Posted on 05/31/2006 9:42:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga
Check the zoo programs for them over the past thirty years. They are still kicking and a zoo is why. But anyway on with the debate.
That is one super ignorant statement.
>>Rob you might think you can see every car all the time...it is your right to think you can be perfect. Seems you had trouble with already three times eh?<<
No, actually the reason I didn't go down is that I ride and drive very defensive and am prepared for people to turn in front of me. 'can't help what happens to their car when we impact though.
Regarding being able to see every car, that is why I stop at BLIND corners where I can't see. Other than that I just treat ALL red lights as "flashing" red lights, short of the possibility of a cop being around. Based on my experience by where I work, I am not alone.
In Washington state, there is no rule of law.
Gabz, it's worse than that. 99% of all accidents were caused by drivers licenced by the state to operate motor vehicles on the highway at lethal speeds. ;-)
>>These are EXACTLY the same principle you are proposing with seat belts - no difference.<<
And I would agree with all of them.
Wow, it is the destination that counts.
Dead people are cheaper than injured people.
Just a thought.
You're welcome.
However, if you think people will read it and stop arguing with you, you're wrong.
That was a few hundred posts ago on this thread, for example.
It should be a CHOICE to pay those premiums right? That is the point you have been making this whole thread right?
With comments like this and the others that you've made, perhaps you need to change your screen name to Crispy Stuff.
I've been following this thread, as I always do when something brings out the extreme libertarian element at FR, have resisted the urge to chime in until now, can do so no longer.
Basically, I ask this question: Is it possible to be a good political conservative without being a libertarian? Because I have been a conservative political activist for going on four decades now, but I do not have a libertarian bone in my body. I guess it's because I'm an old-line law and order conservative from the '60s, and doesn't the entire concept of law and order inherently involve compelling people, in some circumstances, to do that which they do not want to do, or prohibiting them from doing that which they want to do? In other words, placing limits on their personal freedom.
And is it nannystatism ... it certainly isn't socialism, it does not involve the means of production; IMHO we come off looking bad when we scream "socialism" at everything we disagree with ... or is it the realization that things have changed to such an extent in the last 80 years or so ... and to me, this predates the New Deal or any of the changes FDR wrought in our country which we're still suffering the consequences of today, has more to do with extreme urbanization, changes in the way people do business, so many people going hither and yon, etc. ... to where everyone's lives are so interconnected ... and I'm not talking about through the government, don't even put them in the equation, I'm talking about just in our everyday functioning and relationships to each other ... that it's a pipedream to think that we can ever again have the kind of unfettered individualism that folks on the extreme libertarian side advocate? Isn't it pretty nigh impossible to put genies back in bottles?
Donning my Nomex now. :)
"Why is it OK to have speed limits, but not seat belt laws."
You can't be serious.
In case you are, let me put it this way: the purpose of the government is to protect our borders from invasion and protect us from each other.
The speed limit satisfies number two. The seat belt laws are out of scope of the purpose of the government - at least they are in a free society, which we clearly are not.
It may be an open forum but name calling post after psot after post isn't exactly part of the program.
Go on and continue the namecalling if you must I will simply do as you just said. I will disregard your posts and let you namecall on your own.
I have asked you to refrain from posting to me based on your namecalling and an honorable person would do so.
I guess we shall see huh.
Haven't buried anyone lately have you?
Drunk or otherwise, ( some on this thread would say it is a violation of a right to enforce that aspect also),
He had the same attitude. WHY stop on a deserted road. If you remember he thought that highway was deserted also.
Can you just imagine the Founders sitting around discussing the Constitution and Bill of Rights when someone brings up the idea of listing the right to travel about on horseback or horsedrawn carriage?
They'd have been laughed out of the room. No one would ever dare to restrict your right to travel or call it a privilege.
It's one of those pesky unenumerated rights. It's our by virtue of being here.
>>I love how you will inject abortion into this. <<
>>I do love however that you found a way to tie abortion to seat belts!<<
Thank you and thank you. I aims to please (and so does Louise).
There are no public roads, or we wouldn't be having this discussion
There are only government roads and private roads (and the private roads are really only rented from the government).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.