Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sub-Driver

*** But a former Obama administration attorney dismissed those concerns, calling them “absurd hypotheticals,” ***

And our legal system is in place to handle the “absurd hypotheticals”. Justice is blind and all that, right?

My life experience tells me that if someone says: “Don’t worry about that, I’ll never do that to you”. That’s the time to worry, because they’re telling you what’s coming.

Why couldn’t the Obama administration say anyone with government healthcare must drive a car with certain characteristics, (5 star crash ratings, low emissions, etc.)


4 posted on 02/16/2012 12:21:45 PM PST by brownsfan (Aldous Huxley and Mike Judge were right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: brownsfan
Why couldn’t the Obama administration say anyone with government healthcare must drive a car with certain characteristics, (5 star crash ratings, low emissions, etc.)

Absolutely. Statistically speaking, safer cars should reduce injuries or their severity. Can't afford a safer vehicle? Mass transit for you, comrade! Be safe!

17 posted on 02/16/2012 1:02:19 PM PST by Lou L (The Senate without a filibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: brownsfan

Absurd hypotheticals...such as official government inspectors going through sack lunches of children at their schools for example? And, so very many more things that sound too far out to be true, and yet, there they are.


22 posted on 02/16/2012 2:13:13 PM PST by Anima Mundi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson