The Nanny State Strikes Again

Fox News ^ | 12/26/03 | William A. Niskanen

[jimkress]

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who must have little else to do, has recently urged state governments to pass "primary" seat-belt laws, which allow police to stop and cite motorists solely for failing to wear a seat belt.

And the Bush administration has proposed a $400 million incentive to reward state governments that pass such laws.

[Barnacle]

Now the Federal Government provides prescription drugs to us so that we won't be so depressed about our unsecured borders.

[nunya bidness]

There's NOTHING in the article (other than the author's fertile, yet somewhat misguided mind) that suggests that the police will be setting up "seatbelt" checkpoints on our highways any time soon, you and I drive the same roads, and you know as well as I do that cops don't stop you for not wearing a seatbelt.

Bad news big guy. It's already happened in Maryland. In downtown Baltimore, amidst the drugs, murder, rape, robbery, etc. there's random seatbelt checkpoints.

While I'm not sure, I'm willing to bet that the same checkpoints are in our future in Florida. And if they come here what will you say?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Is it a sex thing Fred?

I've told you before, I'm not into it.

Now, why don't you scoot back over to LP and talk crap about Free Republic as is your norm.

And please, try not to hurl any more invectives at the mothers of our service men on your way out as is your usual style.

[MEG33]

Awww..and wasn't just last night how you were explaining why you weren't here anymore?Does TLB need material for his posts!?

[Jorge]

Since numerous studies also show that bigger, heavier vehicles dramatically reduce automobile fatalities, why are the feds forcing through regulations to make us drive smaller, lighter vehicles?

Probably because the low cost of seatbelts cannot be compared to the cost to this nation economically and strategically in dependance on foreign oil to have millions of Americans driving gas guzzeling tanks.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The State issues Driver's licenses, check the small print, the State has the right to check and make sure you are properly licensed.

It's a State rights thingy, I thought we were all in favor of State's rights around here?

[inquest]

you know as well as I do that cops don't stop you for not wearing a seatbelt.

I see no one's yet introduced you to the difference between "primary" and "secondary" seat-belt laws.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Freddy seems to have a big crush on me.

I've told him no many times, but he just keeps coming back.

[Fred Mertz]

Why don't you try staying on topic? Or can't your pea brain deal with abuses of the nanny state?

[MEG33]

Lucky you!

[Orangedog]

Maybe. But the GOP has kept its majority, and the "my-way-or-the-highway" crowd has been bitching ever since.

Yes, they have been bitching ever since, and with good reason. We were sold on the "smaller, less intrusive government" arguments in 94. We backed the party, even after that promise went out the window. We grudgingly went along as the appropriations bills got higher and higher, believing that if the GOP got control of congress AND the White House that things would finally pan out. And what did we get...? The biggest expansion of entitlements and descretionary spending since LBJ! And now, after ten years of broken promises, the party loyalists are pissed that we dare to complain about it.

Politics is the art of the possible, and the "true believers" don't seem to have a clue as to how this game is played.

If catering to the soccer moms at the expense of the constitutionalists is what the party wants, then it will have no one to blame but itself when the soccer moms bail on them. If you think that people like me are disloyal, wait and see how the soccer moms drop the GOP like a bad habit when the other party cranks up the "for the children" music a little louder.

[nopardons]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm ... a " constitutionalist " ?

Well, I don't link, nor CCP, but the list is lengthy and IF you really cared,you'd go look for the compilation on your own. But, I supposed that the doing away with partial birth abortion doesn't count, for you, nor the tax cuts, or much of anything else.So, either you don't care at all about anything he's done( since you claim to have read ALL of the previous threads about what he HAS accomplished )or you're a liar.

[Fred Mertz]

It's merely because you're a big target. Plus, you attempt to defend the indefensible. You're a joke.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'll tell you what,

I don't have a problem with people refusing to wear their seat belts, as long as they are willing to sign away their rights to sue me, or my insurance company, for any injuries they receive as a result of an accident where they were not wearing a belt.

[inquest]

It's a State rights thingy, I thought we were all in favor of State's rights around here?

Then how can you possibly be in favor of this latest usurpation?

[FLAMING DEATH]

"I actually KNOW what I'm talking about; unlike you."

Got me there. Why don't you just say, "I know you are, but what am I?" What the hell kind of refutation is that? But then, I am accustomed to you and your ilk throwing out a few clever phrases and claiming you "won" the debate.

"Oh, so you've only been voting and/or working for candidates since 1992 ? Since 1992 ? And now you imagine that YOU know enough about politics from such a rich (/sarcasm ) past history ?"

Oh, give me a break. So you're old. Big whoop. I guess you think decrepit codgers hold the monopoly on political knowledge. Nice attitude and open mind you've got there. I suppose you want to raise the legal voting age to 60, right? And, I guess you're suggesting that the only way to really "know" a politician is to "work" for one. Well, maybe we should restrict voting rights to people who work for political campaigns, then? There's a word for that philosophy..."elitism".

Go ahead and do what you want. I won't reward a man who has systematically attacked the Constitution on so many fronts with a second term. Especially using the weak justification, "He's not as bad as the other guy." If you demand only mediocrity, that's what you get. If you feel comfortable doing so, feel free.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Freddy, the joke around here is you.

"Defend the indefensible"?

I've never stood up for your masculinity, have I?

[Luis Gonzalez]

What usurpation?

Read the article!

The Feds are offering an incentive if the State enacts the laws!

Since when has "offering an incentive" become "usurpation"?

The reading comprehension skills around here are the pits!

[garv]

Well, which is it, are they going to save us from ourselves or not? If our annointed benefactors are so obsessed with our safety oil shouldn't be a consideration. While they're at it I guess they should mandate alcohol sensors and speed restrictors in all vehicles as well, since the majority of fatalities are caused by drunk drivers and speeders. I'm sure roll bars, helmets, and fire retardent suits would help too. Write your congressman.

[garv]

Well, which is it, are they going to save us from ourselves or not? If our annointed benefactors are so obsessed with our safety oil shouldn't be a consideration. While they're at it I guess they should mandate alcohol sensors and speed restrictors in all vehicles as well, since the majority of fatalities are caused by drunk drivers and speeders. I'm sure roll bars, helmets, and fire retardent suits would help too. Write your congressman.