Author Topic: raider179 was right...  (Read 7980 times)

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Re: For jackal - a synopsis of this thread
« Reply #240 on: September 23, 2005, 11:04:06 AM »
Quote
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.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
Re: For jackal - a synopsis of this thread
« Reply #241 on: September 23, 2005, 11:06:59 AM »
Quote
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.

Quote
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?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2005, 11:14:37 AM by Jackal1 »
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
raider179 was right...
« Reply #242 on: September 23, 2005, 11:17:30 AM »
Quote
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
Quote



Hmmm... primary seat belt laws appear to raise the risk of death for rear-seat passengers and nonoccupants.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Re: Re: For jackal - a synopsis of this thread
« Reply #243 on: September 23, 2005, 11:50:23 AM »
Quote
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.
Quote
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".

Offline Iceman24

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 706
      • http://479th.jasminemarie.com/
raider179 was right...
« Reply #244 on: September 23, 2005, 12:06:45 PM »
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.

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
raider179 was right...
« Reply #245 on: September 23, 2005, 12:14:30 PM »
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2005, 12:18:24 PM by Jackal1 »
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
raider179 was right...
« Reply #246 on: September 23, 2005, 12:31:12 PM »
Quote
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...

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
raider179 was right...
« Reply #247 on: September 23, 2005, 12:52:19 PM »
Quote
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?
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
raider179 was right...
« Reply #248 on: September 23, 2005, 12:59:15 PM »
Quote
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
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
raider179 was right...
« Reply #249 on: September 23, 2005, 01:00:42 PM »
Quote
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.
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
raider179 was right...
« Reply #250 on: September 23, 2005, 01:16:59 PM »
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.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Re: Re: Re: For jackal - a synopsis of this thread
« Reply #251 on: September 23, 2005, 01:24:56 PM »
Quote
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.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
raider179 was right...
« Reply #252 on: September 23, 2005, 02:22:51 PM »
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

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
raider179 was right...
« Reply #253 on: September 23, 2005, 02:27:04 PM »
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

Offline Iceman24

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 706
      • http://479th.jasminemarie.com/
raider179 was right...
« Reply #254 on: September 23, 2005, 02:34:45 PM »
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 :)