 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2006What's more dangerous? Not wearing Seatbelts or Seatbelt Traffic Stops
We've all seen the videos of cops and stopped cars getting hit by other vehicles during traffic stops. My question is, which is more dangerous? Not wearing a seatbelt or being forced to stop on the side of a highway so you can be issued a $25, or whatever the amount is now, ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. By the way, I wear a seatbelt. It just seems silly to risk two vehicles (violator and cop) all in the name of safety for the one drivers who's violation is only endangering himself. Let's also not forget you have to count the potential third vehicle that the stopped cars now become a roadside hazard to. > We've all seen the videos of cops and stopped cars getting hit by > other vehicles during traffic stops. My question is, which is more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > forget you have to count the potential third vehicle that the stopped > cars now become a roadside hazard to. It seems if you don't wear a seatbelt you risk both of your scenarios. In my opinion, only hand holding liberals need laws to wear seatbelts. Everyone else uses common sense. >We've all seen the videos of cops and stopped cars getting hit by >other vehicles during traffic stops. My question is, which is more >dangerous? Not wearing a seatbelt or being forced to stop on the side >of a highway so you can be issued a $25, or whatever the amount is >now, ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. Getting pulled over by an idiot cop who refuses to accept that stopping on the roadway is dangerous. > We've all seen the videos of cops and stopped cars getting hit by > other vehicles during traffic stops. My question is, which is more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > forget you have to count the potential third vehicle that the stopped > cars now become a roadside hazard to. I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop can pull over anyone only on the basis of not wearing a seat belt, so your question raises a moot point. > I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my > time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop > can pull over anyone only on the basis of not wearing a seat belt, so > your question raises a moot point. Where I live (Massachusetts) not wearing a seat belt is also a secondary offense. Yet tens of thousands of Massachusetts drivers have been ticketed and fined solely for not buckling up, according to a Globe review of state records. http://motorists.org/ma/law_skirting.html So your objection is a moot point. Ivan > > I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my > > time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ivan Couldn't it be that the officer was trying to be nice by giving the driver the lower of two penalties? Like, if they were speeding and not wearing a seatbelt, the seatbelt ticket is usually going to cost less (or in some states, a heluva lot less) than a speeding ticket. Would the National Motorists Ass'n prefer they just give two tickets to all those drivers just to cover their a.ses? Dave > > Where I live (Massachusetts) not wearing a seat belt is also a secondary > > offense. Yet tens of thousands of Massachusetts drivers have been [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Dave The NMA would prefer if tens of thousands of Massachusetts drivers stopped illegally wouldn't be ticketed at all. Ivan > > > Where I live (Massachusetts) not wearing a seat belt is also a secondary > > > offense. Yet tens of thousands of Massachusetts drivers have been > > > ticketed and fined solely for not buckling up, according to a Globe > > > review of state records. > > > http://motorists.org/ma/law_skirting.html > > Couldn't it be that the officer was trying to be nice by giving the > > driver the lower of two penalties? Like, if they were speeding and not > > wearing a seatbelt, the seatbelt ticket is usually going to cost less > > (or in some states, a heluva lot less) than a speeding ticket. > > Would the National Motorists Ass'n prefer they just give two tickets to > > all those drivers just to cover their a.ses? > The NMA would prefer if tens of thousands of Massachusetts drivers > stopped illegally wouldn't be ticketed at all. I was hoping the NMA would prefer that those drivers weren't pulled over in the first place rather than just not ticketed :) Shawn Hirn, <srhi@comcast.net> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:51:39 -0500: > I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my > time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop > can pull over anyone only on the basis of not wearing a seat belt, so > your question raises a moot point. Just because you are in an area that makes seatbelt violations a secondary offense does not make it a moot point. Here in GA, seatbelt violation is a primary offense. So AFAIAC the OP's question is valid. > I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my > time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop > can pull over anyone only on the basis of not wearing a seat belt, so > your question raises a moot point. Some states are PRIMARY enforcement for seat belt use. I know NY is, I believe CO is. There are probably several others I'm not aware of. It wouldn't surprise me if most states are primary enforcement for seatbelt use soon. I don't wish it to be so, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me. The question is not moot. -Dave >> I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my >> time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >soon. I don't wish it to be so, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me. >The question is not moot. -Dave Well, some here, such as Brent, argue that if you allow the government to pass a law taking away some of our rights, eventually they will take all of them. Illinois started with seat belt laws that only could be ticketed as a secondary offense, but recently changed it in spite of promises that would never happen/ > >> I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my > >> time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > could be ticketed as a secondary offense, but recently changed it in > spite of promises that would never happen/ Same in Washington not very many years ago. We are now near the top of states with the highest percentage of seatbelt wearers. Good, yes. Bad because they run an annual "click it or ticket" campagn statewide. Haven't seen any roadblocks for it yet but I suspect they will get there. Harry K >Well, some here, such as Brent, argue that if you allow the government >to pass a law taking away some of our rights, eventually they will >take all of them. And the government, despite the argument of its supporters otherwise, is doing its damndest to prove him right.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >In article <7iilr1l1c5jv4kf6ita4c7ubt75484h76q@4ax.com>, >I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my >time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop >can pull over anyone only on the basis of not wearing a seat belt, so >your question raises a moot point. I live in the Socialist Mecca called Maryland where we have primary enforcement. Maryland where in the last few years auto registration fee's have nearly doubled, Property Tax Assessments nearly doubled, and our latest and greatest, the Flush Tax where we Septic tank users pay the polluters to clean up their act. Our neighboring states have Slot Machines to help fund their states but not in Maryland. So we send all that gambling money to our neighboring states that are a short drive away for many of us. Maryland always needs money hence forth the primary seat belt law. Maryland is turning into a stupid state and if I could move I would. Think twice before considering moving to this state. The tax and spending is really getting out of control lately. The Free State? Don't you believe it. Sorry for the rant but it struck a nerve. > By the way, I wear a seatbelt. It just seems silly to risk two > vehicles (violator and cop) all in the name of safety for the one > drivers who's violation is only endangering himself. Let's also not > forget you have to count the potential third vehicle that the stopped > cars now become a roadside hazard to. I find it silly how many people and police officers are put at risk for stops that have nothing to do with traffic safety of all kinds. How conducting even basic police work has become a road side affair. It just doesn't make sense to me, but then again, I don't get the profits from the ticketing nor any sense of power from it. > We've all seen the videos of cops and stopped cars getting hit by > other vehicles during traffic stops. My question is, which is more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > forget you have to count the potential third vehicle that the stopped > cars now become a roadside hazard to. The cop is taking the same chance no matter the reason for the stop. It is a risk that he is willing to take and be paid for. Completely separate is the narrowminded decision of some drivers to not use a seatbelt. I'm not sure what the current fine is, but if the cost-benefit analysis dosn't seem to quite balance out in your eyes, I do have an idea. Let's increase the first-time fine to $500.00 and accomplish several good deeds including: proactively encouraging seatbelt use; increasing public awareness of driving safety; improving the fiscal condition of many localities. >Let's increase the first-time fine to $500.00 and I agree. For the simple reason that would just about guarantee the universal repeal of this law. This is the reason they made the fine so low in the first place, they knew if the punishment was too harsh, the people would protest too much and it would get repealed. I see it like this, if a smoker can kill himself smoking, then I should have the same right if I decide to not wear a seatbelt. It's the double standard that annoys me more than anything. Now if I see smokers and other people with dangerous hobbies start getting ticketed, then my attitude may change a bit. By the way, I wonder how many smokers. support the Seat Belt law? If they do, I hope they realize they are complete hypocrites. Sorry to come down hard on the smokers but I have some resentment when my potentially hazardess activity is illegal while their pretty much guaranteed hazardess activity is perfectly legal. The irony is, Seatbelts can harm just as well as protect you depending on the situation where smoking can only harm you. Smoking is also much more dangerous to innocent bystanders like Second hand Smoke, Starting fires in homes or apartments, Smoking while driving, Forest fires etc >The cop is taking the same chance no matter the reason for the stop. >It is a risk that he is willing to take and be paid for. Completely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >seatbelt use; increasing public awareness of driving safety; improving >the fiscal condition of many localities. This will have the unfortunate side effect of increasing cop intrusions into our regular lives. They will start to use the 'I thought you were not wearing a seatbelt' excuse whenever they can. Their superiors will pressure them to give out more seatbelt tickets so that the town can balance their budget. --------------- Alex > >The cop is taking the same chance no matter the reason for the stop. > >It is a risk that he is willing to take and be paid for. Completely [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > them to give out more seatbelt tickets so that the town can balance their > budget. In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running a red light or having an expired tag, those stops were jusitified, professionally handled and served their purpose (I became a better driver). As with helmets for motorcycle riders, there is NO justifiable reason to not wear a seatbelt. >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running >a red light or having an expired tag, those stops were jusitified, >professionally handled and served their purpose (I became a better >driver). You obviously have not ever been through a police roadblock. I have and it is an intrusion, a waste of my time, and a waste of police resources. >As with helmets for motorcycle riders, there is NO justifiable reason >to not wear a seatbelt. Freedom of choice is a good reason. I personally would not drive without wearing a seatbelt, but I don't like being told that I have to do it. I'm an adult who can make my own decisions. I don't need some elected official who thinks he knows it all telling me what to do. ----------------- Alex > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You obviously have not ever been through a police roadblock. I have and it > is an intrusion, a waste of my time, and a waste of police resources. If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me. > >As with helmets for motorcycle riders, there is NO justifiable reason > >to not wear a seatbelt. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an adult who can make my own decisions. I don't need some elected official > who thinks he knows it all telling me what to do. Many of our so-called freedoms have to be balanced against their impact on society as a whole. By not wearing a seatbelt or helmet you put yourself at greater risk of physical damage. If you lived on an island by yourself and were willing to take that risk, then go ahead. But as a member of a society if you seriously and permanently injure yourself then someone else has to pick up the responsibility for your care. Thus the "right" to do someting stupid like not wear a seat belt is counterbalanced by the potential impact such behaviour has on society as a whole. > ----------------- > Alex >> >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were >> >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a > murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me. Which is why government has done that end run, by saying they are looking for DUI. And people like you trust not only the current government and police but all future people who may hold those offices or jobs to never, ever, abuse that power. > Many of our so-called freedoms have to be balanced against their impact > on society as a whole. By not wearing a seatbelt or helmet you put > yourself at greater risk of physical damage. In a society that values liberty, that arguement is one to justify tyranny. All it takes to control every facet of everyone's life is to draw some chain of how it might impact society as a whole. For instance, if people eat apples then too much land in somebody's opinion will be used for growing apple trees, so the political system kicks in and demands that no one eat more than 2 apples a week. I can control practically any facet of a person's life this way. Now, to seat belt and helmet laws. The helmet only protects the rider. There is no reason to mandate it and no clear data that there is even a benefit. Especially bicycle helmets. I choose not to wear a bicycle helmet because I studied the varied information on the topic and concluded that they had several downsides while offering little to no protection in return. I should be free to make that decision for me. Seatbelts. Seatbelts are made to keep the driver at the controls as much as they are made to protect him from injury. The injuries of another driver due to his choice is not an issue for me, what is an issue is remaining in control of the vehicle. That is where it may be regulated just as the headlamps, taillamps, emmissions, etc are. I see a seatbelt as a mechanical fastener in the control system of the automobile, much like the bolts that hold the steering column in place. > If you lived on an island > by yourself and were willing to take that risk, then go ahead. But as > a member of a society if you seriously and permanently injure yourself > then someone else has to pick up the responsibility for your care. Why? > Thus the "right" to do someting stupid like not wear a seat belt is > counterbalanced by the potential impact such behaviour has on society > as a whole. There is no right to have someone pick up the responsibility for mine or anyone else's care. That is not a right, can never be a right because it is demanding service from another citizen. Rights stop where you do. BTW, you might want to google on the severe and/or life-changing injuries that motorcycle helmet wearers get instead of just dying without the helmet. If health care costs (money and labor) were the real concern, then we should simply encourage that riders die instead of living with severe injury or having the expensive care to repair a severe injury. Because simply, dying is the cheapest option. Obviously then it's about trying to make it so people have what is thought to be the best chance of living, and not what is cheapest. The cost arguement simply doesn't hold together when it's cheaper to die than be injured. > >> >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > >> >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > demands that no one eat more than 2 apples a week. I can control > practically any facet of a person's life this way. Do a websearch for reductio ad absurdum and note how the definition applies to your last statement. > Now, to seat belt and helmet laws. The helmet only protects the rider. > There is no reason to mandate it and no clear data that there is even a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as a mechanical fastener in the control system of the automobile, much > like the bolts that hold the steering column in place. It is an issue for most of us because we pay for that drivers shortsighted and childish behaviour. > > If you lived on an island > > by yourself and were willing to take that risk, then go ahead. But as > > a member of a society if you seriously and permanently injure yourself > > then someone else has to pick up the responsibility for your care. > > Why? Are you asking why does someone else pick up the cost of injuries? You apparently don't use insurance, hospitals and doctors. If you did you would realize that to the extent that to the injuries are covered under insurance premiums will rise. To the extent they are not someone else, usually local tax payers gets to pay for the cost of caring for that crippled individual for the rest of his life. > > Thus the "right" to do someting stupid like not wear a seat belt is > > counterbalanced by the potential impact such behaviour has on society [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > living, and not what is cheapest. The cost arguement simply doesn't hold > together when it's cheaper to die than be injured. >> >> >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were >> >> >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Do a websearch for reductio ad absurdum and note how the definition > applies to your last statement. It's quite absurd to suggest that if there is an impact to society as a whole it should be subject to control. That was the point. If you don't like my method of demonstrating it, oh well. >> Now, to seat belt and helmet laws. The helmet only protects the rider. >> There is no reason to mandate it and no clear data that there is even a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> as a mechanical fastener in the control system of the automobile, much >> like the bolts that hold the steering column in place. > It is an issue for most of us because we pay for that drivers > shortsighted and childish behaviour. Rather non-responsive of you. If you are concerned about the costs, leave the unbelted injured to die on the side of the road or fend for themselves. The only arguement for seat belts is the inability to prevent further collisions which cause harm to others. What harm they cause themselves is of little concern to me. Of course these same seat belt laws and such probably don't allow for the use racing harrnesses and other even more effective measures. >> > If you lived on an island >> > by yourself and were willing to take that risk, then go ahead. But as >> > a member of a society if you seriously and permanently injure yourself >> > then someone else has to pick up the responsibility for your care. >> Why? > Are you asking why does someone else pick up the cost of injuries? I am asking why there is a responsibility for others to pick up the cost. > You apparently don't use insurance, hospitals and doctors. The usage of automobile insurance is forced. If you are worried about your rates going up because of irresponsible people, then I suggest you deal with your state's insurance board or whatever it's called on that. A socialized system encourages irresponsible action by some of the members because the personal costs are less. The knee-jerk reaction is then one of control. You are demanding control over the costs people you find irresponsible are placing on the system. > If you did you > would realize that to the extent that to the injuries are covered under > insurance premiums will rise. To the extent they are not someone else, > usually local tax payers gets to pay for the cost of caring for that > crippled individual for the rest of his life. Simple solution. Leave him to die. If you are worried about cost, that is the cheapest one in dollars to the society. Leave them to die. Or is it more than money? >> > Thus the "right" to do someting stupid like not wear a seat belt is >> > counterbalanced by the potential impact such behaviour has on society >> > as a whole. >> There is no right to have someone pick up the responsibility for mine or >> anyone else's care. That is not a right, can never be a right because it >> is demanding service from another citizen. Rights stop where you do. >> BTW, you might want to google on the severe and/or life-changing injuries >> that motorcycle helmet wearers get instead of just dying without the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> living, and not what is cheapest. The cost arguement simply doesn't hold >> together when it's cheaper to die than be injured. Exactly. > If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with > the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a > murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me. I would. The fourth amendment trumps anything police need to do. Ever. On the other hand if somebody just robbed a bank and fled in a car that looks almost exactly like mine, then I wouldn't blame the police for stopping me. The one is probable cause, the other isn't. >> If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with >> the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >looks almost exactly like mine, then I wouldn't blame the police for >stopping me. The one is probable cause, the other isn't. The most amazing part to me is the number of clear violations the police overlook. Just this week (Monday & Tues so far) in front of police I've watched people run red lights, run stop signs, have registrations that expired in 2005, no rearview mirrors (none, inside or out), and get stuck across an intersection after opposing traffic had a green light. In every case the cop just kept going. Yet even though these cops are too busy to stop someone who's right in front of them and their registration hasn't been renewed in over a year, they can still get 12 cops to stand around on a Friday night to check for insurance, registration and seat belts. Dave >>> If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with >>> the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > year, they can still get 12 cops to stand around on a Friday night to > check for insurance, registration and seat belts. They're lazy and worthless.... the whole lot of em. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a > murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me. Good for you. Unfortunately, only one of those roadblocks would actually be allowed by the Constitution of the Untied Snakes. Looking for "drunks or illegally tagged cars" is NOT a valid use of a roadblock. That's what's known as a "papers check." IOW, detainment without probable cause, absent an overriding threat to society. Now if a police officer spots a car with an expired sticker, or one that shows signs of being operated by a drunk, and then pulls that car over, that's a whole different matter - and one that I wholeheartedly support. nate > > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > for "drunks or illegally tagged cars" is NOT a valid use of a > roadblock. You may not consider those to be "valid" uses but they do occur. And if they make the roads safer then I'm for them, especially road blocks during high risk periods like new years eve. > That's what's known as a "papers check." IOW, detainment > without probable cause, absent an overriding threat to society. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > nate > > > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > if they make the roads safer then I'm for them, especially road blocks > during high risk periods like new years eve. That doesn't make them any less illegal. nate > > > > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > > > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > That doesn't make them any less illegal. "Illegal" and "Not Valid" are completely different. Please explain how road blocks to catch drunks are illegal given that local jurisdictions use them. > > > > > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > > > > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > road blocks to catch drunks are illegal given that local jurisdictions > use them. It's real easy, the local jurisdictions are breaking the law. In this case, the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment. nate > > > > > > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > > > > > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > It's real easy, the local jurisdictions are breaking the law. In this > case, the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment. That's what happens when non-lawyers and right wingers read their own agenda into the law. > > > > > > > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > > > > > > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > That's what happens when non-lawyers and right wingers read their own > agenda into the law. Um, the founding fathers specifically wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in plain English (what was plain English at the time, anyway) so that any reasonably educated person could read the documents and understand what they said without having a lawyer act as an interpreter. This was done specifically so that the government could not abuse its power and then obfuscate to make their actions appear legal. Now perhaps you should read the relevant section of the Bill of Rights. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't see any exceptions in there for DUI checkpoints or papers check stops, do you? If there is no probable cause, there can be no stop. Period. The fact that this concept is ignored on a daily basis does not invalidate it in any way. I notice that you accuse me of being a "right-winger," how do you square that with the fact that the head right-winger, Shrub himself, is also associated with illegal surveillance? I wouldn't be associated with activity like that for anything. Geebus Xrist, what the hell do they teach kids in Civics class these days? nate > > > > > > > > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > > > > > > > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > Geebus Xrist, what the hell do they teach kids in Civics class these > days? You seem to be reading a "unique" interpretation of that law, one that has not held up in the courts. If DUI checkpoints are illegal as you claim I would think that most municipal treasuries would be busted from paying out court settlements. But the municipalities aren't losing on this issue now are they. So yes, the real world is something other than what you want it to be. As I said, yours is either an amateur interpretation or right-wing ranting about governmental intrusion. Either case is completely wrong. > > > > > > > > > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > > > > > > > > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > paying out court settlements. But the municipalities aren't losing on > this issue now are they. Courts can be wrong as well. Do you ever think for yourself, or do you just accept whatever is told to you? > So yes, the real world is something other > than what you want it to be. Obviously. In an ideal world such things wouldn't happen, and our country wouldn't be run by neocons either. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, yadda yadda yadda, and apparently we've been lax in the vigilance department lately. > As I said, yours is either an amateur interpretation or right-wing > ranting about governmental intrusion. Either case is completely wrong. Saying something is wrong doesn't make it so. If you'd care to actually discuss the issue, we could, but simply contradicting assertions doesn't really make for an enlightening debate. nate > > > > > > > > > > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > > > > > > > > > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > actually discuss the issue, we could, but simply contradicting > assertions doesn't really make for an enlightening debate. Yes, lets deal in specifics that describe the real world. Please show me either the supreme court case striking down DUI roadblocks as illegal or provide a list of lawsuits successful against municipalities for using DUI roadblocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were > > > > > > > > > > > > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > illegal or provide a list of lawsuits successful against municipalities > for using DUI roadblocks. Neither one of which has anything to do with whether something is fundamentally right or wrong. No thanks, don't feel like playing that game today. nate We are a nation of laws with several levels of appeal to assure things do not get out of hand. Unfortunately you are stuck with the decision. End of discussion. > We are a nation of laws with several levels of appeal to assure things > do not get out of hand. Unfortunately you are stuck with the decision. > End of discussion. Things ARE out of hand and the fact that you can't seem to evaluate things for yourself means that you are part of the problem. If people are unwilling or unable to speak out against the growing corruption in our government it will spread unchecked until the only "freedom" we have left is the doublespeak mouthed by our leaders. nate > > We are a nation of laws with several levels of appeal to assure things > > do not get out of hand. Unfortunately you are stuck with the decision. > > End of discussion. > > Things ARE out of hand and the fact that you can't seem to evaluate > things for yourself means that you are part of the problem. Oh, I'm perfectly capable of evaluating things, including the effectiveness of the government. Because I agree with most of what my government does apparently in your mind constitutes an inability to evaluate. That is a typical close-minded response of many far right wingers. If people > are unwilling or unable to speak out against the growing corruption in > our government it will spread unchecked until the only "freedom" we > have left is the doublespeak mouthed by our leaders. Please describe in detail the growing corruption in government. Don't just tell there is this or that problem, but describe in detail how it has grown. I assume you have a base year from which to measure the growth, so please take your time and give me all the specifics. I've heard so much of this before from guys like Barry G., Robert W. and Lyndon L., and where are they now. > > > We are a nation of laws with several levels of appeal to assure things > > > do not get out of hand. Unfortunately you are stuck with the decision. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > evaluate. That is a typical close-minded response of many far right > wingers. Since when was I a "far right winger?" I'm curious why you seem to want to lump me in with the current administration, with whom I have very little in common. And why you agree with acts that are contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution is incomprehensible to me. > If people > > are unwilling or unable to speak out against the growing corruption in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > has grown. I assume you have a base year from which to measure the > growth, so please take your time and give me all the specifics. Ummm... when the President of the US authorizes an illegal domestic surveillance program, and it takes SEVERAL YEARS for it to come to light, that is a sign of fairly widespread corruption. Or have you not been watching the news lately? > I've heard so much of this before from guys like Barry G., Robert W. > and Lyndon L., and where are they now. Barry G. as in Barry Goldwater? I'd vote for him today if I could, he'd be a hell of an improvement over any of the current administration. Please elaborate on what you find objectionable about him or his philosophy. Sadly I wasn't anywhere near old enough to vote back when he was still a viable candidate. nate > > > > We are a nation of laws with several levels of appeal to assure things > > > > do not get out of hand. Unfortunately you are stuck with the decision. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution is > incomprehensible to me. Your comments are nothing new - they are repeated by each new group of ultra right wingers. It doesn't matter which zealot is leading the charge against the windmill...the comments are all the same. > > If people > > > are unwilling or unable to speak out against the growing corruption in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > light, that is a sign of fairly widespread corruption. Or have you not > been watching the news lately? As I thought, you make a statement about "growing corruption" and can't support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption have come into place and what was your benchmark. > > I've heard so much of this before from guys like Barry G., Robert W. > > and Lyndon L., and where are they now. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > him or his philosophy. Sadly I wasn't anywhere near old enough to vote > back when he was still a viable candidate. You really need to go read up on the zealots that keep the ultra right wing troops repeating these well worn phrases about the big government intruding in everyones lives. Trust me everything you've said has been said before and the right wingers have yet to line up any significant support for such drivel. > You really need to go read up on the zealots that keep the ultra right > wing troops repeating these well worn phrases about the big government > intruding in everyones lives. Trust me everything you've said has been > said before and the right wingers have yet to line up any significant > support for such drivel. Possibly for the same reason that college graduates can't balance their checkbooks. SignatureCheers, Bev xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I've enjoyed just about as much of this as I can stand. > > You really need to go read up on the zealots that keep the ultra right > > wing troops repeating these well worn phrases about the big government [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Possibly for the same reason that college graduates can't balance their > checkbooks. They can't??? Gosh, I have several college grads in my family and they all have no problem with simple math like that. Now how did you miss my college grads in your study of the spending habits. Nor do they have problems with the concept of budgeting expenses and income. More to the point however is that I don't understand how your comment ties back to mine about right wingers. > -- > Cheers, > Bev > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > I've enjoyed just about as much of this as I can stand. > As I thought, you make a statement about "growing corruption" and can't > support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption > have come into place and what was your benchmark. Start with the new london case in the supreme court where now government can take our property and give it to well connected developers and work your way down. > > As I thought, you make a statement about "growing corruption" and can't > > support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can take our property and give it to well connected developers and work > your way down. That too. Again, I can't believe the total lack of outrage on the part of the general public. To John S.: It seems that at some point before I was even born, elected officials stopped thinking about what they could do for the good of the country and started thinking about what they could do for the good of themselves or their buddies. Also an arrogance of the highest officials as if they were above the law - and for the most part, they have been. Maybe Jimmy Carter was an exception, but he wasn't a particularly effective President either. But certainly dates back to at least Nixon. In any case there has been a steady erosion of civil rights and due process, both through legal and illegal channels. nate > > As I thought, you make a statement about "growing corruption" and can't > > support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can take our property and give it to well connected developers and work > your way down. That's a Supreme Court ruling based on laws that our legislature(s) established. But the decision itself is hardly corrupt. If we have a problem with the interpretation then we need to change our laws. I'm still waiting for your long list that includes a benchmark and shows a trend of "growing corruption" over time. I'm confident now that your are having difficulty coming up with that list. > > > As I thought, you make a statement about "growing corruption" and can't > > > support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's a Supreme Court ruling based on laws that our legislature(s) > established. Contrary to the Constitution of the United States, which should overrule any laws passed by a legilature. > But the decision itself is hardly corrupt. It's certainly incorrect, if not corrupt. > If we have a > problem with the interpretation then we need to change our laws. No, we need to ensure that any future nominees to the Supreme Court are capable of reading the Constitution so that travesties of justice like this don't happen again. The law was wrong, sure, but the checks and balances that should have overturned it didn't work. > I'm still waiting for your long list that includes a benchmark and > shows a trend of "growing corruption" over time. I'm confident now > that your are having difficulty coming up with that list. The Bush administration. 'nuff said. nate > > > > As I thought, you make a statement about "growing corruption" and can't > > > > support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > nate As I said I've heard this unsupported stuff many times before. > > > > > As I thought, you make a statement about "growing corruption" and can't > > > > > support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > As I said I've heard this unsupported stuff many times before. What's unsupported? The fact that use of eminent domain for private sector developments is unConstitutional? or that the Bush administration is corrupt? You ought to have no problem at all finding proof of either, since you seem to be able to operate a computer that is connected to the Internet. nate You made a specific and serious assertion about "growing corruption", so please provide the support. It really should not be all that difficult for you now should it? To make a statement like that I'm sure you have the information right at hand. > You made a specific and serious assertion about "growing corruption", > so please provide the support. It really should not be all that > difficult for you now should it? To make a statement like that I'm > sure you have the information right at hand. It's been on the national news every day this week. nate >> > As I thought, you make a statement about "growing corruption" and can't >> > support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> can take our property and give it to well connected developers and work >> your way down. > That's a Supreme Court ruling based on laws that our legislature(s) > established. But the decision itself is hardly corrupt. If we have a > problem with the interpretation then we need to change our laws. It is an indicator that the system of government has been circumvented. First we have to look that the power to decide what is and what isn't constitutional was a power the supreme court granted itself. Then we can look at the process of how people become justices and so forth. We now have a government that is much what the founders feared and tried to prevent. The ability of government to take our property and give it to another citizen is one of the final nails in the coffin for the bill of rights. And for what? The corruption of government officals to line their pockets, their buddy's pockets, and increase the money and power available to their office. > I'm still waiting for your long list that includes a benchmark and > shows a trend of "growing corruption" over time. I'm confident now > that your are having difficulty coming up with that list. I didn't make the initial statement. And I live in the chicago area, which scandle should I start with? Betty Maltese, mob wife and former president of Cicero was just in court again this week regarding her sentancing. Or what about Governor Ryan selling CDLs? His trial is on going. Or the hired truck scandle with mayor for life daley the second. Recently there was a news story, why so many FBI agents investigating government corruption in IL? Duh, it's Illinois was my answer. >> Start with the new london case in the supreme court where now government >> can take our property and give it to well connected developers and work [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >established. But the decision itself is hardly corrupt. If we have a >problem with the interpretation then we need to change our laws. Bzzt. The liberals on the court WROTE new law with this decision. ************************* Dave >> > As I thought, you make a statement about "growing corruption" and can't >> > support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >established. But the decision itself is hardly corrupt. If we have a >problem with the interpretation then we need to change our laws. The law in question (not established by a legislature) states that "private property may not be taken without public use without just compensation". How you can get from there to "private property may be taken for _private_ use" is a mystery. >I'm still waiting for your long list that includes a benchmark and >shows a trend of "growing corruption" over time. I'm confident now >that your are having difficulty coming up with that list. Ahh, standard usenet debating tecnique #93: When proved wrong, raise the standard of proof required. > > > > > We are a nation of laws with several levels of appeal to assure things > > > > > do not get out of hand. Unfortunately you are stuck with the decision. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ultra right wingers. It doesn't matter which zealot is leading the > charge against the windmill...the comments are all the same. Um, whatever. Sounds like a typical knee-jerk sheeple reaction - marginalize everyone who states an opinion that you disagree with. > > > If people > > > > are unwilling or unable to speak out against the growing corruption in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > support it. Over what period has it grown, what kinds of corruption > have come into place and what was your benchmark. You don't think an illegal surveillance program is a sign of corruption? Just think about the number of people who had to know about this while it was going on, and they all kept their mouths shut. That's "widespread corruption." I don't think that this is the first time this has happened either, just the first time any Prez has admitted to it. > > > I've heard so much of this before from guys like Barry G., Robert W. > > > and Lyndon L., and where are they now. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > said before and the right wingers have yet to line up any significant > support for such drivel. You mean the Republican Party has been taken over by neocons and therefore doesn't actually believe in small government, states' rights, or individual freedoms and civil rights anymore. There's lots of real conservatives, moderates, and even liberals that still individually believe in the concepts on which our country was founded, however - their views are just not reflected by the Republican party. nate > Ummm... when the President of the US authorizes an illegal domestic > surveillance program, and it takes SEVERAL YEARS for it to come to > light, that is a sign of fairly widespread corruption. Or have you not > been watching the news lately? The executive branch IMO has had illegal surveillance programs practically since there were phones to tap! While I am glad that people are finally noticing, I am also affraid that once GWB is gone, they'll just go back to sleep. Of course this message will be monitored along with all our email by the system that was put into place during the clinton administration. But according to the mass media and most people outraged at GWB, that was and is perfectly acceptable. It's all wrong and has been from the get go. The federal government can monitor foreign nationals and that's all they can do without a warrant IMO. > > Ummm... when the President of the US authorizes an illegal domestic > > surveillance program, and it takes SEVERAL YEARS for it to come to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are finally noticing, I am also affraid that once GWB is gone, they'll > just go back to sleep. Thank you Brent for pointing that out. It seems the only ones in the media are Bush bashing Democrats conveniently ignoring the fact that it was also going on in Clinton's era as well as on back. Much akin to Kennedies grilling Alito on his membership in a certain club and then going out and trying to quietly cancel his own membership in a like club. Harry K > > Ummm... when the President of the US authorizes an illegal domestic > > surveillance program, and it takes SEVERAL YEARS for it to come to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It's all wrong and has been from the get go. The federal government can > monitor foreign nationals and that's all they can do without a warrant IMO. The thing that amazes me is the *lack* of outrage. There's actually debate as to whether Bush's actions were legal or not! Amazing. nate >The thing that amazes me is the *lack* of outrage. There's actually >debate as to whether Bush's actions were legal or not! Amazing. Hmmm, difficult thing here. Let me apologize right now in case this comes out wrong!!! First off, CONGRESS gave him permission. See, he went to the intelligence committees and got permission. That could certainly mean that what he did was perfectly legal. He did it to protect us from the muslim terrorists. I am sure you have no issue with protecting us, you just disagree with the method. Personally, I have zero issue, as long as it was only used on those who we had good reason to believe were terrorists. From all accounts, that is exactly what happened. I do agree that I am amazed we are debating it, as I feel the democrats who "broke the story" should be shot at sunrise. Knowing that you and I are on different sides of the political fence, I hope that my opinions do not annoy you too much. ************************* Dave > >The thing that amazes me is the *lack* of outrage. There's actually > >debate as to whether Bush's actions were legal or not! Amazing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > First off, CONGRESS gave him permission. See, he went to the > intelligence committees and got permission. Not exactly. He informed them of his decision, and told them that they weren't allowed to talk about it. > That could certainly mean > that what he did was perfectly legal. He did it to protect us from > the muslim terrorists. I am sure you have no issue with protecting > us, you just disagree with the method. Personally, I have zero issue, > as long as it was only used on those who we had good reason to believe > were terrorists. From all accounts, that is exactly what happened. I am not so sure. Since the FISA court already exists, with rules very friendly toward the government (retroactive warrants, etc.) I seriously question the motives of anyone that wants to circumvent it. I never did trust Bush as far as I could throw him, and so far, he has given me no reason to change that opinion. > I do agree that I am amazed we are debating it, as I feel the > democrats who "broke the story" should be shot at sunrise. Why? They're the true patriots in this scenario. > Knowing that you and I are on different sides of the political fence, > I hope that my opinions do not annoy you too much. Hey, at least you *have* an opinion, even if it's wrong <g> as opposed to the multitude that just accept what they're given without thought. nate >I am not so sure. Since the FISA court already exists, with rules very >friendly toward the government (retroactive warrants, etc.) I seriously >question the motives of anyone that wants to circumvent it. I never I have to agree with that point. >> I do agree that I am amazed we are debating it, as I feel the >> democrats who "broke the story" should be shot at sunrise. > >Why? They're the true patriots in this scenario. If they truly felt they were doing it for the better of the country, no issue, but we all know that the democrats on the intelligence committee(s) agreed to go along with it, leaked it to billary, who then arranged to let it go on long enough to make an issue of it when she/it thought it would be best. ************************* Dave >I do agree that I am amazed we are debating it, as I feel the >democrats who "broke the story" should be shot at sunrise. Should the people who broke: http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=75151 also be "shot at sunrise"? To many people who consider themselves Republican-leaning independents it's just a case of going too far after going too far after going too far after going too far. It's no one event that is Bush's problem anymore, but the complete and total failure of every agency under or around him to do things the right way instead of just lying about it and flushing the Constitution once again. I know I'll probably be called a liberal or conservative, depending on one's views, but every day it seems there's something else chipping away at our freedoms. If it isn't Ruby Ridge it's spying on our own citizens, and at many levels both parties have become corrupted by their sense of power. The fact that Bush's subordinates can't be bothered to get a court order to tap phone calls wouldn't be that big of an issue if it wasn't for the constant disregard (by both parties) on all fronts for individual rights in favor of the largest campaign donors or their latest "War On ..." Dave Hogan >>I do agree that I am amazed we are debating it, as I feel the >>democrats who "broke the story" should be shot at sunrise. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >also be "shot at sunrise"? The ACLU, hell yes. ************************* Dave >> Ummm... when the President of the US authorizes an illegal domestic >> surveillance program, and it takes SEVERAL YEARS for it to come to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >according to the mass media and most people outraged at GWB, that was and >is perfectly acceptable. Well, to be fair, "this message" is posted on a public Usenet group; nothing illegitimate about monitoring that. > By the way, I wear a seatbelt. It just seems silly to risk two > vehicles (violator and cop) all in the name of safety for the one > drivers who's violation is only endangering himself. Well, what about parents who do not belt their young children in? Those idiots are endangering several lives; they have a legal responsibility to provide for their child's safety. Given that, it would seem odd to me if the driver is legally required to buckle the children up, but not himself.. Also, non-buckled back seat passengers endanger the lives of those in the front seat in a head-on collision (many front seat passengers have been killed by flying objects, including other people!), and there is also the chance of a front seat passenger being thrown out the windscreen, and into the other car, killing its occupants too (or being thrown onto the road and killing a pedestrian). >Well, what about parents who do not belt their young children >in? Those idiots are endangering several lives; they have a legal >responsibility to provide for their child's safety. That's different. I say stop those folks. >Given that, it would seem odd to me if the driver is legally >required to buckle the children up, but not himself.. Not odd at all. >Also, non-buckled back seat passengers endanger the lives >of those in the front seat in a head-on collision (many front [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >other car, killing its occupants too (or being thrown onto >the road and killing a pedestrian). If the rear seat belts are lap only, the rear passenger risks doing more damage by wearing the belt than by not wearing a belt. I don't doubt that there have been front seat passengers killed by unbelted rear passengers, but I would think that most of the time the rear passenger will just ram the front seat back. -------------- Alex |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.