Posted on 12/19/2005 8:30:57 PM PST by Pikamax
The road-rage lobby couldn't have been more wrong. Organisations such as the Association of British Drivers or Safe Speed - the boy racers' club masquerading as a road-safety campaign - have spent years claiming that speeding doesn't cause accidents. Safe Speed, with the help of some of the most convoluted arguments I've ever read, even seeks to prove that speed cameras "make our roads more dangerous". Other groups, such as Motorists Against Detection (officially known as Mad), have been toppling, burning and blowing up the hated cameras. These and about a thousand such campaigns maintain that speed limits, speed traps and the government's "war on the motorist" are shakedown operations whose sole purpose is to extract as much money as possible from the poor oppressed driver.
Well last week the Department for Transport published the results of the study it had commissioned into the efficacy of its speed cameras. It found that the number of drivers speeding down the roads where fixed cameras had been installed fell by 70%, and the number exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph dropped by 91%. As a result, 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured in those places than were killed or injured on the same stretches before the cameras were erected. The number of deaths fell by more than 100 a year. The people blowing up speed cameras have blood on their hands.
But this is not, or not really, an article about speed, or cameras, or even cars. It is about the rise of the antisocial bastards who believe they should be allowed to do what they want, whenever they want, regardless of the consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
what, being a Christian means I am somehow blinded when I run across an internet onanist?
"Libertarians are Republicans who smoke pot". -- Ann Coulter
" I'll drink to that...""
...and I'll buy!
No, it is pretty simple really... I don't think you're a Christian, I think you are just a liar.
Except that those men respected the Ten Commandments first and foremost. However they also realized the dangers of establishing a national religion or national moral statutes as had been done in Great Britain. If you're going to make all the decisions in Washington what's the use of the state legislatures? To handle the droppings that are left over?
Look, I realize you statists want every decision to be made by those 537 hacks in Washington DC. However, some idiot from Alaska knows nothing more about the morals, views, and general outlook on life of a North Carolina citizen than someone from Eastern Prussia. Why should he have a say in my life any more than the European?
Not really...
Libertarians want Republicans in their pockets and Democrats in their bedrooms.
Libertarians want big mommy state to protect their perversions and filthy habits while everybody else pays to clean up the mess...
Libertarians want Democrats out of their pockets and Republicans out of their bedrooms.
Not really...
Libertarians want Republicans in their pockets and Democrats in their bedrooms.
Libertarians want big mommy state to protect their perversions and filthy habits while everybody else pays to clean up the mess...
Durham here. Nice post, btw.
I don't want to get into the Libertarian/Socialist argument here, but killing the cameras is a great idea.
I thought you said "librarians."
neeeveeer miiiind.
National moral statutes? Like free speech?
So you are not really a Christian after all and have been lying all along. You serve the wisdom of men, and your own arrogant, unlearned pride has usurped the words of the Bible and the basis of the Declaration of Independence (The Declaration of Independence: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, …”).
From where are the rights in the U.S. Constitution derived?
Answer: Mosaic Law.
Wow, you've caught me. I must have absolutely wasted decades in church All because I don't believe in the omnipotent supremacy of the Federal state.....
the basis of the Declaration of Independence
There you go abe. Contrary to 'conservative' thought, the Declaration is nothing more than a document outlining the specifics of our secession from the Great Britain. It holds no legal founding, as that power belongs to the Constitution. Well other than the fact, that the citizens of the respective states have the right at some point in the future to replace their government.
Of course in this inane debate, of which I do believe you have no idea what you're talking about (which really doesn't make it a debate does it?), you'll be able to provide this power you so desire the federal government to have. The Framers were clear in the document and in the Federalist Papers as to the limitations of the federal government. Oh but I suppose they didn't consider the self righteous power grabbing Republicans would come into control one day. I suppose if they could have foreseen that we wouldn't even need state boundries would we? Because those hacks know what's best for us all....
From where are the rights enumerated in the United States Constitution derived?
Answer: Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
This is the very foundation of the Constitution and this republic, and it most certainly is a legal document. (You spit on the graves of men who have died at Valley Forge attempting to enforce it.)
If the Declaration of Independence weren't a legal document, the U.S. Constitution would be nullified by English law and you would be a British subject.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
I must have absolutely wasted decades in church All because I don't believe in the omnipotent supremacy of...
Yahweh or Yeshua?
No? I really think you are just lying... Of course that is how I see liberaltarians. Declaring one thing, but constantly changing the subject when caught in their fallacies of logic.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Contrary to 'conservative' thought,...
I have never said I was a “conservative,” yet you continue attempting to label me as such. It is just like the other liberaltarians who attempt the tactic of derision. They will attack using labels like Christian Taliban or some other asinine fallacy, despite the fact I am an atheist.
Liberaltarians are cultural Marxists, they wear a mask much like the actors of ancient Greek drama, portraying themselves as all kinds of things that they are not.
Wrong, but thank you for playing. The Declaration is a legal document only from the aspect of international affairs. It was not intended to be a guiding force in this nation of separate and sovereign states. That was reserved for the Constitution.
As for the role of the federal government, I would suggest you reread Federalist #45. The main author of the Constitution has been credited with that. What did he say about what the role of the federal government should be. Instead of taxing your limited intelligence, I will supply the specifics of what he said
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.Now from the understanding of even the most simple the 'ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people' would cover issues such as crime, end of life decisions (medical and death penalty cases), and anything else that does not have to do with the specific powers outlined in the Constitution.The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.
...the Declaration is nothing more than a document outlining the specifics of our secession from the Great Britain. It holds no legal founding,...
Realizing your mistake, you equivocate...
The Declaration is a legal document only from the aspect of international affairs.
Wrong again.
From where are the rights enumerated in the United States Constitution derived?
Answer: Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
This is the very foundation of the Constitution and this republic,...
If the Declaration of Independence weren't a legal document, the U.S. Constitution would be nullified by English law and you would be a British subject.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
end of life decisions (medical...,
Changing the subject again?
Assisted suicide??? The Tenth Amendment does not apply at all...
Article. IV.Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Article the sixth [Amendment IV]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,... shall not be violated,...
Article the seventh [Amendment V]
No person shall be deprived of life, ...without due process of law;
Article. XIV.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall... deprive any person of life,... without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
It was not intended [Declaration of Independence] to be a guiding force in this nation of separate and sovereign states. That was reserved for the Constitution.
I would suggest you reread Federalist #45.
It holds no legal founding, as that power belongs to the Constitution.
Hey! Yo! If the Federalist Papers are not part of the U.S. Constitution how can they have any legal founding??? They are not legal documents...
Caught yourself again...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Instead of taxing your limited intelligence,...
Typical liberaltarian sophistry...
Nobody really needs to refute you, you do a good job of that on your own with informal fallacies and inconsistent categorical arguments...
5000 words precede the Tenth Amendment and many others follow it that are not abrogated by it one bit.
Then you come to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the stalwart of supporters of federal supremacy. Unfortunately most of them ignore the intent of that Amendment and the almost 60 years of judicial ruling after the passage refuting their arguments. Passed in the 1860s, after the tariff war, the 14th Amendment was not meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights. This can be proven as late as the 1920s when SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment limitations on government did not apply to the separate and sovereign states. The only Amendment incorporated up until that time was the 5th Amendment in 1897
Slowly over time, it is true most of the Bill of Rights were 'incorporated' to the states but this was not completed until the late 1930s. I would recommend the writings and speeches of Janice Rogers Brown and Justice Clarence Thomas to you however I fear they would just simply go in one ear and out the other. For further reading however I will refer you to
When, Where, and How Did The “Selective Incorporation” Doctrine Get Started?
Please note the judicial rulings. These would be accepted as legal confirmation to you?
Hey! Yo! If the Federalist Papers are not part of the U.S. Constitution how can they have any legal founding??? They are not legal documents...
No junior they are not legal documents. However they give us insight as to the intent of the man who is considered the 'Father of the Constitution'. Sorry this is so hard for you. Should I just begin putting my arguments in shapes and colors for you? Just how old are you?!?
5000 words precede the Tenth Amendment and many others follow it that are not abrogated by it one bit.
Many words follow the Amendment and 5000 are before it. At least you can count. Perhaps now you could try reading the damn thing and realize the Constitution is nothing more than a limitation on the federal government and not a grantor of rights
For the most part you may want to check out the entire site on the link I provided. It will give you a better understanding, or should I say an understanding at all, of the intent of the document
You poor simpleton.I'm tired of educating blank minded...
No junior...
Should I just begin putting my arguments in shapes and colors for you? Just how old are you?!?
At least you can count.
...or should I say an understanding at all,...
Typical liberaltarian sophistry and ad hominems... condenscending cultural Marxists...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
This will be my last post to you...
...and the horse you rode in on too, partner!
You poor simpleton.I'm tired of educating blank minded...
No junior...
Should I just begin putting my arguments in shapes and colors for you? Just how old are you?!?
At least you can count.
...or should I say an understanding at all,...
Typical liberaltarian sophistry and ad hominems... condescending cultural Marxists...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
This will be my last post to you...
...and the horse you rode in on too, partner!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.