States should oppose seatbelt mandate: Congress acting outside its scope, authority

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, December 19, 2003 | Jon Dougherty

[Protagoras]

[CWOJackson]

Here's a quiz for you.

Can you imagine any time in our association that you can somehow get the impression I answer questions on demand or really care what you think?

[CWOJackson]

Nice photo. Sorry they wouldn't let you beyond that point but obviously they had their reasons.

[Protagoras]

I'll take that as an admission to your obsession.

The question was rhetorical in any case, you never have had the guts to answer any question so I never expected one.

It was designed to educate others, not elicit a response.

[Protagoras]

[CWOJackson]

Assume whatever you wish there sparky and don't worry too much about educating the folks...I'm sure anyone interested in your posts also saw your spectacular performance on the raimondo thread also.

I'm sure the fan mail was pouring in to you.

[Protagoras]

Actually, it did. Most of it concerned your obession. Looks like the whole site is on to your one trick pony, sparkless.

[CWOJackson]

Of course, all one has to do is pop on over to the raimondo thread and look at all their posts supporting you...LOL!

[logician2u]

Federalism aside, we need to understand that a segment of the population -- not large, but loud and somewhat influential in places such as Neu Yawk and Portland, O-re-gone -- becomes absolutely ecstatic when they learn of another imposition/restriction/mandate/cost proposed to be inflicted on automobile owners.

Mandatory seatbelt laws are, to these nutballs, just one more brick paving the road to their nirvana, a car-free society.

They are not as much concerned with traffic safety as with removing cars and drivers from the roads, which would leave them more open to such healthy activities as walking and riding bicycles.

(Not suggesting in any way that Hillary is in need of exercise or anti-car. But she's smart enough to play this issue for what it's worth.)

[Protagoras]

I made two points on that thread as anyone who cares (no one) can plainly see.

1, the article was a steaming pile
2, you had a personal vendetta against the poster.

Both were true, and still are. I didn't meet a single poster there who disagreed with either of those two points.

Now isn't it time for you to go find some other unrelated thread to make your goofy obession into an issue? LOL

[CWOJackson]

"Both were true, and still are. I didn't meet a single poster there who disagreed with either of those two points."

LOL! You are in Oz big time there Toto.

[Protagoras]

Toto and Sparky, which is it Sparkless?

[CWOJackson]

Ask the voices in your head there sparky.

[Richard-SIA]

Not sure I know how to do this.
If I can simply "cut & paste" the thread's URL then it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014129/posts

It went over 300 post!

[Richard-SIA]

So I am NOT the only one who remembers Dizzy Dole as the liberal would-be tyrant she really is!

I once attended a local republican fund raising party for which the Doles were the featured speakers.
The idea was being floated the Dizzy Dole should run for President.
It was absolutely scary to see how quickly the republican women present abandoned any pretense of reason or objectivity, they clamored for her like teenybopper's at a rock concert!

[Peace will be here soon]

Does the Federal government have the power to require everybody to think and act sensibly?

---

My goodness, if we just let everyone run around willy nilly doing whatever they pleased we would have utter chaos in this country. Of course our government, state and federal, has the right to make laws that protect me from the nutjobs in this country. I am glad for that. Why don`t you go back and read my post again. I never said I would support this, only that I was open to the idea. The end result is yet to be determined.

[Peace will be here soon]

No they are just "States'" issues not Federal

---

I generally agree, but I am open to look at a federal mandate on this issue. I want to see the final legislation before popping my top though.

[Jeff Gordon]

I do not believe that people should be legally forced to wear seatbelts.

I do believe that people who are injured while not wearing seatbelts should have no legal claims about those injuries no matter who was at fault.

Feel free to not use your seat belt but also accept total responsibility for the risks you are taking.

[Jeff Gordon]

Can you think of any issue whatsoever that you couldn't turn into a anti freedom screed in 20 words or less?

How about the legalized murders on Ruby Ridge by Federal Agents?

[SkyRat]

Counting down to American Revolution v2.0.

I'm curios, do you think there will be one?