[upchuck]

WOW, my comment, "Sounds ok to me. But, then, SUVs are on my list of 'Things that don't need to be.'" seems to have hit a real sensitive nerve. 13 replies to my post. Well, 14 if you include Mad_Tom's double post.

So now we come to this: you have the perfect right to drive any kind of vehicle you want. At the same time, I have the right to have a list of things I (repeat, I) think don't need to be. And, thank God, I have just as much right to have my list as you have to drive your vehicle, whatever it may be.

Here are some other things I don't think need to be:
Income redistribution schemes
Democrats (not the people specifically, but what they stand for)
Cells phone that allow you to talk on them while you're supposedly driving
Bureaucrats (any make or model)
Foreign aid
Abortions
Gun control

Any questions?

[Squantos]

Clears it up for me .......I thought you made that stupid comment by mistake.

[lainie]

No offense but duh, of course cell phones are all useable while driving. If not they wouldn't also be useable while lounging on park benches or sitting at desks. ..or in passenger seats.

If cell phones are outlawed only outlaws will use cell phones. Can't have it both ways, sorry.

[RebelDawg]

I agree with your list except for the cell phones and SUVs where do they fit in?

[JustSayNoNWO]

"Here are some other things I don't think need to be:
Income redistribution schemes
Democrats (not the people specifically, but what they stand for)
Cells phone that allow you to talk on them while you're supposedly driving
Bureaucrats (any make or model)
Foreign aid
Abortions
Gun control

Any questions?"

No questions, just comments;

-Good one on income redistribution schemes.
-I would agree on the Democrats one, however, there is no fine line between Democrat and Republican anymore (Too many "Rinos" voting for liberal ideals).
-Cell phones, talking while driving......Hmmm, To be consistant, unless you are against fast food drive throughs, along with no stereos in vehicles, also....GPS systems that can be used while driving, etc(All can cause distractions).
-Bureacrats....depends on the definition.
-Foreign Aid. If a Country was attacked, and that Country had values that the US supported.....would aid be given or not?
-Abortions....they are murder, and I will leave it at that.
-Gun Control...A good one to oppose.

All said, yes you do have the right to have a list of things that "should not be" if you wish. That is fine by my book. My own list wouldn't be popular and accepted by all either. I do respect an other's choice to own an SUV. Someone owning an SUV doesn't effect anyone else's rights by any means.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Any questions?

Yep. Just one. Why do people have to pick on other people all the time? ESPECIALLY on Free Republic where we're "supposed" to be family?

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Sounds ok to me.

Don't worry, upchuck, I'll try to press Post" only once this time.

I took from your comment more than the fact that you keep "a list". Of course, anyone is free to keep lists and to have all manner of personal preferences, idiosynchrasies, quirks, even perversions.

However, what I understood from your comment is that you were in favor of an oppressive government regulation that served to prevent people from obtaining a legal product -- an SUV, because you didn't like SUV's. That is a petulant and pedantic position to take, IMO.

Laws enacted to deal with marketplace externalities, in terms of equalizing social risks and costs, I can accept. But outlawing, or penalizing a product simply because one "doesn't like it" is over the top. But this is what liberals do. From reading the other "dislikes" you cited, I would have expected a different comment in your original post.

How did that old saying go? When they came for the Christians, I didn't do anything, for I was not a Christian...