... not by miles and miles. Nanny state would be anathema to the Founders.
I serious doubt they'd "puke on my shoes". Rather, they'd wonder how anyone could confuse their position to the extent that you have done.
Here's a challenge for you. Instead of sniping from the side and simply declaring your view is the only correct view, why don't you post support from the writings of our Founders that your position is correct?
Show us where they support an incredibly powerful Federal government making decisions for the individual in minute matters of daily life.
Show us where they proposed "big government" as the solution.
Time to show your stuff. I call.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You on the other hand... are telling an American that he is not allowed to talk about his founders beliefs or their interpretation of the laws of the land...
It's funny you mention that, cause I believe that way back then people were not allowed to walk around naked. They probably got 30 lashes for such a violation of the law.
Did they think that such a law set a precedent that would lead to government control? Of course not, that's why they didn't make "you can do whatever you want, whenever you you want" one of your basic rights
Again, not one of my reasons for the seat belt law has anything to with the safety of the person who buckles up, but you think those reasons are not legit. Who are you? God? If we in our town feel that it is a good law, it should be so, our founding fathers gave us that right at the local level and wanted it that way.
We had a situation in a town where they made a local man clean up his yard. He had junk cars, sinks, bath tubs, all kind of junk all over his property. And they have a law preventing that. Now one of the reasons I would think is that it brings the value of homes around him down. Can they prove this, and does it bring the value down that much as to pay the price for freedom of choice? Well, if they think in that town it is a price they are not willing to pay, that's their business.
And let's face, I don't think there is one person here who would appreciate someone moving in next door and creating an eye sore. I guess some of you hillbillies don't mind living like that, and you don't have to have such a law in your town.
Precedent? One state having a seat belt forces another to have one? Not at all, that's silly. Some states have helmet laws, others don't. No one is holding a gun to your head(although some in this thread want to)
Now the feds blackmailing states is another story, of course that isn't right, you are trying to take away decisions at the local level. I would be upset if they told us we couldn't have a seat belt law. But that is a different discussion.
I know that patriotism makes you sick.
When we are told how to govern our town or state, I get all Patriotic, it was born here.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and beet... I do wear seatbelts most of the time. I just don't want it to be a law that I do. Helmets... I probly would rarely if ever wear one.
You keep arguing that it is a good idea to wear em... no one is desputing that. I believe that they save lives and injuries.
The point is... Is it the governments business to save my life or prevent me from being injured even if I know the risks and decide to take my chances?
We have established that suposssedly we saved a bazillion dollars with the new laws... That is your whole point for the passing and justification for them tho right?
Lazs,
the way I feel about it is this: Only a small minority of folks are getting bent out of shape over the "outrage" of government deciding for them whether they should wear a seatbelt. Let's say that minority is about 10% at one end of the scale.
At the other end of the scale are people like me, who would wear a belt whether there was a law or not. The proportion of people wearing belts before they became law was about 10%.
That leaves 80% of folks in the middle, folks who have no axe to grind either way. These are the folks who didn't wear a belt before it became law and who perhaps think that an accident happens to someone else but never to them, or who never wore a belt because they simply couldn't be arsed. These are the ones the law will benefit most.
Car makers tried to make it easy - more cars offering the inertia reel belts c1980. But still the take up rate was only 10%. So the law got passed, and immediately the take up rate went to 90%. With any law, there will always be diehard defiance.
And... 2000 lives are being saved each year. It's not the financial savings that concern me as much as the cost to society in terms of orphaned children or grieving widows - the sheer waste of life. And of course, the extra strain that was being put on our beleaguered hospital system, the life assurance payouts, the loss of income tax revenues etc.
And I don't care how much some of you beat up on Nash - I still think he's right in what he's said in this thread. This whole "I/Me/My rights/citizen/country/freedom/bill of rights/declaration of independence/no-nanny-here" rhetoric is just complete bollocks. Get over yourselves, guys. We're talking about a freaking seatbelt law, not a 6pm curfew or another Prohibition. And (except NH) you've had that law for a long time - and it's not going to go away, so get used to it.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
We're talking about a freaking seatbelt law,
............And once again.....No, that is not the point of discussion here. Seatbelt law is only a very small point of the discussion used for example, but you allready know that.
Another thing that might need to be pointed out.
WE are here---->*<-----
YOU are here-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
-
Who is "we"? Are you more than one person, or just suffering a bout of schizophrenia? Read my post again - I was replying to Lazs for the most part. You think you're Lazs? Guess schizophrenia is right then.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Who is "we"? Are you more than one person, or just suffering a bout of schizophrenia? Read my post again - I was replying to Lazs for the most part. You think you're Lazs? Guess schizophrenia is right then.
"WE" as in U.S. citizens. Ya know the ones here discussing the subject at hand and the ones the constitution pertains to. The subject being freedom, freedom of choice and constitutional rights.
You remember the U.S. It`s the big place across the pond that gets under your skin so much.
"YOU" as in being the one who cannot relate or subject doesn`t pertain to. Simple enough, huh ?
As far as me replying.....I guess you will just have to deal with it.................. or stop reading.
-
"simole" and "bubject"...
"Apparently "we" have the right to spell however we wanna. ;)
esp "Aluminum" and "Labor"
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"Apparently "we" have the right to spell however we wanna. ;)
Yes we do, especialy when typing and eating gumbo at the same time. :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
"WE" as in U.S. citizens. Ya know the ones here discussing the subject at hand and the ones the constitution pertains to.
It's not that clear cut, given that I'm in agreement with sixpence and nash. And... before you try to pretend otherwise, the seatbelt issue has been the main thrust of this thread. There are more than 155 occurrences of the word "seatbelt" in this thread.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It's not that clear cut, given that I'm in agreement with sixpence and nash.
That`s your problem. :rofl
And... before you try to pretend otherwise, the seatbelt issue has been the main thrust of this thread. There are more than 155 occurrences of the word "seatbelt" in this thread.
LMAO....more than 155 you say?
Strange you haven`t got a grasp on the subject matter yet, but can count words. :)
-
I thought that freedom was the subject (sorry, bubject) of this thread.
If you go back and look at my posts, I am sure that freedom was used many more times than that other word. Freedom. Freedom and the erosion of personal freedom that laws passed without regard to the erosion of freedom was the thrust of my argument.
freedom.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
thethrust of my argument.
[/COLOR]
That`s thethrust of the bubject all right. :)
-
I edited while you were correcting.... not fast enough.
freedom freedom...
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
LMAO....more than 155 you say?
Strange you haven`t got a grasp on the subject matter yet, but can count words. :)
Erm... the content of the thread IS the subject matter.
200 occurrences of "freedom"
212 occurrences of "seatbelt"
And no, *I* didn't count them.
Do try not to change the bubject! :lol
-
Did you count my last 2 posts? 8 occurances of freedom right there. I used personally used freedom many more times than that other word. I still say the subject is about freedom.
Let's see. 200 + 8 uses of the word freedom oops... 9 and then 4 more uses of freedom... oops... 5 so now it's 213 to 212 that freedom was used over seatbelt... 215 to 213.
So by word count, the subject must be freedom. 216 to 214.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Erm... the content of the thread IS the subject matter.
:lol
Yes and we freely discussed freedom, freedom of choice and constitutional rights.
That`s the subject...freedom. Freedom of choice and freedom in general.
The count goes up.
:D
Being a loyal subject must be really boring, but at least you have the freedom to come here and get into a discussion about freedom, freedom of choice and constitutional rights, even if you don`t understand it.
Six feet high and rising, if I may change the bubject. :)
-
* crackle*static*
freedom is just anuther wurd fer nothin left ta lose..
* crackle*static*
And now a few words from our forbears..
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine
Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide. ~Napoleon Bonaparte
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln
We on this continent should never forget that men first crossed the Atlantic not to find soil for their ploughs but to secure liberty for their souls. ~Robert J. McCracken
Freedom is that instant between when someone tells you to do something and when you decide how to respond. ~Jeffrey Borenstein
Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. ~Woodrow Wilson
Freedom is not enough. ~Lyndon B. Johnson
We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights. ~Felix Frankfurter
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. ~Daniel Webster
Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves. ~D.H. Lawrence, Classical American Literature, 1922
We now return you to the incessant nitwits nannypower hour ...
-
When you stop at a traffic light, your freedoms are abridged.
But you accept that small encroachment on your personal freedom because you don't really feel like dying. And you realize that in order for society to function, there have got to be some rules in how we conduct ourselves.
So far, so good?
Now lets go all the way to the extreme other side. You won't accept dressing everyone up in Nerf uniforms so that people live to the ripe old age of a hundred, just bouncing off of each other.
And I'm with ya there.
So now we're talking about that middle area: Between what is acceptable, and what is going too far. This is why new laws get created, and old laws get tossed. Toad is suddenly in favor of the Constitution being a "living" document... so perhaps he can explain it.
And since you guys love to quote dead famous people in a way that would back up your arguments (which at this point, I honestly no longer understand), then pray tell: What did Jefferson have to say about someone walking onto the sub, sitting down, and crankin' Ludacris on his ghetto-blaster?
What did Thomas Paine have to say about spray paint?
Nothing? Okay then... It turns out that we aren't living in the olden times.
And no, you don't get to do just whatever the hell you want. I'm sorry, gentlemen. Life isn't fair and all of that. I'm sure you'll live.
-
lib·er·ty
1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
The only reason given for the restriction of liberty in the seat belt case is because the public must pay the price of the medical bills of the person not strapped in.
Hence a fine of say $100. I am sure that offsets the medical bills of those who refuse to buckle up.
Restriction of that choice is somewhat similar to restriction of the choice of a woman on reproductive rights. My body, my choice. Your wallet your choice.
All the public needs to do to save the money it spends on this particular item is to stop paying the bills. Let the individual be responsible for his own body.
-
How do you "let" the individual be responsible for his own body when you have to end up paying to get it fixed?
You know... The Oath of Hippocrates...?
How do you square that?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Toad is suddenly in favor of the Constitution being a "living" document... so perhaps he can explain it....
...Nothing? Okay then... It turns out that we aren't living in the olden times...
Item 1: The Constitution says what it says. It wasn't written in today's flowery "we can make this mean anything we say it means" lawyer language. It's pretty simple and straightforward and there's plenty of writing from the Framers to show exactly what they meant.
There will always be those who wish to twist to to their own corrupted meaning, of course.
Item 2: While Jefferson didn't have an IPod that doesn't mean the concepts of freedom and the principles of good government that he delineated are somehow no longer valid, of merit or worthy of regard.
It's turns out that we aren't living in olden times but it also turns out that the truths that the Founders discussed, wrote about and formed this government around are timeless.
For which I am most thankful.
Oh yeah.. I almost forgot.
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson
-
Wait a sec, Toad.... A short while ago, you used Jefferson to demonstrate that the Constitution indeed was a living document, and as such, meant to be interpreted.
Which would you have it?
The Constitution is amazing. I'm honestly in awe of it.
But you're now trying to bend its "principles" to match your personal whims.
When it comes to seatbelts, you say "Look to Jefferson!" But Jefferson didn't say a lick about seatbelts. Jefferson laid out principles - as you say. We both get to bend our interpretation of his intent as it would regard seatbelts, equally.
It is just not enough to say "Jefferson" and claim solid ground.
-
Hippocrates, the father of medicine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
It says a doctor should pay for his education, It says do no harm, where does it say we must pay for medical treatment?
-
Ask any doctor.....
If a wounded patient lies before you, you treat them. It's sacrosanct.
So lets do this in rewind.
A doctor leaves the ER.... your wife is whisked back to the scene of her accident. She is placed back into the car, and the emergency vehicles reverse out.
This is unworkable, my friend. She has got to go to the hospital. Anything else would be inhumane and ugly.
And as soon as she arrives at the hospital? Folks gotta get paid.
-
So it's not in the oath... okay
Yes, if I happen by a swollen creek and I see someone drowning, I would be compelled to render aid.
If possible I would pull them out, get them breathing, get them warm, get them some dry clothes. When I find out they went in swimming in flood waters just for the hell of it, I would cease to render any more aid. If he jumped in again I would wave goodbye to him and call the guy an idiot.
-
You're trying to ask me to envision a world where smashed-up cars and bleeding humans are left on the side of the road to die.
Really. That's what your trying to sell me. And that aint gonna happen.
If I gotta contribute to their hospital tab, I'd rather that, than seeing vultures on my morning commute.
Cop car comes? $.
Ambulance? $
Hospital stay? $
Out of my pocket and yours.
Now if only they woulda just buckled up. But noooo.... The whole idea of that would enrage Jefferson or something.
-
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson
Hmmm, but how would he feel about people walking around with no clothes? Did they allow this in towns? Would he leave the decision up to local government at the state or town level?
You can look at that quote and deem it as "man should be able to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants" , but I am not buying that
-
How about this paradox?
A woman's right to abort her pregnancy.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The subject being freedom, freedom of choice and constitutional rights.
No, the main discussion in this thread has been about seatbelts. That is a FACT - I wouldn't expect you to understand.
But I did a little research of my own on the word counts, just to be sure what this thread was about. Yours and HMcG's hyping of the word "freed*m" did not manage to skew the stats the way you wanted because... you forgot that as well as "seatbelt" some people spell it "seat belt", as you did in your first sentence in this thread. :lol So, I counted the words "seat" and "belt" separately, because of the alternative spelling and because in some cases people have referred to them simply as "belts".
The bubject of this thread - LOL
So, the revised counts - even with Jack/HMcG hyping are - - independence 2
- declaration 3
- jefferson 12
- citizen 18
- constitution 42
- choice 93
- freedom 228 - after a great deal of hyping!You still want to tell me what this thread is about?
:rofl
-
.. or how to argue around the point at any half-opportunity.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You still want to tell me what this thread is about?
Why. sure Beetle. Glad to help out when you are having such a rough time understanding it.
The thread is about freedom, freedom of choice and constitutional rights. Sorry you missed that the first 20 or so times it was explained.
You should read it sometime, but then again, it might bore you because it doesn`t pertain to loyal subjects of the Queen.
-
beet... seatbelts are not the point jackal did speak for me.
Nash... you still don't get it... it matters not what degree of freedom is infringed... it isn't right. You use two examples... One, the stoplight... prevents people from killing each other... that is good law... if a person who ran a light killed or injured only himself... then it would be a bad law... simple huh?
sixpense uses naked people... it could be argued that naked people "harm" others. They offend allmost everyone.. it would be the rare person who would go naked in public if the public showed dissaproval... I have no problem with nude beaches tho...
junk in your yard? that's pretty dumb... Have you looked at property values lately? The guys house will sell for a fraction of what it is worth... let him paint it purple with pink polka dots...
If it stinks or spreads weed or obstructs stop signs or is dangerous to CHILDREN.... make him clean it up.
The financial end of seatbelts I think we covered.... we haven't saved anthing just built more government. None of us realized a savings... so far as the injured being a burden.... Why would he be?
We allready have insurance... his is just higher than yours... I have car and medical insurance. It won't cost you anything... I don't complain because you and your kids practically live at the doctors office driving up my rates.... I don't complain because you are a sickly person of pisspoor genetic stock who stays sick all the time while I never go to the doctor except in a meat wagon... And then.... not from injuries you have seen fit to make laws against getting... none of my motorcycle wrecks involved head injuries..
But that brings back nash's examples... Motorcycles cause bazillion of dollars to everyone... Why not just outlaw em and save us a buck or two? they have no real purpose and, as beetle says... few people would be affected.... most, like him would never ride one anyway... 80% of those who do aren't really hard core about it.... it's for our own good right?
I bet we could get rid of rap and hip hop and any "angry" music or video games and save a real bundle there too.... after all... what is a little infringement on free speach.... certainly toad isn't gonna drag out those old musty quotes from dead guys on "freedom" is he?
Seatbelts.... cleaning up your yard.... going naked.... sheesh... I wish that was the only infringements on our freedom we had to worry about. They are just the results of government gone tyrannical.... Of selfish democracy taking precedence over personal freedom.
But... then, I brit and a canadian and someone from boston think that freedom is overrated.... I bet the UN does too.... noo... I know they do.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
You're trying to ask me to envision a world where smashed-up cars and bleeding humans are left on the side of the road to die.
Really. That's what your trying to sell me. And that aint gonna happen.
If I gotta contribute to their hospital tab, I'd rather that, than seeing vultures on my morning commute.
Cop car comes? $.
Ambulance? $
Hospital stay? $
Out of my pocket and yours.
Now if only they woulda just buckled up. But noooo.... The whole idea of that would enrage Jefferson or something.
The medical costs associated with fatty foods, tobacco, alcohol, and lack of excercise are huge the cost to the public coffers and continue to spiral out of control.
I propose that saturated fats, fast food, tobacco, and alcohol be outlawed, or at least you be fined when you partake.
Also I propose we all accept a government mandated 30 minute daily aerobic workout, and that you conform to government standards regarding height and weight.
This will save billions, save more lives than seatbelts, and any of you who have a problem with giving up a little freedom of choice should rethink your priorities. Really...
-
Well exactly, Holden.
We're in that middle area, between anarchy and tyranny..... between having no laws and having excessive laws.
And your examples, along with the seat bell law, reside within it and certainly are up for discussion. In fact there are already laws regarding saturated fats (labels now required on packaging) and alcohol (can't drive drunk, can't drink young, and limits on where you can drink).
I'm not dismissing your argument completely. There are like, a million little laws regarding just about everything. Some are good, and some are bad.
But right now, if we could focus a little, the issue is whether or not the seat belt law is good or bad. And to consider it not by way of conjuring up Jefferson and panicking about tyrannical governments... but by considering the relationship between costs (loss of liberty) and effects (less drain on healthcare costs).
Now if you want to say that it really doesn't ease the strain on the health care system - then that's fine.... but I haven't seen that demonstrated yet.
Once again, my point is that your loss of liberty by having to buckle up is smaller than society's (everyone's) loss of liberty in how we choose to spend our money.
Going all "It's an affront to my personal freedoms!" is just a meaningless rant, even with the odd dead guy quote tossed in. It's ignoring the fact that we already live in a world with a million little laws - some of which you like and some of which you do not. Seatbelts are no different. They're either good laws or bad laws. Up for debate.
-
Originally posted by Nash
And since you guys love to quote dead famous people in a way that would back up your arguments
Just how totaly hip and cool does someone have to be to make a statement like that?
Those "dead famous people", as you so cooly put it are the very reason you have the right to be so flippant about their words and principles.
They didn`t just sit down with a cup of Joe and the puter and put them the thoughts down to have something to do and amaze folks with their O`club coolness factor..
More hardships, sacrifices and experience were put into them words than you, I and the rest of us here will ever experience.
Those principles have been defended and fought to preserve. Many lives have been given to do so.
Those wacky words of them hip cats work just as well today as they did then and , if understood and followed, will in the future.
They are the very heartbeat and pulse of this country and what it stands for. You might want to consider that and get a feel for that pulse. If it starts to fade and grow weak it needs to be nursed back to health in short order.
If it stops we are all in file 13.
What did Jefferson have to say about someone walking onto the sub, sitting down, and crankin' Ludacris on his ghetto-blaster?
I don`t believe he commented on this, but if he had it would probably have something like.." Can you please turn that crap off and put on some Led or Skynard." :)
What did Thomas Paine have to say about spray paint?
Once again, I don`t believe he commented on the subject. If he could I believe he would advise you not to huff it while making statements on something you so clearly don`t understand.
-
simply put... it is a bad law if it takes away the freedom of choice for no reason worthwhile.. A worthwhile reason is real harm done to others.... financial is not a real reason but..
If you want a less odious law to protect the financial end... you simply make those who don't want to wear seatbelts or helmets pay more for their insurance.... you let the insurance companies figure out what the risk is worth.
Your vison of millions of people spred out in bloody pools on the hood of their cars after being launched through their windsheild on every corner is effeminitly overdramatic...
Most of us grew up in an era of drum brakes and no seatbelts and tires that were a joke.
And... so far as financial... If you get into a five mph wreck these days.... a 50,000 dollar car is totalled because of all the airbags and crumple zones... You seem to be willing to pay that extra burden so it must not be financial.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
If it starts to fade and grow weak it needs to be nursed back to health in short order. If it stops we are all in file 13.
Chapter 13? You mean that law that was created to protect one from financial ruin? What did the old guys say about that one? How does liberty and personal freedom square with a law that basically screws your creditors while you go about fixing your mistakes?
And you close your argument with that? Gee.....
-
Originally posted by Nash
Chapter 13?
No Maynard.........file 13. The crapper, the garbage dump, down the tubes, etc, etc.
"He`s dead Jim."
-
Originally posted by lazs2
simply put... it is a bad law if it takes away the freedom of choice for no reason worthwhile.. A worthwhile reason is real harm done to others.... financial is not a real reason but..
If you want a less odious law to protect the financial end... you simply make those who don't want to wear seatbelts or helmets pay more for their insurance.... you let the insurance companies figure out what the risk is worth.
Your vison of millions of people spred out in bloody pools on the hood of their cars after being launched through their windsheild on every corner is effeminitly overdramatic...
Most of us grew up in an era of drum brakes and no seatbelts and tires that were a joke.
And... so far as financial... If you get into a five mph wreck these days.... a 50,000 dollar car is totalled because of all the airbags and crumple zones... You seem to be willing to pay that extra burden so it must not be financial.
lazs
"simply put... it is a bad law if it takes away the freedom of choice for no reason worthwhile.. "
I'm with you 100%. Believe me.
But you have not demonstrated that with regards to the seatbelt law, lazs.
Your solution? Let the people who refuse to wear seatbelts pay more for their insurance. For one thing, tha's impossible to do. Because by the time everyone forks out for the hospital tab, it's too late to charge the guy extra for his insurance. And for another, I'm not sure I've heard of any laws requiring passengers to purchase insurance.
So we're back to square one again, aint we lazs?
-
Originally posted by Nash
A short while ago, you used Jefferson to demonstrate that the Constitution indeed was a living document, and as such, meant to be interpreted.
Before I enter into the twisty world of yours, quote my post that you refer to and give the specific way YOU are interpreting it. We'll go from there.
-
Well Nash, the seat belt law and the helmet law for motorcycles are only something(s) that have recently eroded personal liberty.
If a law were passed requiring a 30 minute daily aerobic workout, I'm sure that would be the touchstone of the thread.
A society requiring people to be self responsible would be more cost effective than government mandated micro management of individual behavior.
Yes, still scrape them up off the road. Yes still perform the emergency attention, yes, it still costs some money. Charge those reponsible for the accident. Extraordinary live saving measures, months on a ventilator? Years of rehabilitation? That should not be for society in general to pay, it should be up to whoever is responsible for the accident. If seatbelts or a helmet is involved in the injury, then the injured person is at least partially responsible for the costs incurred.
No vultures required.
If an insurance company required a certian behavior in order for me to be covered, I would be free to choose to pay a higher premium or change companies if I decided that the behavior would be worth it. My choice, my liberty.
If I get lost in the woods, guess who pays for search and rescue costs? (me, the way it should be)
When government requires my behavior to be modified then I lose the liberty of freedom of choice.
I'm pro choice.
-
Originally posted by Nash
[BBecause by the time everyone forks out for the hospital tab, it's too late to charge the guy extra for his insurance. And for another, I'm not sure I've heard of any laws requiring passengers to purchase insurance.
[/B]
No, they would charge in arrears. Just like they do with speeding tickets. Your rates go up AFTER you get a ticket and they keep records on you for years and charge you far in excess of any cost to them. In short, they make money on the deal. What a suprise.
Do they have "diversion" in Canada? It's a process where you "cut a deal" with the local government's attorney. You pay 2X or 3X the "normal" speeding fine and they change the charge to a "non-moving" violation so it doesn't go on your insurance driving record and you don't get "points" on your license.
Ever stop to wonder how THAT little bit of extortion came about? Obviously because paying the city 3X the normal fine is WAY CHEAPER than paying the insurance companies their "pound of flesh" for the next three years.
So, obviously, you just charge in arrears. It's already an industry standard method.
No, passengers don't need insurance. "Passenger Insurance" is already in auto insurance. Passengers are covered by the vehicle owner's policy. It's in the Personal Injury Protection part.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Before I enter into the twisty world of yours, quote my post that you refer to and give the specific way YOU are interpreting it. We'll go from there.
Toad, quoting Jefferson to make a case regarding the Constitution and how it relates to State's rights:
We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the habitants of another country.
Thomas Jefferson
Nash:
Interesting quote, though I'm not completely sure what it means. Is it in fact making the case for the Constitution being a living document... with each successive generation interpreting it as they may? I'm no doubt getting it wrong...
Toad:
No, I think you have it right.
I think it's pretty self explanitory.
But I don't want to sidetrack this thread... I just thought I owed you an explanation. It's pretty sunny right now.... I'm gonna find something to do.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
simply put... it is a bad law if it takes away the freedom of choice for no reason worthwhile..
Well, who decides if it is worthwhile?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A society requiring people to be self responsible would be more cost effective than government mandated micro management of individual behavior.
Where in this thread have I mentioned self responsibility as a reason for a seat belt law? And who decides if those reasons are reasonable?
You have a responsibility to know the law, when you put yourself above it, you are irresponsible
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nash
And since you guys love to quote dead famous people in a way that would back up your arguments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you. ~Dick Cheney
Patterning your life around other's opinions is nothing more than slavery. Lawana Blackwell, The Dowry of Miss Lydia Clark, 1999
We hold in our hands, the most precious gift of all: Freedom. The freedom to express our art. Our love. The freedom to be who we want to be. We are not going to give that freedom away and no one shall take it from us! Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider, Northern Exposure, Cicely, 1992
Because you are in control of your life. Don't ever forget that. You are what you are because of the conscious and subconscious choices you have made. Barbara Hall, A Summons to New Orleans, 2000
The Constitution is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to comply. Justice Anthony Kennedy (1936 - )
There yah go... Live folks. Like me. We ain't dead yet. Much to the disappointment of the alphabet soup government organizations delegated to suppress our rights for THEIR convenience.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The Constitution is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to comply. Justice Anthony Kennedy (1936 - )
Comply to the will of the people?
-
Well, since I acknolwedged your choice of "interpret", I was wrong. My mistake.
I don't think each succeeding generation gets to twist what it says to suit the current ever-changing fancy. Take for example the First Amendment. If at some future point a generation decides that only the government should be allowed to own/operate the print/visual/radio media, that would be a totally unacceptable interpretation of the original First.
Jefferson's writings show that he thought there were two choices for the succeeding generations if they felt the Constitution needed to cover something new or reappraise an old value..
The Constitution has a built-in method for change, the amendment. The process is spelled out. If a succeeding generation decides only the government should run the media, then an amendment is the route of choice.
"Nothing is more likely than that [the] enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us then go on perfecting it by adding by way of amendment to the Constitution those powers which time and trial show are still wanting." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
Since all powers not specifically enumerated and delegated to the Federal government are vested in either the States or the people as a whole,
Jefferson's comment is enlightening. If, in the future, the people feel the Federal government needs powers not specifically enumerated in the original Constitution, there should be an amendment. He certainly doesn't prescribe a fickle "reinterpretation" according to "current fashion".
"A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48
Note that he didn't say "may reinterpret their laws and institutions". He said "change". There are numerous quotes that show the desired method of change is to assemble and amend.
"Happy for us that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1787. ME 6:295, Papers 12:113
The other Jeffersonian method is rebellion. Should such a "government media" amendment pass in one generation and then the next generation reappraises and amends that amendment to return media to private enterprise and the government refuses to hand it over to the people then you have grounds for rebellion.
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much.
It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
Hope that clears it up. Each generation doesn't interpret the Constitution to it's particular bias. The SC does narrowly interpret in the sense that it decides individual cases on Constitutional questions.
No doubt about my earlier statement that the Judicial has become the most powerful arm of the government is there? Thus the fact that SC appointments should be the highest priority when voters decide on a President.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Comply to the will of the people?
No, comply with the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Comply to the will of the people?
Either yer not terribly bright or yer just being a dick.
I'll give yah the benifit of the doubt and guess...
So, Dick, tell me; where does that quote refer to the 'will of the people'? It refers to the Constitution and it's lawful ammendments and the Governments obligation to comply with it, regardless of 'convenience'.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
You have a responsibility to know the law, when you put yourself above it, you are irresponsible
So if I rob a bank, I can just tell the judge that as I am irresponsible, therefore I cannot be held responsible.
Thanks for the defense strategy, but I think it will probably fail.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
simply put... it is a bad law if it takes away the freedom of choice for no reason worthwhile..
I agree with that, but in the case of the seatbelt law, which is what this thread is all about, I don't agree that there is no good reason. In the UK, 2000 lives are saved every year by that law - the same seatbelt law that exists in 49/50 US states. To my mind, that's 2000 good reasons.
My belief is that of the 95% of people who now wear belts in the car, the vast majority do so only because it's a legal requirement, but I also don't believe for one second that many of them feel that a serious infringement of their rights has been committed. As I've said before, the only reason many of them didn't belt up before was because they couldn't be arsed - not because they thought seatbelts were an intrusion on their liberty. The threat of a small fine was enough to get them to change their ways. Seems that the legislatures in 49 of your 50 states would agree with that.
By the way, the British seatbelt law was not railroaded through by government, but was instigated by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents - RoSPA - which is a registered charity. link (http://www.rospa.com/news/releases/2003/pr204_30_01_03_road.htm).
-
Originally posted by beet1e
which is what this thread is all about,
[/b]
You're probably the only one left in the thread that thinks that. But that's OK... you don't have to participate in the ongoing discussion; post what you like.
My belief is that of the 95% of people who now wear belts in the car, the vast majority do so only because it's a legal requirement, but I also don't believe for one second that many of them feel that a serious infringement of their rights has been committed.
[/b]
I believe that Mars is a planet of vouluptous human women, starved for male companionship, living under the surface in caves that would rival the most hedonistic places on earth.
Unfortunately, just like you and your belief, I can't provide the slightest shred of proof for that hypothesis either.
-
Well, like I said - the legislators in 49 of your 50 states agree with me, not you. Sorry that you're having such a hard time with that. I know it makes you angry.
-
Doesn't make me angry; I just understand it and you don't.
See, if I could withhold millions from them if they didn't rescind their seat belt laws, I could get them to switch back in one fiscal year.
It would have nothing to do with the validity of the concept. It's a purely monetary issue.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Doesn't make me angry; I just understand it and you don't.
But earlier in this thread you said.... I base my anger upon the fact that there's way too many people trying to run other people's lives.
As you can see, it's one of the few things that does truly anger me.
Oh well, if you don't like the subject of this thread, you can always pretend it was about something else...
-
freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom
There ya go beetle, that should just about balance it out.
-
freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom
(you were about 8 short of a drubbing)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I agree with that, but in the case of the seatbelt law, which is what this thread is all about
No, it` about freedom, freedom of choice and constitutional rights.
Hmmmmmm...............I thought I had explained that before.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Either yer not terribly bright or yer just being a dick.
I'll give yah the benifit of the doubt and guess...
So, Dick, tell me; where does that quote refer to the 'will of the people'? It refers to the Constitution and it's lawful ammendments and the Governments obligation to comply with it, regardless of 'convenience'.
Ahh, the name calling, clear sign of a lost argument, thnx for playing
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
No, it` about freedom, freedom of choice and constitutional rights.
Hmmmmmm...............I thought I had explained that before.
If that's really what it was about, that would be a very important issue - the sort of things over which wars have been fought. In which case it's funny that even though this thread is spilling over 7 pages, fewer than 10 of us have made 5 posts or more. One could be forgiven for believing that the issue under discussion was of interest to only a small minority - something like the price of fish, or seatbelts... loyal bubject of the Queen
Actually, I'm a British Citizen. Not that anyone on this board could tell you the difference. I'm not tied to Britain in any way except family, and can take up permanent residence in any of the other 24 EU countries, though only about four of those appeal - LOL.
Hmmmmmm...............I thought I had explained that before.
-
Oh and LOL HangTime and HMcG! :lol
For obvious reasons, I'm not going to QUOTE your posts! ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france france
(you were about 8 short of a drubbing)
uh ???
-
beetle... I am not surprised that you don't get it... If my not wearing a seatbelt killed 2000 or even two a year then it would be a good law.... if 20,000 individuduals die a year because they chose to not wear a seatbelt then that is/was their right... just like it is their right to fly or eat fatty foods or drink or ride motorcycles..
six... you believe that democracy is what we have.... 4 wolves and a sheep all voting on what's for dinner.
nash... you berate us for quoting our founders... the men who wrote our constitution... the document we live by.... you say that they are old fashioned... that they are not men like us.... not so...evolved? Freedom is different now?
Please... who should we listen to? who are these great modern thinkers that have views that would be more modern than the founders? Jon stewart? kerrie? who? maybe some canadian... surely some "artists" that is hip enough for you can explain freedom better than a bunch of dead guys? Give us some names of these hip new guys and their views of freedom...
The reason you don't see people saying... "Freedom is good so long as it doesn't cost anyone any money or offend anyone" is because they would get lynched....
Everyone at least plays lip service to the old dead guys... they just try to get out of doing what is right if it inconviences them... they.... like you want the easy and selfish way out..
and... I think everyone explained insurance to you but... the insurance company charges on what it thinks the burden will be... for instance... I would have been paying a higher rate for 50 years but not have cost them anything.... others would...in maybe 1 in 10,000 wrecks have cost more than the premium in extra injuries because they didn't wear seatbelts.... they actually keep track of these numbers and adjust rates.
lazs
-
I think more to the point is gun control laws...
Guns in the hands of criminals cause death and destruction.... You could have a total police state that would make it unlikely that criminals would have guns because they would be banned and the penalties could be say... death... for even owning one.... in england.... they let burglars go and rapists and muggers but a guy caught owning a gun is going to prison...
Our constitution gives us the right to defend ourselves with firearms... This is not a privilidge... it is stated as a ritght... it may be inconvient and at times expensive.... people are killed by guns.
it is a right that needs to be protected tho... simply so little busybodies like sixpense and the insurance companies can't pass laws taking away the freedom.
That is the real cowardice.... I bow to the big laws that are unconstitutional as quickly as I do the small like seatbelts and helmets and wearing a life jacket to swim (yep... that's a law now in parts of kalifornia)..
We have "artists" from canada telling us that freedom is not important if they don't care about it... The things Nash likes I think suck.... If they put up a law to outlaw em tho...I would be outraged just as much.... What we get and he doesn't is..
When you wish to restrict others rights you only open the door for the bigger government you have created to come after you next..
And subaru.... I have no problem with passing laws against some abortions and the rights of individuals.... I do not believe that a mother has the right to kill anyone no matter how inconvient their life may be to her.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Our constitution gives us the right to defend ourselves with firearms... This is not a privilidge... it is stated as a ritght... it may be inconvient and at times expensive.... people are killed by guns.
You are making the wrong comparison, no one is trying to take your car away.
Ok, you can carry a concealed handgun in a shopping mall, however, you cannot carry a shotgun in a shopping mall. Now is this taking away your freedom of choice? Well, I guess you could say that, but most in the town agree with this. Is it taking away your right to bear arms and defend yourself? We in the town don't think so, that 357 you have under your shirt should work just fine.
Now let's bring that comparison even closer. Let's say you can carry a shot in a shopping mall, however, you are required to have the safety on. Now, is this taking away your freedom of choice to use a safety or not? I guess you could say that, but most in the town agree with it.
What really gets me Lazs is that if most of these guys crying revolution over a seat belt had a guy move in next door, and this guy started filling his front yard with junk cars, bath tubs and all kind of crap, they would be the first ones to call city hall to make him clean up his yard. So much for personal freedom huh?
Now I say most because you would probably ask the guy if you could use his yard for target practice. You both would become the best of friends sitting on his front porch shooting up old cars and toilets.
Freakin hillbilly
-
Lazs -
it's not that I disagree with you about the long arm of government or the nannying thing. I've told you where I stand with regard to the 70mph speed limit here. And I certainly would not want my consumption of red wine to be limited to one glass per day!
But I think that being asked to wear a seatbelt is a small price to pay to see deaths on the roads cut by 40%.
But I know you will want to counter that, and I always like to keep an open mind and see the other side's point of view.
Personally, I think some of you guys have got a bug up your collective arse about this freedom thing. You're obsessed with it. And the seatbelt law in the UK is not the result of "bigger government". The law was instigated by a charity organisation campaigning for greater safety on the roads.
Rather than assume that my point of view was "correct", I decided to run my own poll on a British road safety and general motoring BBS of which I am a member. It's only been up for a few hours, and I'm running it for 7 days. I'll post the final results next week.
Here are the results so far. I've airbrushed out the forum name.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/seatbeltpoll.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
What really gets me Lazs is that if most of these guys crying revolution over a seat belt had a guy move in next door, and this guy started filling his front yard with junk cars, bath tubs and all kind of crap, they would be the first ones to call city hall to make him clean up his yard. So much for personal freedom huh?
Now I say most because you would probably ask the guy if you could use his yard for target practice. You both would become the best of friends sitting on his front porch shooting up old cars and toilets.
Freakin hillbilly
Ahh.. name calling.. (blah blah blah) "thanks for playing".
Six, Why call city hall? Sorry, I don't pick up the phone and call the cops when I see something I don't like go down in the neighborhood. If my next door neighbor tried to turn his yard into an offensive eyesore I'd go bang on his door and explain in no uncertain terms what the problem was and give him a few unsavory choices.
Only a citified grapefruit would hide behind a cop to handle something as simple as "yo.. clean this mess up or I'll re-arrange the geography of yer ass."
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ahh.. name calling.. (blah blah blah) "thanks for playing".
Six, Why call city hall? Sorry, I don't pick up the phone and call the cops when I see something I don't like go down in the neighborhood. If my next door neighbor tried to turn his yard into an offensive eyesore I'd go bang on his door and explain in no uncertain terms what the problem was and give him a few unsavory choices.
Only a citified grapefruit would hide behind a cop to handle something as simple as "yo.. clean this mess up or I'll re-arrange the geography of yer ass."
Ahh, take away his freedom of choice with force, gotcha
-
Hey.. he's free to call a cop, leave, physcially defend his right to deface his property, or clean the mess up.
:D
-
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance."
--Thomas Jefferson
of course he kept his slaves tho.
-
Originally posted by Torque
of course he kept his slaves tho.
:lol
-
Sally Hemmings sez he loved 'em too.
:aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I'll post the final results next week.
Don`t bother. It doesn`t pertain here.
You might try a British BBS where they are discussing British law.
-
Flawed Founders (http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/nov02/presence.html)
Of all the contradictions in Jefferson’s contradictory life, none is greater. Of all the contradictions in America’s history, none surpasses its toleration first of slavery and then of segregation. Jefferson hoped and expected that Virginians of Meriwether Lewis’ and William Clark’s generation would abolish slavery. His writing showed that he had a great mind and a limited character.
Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African-Americans to live in society as free people. He embraced the worst forms of racism to justify slavery.
In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson describes the institution of slavery as forcing tyranny and depravity on master and slave alike. To be a slaveholder meant one had to believe that the worst white man was better than the best black man. If you did not believe these things, you could not justify yourself to yourself. So Jefferson could condemn slavery in words, but not in deeds.
No one said he was perfect. None the less, he was an amazing man with an incredible intellect as well as a walking contradiction.
Ambrose put it prety well:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Those words, as the historian Samuel Eliot Morison has said, "are more revolutionary than anything written by Robespierre, Marx, or Lenin, a continual challenge to ourselves, as well as an inspiration to the oppressed of all the world."
-
Originally posted by beet1e
:lol
TJ died July 4, 1826.
It wasn't until 1833 that slavery (as opposed to just the business of the slave trade) was abolished within the British Empire (though not within British protectorates, such as Sierra Leone).
The British government paid compensation to the slave owners. The amount that the plantation owners received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For example, the Bishop of Exeter's 665 slaves resulted in him receiving £12,700.
HERE (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery33.htm)
Fancy that; the Bishop of Exeter.... I guess most of them were men of their times.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
You might try a British BBS where they are discussing British law.
Well duh - that's what I am doing. ^ (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/rolleyes.gif)
-
In London's Hyde Park, a man was fined for violating a city ordinance against playing musical intrurments for the purpose of accepting donations.
He was aquitted, as by English Law set forth during Scottish insurrections against the English King, that the Highland Bagpipes he was playing were not considered a musical insturment but a weapon of war.
There was no ordinance against using a weapon of war for the purpose of accepting donations.
-
I do not believe that most people in those times felt that coloreds were human and the laws of "people" applied. Some came to realize later in life that they were wrong and freed their slaves.
six... In Vermont or Arizona there are no laws on how you carry (bear) a gun (arm). that is the only constitutional way. All other gun control laws are unconstitutional including making someone use the safety or whatever. I believe that it the way it should be. It causes no problems in those states.
As for the "hillbilly" that you are so freightened of.... there are health laws (to protect people) there are attractive nusance laws (to protect children from real harm) there are even abstructing road signs laws (to prevent accidents to other people) and.... there are even "no shooting in the city limits laws" which I agree with as being not unconstitutional... Hang was more on target than you think.... if everyone shunned the "hillbilly" when they weren't outright verbally abusing him and making his life misserable.... he would get with the program or move somewhere where he fit in better.... just that simple.
beet.... Are you trying to say that if most people want something that it is ok to take away a minorities freedom? But let's be honest....
you aren't in the least worried about saving the life of someone who doesn't wear a seat belt.... you are worried about what it might cost you personaly. in money.... I explained that you got conned... you didn't save anything and... most medical expenses are incured by the elderly... those non belt wearers woulda saved you a bundle in the long run..had they died.
And yes... I guess you are right... we Americans (with some notable exceptions here) are "obsessed" with freedom... someone has to be.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet.... Are you trying to say that if most people want something that it is ok to take away a minorities freedom? But let's be honest....
you aren't in the least worried about saving the life of someone who doesn't wear a seat belt.... you are worried about what it might cost you personaly. in money....
No Lazs. You're arriving at the wrong conclusions because they're based on your false assumptions.
You never know where lightning might strike. Those car accident victims could be my family/friends/neighbours etc. Within the past two weeks, someone on this board posted to the effect that he had lost not one but TWO of his grown up children to a car accident. I'd be interested to hear his views on this, but I'm not going to pull him into this thread. You might argue that the chances of a seatbelt saving your life or my life are infinitesimally small, and I might even agree with you. But as you have already agreed in another thread, it's no less likely than your needing that loaded gun you keep next to your bed at night, which you seem to think is so important.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
six... In Vermont or Arizona there are no laws on how you carry (bear) a gun (arm). that is the only constitutional way. All other gun control laws are unconstitutional including making someone use the safety or whatever. I believe that it the way it should be. It causes no problems in those states.
You can walk through a mall with a loaded shotgun in those states? I would like to see that, but I will take your word for it.
As for the "hillbilly" that you are so freightened of.... there are health laws (to protect people) there are attractive nusance laws (to protect children from real harm) there are even abstructing road signs laws (to prevent accidents to other people) and.... there are even "no shooting in the city limits laws" which I agree with as being not unconstitutional... Hang was more on target than you think.... if everyone shunned the "hillbilly" when they weren't outright verbally abusing him and making his life misserable.... he would get with the program or move somewhere where he fit in better.... just that simple.
Oh, you don't like that guy with the junk cars in his front yard? Seems there are some laws you like taking away freedom of choice. Wait, you won't write the law but harass the guy til he leaves? Hmmm, seems you are willing to restrict someone's freedom if it is in your best interest.
Are you trying to say that if most people want something that it is ok to take away a minorities freedom? But let's be honest....
Again, what about that guy with the eye sore in his front yard? Oh, that's right, we have the freedom to harass him til he leaves
Another example of why a seat belt law is good. We can agree that in many accidents, the people who wear their seat belts usually have minor injuries or walk away from the accident, and the people who don't suffer major injuries 60% of the time.
Now, an suv rolls over, everyone in the car was wearing their seat belts. EMT's spend about a half hour at the scene. Now another suv rolls over, but this time they were not wearing their seat belts. They are thrown from the vehicle and are in rough shape. Now this ambulance will spend anywhere from a half hour to an hour more at the scene than the accident where seat belts were worn. You see where I am going with this?
Now, you still won't believe that wearing a seat belt effects others, but that guy with the junk cars in his front yard is, weird
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Well duh - that's what I am doing. ^ (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/rolleyes.gif)
Well Duuuh!
Let me splain it to ya Luuucy.
We ain`t talking about Briish law here.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Well Duuuh!
Let me splain it to ya Luuucy.
We ain`t talking about Briish law here.
Erm... "seatbelts to be worn by vehicle occupants" - it's the exact same law, doofus.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Oh, you don't like that guy with the junk cars in his front yard? Seems there are some laws you like taking away freedom of choice. Wait, you won't write the law but harass the guy til he leaves? Hmmm, seems you are willing to restrict someone's freedom if it is in your best interest.
Having some neighbo(u)r pissed at you is not the same as having the government restrict your freedom.
-
Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African-Americans to live in society as free people. He embraced the worst forms of racism to justify slavery.
inferior? the man preferred to have sex with negro women, so much so he kept a slave as a concubine. maybe he was just a couple of centuries ahead of his time.
yeah, thomas was platform virtuous and bedroom savvy.
-
What he was was flawed as Ambrose suggests. Ambrose has a few flaws too, as do all of us.
Doesn't change the value of his observations on and contributions to a better form of government.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Erm... "seatbelts to be worn by vehicle occupants" - it's the exact same law, doofus.
And yet once again...........that is not what is being discussed here and nothing British is being discussed period. You claim to be quite happy with your laws anyway. At least that`s the front you are putting on.
As Toad said, I guess you can continue to pretend the subject matter is anything you wish.
-
Unless I have missed it in all the dribble drabble, those of the "privilege" booster club has yet to explain exactly where this mystical mountain is that The God Of Privileges resides.
It has always been my belief that most of what is being discussed here were rights not "privileges". The founders of our country pretty well laid them out as rights and that idea has been protected and fought for over many generations with many Americans believing so strongly in them that they gave their lives to protect them as such.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Oh, you don't like that guy with the junk cars in his front yard? Seems there are some laws you like taking away freedom of choice. Wait, you won't write the law but harass the guy til he leaves? Hmmm, seems you are willing to restrict someone's freedom if it is in your best interest.
Again, what about that guy with the eye sore in his front yard? Oh, that's right, we have the freedom to harass him til he leaves
Now, you still won't believe that wearing a seat belt effects others, but that guy with the junk cars in his front yard is, weird
Six, yer much happier hiding behind a bull**** law than you are dealing with the problem yourself, face to face. We don't need eyesore laws.. we need citizens with a set of testicles. We don't need seatbelt laws, we need citizens that can think for themselves and act accordingly.
You'd rather enact laws, hire a cop and hide behind his gun, badge and the bull**** 'feel good' laws you and yer fellow citified panzies put on the books to 'protect' people from themseleves. I'd rather own a gun and use common sense. I can protect myself, don't need a cop, a badge or bull**** laws to tell me when to buckle up or when to take action when my kids or property is threatened.
My way costs less, promotes small government with minimal intrusion into the affairs of free men. Yours costs billions and populates welfare rolls and prisons with folks that in MY society wouldn't make it past puberty alive with the attitudes that they consider 'kewl'.
Sleep tight, Six. The guy that YOU have to worry about ain't me. It's the guy your pussifed welfare and education programs created you gotta worry about. THAT'S the guy that's gonna take your car, rape yer kid and murder yer wife while you stand there helplessly waiting for the cop that may never come.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Six, yer much happier hiding behind a bull**** law than you are dealing with the problem yourself, face to face. We don't need eyesore laws.. we need citizens with a set of testicles.
So law and order is just a bunch of bull****, ok, I know where you stand.
You'd rather enact laws, hire a cop and hide behind his gun, badge and the bull**** 'feel good' laws you and yer fellow citified panzies put on the books to 'protect' people from themseleves.
Hmm, I don't remember saying one thing in this thread about protecting people from themselves, but if it makes you feel better to say it, that's ok
Sleep tight, Six. The guy that YOU have to worry about ain't me. It's the guy your pussifed welfare and education programs created you gotta worry about.
lol! You are losing an argument so you throw in welfare, brilliant!! You going to take your ball and go home now?
THAT'S the guy that's gonna take your car, rape yer kid and murder yer wife while you stand there helplessly waiting for the cop that may never come.
Why? I can't own a gun? And what does that have to do with a seat belt law? Oh, that's right, it's going to lead to government domination,lol, here ya go :noid
lol, wow, seems you have different opinions on freedom when the guy next door has a junkyard for a front lawn. Maybe you should paint that avatar grey
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
And yet once again...........that is not what is being discussed here and nothing British is being discussed period.
I'm discussing it - with Lazs amongst others. Good grief, you'll be telling me that "this is a US board" next.
You say that this thread is all about "freedom", "constitution" etc., and claim that the seatbelt issue was just being used as an example. Really - is that the best "example" that anyone could think of?
But... I've had an idea. I'll find a road safety/motoring enthusiasts' site in New Hampshire. I'll join it and run the same poll there that I'm running here. As of today, that one is running at 11-2 in favour of mandatory seatbelt usage. inferior? the man preferred to have sex with negro women, so much so he kept a slave as a concubine. maybe he was just a couple of centuries ahead of his time.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
I must say I'm tickled pink about these jefferson revelations. I used to have to lick the guy's behind myself when I lived over there. No, I don't mean it like that: His mug was on the airmail postage stamps! :p
-
The Jefferson postage issue was only available as a 'pre-licked' stamp.
pervert.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The Jefferson postage issue was only available as a 'pre-licked' stamp.
Well that would certainly explain the weird taste :D
-
Ok... beet... cut all the crap... you are saying that because they are friends of yours it is ok to restrict the freedom of millions in order to maybe save the lives of a few of your friends who wouldn't wear their seatbelts if you didn't make em? if they don't you would fine and jail em.... because you.... love em? You took away their freedom because you love them? They are like little children who don't know what is best for them so.... You make them?
six... so far as I know...yes you can carry a loaded gun into a mall in vermont...you used to be able to carry an unloaded one here in kalifornia used to be able to carry one on the seat...didn't used to have to wear a helmet or seatbelts or wear a life jacket to swim or boat or water ski... see where this is going? incramentalism...
The suv thing... I have no idea what you are talking about... maybe you mean that you have a shortage of emt's in your city? we don't. fire some of the seatbelt cops and hire emt's.
So far as the junk cars.. no problem so long as they are safe. If they are on all four wheels and can't be used by children to lock themselves in.... who cares? Just like they made people chain up refrigerators so kids wouldn't die in em. nothing wrong with that..
If the guys yard is all weed then you have a case... they will spread to the neigbors... causing harm...if he has horses or pigs... he will spred flies or smell.... causing harm. What is it that he does that you don't like?
Now... in Kalifornia we have a new law that makes it illegal in some places (more all the time) to swim without a life jacket on... We are talking grown up adults....I ask you DO YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING? or.. how much more will it take before you get it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The suv thing... I have no idea what you are talking about... maybe you mean that you have a shortage of emt's in your city? we don't. fire some of the seatbelt cops and hire emt's.
No, the longer those emt's are at a scene, they can't respond to another, but I guess that is not legit
So far as the junk cars.. no problem so long as they are safe. If they are on all four wheels and can't be used by children to lock themselves in.... who cares?
Well, some here do, but they would rather take the law into their own hands, hey, who needs the law if you are the law. If anyone is going to write a law, it's you! Unless you don't agree with hangtime anymore....flip flopper
And speaking of absolute freedom, are you not the one who thinks woman should not vote? Oh no, incramentalism!!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I'm discussing it
You and yourself, the both of you, have fun, but keep the noise down. The other patients are in finger painting class and should not be disturbed. :rofl
Good grief, you'll be telling me that "this is a US board" next.
You mean that has to be explained to you to?
-
what are you talking about? Where does it say that if I agree with hang on something that forever more I have to be his *****? but....
I have no problem with two adults decideing to fight and then having a fair fight tho.... nobodies business but theirs... probly we could make more progress on this whole thread if we could step into the ring like gentlemen.... you could further the cause of telling people what to do based on saving money and everyone else could take turns beating the crap out of you in the cause of making you mind your own business.
peer pressuer works... we give up peer pressure and let government do our work at our peril.
Look... if you don't have enough emergency personel then you are wasting tax money on something less important.... like seatbelt cops. really simple. heck... they spend more time cutting down the house around the 500 lb dead fat person but I don't see you fighting for fast food laws (you probly do on second thought).
lazs
-
oh... missed the women shouldn't vote thing.... you are getting desperate huh?
women deciding of issues of crime and security vs freedom is like cats trying to figure out the decimal system. or... like you trying to figure out freedom.... say...
you aren't a woman are you? I mean a real one not just a womanly man?
lazs
-
I'm starting to think there are no males in Massachusetts. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... beet... cut all the crap... you are saying that because they are friends of yours it is ok to restrict the freedom of millions in order to maybe save the lives of a few of your friends who wouldn't wear their seatbelts if you didn't make em? if they don't you would fine and jail em.... because you.... love em? You took away their freedom because you love them? They are like little children who don't know what is best for them so.... You make them?
I do not believe that wearing a seatbelt is a restriction of "freedom".
I have said before that I believe that about 80% of vehicle users would not bother to use belts unless there was some "encouragement" in the form of the threat of a fine. Kind of brings it into focus! No, I certainly wouldn't wish to see transgressors jailed. A modest fine every few years would be the only cost to them to exercise their "freedom" not to wear a belt.
I don't believe in allowing tens of thousands of lives to be wasted every year in the name of upholding "freedom". But you have made it abundantly clear that you are. I'm not talking about foreign wars here; you know what I'm talking about.
And... I don't believe it's nannying or creeping government. Like I said a few posts back, the British law was instigated by a registered charity - RoSPA. And... so far my poll shows people in favour of the seatbelt law by a margin of 12-3. And... it's clear that the legislators in 49/50 states agree, and... so do the New Hampshire police - and after all, they are US citizens, living under the constitution, one nation under Cod, blah blah blah blah...
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm starting to think there are no males in Massachusetts. ;)
there weren't many when I happily left there in 1979
-
I have no idea what you are talking about... maybe you mean that you have a shortage of emt's in your city? we don't. fire some of the seatbelt cops and hire emt's.
lazs [/B]
Now there is a truely workable idea.
How about what I refer to a the " grass
cops"? I think they could be replaced and the evil grass growing laws we could do without. I realize the evil grass growers have to be kept under control, :)
When we lived in the county seat my wife had surgery and was in the hospital.
We came home to a "grass length citation". Our grass was around 3 inches in height. The grass law claims anything over 6 inches and you`re busted. When the grass cop was called, we asked him just how he measured the grass. He stated that he had enough experience and knowledge of grass that he didn`t have to actualy measure it. He said he could tell from his car. I suggested a trip to the eye doctor might peak his performance. One half block down was a city owned lot. Grass was about knee deep. Across the street from it was another city owned lot, same thing. Drove by the "grass cops" house. Guess what? :) The citation was dropped.
How about the 'water hose cops" and the water hose laws? We really need them? My brother-in-law owned and entire block and the houses on it with the exception of one. He was redoing the house next door to his and had a hose ran over into the yard to mix and cleanup from painting. You guessed it. He got a water hose violation. The proposed fine was $600.00. Do we really need warer hose laws and hose cops?
What about the "destruction cops"? We really need them? A friend of mine was going to tear down a carport and build a new one. In rolls the destruction police and promptly wrote him a citation for destructing without a permit. Destruction permit $500.00. Construction permit $750.00 if I rmember correctly. Of course the construction permit was delayed in being issued for a couple of months due to the city staff was in a heated, intense battle over what type flowers would be put around the clubhouse of the city owned golf course. :)
How about them "beer drinking" cops that risk their lives every day keeping society safe from those who wish to have a cool one while sitting on their porch or patio? Do we really need laws and to pay officers to patrol in search of the evil beer drinkers? Many have been arrested and hauled in in this area for doing exactly that. The charge...public intoxication. I don`t remember voting on grass, hose and home beer drinking laws. Do you?
Do we really need paint scheme cops and laws? Do we really want to foot the bill for them? In some editions if you paint your house in a non-approved paint scheme, YOUR BUSTED. Don`t remember voting on that one either.
Was watching the news last night and there was a late, breaking story concerning the evil dirt bike riders (bicycles) that were about to come under the gun. The film rolled showing the true horror of this pack of 8 to 10 year old lawless rebels jumping hills, etc on their mountain bikes. THE SHEER HORROR! The story went on to say that officers had been hired and this lawless band of ruthless criminals were going to be stopped at any expense. This was in Dallas. :) Can anyone think of anything that this effort might be better used on in this city?
Nanny laws. THEY ROCK!
-
LOL!!! Grass cops? Water hose cops? We don't have anything like that!
Ah come on, jackal. Grass cops? That's got to be a wind up! :lol
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Ah come on, jackal. Grass cops? That's got to be a wind up! :lol
Nope. It`s the real deal allright. Any town or city larger than a gas station has "grass cops".
Nanny laws in action. Amazed aren`t ya? :)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I have said before that I believe that about 80% of vehicle users would not bother to use belts unless there was some "encouragement" in the form of the threat of a fine.... so far my poll shows people in favour of the seatbelt law by a margin of 12-3.
[/b]
Obviously, you should have the two questions at the same time.
1. Would you wear a seat belt even if there were no law?
and
2. Do you think there should be a law with a fine/punishement?
My hypothesis is that nearly everyone in your test group will say they would wear a belt even if there were no law.
I think you're 80% is off by about 75% overage.
And... it's clear that the legislators in 49/50 states agree, and... so do the New Hampshire police -
1. You're in favor or State legistlators being coerced by the Federal government?
2. Police Chiefs aren't princes here. Their opinion on this subject is no more valid than anyone else's.
-
Here is another nannyism for ya Beet.
My father-in-law has a covered carport on the end of his house. Beside of the carport, uncovered, next to the concrete driveway, is a rock and gravel driveway.
His wife drives a Mercedes that she likes to keep in the carport. He recently bought a new Pontiac for himself. He also owns a pickup. The rock and gravel driveway hasn`t been used for a while so the bermuda grass has crept up through it.
He parks his vehicle on the gravel/rock. Enter the high and mighty cop that determines where and when you can park your vehicle on YOUR property. No parking on the gravel/rock driveway beside the carport because it is now considered a "grassed" area.
He moved his pickup to the backyard which is surrounded in an eight foot, wooden privacy fence. Now there is no place, according to the powers that be that he can park one of the two remaining vehicles on HIS property. Quite a battle over this at the time.
My suggestion was to spray the gravel/rock area with Roudup to kill the grass that had crept up through it. Wrong!!! Since the issue had came under such close scrutiny he would then stand a pretty good chance of getting busted for using unauthorized chemicals.
The other alternatives are to either rerock the driveway or add on to the existing carport. There is a catch to that of course. You then have to file for and be issued a building permit to do either.
That`s right, another charge of $750.00 or so.
You getting the idea of what we are discussing now?
-
Preventing lawnmower accidents can save lives
"The temperatures are rising and everyone is getting ready to spend the summer outdoors. Mixed in with the fun and sun should be some safety precautions, especially if there are lawnmowers nearby.
Shriners Hospitals for Children treat a number of children each year who have been seriously injured as a result of power lawnmower incidents. Many of these incidents result in the loss of fingers, toes, limbs and even eyes. Tragically, some lawnmower accidents can result in permanent brain damage or even death. In 2001, about 275,000 people were treated in hospital emergency rooms for injuries related to lawn and garden tools, and about 35,000 of those injured were under 15 years of age.
According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, each year about 75 people are killed and about 20,000 are injured on or near riding lawnmowers and garden tractors. One out of every five deaths involves a child. The commission estimates that most of the deaths occur when a child is in the path of a moving mower. Although tragic, these unfortunate situations could have been avoided, if adults had taken the proper precautions.
To prevent injuries to children and adults from lawnmowers, please follow these safety tips from Shriners Hospitals and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: "
-------------------------------------------------
These were figures from 2001. They have surely risen since then.
275,000 injuries! Who are paying for these hospital bills? The funeral expenses?
Surely, based on what we have seen expressed in this thread by some, we must act on this immediately. I think a total Nanny ban of these horrendous machines must be passed a.s.a.p.
At the very least we should pass a mandatory law requiring a suit of armor to be worn at all times while mowing the lawn. We certainly can`t carry the expense of such proportions as these.
-
Six and Beet are 'stuck on stupid'. They don't get it. Never will.
Great examples of the nanny state in action, Jackal !
-
These figures from 1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Accident Statistics
The following list of items found in and around the home was selected from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) for 1995. The NEISS estimates are calculated from a statistically representative sample of hospitals in the United States. Injury totals represent estimates of the number of hospital emergency room-treated cases nationwide associated with various products; however, product involvement may or may not be the cause of the accident.
PRODUCTS TOTAL NUMBER OF INJURIES
Misc. Workshop Equipment
46,407
Power Home Tools (except saws)
31,742
Workshop Manual Tools
125,780
Small Kitchen Appliances
43,453
Glass Doors & Window Panels
216,193
Cooking Ranges & Ovens
53,401
Irons & Clothes Steamers
17,266
Miscellaneous Household Appliances
34,941
Washers & Dryers
22,590
Fans (except Stove Exhaust)
17,050
Heating Stoves & Space Heaters
37,805
Television Sets & Stands
42,000
Razors, Shavers & Razor Blades
43,365
Sewing Equipment
29,814
Chain Saws
38,692
Hatchets & Axes
16,760
Lawn & Garden Care Equipment
51,324
Lawn Mowers (All Types)
85,202
Trimmers & Small Power Garden Tools
14,635
BBQ Grills, Stoves & Related Equipment
16,087
Washers and Dryers
22,590
Exercise Equipment
95,127
*This is just a partial table of products which have injured thousands and thousands of people. There are many more categories/injuries which are no t listed here. Information was provided by the National Safety Council, as listed in the 1995 Edition of Accident Facts.
---------------------------------------------------
I think you can see we have some serious issues here to deal with.
The most glaring examples would be workshop manual tools and glass doors and window panels. Who is paying these medical bills?
If what has been used as backing supporting other nanny laws in this thread, then we should surely call for an immediate outlawing of workshop manual tools. An emergency should be declared and all windows and glass doors should be removed from homes in the U.S. This certainly should be a mandatory law. We cannot continue the cost of medical bills to support these careless people using such clearly dangerous items such as tools and glass. Can we?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Obviously, you should have the two questions at the same time.
1. Would you wear a seat belt even if there were no law?
and
2. Do you think there should be a law with a fine/punishement?
If you want to run that poll, there's nothing to stop you from registering and doing just that. Email me and I'll send you the URL.
It is true, the board consists almost entirely of driving enthusiasts, ie. not people who dislike driving and view it as a means to an end. However, one of the 3 naysayers in my poll so far was Skuzzy's counterpart - the board moderator himself. My hypothesis is that nearly everyone in your test group will say they would wear a belt even if there were no law. I think you're 80% is off by about 75% overage.
In this particular group, it's a possibility, because they're probably not a representative sample of the motoring public at large. But before there was a law, only about 10% of the British motoring public as a whole used belts.
The real purpose of the poll I'm doing is not to find out who would wear belts even if there was no law, but to discover whether the people on that board regard the seat belt law as a nannying issue. 1. You're in favor or State legistlators being coerced by the Federal government?
Couldn't give a fork. I don't live there or pay taxes there. 2. Police Chiefs aren't princes here. Their opinion on this subject is no more valid than anyone else's.
I know that - but they still have an opinion, which is as valid as yours or jackal's or Lazs's.
Jackal! - thanks for that info. Unbelievable! :eek: I had no idea!
Now, I should get out with my secateurs and prune one of the shrubs outside my front door - just in case the shrub police are on patrol. :rofl
-
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) for 1995.
:D Just thought I would bring this gem out.
This being from 1995 NEISS reports, I wonder if the NEFSS has been implemented as of now. (National Electronic Flatuation Surveillance System)
Methane poisining must be dealt with now. Frijoles surely must be outalwed. We can`t afford the expense. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm starting to think there are no males in Massachusetts. ;)
Well, us women spanked the chiefs last year :p
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, us women spanked the chiefs last year :p
Hiring men from out of state does not count. Tom Brady is from California.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Hiring men from out of state does not count. Tom Brady is from California.
California, same thing
-
if 80% of the brits on beets poll think seatbelts are a good thing then by all means... they should wear em... I would never stop em... I even agree that it is a good idea. If the 20% figure that it is their choice.... well... they are correct... it should be their choice..
As far as accidents go... I have never seen the emergency personel leave before the ambulance get's there in any case so all wrecks take the same amount of time for them.
But, like I said... if we use financial harm as a rule then everything on jackals list would be banned or heavily regulated.... plus... swimming..
You never did say how you liked the lifejackets for swimming law in kalifornia sixpense? you agree with that one?
If that is good... then you are gonna love the safety harness requirement for all new tub/shower stalls sold in kalifornia law they are considering.... naaa.... none of that stuff is costing us money is it?
I would even bet that if we did away with crumple zones the money we saved on car repairs would more than equal the extra medical for not having em.... and air bag going off can cost between $1500-$10,000
at any rate.... I think that six and beet are making my point for me.... the point of the whole origin of this thread...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
if 80% of the brits on beets poll think seatbelts are a good thing then by all means... they should wear em... I would never stop em... I even agree that it is a good idea. If the 20% figure that it is their choice.... well... they are correct... it should be their choice..
No, that's not quite what the poll is about. It is possible for someone to believe in seatbelts but not to believe their use should be mandatory.
My poll is purely to ascertain whether the subscribers to that board feel that making them mandatory is a good thing, or whether that's a case of nannying.
-
not sure I understand... are you saying that 80% think it is good idea to lose the freedom of choice if it saves the lives of people who.... who what? don't wish for you to tell them what to do? or.. who are grateful because without a law to make em they would not do anything to assure their own safety?
or.... perhaps the 80% are doing it out of financial reasoning? they believe that the carnage is costing them money and that is enough reason to take away choice?
So... did all your taxes (commie medicine) and insurance (auto) go down since the seat belt laws?
Perhaps if it is the money you should ask em if they would be in favor of banning motorcycles to save a buck? or....to save their ignorant and foolish friends?
How would helmets and nomex go over with em?
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The real purpose of the poll I'm doing is not to find out who would wear belts even if there was no law, but to discover whether the people on that board regard the seat belt law as a nannying issue.
[/b]
Nah, I don't think I'll bother. I'm not the kind of person that could actually pretend that such a poll of 7 seven actual people represents anything at all.
Perhaps the real purpose of the poll is to gather meaningless data from a limited sample in the hope that you can then post here pretending it means something and then have some dolt believe it does.
I know that - but they still have an opinion, which is as valid as yours or jackal's or Lazs's.
[/b]
Yes... as valid as say... the New Hampshire one-armed Lumberjack Association. But if it makes you feel you've made some sort of point because they are police chiefs... well..... :rofl
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, us women spanked the chiefs last year :p
What position do you play for the Pats?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nah, I don't think I'll bother. I'm not the kind of person that could actually pretend that such a poll of 7 seven actual people represents anything at all.
Perhaps the real purpose of the poll is to gather meaningless data from a limited sample in the hope that you can then post here pretending it means something and then have some dolt believe it does.
It's not 7, that was yesterday. It's now 12. Like I said, the poll will run for 7 days. I'm not the kind of person that could actually pretend that such a poll that's only been running a few hours represents anything at all.
However, you can pretend that this thread is all about knickerwettingly important issues like freedom/rights/constitution, over which wars have been fought, because there are 4 people in the same thread who would agree with you. :rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
not sure I understand... are you saying that 80% think it is good idea to lose the freedom of choice if it saves the lives of people
Yes. And given that it's such a high proportion, that indicates that the hardship/inconvenience of the seatbelt law is not that great.
But that's tonight's figure. Let's wait to see the final result. According to what the result is and whether that's what you'd like it to be, you and Toad will be able to judge whether the poll was valid or not. :lol
-
I'm not drawing absolute conclusions from the thread as you are trying to do from the poll.
Big difference.
Nor am I suprised that you cannot see the linkage between governmental coercion and loss of freedom.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not drawing absolute conclusions from the thread as you are trying to do from the poll.
Big difference.
Oh don't be ridiculous. I am not trying to draw any conclusions from the poll yet. For one thing, it's a 7-day poll which hasn't even completed Day2 yet. The pic was when it was only a few hours old. And when it's complete, I/we will be able to interpret the results, along with the BBS posts that have been added alongside the actual votes. Nor am I suprised that you cannot see the linkage between governmental coercion and loss of freedom.
Erm... are we going "off topic" again by talking about the seatbelt law? In Britain's case, the seatbelt law was not driven by government, but by a registered charity which concerns itself with the prevention of accidents.
Seems like the "government coercion" is something that's happening in the US, as we do not have any "Feds" here. Sorry to hear that. I still don't know whether to take jackal's account of the grass cops seriously, or whether he's pulling my pisser.
But, according to jackal, with all that power and "freedom" you have over there, you are able to change the things you don't like. :aok
Hehe, it's funny that we are the country cited as the ones who lay prostrate at our government's feet... - so it's even funnier that we are not the country that has grass cops/hosepipe cops. :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
What position do you play for the Pats?
The most important position of all....tailgater. Most bring a grill, I bring da smoka, I rule
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Oh don't be ridiculous. I am not trying to draw any conclusions from the poll yet.
[/b]
What would be ridiculous would be someone trying to draw any conclusions at any time from such limited sample from an biased population/site.
Seems like the "government coercion" is something that's happening in the US, as we do not have any "Feds" here.
Yes, we do have it here. Which is probably why you haven't really sorted out just what is being discussed here. Jabber on about seatbelts though as if you knew what was really being discussed. Hint: the concept is far larger than a single law.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What would be ridiculous would be someone trying to draw any conclusions at any time from such limited sample from an biased population/site.
How do you know it's biased? You don't even know what the site is, which makes you sound... biased.
-
seatbelt laws save OTHER peoples lives therefore they are good. They keep you behind the wheel and in control often enough to save many lives (other lives besides yourself). On the other hand, helmet laws should be repealed...
I can't abide laws that infringe on my liberty "for my own good"...such as the war on drugs. It's really a war on Americans that use drugs. Or prostitution and gambling - victimless crimes. Next thing you know they'll arrest me for my thoughts! oh, wait...they already do that with hate crime laws.
Magoo
-
Originally posted by beet1e
In Britain's case, the seatbelt law was not driven by government, but by a registered charity which concerns itself with the prevention of accidents.
I have seen you use this a few times here. I am getting sort of curious. Are you saying that a registered charity, (whatever that truly means), singlehandedly put a law on the books? Is that what you are saying? The people and the government had nothing to do with it at all?
I`m serious here, so don`t take it as a flame. I know how sensitive you are. :)
I still don't know whether to take jackal's account of the grass cops seriously, or whether he's pulling my pisser.
Would someone please verify the "grass cops" for me? I can`t believe that you spent time here beet and don`t believe what I am telling you is fact.
I am also serious about the paint scheme laws, water hose restrictions, the gravel/rock/grass deal.
Seems like the "government coercion" is something that's happening in the US
Did the bright light hurt your eyes when it became clear what we are discussing here? You are absolutely , 100% correct. (man that really hurt :) )
I think you are finaly admiting that you are at least beginning to understand what is being discussed here.
But, according to jackal, with all that power and "freedom" you have over there, you are able to change the things you don't like.
Exactly! You may also remember that I said that as of late the natives are getting restless. In other words , it has clearly went too far. Even some of the "don`t rock my boat" crowd are getting the picture. Why? Because their heads have been yanked out of the sand and certain body orfices where it is dark. Their boat has been rocked. They are realizing that they have been lulled into a false sense of secutiy.
I think changes are getting pretty imminent. The ones that are willing to stand up, I beleive, are about to stand up.
Your polls?? What do they mean? I don`t doubt that you are going to get a majority that participates who say everything is peachy creamy and that`s what they want. They are the "don`t rock my boat" crowd looking for a way to justify their bending over. When and if the time comes, what good are they? None. They won`t stand up when their personal rights are being taken away and they are certainly not going to get involved in anything they might appear to come out on the losing end of. In essence your majority has became the minority simply because they will not get involved NO MATTER WHAT.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It is possible for someone to believe in seatbelts but not to believe their use should be mandatory.
I believe in seat belts... I have seen and touched them. I have gathered concrete, verifiable proof of their existance.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
How do you know it's biased? You don't even know what the site is, which makes you sound... biased.
Previous Post:
Originally posted by beet1e
I decided to run my own poll on a British road safety and general motoring BBS
[/b]
Originally posted by beet1e
the British law was instigated by a registered charity - RoSPA
[/b]
RoSPA = Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
So let's see... you poll a British Road Safety BBS about a law touted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
Yah.... right. Not a biased poll. :rofl
Your protest makes you sound.... not completely honest. (putting it gently)
-
Two of many. Various cities, various height regulations.
Grass rules crop up again (http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/aug/09blight.htm)
Cities monitor grass growth (http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0306/17/c01-193781.htm)
-
Originally posted by Spongebob
Or prostitution and gambling - victimless crimes.
Well, not really, your whole community is a victim. Both bring a criminal element, your crime rate will go up.
-
Unless you live in Nevada.
Wonder what the property value price increase percentage over the last 20 years in Reno and Vegas looks like in comparison to suburban bean town?
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Toad
What he was was flawed as Ambrose suggests. Ambrose has a few flaws too, as do all of us.
Doesn't change the value of his observations on and contributions to a better form of government.
flawed...that's being generous.
i'd think he was more of a 'hypocrite', the guy publicly denounced others for owning slaves, but he himself lived and died a slave owner. above that he fathered how many kids from sally, his inferior negro sex slave, six?
better form of govn't, well he did deny others the freedom of choice in order to secure his own.
-
Best advice I ever got about drinking was from an alcoholic.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Unless you live in Nevada.
Wonder what the property value price increase percentage over the last 20 years in Reno and Vegas looks like in comparison to suburban bean town?
We do have something like that in bean town, it's called the combat zone, and it is ripe with crime. Now do the towns in the suburbs allow such a place, lol, hell no. We have one of if not the highest cost of living in the country, maybe you didn't compare before you posted.
What denial that it doesn't bring riff raff? Careful where you go in Atlantic city, or new orleans, or las vegas for that matter
If you want prostitution and gambling in your town, that's fine, but you will get a higher crime rate.
-
Originally posted by Spongebob
seatbelt laws save OTHER peoples lives therefore they are good.
YES... and one day, the life that's saved could be mine - or yours.
Jackal!!! I have seen you use this a few times here. I am getting sort of curious. Are you saying that a registered charity, (whatever that truly means), singlehandedly put a law on the books? Is that what you are saying? The people and the government had nothing to do with it at all?
I'm saying that RoSPA was behind the original law, and yes - RoSPA is a registered charity. Click here (http://www.rospa.com/news/releases/2003/pr204_30_01_03_road.htm ) for source.
Thousands of motorists who have survived crashes because of the seatbelt law introduced 20 years ago this week can thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents they are alive. It was RoSPA that was behind the original law...
Did the bright light hurt your eyes when it became clear what we are discussing here?
Too right it did!!! I'm still seing an after image of green stars!!! After all your rhetoric about being the land of the free, of having guns so that you can sort out your govt if it starts acting up, of being able to change things you don't like - all the while taunting Britain/the rest of the world that we have no choice but to "bend over" because we're mere "subjects" of the queen... and then it transpires that you have "grass cops"!!! ROFL - I was flat on my back for the next 2 hours! I've just read Toad's grass cops link.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
Your polls?? What do they mean? I don`t doubt that you are going to get a majority that participates who say everything is peachy creamy and that`s what they want. They are the "don`t rock my boat" crowd looking for a way to justify their bending over. When and if the time comes, what good are they? None. They won`t stand up when their personal rights are being taken away and they are certainly not going to get involved in anything they might appear to come out on the losing end of. In essence your majority has became the minority simply because they will not get involved NO MATTER WHAT.
LOL - you, sir, are absolutely flat out dead WRONG. I am a member of the Association of British Drivers, though it was not on their website that I posted my poll, but another, similar one. Much of the campaign work is against the government's speed camera policy of using high tech cameras to trap motorists and collect millions in fines.
On the 30th April, a massive protest was held on the M4 motorway - a go slow to draw attention to the cause. It was a significant success in the campaign against speed cameras. Read about it : http://www.m4protest.org
There's more: http://www.abd.org.uk/local/wiltshire.htmA huge protest was held on Saturday 30th April in which some 400 vehicles drove slowly along the M4 between junctions 14 and 17. They were supported by many more people standing on bridges over the motorway.
And read about this campaign: http://www.jbaird.org.uk/abd/paul-release56.html If you'll follow that link, you'll find that the campaign had this result: In a landmark case in Salisbury Magistrates court today 28 motorists had speeding cases dismissed because the temporary speed limit signs had not been displayed properly. An estimated 5,000 more motorists have paid their fine and are entitled to refunds and compensation.
I told you I always substantiated what I said with links/facts, but nooooooo - you didn't believe me. :lol You imply that my poll is worthless, which of course it is to a closed mind like yours. Your mind is already made up - and you wouldn't like the FACTS to get in the way now would you? You've got it stuck in your blinkered mind that Britain is a nation of people who "won`t stand up when their personal rights are being taken away and they are certainly not going to get involved in anything they might appear to come out on the losing end of" And you are of course wrong. Refer to the FACTS ^
Face it, Jackal. You don't know me, you don't know Britain. You have no business pumping out your falsehoods about Britain. You've never been here, and yet you spout rhetoric which at best is decades out of date.
Stick to doing what you do best, and know something about - like mowing the lawn. :lol I bet you have one of those rotary mowers with a recoil pull-start - I can just see you, having to "bend over" to reach it when the grass cops tell you it's time to mow your lawn! :rofl
Mr. Toad! Ah, how refreshing to be talking to someone who at least appreciates the FACTS. :);) I've covered a lot of ground in my reply to jackal, but you did say this: So let's see... you poll a British Road Safety BBS about a law touted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
The BBS I polled could more accurately be described as a campaign group standing up for the rights of motorists. We believe in road safety, but we also believe that road safety is an issue affected by many factors, of which speed is only one. There are several other sites that exist to target government policy. This government uses as its yardstick of success the fact that millions of £ are being collected in fines by trapping unsuspecting motorists by the use of speed cameras. We believe that there is more to road safety than simply the issue of speed.
As for the poll itself, once again, it was not about the seatbelt law itself. Everyone knows that the result of that law has been a huge reduction in RTA fatalities. No, my poll was to ask people if they felt the law was a nannying issue. Current poll status 14-5 in favour of the law, but with 175 having browsed the thread. That lends some weight to what I said earlier - a great many people (80%?) don't feel strongly one way or another, and probably wouldn't bother to wear a seatbelt, but could be encouraged to if the law says you must. :aok
-
spongebob... I do not believe that many people are killed or even inured (or ever were) because of someone losing control in a wreck because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt... Now Airbags... people are knocked senseless and the wheel is allmost impossible to turn (especially if the bags broke your fingers on deployment) and they obstruct and "distract"... they are very dangerous..
Beet... why am I not surprised that you would conduct such a dishonest poll to get the results you want? You are asking the very people who probly lobbied for the law if they think it is a good idea or not for them to have the power to meddle in other peoples lives? these are far from a sample portion of your country.
I have been in one wreck when I was driving without a belt... it was long ago in a 57 chevy with no airbags or crumple zones or even padded dash... wife and child were in the car and they had no belts either.... I hit a station wagon at about 40 that had run a red light after the driver had been drinking all day at the "club"..
neither I nor my family was injured.
I wear seat belts in my Hot Rods (lap belts) because I may at any time feel like living on the edge of traction at high speed... I do not wear em in late model boring cars... I don't talk on the phone or sleep or daydream... I watch the mirrors and leave room and stay aware of what is going on around me... my biggest fear is that I will get hit from behind while stopped with no where to go.
I see people driving cars in the rain at ninety with tires as wide as my forearm and a cell phone stuck in one ear.... If we have to design cars to save those imbiciles then I don't want to participate..
Laws made to save those people at my expense (of freedom) are simply bad laws.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Beet... why am I not surprised that you would conduct such a dishonest poll to get the results you want? You are asking the very people who probly lobbied for the law if they think it is a good idea or not for them to have the power to meddle in other peoples lives? these are far from a sample portion of your country.
lazs
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by Torque
i'd think he was more of a 'hypocrite',
You can attempt to trash Jefferson all you like. He was a racist. Like so many, if not all of those in power during his lifetime. Like the Bishop of Exeter for instance.
He was also a political genius; a primary force in the establishment of a successful free government unlike any that went before it.
His legacy is immense, not just to the US but to the world.
Again:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Those words, as the historian Samuel Eliot Morison has said, "are more revolutionary than anything written by Robespierre, Marx, or Lenin, a continual challenge to ourselves, as well as an inspiration to the oppressed of all the world."
And as a primary force in establishing a government that followed that statement, he also provided for amendments, like the XIII.
Still, we realize that Jefferson is unworthy of any honor. Very few, if any achieve the perfection and impact on humanity that you have achieved, for instance.
-
Beetle, without quoting the wall of text........I thought you were beginning to admit you are understanding what we are talking about here, but you wish to argue and make cool remarks. Fine with me. I can dig it. :)
Protesting and driving slow are a tad different than what I was refering to. The proverbial crap hits the fan and the slow drivers and tulip wavers will be nowhere to be seen. I know protests are the hip, in thing to do............for entertainment. Past that, if it gets deep , everyone takes their posters and beads and goes to hide in the closet. Maybe you could check Sheehan`s schedule. She will probably start hiring out for protests and sit ins. :)
You don't know me, you don't know Britain. You have no business pumping out your falsehoods about Britain. You've never been here, and yet you spout rhetoric which at best is decades out of date.
Nor do I have the desire to do either. Our ancestors kicked your butts for that very reason. It was all about geting out of there, not going there. I`ll just wait for a dreary day and run out to a little island here on the lake and pretend I`m there if I get the uncontrollable urge. Nothing there, but a few old grouchy birds that make noise, so it should be a pretty close comparison. :)
You have been here , yet you spout what you know is incorrect.
YES... and one day, the life that's saved could be mine - or yours.
....Or, it could possibly be the very thing that kills you or me. Such was the case of the friend I was talking about a few months ago who was killed in a wreck. It`s a roll of the dice either way.
I'm saying that RoSPA was behind the original law, and yes - RoSPA is a registered charity. Click here for source.
Yea, I know that`s what you are saying and the link story says the same thing.
So...they take credit for coming up with the idea, but had no control over whether it became law or not. Who put the law in place?
I bet you have one of those rotary mowers with a recoil pull-start - I can just see you, having to "bend over" to reach it when the grass cops tell you it's time to mow your lawn!
LOL
You don`t pay very close attention. I don`t live in that fair town anymore. It was a short stay. I don`t care for the BS that goes on in towns/ cities.
Where I am now, since you haven`t figured it out yet, I don`t have to worry much about anyone telling me what I can or cannot do. I`m pretty much in charge of mine and a pretty big surrouding area. The folks around here sort of like to know that was me that was rolling down their street at 2 or 4:00 A.M. in the morning. A lot of them has really appreciated getting their belongings back after burgalries, etc. :)
You figure it out hotshot. :rofl
-
so far as Jefferson being a racist...
Not to his way of thinking. the term hadn't even been invented (and probly never should have).
Like most people of his time, the vast majority... he felt that coloreds were not really people.
If he felt that they were people then he would have included them too... He was wrong about that. but then.. so was nearly everyone else.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Beet... why am I not surprised that you would conduct such a dishonest poll to get the results you want? You are asking the very people who probly lobbied for the law if they think it is a good idea or not for them to have the power to meddle in other peoples lives? these are far from a sample portion of your country.
No Lazs, you're completely wrong in what you said. The board where I placed the poll has nothing to do with the charity RoSPA, which instigated the 1983 seatbelt law. The organisation running the BBS where I put my poll has only existed since 2001. So no, they are not "the very people who probly lobbied for the law".
And it is not a dishonest poll. What is dishonest about it? I asked a single question: Should seatbelt use be mandatory, or left for people to choose?
What could be dishonest about that? -apart from the fact that in your book that would be TWO questions - LOL. None of the 9 people who left a reply, the 20 people who actually voted, or the 186 people who browsed the thread has written to me to tell me that the poll was "dishonest". If you're suggesting that where I placed the poll makes it dishonest because that particular website draws a particular type of person, all I can say is that the same thing applies to ANY website/BBS. Eg., the AH BBS attracts people with an interest in war/weaponry; the site where I put my poll attracts people concerned with motoring issues... Without knowing exactly what issues the site is concerned with, you are not fully qualified to comment on the "honesty" of the poll.
Jackal - sorry the post was so long. It's length was in direct proportion to the amount of your bullshirt.
So what are you now - did you progress from being truck driver to local sheriff? :D
-
It's dishonest in the same way as going to a Vegan board and polling them about a law prohibiting the eating of meat would be dishonest.
-
why not take a poll here?
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's dishonest in the same way as going to a Vegan board and polling them about a law prohibiting the eating of meat would be dishonest.
See my above post ^ The BBS hosting my poll is in no way connected with RoSPA, which instigated the seatbelt law. What site (or type of site) would you suggest? And... if the poll results were the other way round, I bet you wouldn't be telling me that the poll was "dishonest".
Godzilla - the AH BBS no longer supports polls.
-
No, it is by your own labeling a "British road safety and general motoring BBS".
Try asking a milk drinkers board if they think the government should pass a law specifying producers provide clean milk.
-
or, why not just take a poll here. Many more people would respond here beetle, my friend.
-
Im probably late in chiming in here but out of all the laws..the seatbelt has to be one of the better ones. Motorcycle helmet and eye protection are also good laws. If a guy dumps his bike because a bee flew into his eye, and wasnt wearing his helmet, hes likely to sustain possible head injury. If he survives hes likely to need alot of care and rehabilitation. Those things cost alot of money, and alot of guys I know who ride bike couldnt afford it. Then what? State aid?
As far as firearms go, its a touchy subject. Most guys want hunting rifles, shotguns,handguns, but some want to play with 50 cal MGs. Frankly to me its like abortion. I dont see where I have a right to tell a guy he cant have a certain weapon. That said...if he ever went postal, I believe the victim's survivors should be allowed to do with him whatever they want.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, it is by your own labeling a "British road safety and general motoring BBS".
Try asking a milk drinkers board if they think the government should pass a law specifying producers provide clean milk.
Come on, Toad. Don't be obtuse. You know what that site is all about - and a large part of its purpose is to oppose the government's speed camera policy. I think you're just looking for ways to link "road safety" with "pro seatbelt law". As previously stated ^ the very moderator of that site is opposed to the seatbelt law - or didn't you notice that? You're adequately capable of reasoned debate, without resorting to the "Ameritard" goal line defence.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Im probably late in chiming in here but out of all the laws..the seatbelt has to be one of the better ones. Motorcycle helmet and eye protection are also good laws. .
Whey-hey! And from New Hampshire, no less!! :aok:aok:aok
I've driven through NH c1988 - stayed at Gorham - loved the state. Vermont too.
-
Helmet laws and seatbelt laws have nothing to do with ensuring your safety or reducing health care costs.
Would more people die in accidents if they did not wear a helmet or a seatbelt? Dieing is probably cheaper for society.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Helmet laws and seatbelt laws have nothing to do with ensuring your safety
Bollocks. The facts are there for all to see. Would more people die in accidents if they did not wear a helmet or a seatbelt?
Yes.
-
Then if more people died rather than survived, wouldn't it be less expensive?
-
Beet, it's the equivalent of asking if BBS members at Handgun Control think that the government should pass another law restricting guns.
It's not any sort of random sample. You poll is meaningless.
-
Princess Dianna would probably be alive today is she had been wearing proper protection.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Beet, it's the equivalent of asking if BBS members at Handgun Control think that the government should pass another law restricting guns.
It's not any sort of random sample. You poll is meaningless.
Only because it won't yield the result you'd like it to yield. :lol
OK, you tell me the sort of BBS on which I should post my poll to reveal a "meaningful" result. Maybe on the Home Counties crochet and flower arranging club website??? Oh, and by the way - for the third time - my poll was not whether the seat belt law has been a success (it clearly has been) but asked the respondent his/her opinion on the nannying aspect of the law.
-
Beetle, just take a poll here.
-
A poll with nine responces is not something I'd consider as meaningful in the least.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Beetle, just take a poll here.
Why don't you do it yourself?
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
A poll with nine responces is not something I'd consider as meaningful in the least.
It's not over yet, dolt! It has 5 days to run.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Only because it won't yield the result you'd like it to yield. :lol
Hardly. I don't care what it yields. You're drawing answers from a biased population. You're asking people who are drawn to a "road safety" bbs if they think government mandated seatbelt wearing is "nannying".
As I said, it's like asking Handgun Control BBS posters if they think the assault weapons ban was "nannying".
Of course they won't. Those folks willingly give the government power over themselves for a bit of perceived safety.
It's why they joined Handgun Control.
It'd be like me going to an NRA board and asking them if they think the assault weapons ban is "nannying". You wouldn't have any problem with that result, I'm sure. :rofl
-
LOL Mr. Toad!
Look, I don't have any agenda. I think you know this. I'm not looking to skew the results - I just want to know how people feel about the nannying aspect of the seatbelt law. If you don't think I can obtain an objective assessment on the site where I've posted it, then can YOU suggest a website impartial to the seatbelt issue???
-
For any hope of objectivity I suspect it would have to be a random sample of a significant number of people.
Sort of like they do on Presidential political polls.
~25 folks on a "Road Safety" board isn't objective... that's for sure.
-
Originally posted by Toad
For any hope of objectivity I suspect it would have to be a random sample of a significant number of people.
So do you agree that rules out ANY BBS?
~25 folks on a "Road Safety" board isn't objective... that's for sure.
the poll is only in Day 3 - it won't be finished for another 5 days.
So what poll WOULD you feel is accurate? Can you think of a site that would match your own views and therefore yield the "correct" result - the result you would approve of? Because your response so far has been the Jackal-style "Ameritard" kneejerk response. - Deny everything, unless it's the result you WANT. LOL - even Jacques Chirac could not have done better with the EU constitution. :lol
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Jackal - sorry the post was so long. It's length was in direct proportion to the amount of your bullshirt.
There is one thing you know Beetle and that`s BS. You thrive on it.
So what are you now - did you progress from being truck driver to local sheriff?
Phfffffffffftttttttttt. If I was I would put myself out of my misery now. The sheriff of this county is a POS and so are the majority of the county cops. It`s truly a shame too. Texas, as a whole has some of the best law enforcement anywhere, bar none.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Because your response so far has been the Jackal-style "Ameritard" kneejerk response. - Deny everything, unless it's the result you WANT. l
ROFLMAO
If the dress fits, wear it Suzy.
Don`t know exactly what your problem is with me with the exception I disagree with your loads of crap. And........yea you have a lot of them directed towards the U.S. You are more and more taking the placeof Skytard.What you expect? Someone to come around from the U.S. praising you while you are beating ivorys? You are damn sure looking in the wrong place with me.
And as far as your poll goes......that`s truly laughable that you thought anyone to be stupid enough to buy off into a marked friggin deck.
Polls/Smolls anyway. As I`ve said before, Most of the polls I have seen usualy turn out with the results that the poll takers are looking for. Totaly meaningless.
Get a grip cupcake.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You can attempt to trash Jefferson all you like. He was a racist. Like so many, if not all of those in power during his lifetime. Like the Bishop of Exeter for instance.
He was also a political genius; a primary force in the establishment of a successful free government unlike any that went before it.
His legacy is immense, not just to the US but to the world.
Again:
And as a primary force in establishing a government that followed that statement, he also provided for amendments, like the XIII.
Still, we realize that Jefferson is unworthy of any honor. Very few, if any achieve the perfection and impact on humanity that you have achieved, for instance.
if recalling history is trashing the man, than enough said. as for this original system of govn't, he drew much inspiration ( if not plagiarized ) the First Nation's form of democracy, the oldest living participatory democracy at the time, which had a influence in europe well before any other.
a racist, that would make sense if he had not yet come to moral grips with slavery, but it would seem he and all of the classic founders from washington, adams, hamilton, madison and jefferson bemoaned the moral injustice of slavery.
they never fought against it not because of racism, but because in order to build a coalition capable of revolting against their masters (the brits) they needed every state on board, including southern states who would only have joined the cause on the condition that slavery not be touched. so their genuis was their hypocrisy.
all the fanfare aside, it was a group of predominately wealthy slave owners mimicking another people's democracy and trading anothers people's freedom for their own, much like what the govn't does today but with corporations instead.
well, i set my pet rock free when i was a kid.
-
Yah.. right.. like you're only recalling history and not trying to dis him and, by extension, the US at all.
Gotcha.
And it's not only the classic founders... it's about every caucasian with power and/or money in all the "civilized" countries of that time.
Toss all the darts you like; I'm pretty comfortable with the Founders and what they started, especially when viewed relative to the time they did it.
-
Mayhaps we take for granted too much.
In 1775 every single nation on earth was ruled by Kings... if it was Ruled at all. The 'first nation' as you so aptly describe it had been dead for 2,500 years.. wiped out by a Kingdom that had arms after the corrupted 'democracy' outlawed their own 'militia' and confiscated it's weapons.
These great men.. these 'plagerists' as you so blythely demean them, set in motion the most incredible chain of events heretofre seen in history.. a democracy where the people hold the power. No nation before had guarenteed to it's citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
Had it not been for these 'Plagerists', every country that was ruled by a king in 1775 would probably still be ruled by a King today.
-
Hang, he's referring to the Iroquois Confederacy...the "Six Nations" or the "First Nations" as some call it.
-
Regarding Jefferson's thought on race, he wrote this letter to Henri Gregoire, a French Bishop and an advocate of racial equality
SIR, -- I have received the favor of your letter of August 17th, and with it the volume you were so kind as to send me on the "Literature of Negroes." Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making towards their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men, which cannot fail to have effect in hastening the day of their relief; and to be assured of the sentiments of high and just esteem and consideration which I tender to yourself with all sincerity.
It seems in this subject too, TJ was quite enlightened considering his era and circumstance.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Most of the polls I have seen usualy turn out with the results that the poll takers are looking for. Totaly meaningless.
Polls are only any use when the results are posted and then analysed with an open mind, so I can see why you feel that they're meaningless.
I didn't "want" any particular result; I am not running the poll in order to trumpet the results here. But, having said that, it's now 17-6. Maybe the poll forum is not as biased as you and a couple of others would like to think?
If I had a lawn mower, I'd attach a rear view mirror to the handlebars. That way I could see when I was about to get pulled over by the "grass cops"!
LOL - I still think I'm dreaming when I read that link. Grass cops!!! :rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Polls are only any use when the results are posted and then analysed with an open mind
Polls are only any use when they are conducted by a non-biased party on a representative cross-segment of the populace with questions that do not predispose a particular response. Therefore, they are almost never any use, as yours isn't.
I didn't "want" any particular result; I am not running the poll in order to trumpet the results here.But, having said that, it's now 17-6.
:rofl
OK, so the subject is seatbelt laws and their infringment on our inherent right to privacy. The arguments for laws of this nature have been supported with claims of increased safety for individuals and lowered costs for society. The arguments against laws of this nature have been supported by claims of infringement on personal liberties. The counter point to this claim has consisted of citing examples of laws that regulate behaviour.
1. Government does not hold the authority to legislate the actions of an individual as long as those actions do not deprive another individual of his god granted and Constitutionaly expressed rights.
2.
a. Society takes it upon itself to assume responsibility for the costs of an individual. The individual does not request this. This is true in THE UNITED STATES(hows that for caps nuke). If it does not apply outside of this country, so be it. You cannot apply another societies social contract to our society.
b. The argument applied to this subject pertaining to insurance costs has been covered fully.
3. These types of laws do in fact deprive citizens of civil rights protected by the constitution. It is not the right to drive around without a seatbelt on, it is the right to privacy. Personal actions that do not deprive another of his or her constitutional rights are the foundation of the ideals of this country. Every law that has been cited in comparison to and as evidence for the legality of laws such as mandatory seatbelt laws have been laws based on preventing individuals from depriving others of their freedom. They cannot be compared with a law that is designed to dictate an individuals action that has no effect on another individuals constitutionaly guaranteed rights.
There is a non-discussion here. A couple of guys(?) who live outside the borders of this country are simply telling everyone that they do not want to live in a society where the individual is responsible for their own actions and big nanny takes care of everything. We also have a resident of Little London (Boston) making false comparisons and presenting illogical arguments in support of an ideology that he believes in, but is contrary to the fundamental principles of this country.
The problem here is the inability of those 3 to back away from their personal positions and look at the issue from another point of view. This does not mean conceding, but simply understanding. This deficiency also results in a lack of any intelligent discussion on the matter. Being outside of the borders of this country should make that easy for 2. Being in close proximity to an international airport should make it easy for the third to exercise his right to live in the parts of the world that support his ideology.
Here's a challenge for you guys. Explain to me why I should be required to change my behaviour when it does not interfere with another persons rights. And I couldn't care less about the consequences of my actions if they were to take place in another country. You have to do it within the confines of the United States and our Constitution.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
These types of laws do in fact deprive citizens of civil rights protected by the constitution.
bzzzt wrong
-
Again, if emt's spend more time at an accident where people were thrown from the vehicle, then the people who they can't respond to have been effected, and they pay with their lives.
oh wait, a small price to pay for the choice to wear your seat belt!
Freakin darwins taking others with them
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Polls are only any use when they are conducted by a non-biased party on a representative cross-segment of the populace with questions that do not predispose a particular response. Therefore, they are almost never any use, as yours isn't.
ROFL!!! You haven't even SEEN my poll thread, and yet you've passed judgement on it! You do not know the occupations of the folks in that poll, you haven't seen the posts that went with it, and yet your mind is already made up...
...and yet YOU are telling ME what's what with regard to polls.
Priceless!
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yah.. right.. like you're only recalling history and not trying to dis him and, by extension, the US at all.
Gotcha.
And it's not only the classic founders... it's about every caucasian with power and/or money in all the "civilized" countries of that time.
Toss all the darts you like; I'm pretty comfortable with the Founders and what they started, especially when viewed relative to the time they did it.
"He was also a political genius; a primary force in the establishment of a successful free government unlike any that went before it."
sure toad, i'm being more genuine to historical dart facts than you, especially with the above comment. thomas and ben didn't pull the concept of a self governing democracy from pure inspiration, they observed and then emulated the iroquois' form of democracy that had existed for centuries. at least i give credit where it's due, and don't play to the mythology of it all.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It's not over yet, dolt! It has 5 days to run.
Now you've hurt my feelings. :p
-
sixpense... they don't spend more time at the accident.. they allways have to wait till the ambulance hauls everyone away... I have actually seen the reverse... guys in seatbelts takingt hours to get cut out of the car. probly some baby died somewhere while the emt's cut the selfish seatbelt sissy out of her car.
beet... I think you would be interested in my poll too... I have polled a BB and they agree by 98.9% that gun control laws don't work and that brits gave away their rights for nothing and are total sissies... 1.1% think that "total sissies" is far too kind.
I think Jefferson admitted that thecoloreds were people when seeing the evidence and therefore... granted them the same rights as all "people"... I was a complete biggot for most of my life feeling that negroes were not really human... observation and common sense made this position untenable latter on in life.
I find now tho that those who would cry racist at every opportunity seem to me to be the most racist... they seem to feel that some races are inferior and can't do anything without their help. That some races need to be treated differently than others because of some lack of human ability.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Torque
"He was also a political genius; a primary force in the establishment of a successful free government unlike any that went before it."
No one has denied the Iroquois influence.
Here, I hope this salves your sense of outrage:
He was also a political genius; a primary force in the establishment of a successful free government unlike any that went before it in the Judeo-Christian population of the world.
-
Look Kiddies! It`s the Uncle Beetle morning comedy hour! Gather around now! :)
Originally posted by beet1e
Polls are only any use when the results are posted and then analysed with an open mind, so I can see why you feel that they're meaningless.
Bwaaaaaaahaaaa!
So now your an Poll analysist? I always suspected that. :)
Like I said...polls are useless as in most cases they are taken in such a way to get the desired results.. Meaningless and you know it , so don`t embarrass yourself any further.............unless of course you 'Just want to", in which case we will be here for you.
I didn't "want" any particular result
:rofl Well now you`ve done it! You have just started costing me money. I now have to go out and buy boots with taller tops. The BS just starting coming over the top of the 17 inchers. I expect it to get deeper , so I am going to be pepared.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Like I said...polls are useless as in most cases they are taken in such a way to get the desired results.. Meaningless and you know it
ROFL - and why would I want to "get a desired result"? And what "desired result" would that be? What could I possibly have to gain? But I'm fascinated by the interest being shown in my poll which is on a UK website with (AFAIK) ~100% UK posters, given that those who are all of a-twitter about it seem to be at least 3000 miles away. Funny that the board moderator didn't do a skuzzy-scissors job on my poll, and say it was biased. Can you imagine it? See Rule #37, polls not allowed because they might upset some avacado 4000 miles away
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/razz1.gif)
-
You intersted in selling some battleships Beet?
We have a few desert models we need to move.
I think your chances of selling them would be better than the load of crap you are trying to push now, especialy since it pertains to ..................eeermmmm... well..........nothing.
:rolleyes:
-
No Jackal, I'm too busy selling lawn mowers on eBay. The ones I'm selling are speed limited to keep you out of trouble with the grass cops!
Current poll status: 18-6
-
beet.. to the best of my knowledge.... every single phony poll you have ever tried to run and use to make your point has been exposed for the blatant fraud that it is..
why do you persist?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
why do you persist?
lazs
To bring it up to 471
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No Jackal, I'm too busy selling lawn mowers on eBay.
Yea, I think I found the ebay listing.
Bidders list:
BeetGums
BeetREd
Beetard
BeetFeet
BeetIvory
BeetWomen
Highest bidder so far is ...BeetOff.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet.. to the best of my knowledge.... every single phony poll you have ever tried to run and use to make your point has been exposed for the blatant fraud that it is..
Allow me to paraphrase: "You've held polls in the past, and the results have gone against what I and my cronies believe in. I haven't seen your current poll, but I believe it to be phony because that's what I want to believe. Two people in this thread agree with me and therefore it must be true".
Other quotable quotes in this thread- "I know your country well. It's dull, there's just a few birds flying around there, and no-one would ever stand up to the government to defend their rights. I know the people there. They are meek subjects. I know exactly how they live and what they do. Oh, and er................... I have never been there"
- "All polls are meaningless, unless the poll result is an exact match of my own beliefs."
- "Your poll is worthless - I know this even though I haven't even seen it. I know nothing about the poll - I don't even know which BBS it's on. I know nothing of the people who voted in it. I do not know what sort of people they are, where they live, or their occupations. I don't even know what was said in the posts in the poll thread. But I know I'm right because two people in this thread would agree with me."
- "Don't blind me with the FACTS - I know what I'm talking about"
[/b]
Still 18-6, with 264 people having viewed the poll thread.
-
Hey Beetle, you really selling lawn mowers on Ebay now? That's pretty cool. Hope everything is going well with the business.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Hey Beetle, you really selling lawn mowers on Ebay now? That's pretty cool. Hope everything is going well with the business.
Yes, just done a deal with the local police force. They wanted the turbo diesel version - good for difficult terrain, low speed pursuit, and on grass that is more than 8in high. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
every single phony poll you have ever tried to run and use to make your point has been exposed for the blatant fraud that it is..
Been thinking about this - What proof do you have? Was it a)you did your own poll to ask if my polls were phony, and two people replied yes, or... b) was it something you "heard"?
:lol
-
I meant phony in the respect that you either asked loaded questions or, in this case, handpicked the group that you knew would support your opinion. Like running a poll on a peta BB asking if they thought tyson was being cruel in the way that they raised chickens.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
or, in this case, handpicked the group that you knew would support your opinion.
You know nothing about the people who have voted in my poll. Nothing, Nada, Zip. And... FWIW, 25% of them voted NO.
Those that voted at all represent only about 10% of the people that read the poll thread. Like I said, most people aren't really interested in seatbelts, and wouldn't wear one - except of course if usage is mandatory.
-
you mind telling us again what the name of the BB was that you "polled"?
Like I said... like polling a peta bb about how they felt about puppy torture for amusement.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you mind telling us again what the name of the BB was that you "polled"?
What do you mean, "again"? I didn't tell you in the first place.
What is it - first you say my poll is worthless, but now you want to take a look at it?
-
Your circumspectness regarding a very basic inquiry is illuminating.
"methinks you protest too much" --one of your old dead dudes.