The Nanny State Strikes Again

Fox News ^ | 12/26/03 | William A. Niskanen

[camas]

i don't agree with the law and very seldom ware one. some times on tne highway to town (75 miles) but it is a way to pull a "bad guy" over and check him out.

[Orangedog]

No, they're just the ones who are going to pass it again and make it permanent this time. If this passes a GOP controlled congress and a GOP president, it's going to be interesting to see the party loyalists try to down play this as "not a big deal"

[politicalwit]

"What an IDIOT position to take for a conservative. I guess you'd prefer Pres. Dean's policies. People like you make me ill."

No, I'm no idiot. I simply see things as they really are...not a dimes' difference in the two parties. Dean, Bush....both are BIG government. It's people like you that support the status-quo. You think that conservatism and belief in the Constitution are solely owned by the republican party. I suppose that the latest in entitlements (prescription drugs) are moves in the right direction simply because GW signed the bill making it law. I bet you support the latest Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance also. How's you stand on immigration...should we go ahead and open the gates and provide illegals amnesty. Don't be surprised when GW endorses that move also It appears to me the republicans are simply mirroring the democrats. No, I'm not a "party" man. I can think on my own.

[Orangedog]

FYI, I was refering to the AWB...I hit the post botton to quickly on my reply to you.

[Ben Ficklin]

Election 2000

Republican- 50,459,624
Democrat- 51,003,238
Green- 2,882,995
Reform- 449,120
Libertarian- 384,440
Other- 232,922

I hate Bush, imagonna(imagoner) vote for the "Other" party.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...if you don't support Bush, who do you think you are going to get as next president, probably Dean...

Why not support a Republican alternative?

[Peach]

Ditto your #18.

As well, considering how many people drive without automobile insurance, seatbelts do reduce medical costs for ALL of us when there is an accident. There is no denying that fact.

[Orangedog]

As well, considering how many people drive without automobile insurance, seatbelts do reduce medical costs for ALL of us when there is an accident. There is no denying that fact.

I deny it.

[Peach]

You are flying in the face of all evidence and not informed. Ask any EMT driver. Ask any doctor, nurse, etc.

[Orangedog]

Prove it.

[cajun-jack]

but i drive a 1979 GMC pickup..seatbelts were not mandatory until 1980...prior vehicles did not have to be retro fitted...i cut the shoulder strap off and use only the lap belt...

had a little young punk deputy sheriff stop me during the click it or ticket campaign...was going to cite me for not wearing a seat belt...I took great joy in asking him if i were required to wear a seat belt in a vehicle older than the law?? he said sure..everyone has to wear one..i offered to call state police troop hq and let him speak to the commander there...he didn't want to do that..

he got really flustered and threatened to take me to jail and i asked what for..he said...not wearing a seat belt and interfering with the duties of a police officer...i then lifted up my shirt and showed him the lap belt...and said oh you mean wear one of these??

he looked very puzzled as if he had never seen just a lap belt before...I then asked him how old he was..he replied that's not important but i'm 23...i told him son, I have been driving a truck cross country since 1974 and just because you went to a 13 week class you think you are qualified to tell me how to protect myself on the road??

well that's my job..that's what i'm trained to do" he shot back...I told him son, you ain't trained to do anything but harass honest law abiding citizens and try to generate money for the parish (county)...you are just a puppet with a big ego and bad attitude with a 4 yr job..what if the present sheriff loses next election?? you will be begging for a job as a night stocker at wally world.

he didn't like that very much, but he knew he had engaged in a battle of wits and his gun was only half loaded.

[templar]

All this does is give more of our tax money to the states as an incentive for police to write more tickets and have yet another reason to harrass the public.

Well, that is conservatism. At least as I understand conservatism as of late.

[Gunslingr3]

Support the US Constitution Party

Support nutjobs...

You're right, it is nutty to think Americans want a constitutionally limited federal government. That's why the Republicans ladle out the largesse just as fast as the Democrats. It's what the voters ask for.

[Ben Ficklin]

Like duh man, call your insurance agent.

[Peach]

You are so ill informed. If you want to prove your point, go ahead. And don't give me links to some crappy web site to support your point. Give me medical web sites.

VERY few informed people take your position. There is a reason for that.

[Orangedog]

Sorry. I'm typing faster than I read tonight...

Seatbelts MAY reduce medical costs...seatbelt LAWS do not. I should have been more specific

[Orangedog]

You made a gratuitous assertion. Any such assertion can be equally denied.

[Gunslingr3]

What an IDIOT position to take for a conservative. I guess you'd prefer Pres. Dean's policies. People like you make me ill.

At least when the Democrats are expanding the welfare state it isn't done in the name of conservatives.

[Orangedog]

And you're going to believe the insurance industry for every excuse they come up with to raise your rates? They want these seatbelt laws because it fattens the wallets of the government and their own bottom line. More seatbelt tickets means another reason to raise rates.

[Peach]

Unfortunately for you, my gratuitous assertion has been backed up by the medical community for over two decades.

Your assertion is one that is rarely if ever taken by anyone, and has never been backed up by medical or forensic science.