If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   Budget deficit? Need cash? Just change your seat-belt enforcement laws. Cha-CHING. No, seriously, it's to make it SAFER for you   (seattlepi.nwsource.com) divider line 306
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

9559 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Feb 2009 at 11:24 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-02-04 01:24:40 PM
At least this poster is honest about it.

www.buckleupamerica.org

/I don't agree....but I still wear mine all the time.
//Ex-Girlfriend ate the windshield once, but she's ok.
 
2009-02-04 01:27:26 PM
wage0048: Weaver95: Anyone who supports this move is a farking moron.

Why? The state has an interest in having people wear seatbelts:

People who do not wear seatbelts are more likely to be ejected from the vehicle in the event of an accident, and they are more likely to be seriously injured in the event of an accident. It's reasonable to assume that the population of drivers without health insurance is about the same as the population of people in general without health insurance.

When those people are injured, they are taken to hospitals, and if they cannot pay, the hospital must cover the cost of their treatment. That burden is then shifted to patients who do have insurance and their insurance companies, increasing the costs of premiums/deductibles. This reduces the available income tax revenue to the state (because healthcare premiums and expenses are tax-deductible), as well as reducing sales-tax revenue (the money is being spent on healthcare and therefore is not available to be spent on other things)

By requiring people to wear their seatbelts, the state is reducing the risk of serious injuries and fatalities resulting from motor-vehicle accidents and therefore reducing the financial risk to hospitals who are required to treat such injuries.

Then again, anyone who really thinks this is the state's real reason for making Seatbelt usage a primary offense is a moron.


Heh. Stretched that pretty far, didn't ya? You ended with a good point, though. No seatbelt = you dead = Darwin happy.
 
2009-02-04 01:31:06 PM
Tweeker: Letting the fed take money from its citizens and then spend them everywhere but in that state isnt really sound fiscal or election strategy either. Its not like you can opt out of federal taxes and benefits.

You have a point. This is why I think the Federal government should tax states and not persons. States could then demand that they receive their fair portion of what they pay in taxes.
 
2009-02-04 01:31:44 PM
epic_biatch: oh, for Pete's sake, do I have to do this again?

You people spouting off about how not wearing your seatbelt doesn't harm others are a bunch of physics-failing retards.

You are subject to the laws of physics. Your body will, unless acted on by an outside force, stay in motion. So, for example, if you go off the road and onto a rough shoulder and you're wearing your seatbelt, you'll merely get bounced around in your seat as opposed to flung around the inside of the car as your body keeps moving in its original direction and then HOLY CRAP I JUST HIT THE OTHER DOOR AND NOW I'M FLYING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. The seatbelt keeps you IN FRONT OF THE STEERING WHEEL AND farkING GAS/BRAKE PEDALS which means you will have a better chance of MAINTAINING CONTROL OF YOUR farkING VEHICLE SO IT DOESN'T HIT MINE HEAD-ON.

If you're "only in the back seat," the seatbelt keeps you from flying forward and incapacitating the driver, thus leading to them losing control of their vehicle and taking out another vehicle that happens to be on the road.

Because, despite your beliefs, it ain't all brick walls and trees out there that you're going hit. There will be - shockingly enough! - other vehicles on the road that are more likely to bear the brunt of your stupidity than inanimate, unoccupied objects.

If you don't agree, I have a nifty scar and an in-depth knowledge of a procedure called a small bowel resection resulting from someone's not wearing their seatbelt that I'd be happy to discuss with you.

(yeah, I hit the belt so hard it damaged my small intestine. But at least I wasn't dead and partially ejected from the vehicle like the non-belt-wearing driver of the other car. Who wasn't even in the driver's seat when they hit us because the car's interior was playing ping pong with their unsecured body. I'm sure that driver's family would love to have a chat with you as well)fark you and wear your farking seatbelts, dipshiats. Jesus Christ, is it that hard?


How often does this happen? I realize where you're coming from in that it could help someone maintain control of their vehicle - but honestly, how often does this happen? The key here is the absolute cost to society as a whole. If the cost is relatively low to society, then it simply doesn't warrant a law. Straight economics and all.

Again, prior to posting your justification of costs, I'd like to see some actual statistics or the level at which it becomes a cost to society that we should legislate around. Why? Because I'm going to use that same cost level to justify something else.
 
2009-02-04 01:31:48 PM
Ecobuckeye: Yes, it's about money. Which we all desperately need right now. Wear your seatbelt, drive right, and you have only to reap the benefits of a well-funded state government.

If you honestly believe this is a "lifestyle" issue, then you must live quite a fascinating life. And you probably wore a helmet long before you learned how to ride a bike.


I'm scared. The government "needs" money? So it's ok to (as some are arguing here) unfairly take that money from its citizens? You believe this?
 
2009-02-04 01:36:41 PM
This has nothing to do with being fiscally sound. Federal money is money that WE have paid in the form of taxes. This money is ALLOCATED to each particular state according to need. Nowhere has it been said that the Fed is withholding funds because the state has budget problems.
Also, can you name a state that isn't experiencing some sort of budget crisis in this economy?
 
2009-02-04 01:37:03 PM
Did anyone not read the article?

By changing the law, states will get more FEDERAL MONEY. It has nothing to do with collecting from motorists.

Nothing to see here, carry on.
 
2009-02-04 01:37:45 PM
In PA, they just keep the speed limits a good 20 or 30 mph below what any normal person would drive. Speed limits are never enforced unless they need some cash, then they post troopers all over the place and pick-off anyone they want... since everyone is driving over the speed limit.
 
2009-02-04 01:37:56 PM
TheHateMonger: Ecobuckeye: Yes, it's about money. Which we all desperately need right now. Wear your seatbelt, drive right, and you have only to reap the benefits of a well-funded state government.

If you honestly believe this is a "lifestyle" issue, then you must live quite a fascinating life. And you probably wore a helmet long before you learned how to ride a bike.

I'm scared. The government "needs" money? So it's ok to (as some are arguing here) unfairly take that money from its citizens? You believe this?


jmayson: Did anyone not read the article?

By changing the law, states will get more FEDERAL MONEY. It has nothing to do with collecting from motorists.

Nothing to see here, carry on.


Yuo made my response for me. Thanks.
 
2009-02-04 01:40:12 PM
Ecobuckeye: TheHateMonger: Ecobuckeye: Yes, it's about money. Which we all desperately need right now. Wear your seatbelt, drive right, and you have only to reap the benefits of a well-funded state government.

If you honestly believe this is a "lifestyle" issue, then you must live quite a fascinating life. And you probably wore a helmet long before you learned how to ride a bike.

I'm scared. The government "needs" money? So it's ok to (as some are arguing here) unfairly take that money from its citizens? You believe this?

jmayson: Did anyone not read the article?

By changing the law, states will get more FEDERAL MONEY. It has nothing to do with collecting from motorists.

Nothing to see here, carry on.

Yuo made my response for me. Thanks.


This thread is less about the article and more about the correct limits of government in lawmaking.
 
2009-02-04 01:45:12 PM
To the matter of whether you should buckle up every time you are in a car, I say Yes. Buckle the hell up. It's not hard. You don't need to be free so you can do a cartwheels and yoga while driving.

To this being a reason to pull people over, not sure I like it. Cops can say they thought you weren't wearing your seatbelt and pull you over and start searching your car etc (I have nothing to hide but it's the principal) or w/e else they want to do.

Even if you were wearing your seatbelt, the cop allegedly acted on what he believes he saw (no matter how sincerely/insincerely) and there is jack squat you can do about it. That, I do have a problem with.
 
2009-02-04 01:52:44 PM
imgod2u: Tweeker: Letting the fed take money from its citizens and then spend them everywhere but in that state isnt really sound fiscal or election strategy either. Its not like you can opt out of federal taxes and benefits.

You have a point. This is why I think the Federal government should tax states and not persons. States could then demand that they receive their fair portion of what they pay in taxes.


I think we should just go back to pretending there is a tenth amendment.
 
2009-02-04 01:54:55 PM
Also, can you name a state that isn't experiencing some sort of budget crisis in this economy?

The twin states of panic and denial,while fluctuating, generally seem to be doing ok.
 
2009-02-04 02:00:51 PM
Tweeker: I think we should just go back to pretending there is a tenth amendment.

Well, collecting taxes and redistributing the money towards public works kinda is part of the powers given to Congress by the Constitution....
 
2009-02-04 02:01:35 PM
The_one_with_that_guy: To the matter of whether you should buckle up every time you are in a car, I say Yes. Buckle the hell up. It's not hard. You don't need to be free so you can do a cartwheels and yoga while driving.

To this being a reason to pull people over, not sure I like it. Cops can say they thought you weren't wearing your seatbelt and pull you over and start searching your car etc (I have nothing to hide but it's the principal) or w/e else they want to do.

Even if you were wearing your seatbelt, the cop allegedly acted on what he believes he saw (no matter how sincerely/insincerely) and there is jack squat you can do about it. That, I do have a problem with.


This is what I clumsily tried to say up there ^

Oh and, this!
 
2009-02-04 02:09:40 PM
epic_biatch: oh, for Pete's sake, do I have to do this again?

You people spouting off about how not wearing your seatbelt doesn't harm others are a bunch of physics-failing retards.

You are subject to the laws of physics. Your body will, unless acted on by an outside force, stay in motion. So, for example, if you go off the road and onto a rough shoulder and you're wearing your seatbelt, you'll merely get bounced around in your seat as opposed to flung around the inside of the car as your body keeps moving in its original direction and then HOLY CRAP I JUST HIT THE OTHER DOOR AND NOW I'M FLYING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. The seatbelt keeps you IN FRONT OF THE STEERING WHEEL AND farkING GAS/BRAKE PEDALS which means you will have a better chance of MAINTAINING CONTROL OF YOUR farkING VEHICLE SO IT DOESN'T HIT MINE HEAD-ON.

If you're "only in the back seat," the seatbelt keeps you from flying forward and incapacitating the driver, thus leading to them losing control of their vehicle and taking out another vehicle that happens to be on the road.

Because, despite your beliefs, it ain't all brick walls and trees out there that you're going hit. There will be - shockingly enough! - other vehicles on the road that are more likely to bear the brunt of your stupidity than inanimate, unoccupied objects.

If you don't agree, I have a nifty scar and an in-depth knowledge of a procedure called a small bowel resection resulting from someone's not wearing their seatbelt that I'd be happy to discuss with you.

(yeah, I hit the belt so hard it damaged my small intestine. But at least I wasn't dead and partially ejected from the vehicle like the non-belt-wearing driver of the other car. Who wasn't even in the driver's seat when they hit us because the car's interior was playing ping pong with their unsecured body. I'm sure that driver's family would love to have a chat with you as well)fark you and wear your farking seatbelts, dipshiats. Jesus Christ, is it that hard?


That is quite the experience you had. I can imagine it sucked to go through all that.
I've been in three wrecks in my life. The first two I was in the back seat not wearing a seatbelt. I was told by the EMS, and ER Drs. that I was extremely lucky to have survived, and that if I had been wearing a seatbelt I would have been dead. One of those wrecks was running off the road during icy conditions while I was asleep in the back seat. That tossing around physics lesson you mentioned kept me from being crushed to death. Seatbelts aren't designed to allow motion.
My third wreck, I was driving and wearing a seatbelt. I was hit by a car from behind and pushed into oncoming traffic. Since then I have had $280,000.00 in medical bills as a result of that accident. What caused the most damage to me? The seatbelt. Wearing the seatbelt did not protect me from being pushed headon into another vehicle. The lack of motion allowed did cause severe nerve damage though. Oh yeah, and a ruptured appendix. Gotta love damn near dying from a stupid infection no one thought to look for, because it just seemed like the bruising from the seatbelt was causing the tenderness and pain.

Now, I'm not saying that wearing a seatbelt will cause you to be at risk for injury. My point is that a seatbelt is not as safe as some would have you believe and can cause serious, if not fatal, injuries. The fact that you had a bad experience doesn't negate that fact, no more than my own case demonstrates the opposite to be true.

It should be your choice. If you want to wear your seatbelt, great. If not, that should be your decision as well. I don't live with my mother anymore. I don't need anyone telling me what decisions I need to make in my daily life.

As for car insurance rates going up because of the lack of seatbelt use? That argument is bunk and anyone using that to validate their point knows it. The same argument was made for motorcycle helmet laws. However, if you look at competing rates in states that have helmet laws vs. those that don't you'll see they are the same. Shouldn't they be cheaper in those states that force you to wear a helmet?
 
2009-02-04 02:16:48 PM
Morgoth: snip...

You do realize in a headon without a seatbelt you go through the windshield and die right?

So your argument is you'd rather be dead than have medical bills.

Gotcha.
 
2009-02-04 02:20:30 PM
bown: Whether or not you wear a seatbelt is a personal choice,

Your
stupidity raises my insurance rates. So no.
 
2009-02-04 02:23:23 PM
HansensDisease: bown: Whether or not you wear a seatbelt is a personal choice,

Your stupidity raises my insurance rates. So no.


Ok, 3rd time's a charm... Please, someone tell me why it should be illegal to not wear a seatbelt but legal to drink alcohol?
 
2009-02-04 02:24:40 PM
HansensDisease: Your stupidity raises my insurance rates. So no.

Again, I will ask, where is the line? People who eat a lot of cholesterol and don't exercise also raise your insurance rates. Do you want to criminalize cheeseburgers? Make treadmill use mandatory?

If you use insurance rates as a reason for making things illegal, things can spiral out of control quickly. So, where is the line drawn?
 
2009-02-04 02:26:13 PM
HansensDisease: bown: Whether or not you wear a seatbelt is a personal choice,

Your stupidity raises my insurance rates. So no.


That sounds like a problem with your insurance company -- a private business -- and how they structure their rates rather than how I, as a free person, choose to endanger my own life.

Should we start making laws regulating calorie intake for each person? Every fatty with a heart attack raises my insurance rates.
 
2009-02-04 02:28:44 PM
To all those who would agree with this law:



Clearly you have no idea where to draw the line between personal freedom and the states control over you lives.
 
2009-02-04 02:29:36 PM
Seat belt safety has been proven fact for decades that it saves lives..TONS of lives. If you don't like it, gtfo. I dont need your ass bleeding the state dry through disability cause you became a paraplegic after a crash while not wearing your seat belt.
 
2009-02-04 02:30:24 PM
imgod2u:
Well, collecting taxes and redistributing the money towards public works kinda is part of the powers given to Congress by the Constitution....

Unless you are using a very loose definition of regulation of commerce between states, that whole redistribution for public works thing isn't a power of congress.
 
2009-02-04 02:33:27 PM
JeffMD: Seat belt safety has been proven fact for decades that it saves lives..TONS of lives. If you don't like it, gtfo. I dont need your ass bleeding the state dry through disability cause you became a paraplegic after a crash while not wearing your seat belt.

Hi JeffMD; welcome to the discussion. Please take the time to read through previous posts, since obviously you are unable to contribute anything to your side of the argument at the moment.
 
2009-02-04 02:36:22 PM
epic_biatch: oh, for Pete's sake, do I have to do this again?
You people spouting off about how not wearing your seatbelt doesn't harm others are a bunch of physics-failing retards.

You are subject to the laws of physics. Your body will, unless acted on by an outside force, stay in motion.


You forgot the other part: a body at rest tends to stay at rest. My butt is at rest compared to the car seat. It'll take a large force acting upon me to get my butt up and out of the bucket seat, over the center console, and into the other side of the car. Any force large enough to do that would certainly cause severe damage to myself and the car. Going "off the road and onto a rough shoulder" would not be enough to shift me appreciably. Add to this the 'drag' cause by my legs and my no-doubt tight grip on the steering wheel, and it is extremely unlikely for me to lose control of the car in any situation in which I still have a chance of controlling it. Yes, if I get t-boned by a cement truck at 60mph, I'll end up in the passenger seat and lose control, but since I'll probably be dead or at least unconscious, I won't have the ability to 'get control' of the car anyway.
 
2009-02-04 02:37:19 PM
tombotia: Morgoth: snip...

You do realize in a headon without a seatbelt you go through the windshield and die right?

So your argument is you'd rather be dead than have medical bills.

Gotcha.


No, I don't realize that. Besides, my argument is that it should be my choice whether I wear a seatbelt or not.

However, had I not been wearing my seatbelt I would have been protected from going thru the windshield by my airbag. Because of the resulting lawsuits after the accident I've learned quite a bit about how your body reacts in a head on collision. Oh, and by the way, the driver I hit head on, her passenger died. She was wearing her seatbelt at the time of impact. She died from trauma to her head, and bleeding internally.
 
2009-02-04 02:46:29 PM
TheHateMonger: legal to drink alcohol?

durrrr. what happens when you get pulled over for driving drunk? you'll be fined a hell of lot more. and don't even try to say you have the "right" to drive drunk.

jack21221: Make treadmill use mandatory?

fine by me.

imgod2u: as a free person, choose to endanger my own life.

that's nice, but you'll be stealing from me when you hurtle through a windshield, and I as a free person have every right to request a law to prevent that.
 
2009-02-04 02:48:41 PM
imgod2u: Tweeker: I think we should just go back to pretending there is a tenth amendment.

Well, collecting taxes and redistributing the money towards public works kinda is part of the powers given to Congress by the Constitution....


Yes, but setting every states drinking age to 21? Every highways speed limit to a less safe 55 for a while?
 
2009-02-04 02:51:34 PM
HansensDisease: that's nice, but you'll be stealing from me when you hurtle through a windshield, and I as a free person have every right to request a law to prevent that.

How so? If your argument for "stealing" from you is through insurance, I've already pointed out that that is the fault of your insurance company's pricing policy. You don't have to go with the same insurance company I use. That was your choice. You agreed to have your rate raised if someone else died when you signed your policy. That's how insurance works. You have zero right to demand what I do.
 
2009-02-04 02:53:29 PM
Tweeker: Yes, but setting every states drinking age to 21? Every highways speed limit to a less safe 55 for a while?

They haven't mandated that States do this. If they choose to coerce States by levying funds, that's at best corruption but not technically beyond the powers of Congress.

I do agree that the Federal Government needs to mind its own business more than it is. But none of its actions at least in this regard have been unconstitutional.
 
2009-02-04 02:55:03 PM
HansensDisease: TheHateMonger: legal to drink alcohol?

durrrr. what happens when you get pulled over for driving drunk? you'll be fined a hell of lot more. and don't even try to say you have the "right" to drive drunk.

jack21221: Make treadmill use mandatory?

fine by me.

imgod2u: as a free person, choose to endanger my own life.

that's nice, but you'll be stealing from me when you hurtle through a windshield, and I as a free person have every right to request a law to prevent that.


Wharrgarbl. I was talking about something like the 18th amendment.

You would support criminalization of not exercising? Really? Where would you draw the line for a government mandating "right" behavior? Remember that the majority would be dictating "right" behavior, not you.

You voluntarily pay for health insurance, so it's not stealing. If you don't like the rates, don't pay them.
 
2009-02-04 02:56:51 PM
HansensDisease: TheHateMonger: legal to drink alcohol?

durrrr. what happens when you get pulled over for driving drunk? you'll be fined a hell of lot more. and don't even try to say you have the "right" to drive drunk.

jack21221: Make treadmill use mandatory?

fine by me.

imgod2u: as a free person, choose to endanger my own life.

that's nice, but you'll be stealing from me when you hurtle through a windshield, and I as a free person have every right to request a law to prevent that.


I don't understand that reasoning? How would that be stealing from you? And, if that is the case do I as a free person have a right to request a law to make drinking illegal? Not because you may drive under the influence, but you may drink too much. You could suffer from cirrhosis of the liver as a result. If your insurance doesn't cover all the cost associated with that, are you then stealing from me?
What about cigarettes?
Too much sugar intake can lead to obesity. How about we make a law for that?
Certain shoes are bad for your feet. My arches would like to make a law about whether you can wear those flat footed chuck taylors that are so popular. If you don't have insurance whose going to pay for all those doctor visits you may require from that bad back? You going to steal it from me?
The "you're stealing from me" argument is silly.
 
2009-02-04 03:05:06 PM
imgod2u: If your argument for "stealing" from you is through insurance, I've already pointed out that that is the fault of your insurance company's pricing policy.

That's nice. Too bad that's not the way it works.

If any insurance company pays out medical bills they raise rates. They're in the business to make a profit. If their costs go up, their income needs to go up.

Furthermore all insurance companies watch each other's rates, so other companies will be raising theirs, even if they don't have a different set morons who don't wear belts as customers. (I'd say that approaches a zero probability.)

All insurance companies use a shared risk pool, it affects everyone in the pool when rates go up. Therefore you're stealing from me by being an irresponsible asshat.

It's obvious you don't know the way capitalism really works.
 
2009-02-04 03:06:19 PM
Actually, wearing seatbelts is a rule that SHOULD be enforced. Unlike airbags (if you're fat or have a weak chest...), seatbelts are always a good idea.

I support this way more than putting up a bunch of traffic cameras and tweaking the light timing to maximize profits.
 
2009-02-04 03:08:17 PM
imgod2u: Tweeker: Yes, but setting every states drinking age to 21? Every highways speed limit to a less safe 55 for a while?

They haven't mandated that States do this. If they choose to coerce States by levying funds, that's at best corruption but not technically beyond the powers of Congress.

I do agree that the Federal Government needs to mind its own business more than it is. But none of its actions at least in this regard have been unconstitutional.


They have gone so far as to use the interstate commerce clause to justify telling marijuana clinics they cant operate because someone might resell that marijuana in another state.
 
2009-02-04 03:10:29 PM
Civil rights violation?? I'm sorry, I didn't know it was your right to crash your car on a public road, make a bloody mess of yourself and others and demand that the state clean it up for you. Idiots. Wear your seat belt. It's really ....REALLY not that hard.
 
2009-02-04 03:11:13 PM
HansensDisease: That's nice. Too bad that's not the way it works.

If any insurance company pays out medical bills they raise rates. They're in the business to make a profit. If their costs go up, their income needs to go up.


That's why it's called "insurance" and not "we'll pay your medical bills for you". It's a business like any other. If you don't like how they set their prices, go elsewhere.

Furthermore all insurance companies watch each other's rates, so other companies will be raising theirs, even if they don't have a different set morons who don't wear belts as customers. (I'd say that approaches a zero probability.)

All insurance companies use a shared risk pool, it affects everyone in the pool when rates go up. Therefore you're stealing from me by being an irresponsible asshat.


Sounds like your problem is more to do with an insurance cartel than it does with me. I agree, it's a problem. I also will once again point out your logic is flawed. I do not steal anything. I caused your insurance to go up the same way the guy who is willing to pay $50k for a car causes the price of that car to be high. It's capitalism.

It's obvious you don't know the way capitalism really works.

I know how it work. I don't agree that natural functions of capitalism is stealing. It's a free market. Not a you-dictate-what-others-do-to-benefit-your-wallet market.
 
2009-02-04 03:13:51 PM
HansensDisease: Therefore you're stealing from me by being an irresponsible asshat.

that could pretty much be anything, does your coffee table have sharp corners or rounded ones? mine has rounded ones and I feel anyone with sharp cornered furniture is stealing from me.
 
2009-02-04 03:15:52 PM
HansensDisease: imgod2u: If your argument for "stealing" from you is through insurance, I've already pointed out that that is the fault of your insurance company's pricing policy.

That's nice. Too bad that's not the way it works.

If any insurance company pays out medical bills they raise rates. They're in the business to make a profit. If their costs go up, their income needs to go up.

Furthermore all insurance companies watch each other's rates, so other companies will be raising theirs, even if they don't have a different set morons who don't wear belts as customers. (I'd say that approaches a zero probability.)

All insurance companies use a shared risk pool, it affects everyone in the pool when rates go up. Therefore you're stealing from me by being an irresponsible asshat.

It's obvious you don't know the way capitalism really works.


Hey, lets bold a few words in our post to make it really annoying for everyone else to read.

It's obvious you don't know the way the society should work. If you don't like the cost for a voluntary service provided by a commercial enterprise, you don't have the right to make a law forcing me to modify my behavior in hopes of reducing that cost.

As has been asked before in this thread, if you're ok with the government dictating this personal choice, where do you draw the line? Fast food? Alcohol? Exercise? Jogging?
 
2009-02-04 03:17:21 PM
Impooter: Civil rights violation?? I'm sorry, I didn't know it was your right to crash your car on a public road, make a bloody mess of yourself and others and demand that the state clean it up for you. Idiots. Wear your seat belt. It's really ....REALLY not that hard.

Seatbelts don't prevent accidents.
 
2009-02-04 03:18:41 PM
TheHateMonger: You would support criminalization of not exercising?

When my tax dollars end up supporting your lard-filled ass via you becoming a disabled parasite? Ummm. Yes.

Morgoth: I as a free person have a right to request a law to make drinking illegal? Not because you may drive under the influence, but you may drink too much. You could suffer from cirrhosis of the liver as a result. If your insurance doesn't cover all the cost associated with that, are you then stealing from me?

I don't drink. So go ahead. Pass that law. I have no sympathy for weak-willed drunks.

The thing you stupid Liberarians forget... is that you are not 100% free. You didn't pay for the civilization that made it possible for you to be educated, transported, and generally not eaten by freakin' bears.

I doubt you're planning on paying all of us back for our costs in making that possible for you, so society has determined you need to not endanger others or rip them off. Otherwise we have the right to prevent you from doing so in the first place.

Feel free to to go off into the woods and live alone and in squalor, but you'll need to refund some of the 30 years of tax dollars I've spent supporting your lazy, self-absorbed ass first.
 
2009-02-04 03:21:07 PM
imgod2u: I caused your insurance to go up

Therefore you stole from me. I did not consent to this. Nor have I derived any benefit from it.

TheHateMonger: If you don't like the cost for a voluntary service

It isn't voluntary in my state. So wear your seltbelt.
 
2009-02-04 03:21:15 PM
HansensDisease: Feel free to to go off into the woods and live alone and in squalor, but you'll need to refund some of the 30 years of tax dollars I've spent supporting your lazy, self-absorbed ass first.

I'm willing to bet I pay more (both in percentage and absolute terms) taxes than you and that I utilize less public services. You owe me money then. Also, I get to dictate what you do.
 
2009-02-04 03:22:34 PM
This Thread
a2.vox.com
/Godwin, why yes, you bunch of babies.
 
2009-02-04 03:23:18 PM
HansensDisease: Therefore you stole from me. I did not consent to this. Nor have I derived any benefit from it.

Remember how capitalism works? Your consent isn't necessary. You don't get to control prices.

It isn't voluntary in my state. So wear your seltbelt.

Then it sounds like the problem is your State laws and mandatory insurance.
 
2009-02-04 03:23:30 PM
tombotia: Maybe it should be illegal to do said activities without first telling your insurance provider?

Dear Sir,

Please be advised that you will not be compensated for medical procedures related to said injury as you did not give us 24 notice that you planned to run with scissors.

We appreciate your business.

Tombotia Insurance Company
 
2009-02-04 03:24:07 PM
John Buck 41: Mad_Radhu: Unless you're driving on a ice road where you may have to bail out at a moment's notice, why take the risk?

That's one time you should be wearing it. (though not necessarily the only time)


Poster said "ICE ROAD", not "ICY ROAD". Big difference. On the ice road, your truck could go through at any second and you have to bail FAST... there's not a lot of things to HIT when you're out there though, so belt is not really helpful.
 
2009-02-04 03:24:43 PM
TheHateMonger: Hey, lets bold a few words in our post to make it really annoying for everyone else to read.

ZOMG! Why are you interfering with my precious right to use bold fonts whenever I want to?!

Help! I'm being oppressed by the Man!
 
2009-02-04 03:25:33 PM
HansensDisease: TheHateMonger: You would support criminalization of not exercising?

When my tax dollars end up supporting your lard-filled ass via you becoming a disabled parasite? Ummm. Yes.

Morgoth: I as a free person have a right to request a law to make drinking illegal? Not because you may drive under the influence, but you may drink too much. You could suffer from cirrhosis of the liver as a result. If your insurance doesn't cover all the cost associated with that, are you then stealing from me?

I don't drink. So go ahead. Pass that law. I have no sympathy for weak-willed drunks.

The thing you stupid Liberarians forget... is that you are not 100% free. You didn't pay for the civilization that made it possible for you to be educated, transported, and generally not eaten by freakin' bears.

I doubt you're planning on paying all of us back for our costs in making that possible for you, so society has determined you need to not endanger others or rip them off. Otherwise we have the right to prevent you from doing so in the first place.

Feel free to to go off into the woods and live alone and in squalor, but you'll need to refund some of the 30 years of tax dollars I've spent supporting your lazy, self-absorbed ass first.


Wow. I can't say much more about your worldview than wow. I'm curious to your profession and social circles that have led to such very different conclusions about the role of government and people's responsibility in and to society.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report