[jimkress]

Eschew tyranny. Support the US Constitution Party.

[Ciexyz]

Mineta must go. Appoint him Ambassador to Bahrain or some such place.

[freekitty]

I have got to say this.

What a dumb, dumb and dumb idea. The Administration should be ashamed of itself. This is crazy.

[BSunday]

CINO, RINO, ALBINO....What's next, the feminazi's are WINO's? LOL PS patent pending on that one, no theft allowed!

[sinkspur]

Support the US Constitution Party.

Nope. Ain't gonna risk Howard Dean with a vote for the party of nutbags and fat men.

[RaceBannon]

COINO, not CINO

COnservative In Name Only

[tbpiper]

You can take that pile of self righteous government wannabes and take a flying leap.

[Sockdologer]

Nah. The sell outs are the people like Jim Jeffords who leave the party and their values behind because they're personally offended by one policy or another that doesn't fit their agenda.

No candidate will ever represent everything I stand for, unless I run myself. The trick, then, is to pick the candidate who will be best for the country. That candidate is not Mr. Dean - who conservative defectors will hand the presidency to if they continue to cause division in a party that is now strong.

You've seen what these squabbles have done to the Democrats.
Why insist on doing the same to what was once your own?

[Sockdologer]

Nah. The sell outs are the people like Jim Jeffords who leave the party and their values behind because they're personally offended by one policy or another that doesn't fit their agenda.

No candidate will ever represent everything I stand for, unless I run myself. The trick, then, is to pick the candidate who will be best for the country. That candidate is not Mr. Dean - who conservative defectors will hand the presidency to if they continue to cause division in a party that is now strong.

You've seen what these squabbles have done to the Democrats.
Why insist on doing the same to what was once your own?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I always wear a seat belt because it is among the most effective means, short of not driving, to protect my own safety. The issue is whether that is a sufficient basis for requiring others to follow my example. I suggest not, because there is no benefit to me from other drivers also wearing a seat belt."

The author is a moron.

If wearing a seatbelt is one of the best ways to protect his own safety, then, by his own conclusion, it is also the best way to protect the safety of the person with whom he may have an accident with. If that accident is the author's fault, and the person not wearing the seatbelt is seriously injured, or killed, the author's insurance would go up, and he may face criminal charges, up to and including vehicular homicide if the circumstances warrant the charges.

The cost of automobile accidents affect everyone, specially, the increase in insurance rates.

The State is perfectly within its rights to impose seat belt laws as a condition of licensing NF operating a motor vehicle, the Feds are simply offering a little incentive to get the laws on the books.

[Barnacle]

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

[Amelia]

The more disturbing observation is that mandating seat belt use is only one of an increasing number of cases in which politicians have confused wide-spread personal behavior with a public health problem. Smoking and over-eating are also dangerous to one's personal health but with little or no cost to other parties.

Just to play devil's advocate, I'll point out (in case no one else has) that endangering one's personal health does affect other people to the extent that they have to help pay for your medical care in the form of increased taxes and increased health insurance premiums.

[B0rat]

I'm so tired of those who feel self ordained to say wether someone is a RINO or CINO or whatever. A President does not stay President by being a Orthodox nut case or whatever. A President maintains the Presidency by prioritizing his politics not by being a pure idealogue.

[billbears]

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.

Could someone tell me what it is about seat belts and DOT Secretarys serving under Republican Presidents? Funny how history repeats itself. Giddy gave us not only seatbelts, but airbags, third brake lights, and maintained national speed limit laws. God knows what this knucklehead has in store for us

[Old Professer]

If this is about seat belts why isn't that in the headline; I've been through all this a hundred times, ever since the very first seat belts were required in new cars and Niskanen's argument against them is the same as it was then by whoever thought some things were better left to people than government.

If the people had any say in this it was said a long time ago.

[Gone_Postal]

This has been a law in NC long before Bush became President.
It's called the Click it or Ticket law.

[antaresequity]

Whackjobs...including yours truly...say bring it on...

I just hope enough of you so called patriots have enough balls when the rubber meets the road...to step up and say: 'enough is enough'...

tap tap tap...

Patiently waiting for critical mass, to either 'do somthing', or just get in my sailboat and split...

LOL

Meanwhile everything is fine in 'hunkey dory land'...while they 'chip chip chip' away.....

YeS Massr!...yess Massr!...I much prefer your whip to the other boss...

[Conservative til I die]

Support the US Constitution Party.

If it's the Howard Phillips party that you are referring to, I can't. since I'm not an evangelical Christian.

BTW, why does the gov't wate their time with this stuff, nevermind the abuse of the Constitution.

[thecabal]

So let me see if I can boil down the logic of those here that support seat belt laws:

1. If you get in a wreck and are not wearing a seatbelt, your chance of being injured is greatly increased. (I can't argue this one, but remember that this is true on a large, statistical basis...when you look at things like an actuary.)

2. If you can't afford to pay for your own health care, then society has a duty to assist you.

3. People who can't afford to pay for their own health care, that don't wear a seatbelt and get in a wreck are causing a extra financial burden on taxpayers.

4. Therefore, in an effort to minimize costs, the government should mandate that everyone will wear a seatbelt when in a motor vehicle.

OK, let's take this further. Since a personal choice such as wearing a seat belt (which does not impact or infringe upon other's rights) has such an effect on our bottom line, why not legislate other personal choices as well to keep our health care costs down. Why not prohibit anything that could possibly be detrimental to a person's health, such as smoking, eating fatty foods, owning a firearm, rock climbing, etc. etc. etc...since that person may need health care and may not be able to afford it.
Where's the difference in the logic, I ask you that? This effectively makes me property of the collective, something I did not ask for and will not accept. What if we get Hitlery's "single payer" socialist health care? Hey put down that Big Mac, you're costing the taxpayers money!

So where are all of the pro-choice people regarding this issue; isn't this a matter of a person making a choice about their own body? And why are there so many who call themselves conservatives willing to sell their God-given rights down the river for a better looking bottom line?

[Major_Risktaker]

I don't support smoking laws, seatbelt laws and illegal immigration. However, the government is control by the Monarchy when it comes to these matters.

So, I would invest in some insurance company stocks. They are the ones pushing seatbelt laws and smoking bans to reduce future cash payments in return for a national health care deal in the future.

Just a thought....AIG, AZ, CB

Insurer GEICO to bring 2,500 jobs to New York State

The insurer will be eligible to apply for a $1 million capital grant from the Empire State Development Corp. that will reimburse the company for project-related expenses.

(An After Thought...
Amazing how the a government will use tax dollars.)

AuthentiDate to repay part of Empire State Development grant

AuthentiDate Holding Corp. (Nasdaq: ADAT) of Schenectady will pay back a portion of the $1 million it received from the Empire State Development Corp. after failing to reach required staffing levels, AuthentiDate CEO John Botti said.

The $1 million was used to finance the construction of a $2.3 million office building.

[Redcloak]

What I want to know is: What does this administration plan to do about people running with scissors? It's a bad example for children when adults run with scissors; especially scissors, or running shoes, made with cheap, Chinese labor.