Write Review
2,076,678 Total Reviews 3,597 New Reviews
9,754 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Liberals and Our Rights
NCJimbo 3358 reads
posted


Saw this on a blog and I thought it made a good point. I am sure some will disagree.

Liberals have been screaming incessantly about the loss of our rights since 9/11 under the Patriot Act. They've yet to tell me any one of the rights we've supposedly lost. They are the first to speak up when we question a terrorist who has been proven to have murdered fellow Americans and cringe when we even discuss coercing info from people who may well know the next attack plan.

They haven't said a word about the real intrusion of our rights. In the last several years, Democrats (and in the case of Michael Bloomberg, pseudo-Democrats) have done the following: restricted business owners from allowing smoking in their bars and restaurants, forced companies to remove trans-fats from their menu and made it a crime to utter derogatory statements about people of other races or creeds. Now tell me, what is worse?

DoctorGonzo2486 reads

Four words - Suspension of Habeas Corpus

How can even the most blind on the right not be appalled at this?

Look at what you are whining about!!!

Efforts to curtail proven harmful activity that harms not only ones self, but others. If smoking could be completely restricted to affecting those who smoke, then I am all for it. But it doesn't. It affects others who aren't given the option. Selfish Republican mindset at work.

Transfats in foods... ok let's talk about the health of our children. Want to keep feeding them thousands of worthless calories of super sized buns and cokes? I WISH we had more controls over the quality of the foods we are served in restaurants and bars. Selfish Republican profit mindset at work.

"made it a crime to utter derogatory statements about people of other races or creeds". Yes, that one is heinous, it prevents Rich Republican White Men from referring to every spic, kike, nigger, wop, towelhead, faggot, and of course, Catholic as a spic, kike, nigger, wop, towelhead, faggot, and of course, Catholic. Selfish Republican bigotry at work.

How about complaining about the billions of taxpayer dollars frivolously wasted? We don't need a tax cut, or a tax raise. We simply just need honesty and integrity when the government spends our money. Don't hold your breath.

People who think like you do are the ones responsible for putting this country into the hands of the most corrupt administration in history. Be proud of yourself while you can, Jimbo. I hope you have the courage to admit your foolishness down the road as well.

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker2881 reads

1 word. WHEN?
2 words. AND WHERE?
3 words. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?

Please provide us with something more beyond a cindy sheehan moment....

ReplyQuoteReport
stamina4hours2650 reads

Suspension in the United States during the “War on Terrorism”

The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain citizens and non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an enemy combatant. As such, that person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of United States citizens to seek writs of habeas corpus even when declared enemy combatants.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. ___ (2006), Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay “violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions.” In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected Congress's attempts to strip the courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Congress had previously passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 which stated in Section 1005(e), “Procedures for Status Review of Detainees Outside the United States”:

“(1) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
“(2) The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of whether the status determination … was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence), and to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[2][3] by a vote of 65-34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51.[4]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.

With the MCA's passage, the law altered the language from “alien detained … at Guantánamo Bay”:

“Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
Under the MCA, the law restricts habeas appeals for only those aliens detained as enemy combatants, or awaiting such determination. Left unchanged is the provision that, after such determination is made, it is subject to appeal in U.S. Court, including a review of whether the evidence warrants the determination. If the status is upheld, then their imprisonment is deemed lawful; if not, then the government can change the prisoner's status to something else, at which point the habeas restrictions no longer apply.

Wikinews has news related to:
President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006
There is, however, no legal time limit which would force the government to provide a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) hearing. Prisoners are legally prohibited from petitioning any court for any reason before a CSRT hearing takes place.

On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.[1]

ReplyQuoteReport
DoctorGonzo2513 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval2412 reads


The right to unreasonable search and seizure without  warrants has totally been stomped on.  The right to habeas corpus has been dissolved.  The right to privacy (as in the 4th amendment) has been weakened.  The right to a proper defense in court has been taken away.

Never mind that it doesn't specifically say all this, nor doesn't order the executive branch to use these measures.  By saying the president might do such things takes them away from citizens.  Don't even say the government will only use these measures against bad people.  "Bad" is a matter of politics, and can be swiftly changed, which is why those protections should be constitutional.

They also work for each other.  If habeas corpus is denied, you then have to take it to court while the documents to defend you are classified.  

It is a terrible law, and we managed to win two world wars and the Cold War without it.  

Businesses allowing smoking: this is a laugher.  For me, to be able to work, eat and live without cigarette smoke and gross toxic waste from ashes is the greatest improvement in life generally.  Most smokers would agree, I think.  Even if you smoke, you get tired of the waste-smoke everywhere, the gray haze, the watery eyes, the smell in your clothes all the time.

If businesses wouldn't limit it, it was because the vast majority were just afraid to limit it when their competition wouldn't, or they were hysterically afraid that customers would change their habits and stay home.  Or they were afraid of paying expenses initial expenses when their competition didn't have to.  It hasn't been the case anywhere.      

You might argue about the right to poverty, but as the constitution says, rights not enumerated in the document are not meant to say that others don't exist, and those are left to the States and to the people respectively.  I'd say on the matter of cleanliness in public gathering places, i.e. private and public property for which the gathering of people is part of a necessary function, the States and the people have spoken.  
     
Not the same thing as the Patriot Act.

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker2080 reads

you cannot support this.

"""The right to unreasonable search and seizure without  warrants has totally been stomped on.  

"""The right to habeas corpus has been dissolved.  

"""The right to privacy (as in the 4th amendment) has been weakened.  

"""The right to a proper defense in court has been taken away.

leftwing hyperbolic bullshit.


-- Modified on 2/13/2007 8:54:13 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval2375 reads


What I've stated is a direct fact-- prior to how it's practiced.  You want to quibble about it? Say its exaggerated. Bullshit.  

My case rests.  No further argument. Take the words of that law and support your argument now.

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval2336 reads

...and just watch how quickly they'll become upset by "covert searches."  

Just have the government say afterward, "No, we were just checking.  Guns?  Why they ain't a crime!"

-- Modified on 2/13/2007 11:57:42 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
harryj2133 reads

There is no doubt that the libbie sheep herders would like to wipe out guns and gun owners because of the herders perception that they are way too independent. It is no accident that these herders view the real enemy to be, not the towel heads, but the citizens of this country who own guns. I wouldn't be surprised to see a plank in their 2008 platform that says: Give the rag heads encouragement and repeal the Second Amendment. "and just watch how quickly libbies promote 'covert searches'." Our government is way out of control, a cancer that is rapidly consuming the foundation of this country.

ReplyQuoteReport
NCJimbo1743 reads

The way things are going the liberals are giving illegal immigrants and terrorists more rights then honest US born, tax paying citizens.

ReplyQuoteReport
Jeremy Bender2460 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval2851 reads

I'm a pro-gun liberal because I don't want the conservatives to win our internal arms race.  :)  

I gave the example of the government checking up on law abiding people just to show that you'd immediately recognize it as a violation of rights.  Thanks for making that point for me, Harry (and NC).

It's not true to say the Patriot Act is only aimed at terrorist; specifically, it is aimed at anyone the President or the Attorney General DEEMS to be a terrorist.  Now think about that, Harry: do you really want Hillary to be able to deem people terrorists?  You'd be living in your own private Waco.  Anti-abortion bombers might actually be prosecuted as enemy combatants.  If it were not already full, she might actually fill Guantanamo with them. As it is, they will just have to disappear.  Pull a Padilla, you know.  

The least you could do is observe that there is one liberty terrorists love as much as Americans:  the right to keep and bear arms. Have you even noticed that they are about guns 'n' god as any American social conservative?  (I know, your guns 'n' god are better than theirs.  How could anyone argue?)

Why, even the teetering Iraqi government has been able to protect the right to keep and bear arms-- perfectly. See how the US government can't disarm people there? In fact, every failed state has no problem with it. Not just failed states either: Britain could not even disarm the IRA. I assert that the right to keep and bear arms is the LEAST infringeable of all.

Conclusion: if corporations weren't selling guns, then gun gun owners would never fear for their gun rights. Period.  The movement is completely industry driven.  Despite the warning of dictatorships massively compensating guns, it is a myth. I HAVE NEVER READ OF IT BEING DONE except for the case of disarming soldiers. CITE ONE EXAMPLE OF IT, Harry (and NC).

Totalitarianisms took root in countries where there was no mass ownership of guns. Nobody thought much of them.  Other dictatorships didn't compensate guns, they manipulated their gun owners into selling out the rest of their rights. That is to say: people like you.  

Again, I like the Second Amendment as much as all the others, but I do not like Second Amendment champions, or, as I like to call them, gun industry stooges. As useful idiots, they are simply a de-regulation lobby for the gun industry, who are so perfectly manipulated that Lenin would have creamed in his pants about them.  Gun manufacturers also use your fear to sell more guns. It is selling paranoia as a hobby.

Harry, there are 9 other worthwhile amendments to the Bill of Rights and other Rights in the Constitution that need protecting, you know. It is too bad you gun boobs neglect all of them.  Instead, you leave  protection of all other rights to the the ACLU, who you loathe. What does that really say about your respect for rights?  Thus without effort, you pro-gun boobs have already been played off against all your other liberties.  

Ultimately, your usefulness will be turned into a betrayal of all other rights.

It's why liberals should own guns.

ReplyQuoteReport
harryj2111 reads

Well, Zinaval, I do like guns, I like boobs too. So if that makes me a "gun boob" I am ok with that. You jump to some awfully unfounded conclusions, however, I have spent many years working to protect individual rights and have great loyalty to all of the provisions in our Bill of Rights. Where I part company with the ACLU is their long history of contempt for the Second Amendment. They have been hijacked by the pseudo-libs when it comes to that topic. The pseudo-libs don't give a rat's ass about the rights of man. They are motivated only by their hunger for power. Your usefulness to the sheep herders will be turned into your own self destruction.

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval2732 reads


NONE of my conclusions were unfounded, and aside from a slight exception you made for yourself (which didn't apply to anybody else) you didn't dispute any of them.

Do you really need another organization to protect gun rights?  At all?  Believe me, if the ACLU began to protect gun rights, they would be greeted with sneers. Why?  Because it's interests are not aligned to the gun manufacturers.  You would greet it with sneers, too.    

As I asserted, and as you haven't disputed, gun rights are the least infringeable of all of them.  So dispute something, please. Are gun rights threatened in Iraq?  Are gun rights threatened in Liberia?  Was Britain able to compensate guns from the IRA?  

Look at how long it took and the lives lost to "infringe" on the gun rights at Waco.  You think the government has that kind of labor at it's disposal to compensate weapons?  

Liberals think about these things, and 5 seconds of thought will tell you that gun rights are in as much danger as the quartering of soldiers.    

Liberal sheep.  In case you want to know, politcal liberals were murdered by Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh, or they fled.  There is no resemblance between liberalism and totalitarianisms.  None.  

If liberals are sheep, then what would describe conservatives?  Wolves.  Those who plunder.  I have to admit, it's better to be in the pack than the herd-- but you're entire metaphor doesn't fit political reality.

ReplyQuoteReport
karmaexpress2767 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
The Moose2470 reads

I saw this on a blog & thought it made a great point....I don't see how anyone could disagree....

Related Link: http://quinnell.us/index.php/all/2006/02/21/conservatives_hate_the_first_amendment

ReplyQuoteReport
XiaomingLover12863 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Tusayan2256 reads

By my score it's three down, seven to go. The Bushies have knocked out the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments.

ReplyQuoteReport
XiaomingLover12094 reads

Oh, i've been held inncommunicado for quite some time and missed the assaults on the Fourth and Sixth.

Thanks for the update.

ReplyQuoteReport
Ben Dover1868 reads

... Since he has seemingly used them within the bounds of persuit-of-terror, even so, I don't believe such powers should be afforded to the Prez or any other leadership branch or  police-type agency... My BIGGEST fear is that once a law or policy makes it on the books, it becomes a stepping-stone to increased and widened use in other "simular" crimes and situations,,, Who's to say that the next prez will be satisfied only using these methods within the context of "war-on-terror"?? What if the next Prez "expands" the law to include "religous fanatisism" which would then allow the use of these tactics against pastors in churches that want to speak out about political issues?? (Kind of like how 501c3 regulations are now used to muffle political-pulpit-rants... The snowball for anti-religion law was tossed down the hill by Bush in a boner-move to fight more "terror-cells"... I fear that this law will continue to pick up speed and mass as it rolls toward our ever-shrinking freedoms at the bottom of the hill!

On this topic, I'm fully in bed with the radical-left! I'm gleefully barebacking with the ACLU on this anti-Bush issues with reckless abandon, since none in my party seem to be able to "see the light"!

Look at the trends of incrementalism in small-freedoms issues! Traffic-cameras for example, in less than ten years they went from "Big-brother, un-constitutional, entrapment argued prohibited use to now they are COMMON PLACE and sold to us as "for our safety"!

Also look at Helmet-law for motorcycle riders, it morphed into "seat-belt law" which started as a warning ticket but you could not be pulled over for ONLY a seat-belt violation, then progressed to a warning that went on your driving record for the insurance companies to see and upward-adjust your preimium, then it became a "finable offense" at $44... Now it's an $86 dollar driving record offense, that can be the primary reason for pulling someone over and can cumulate against your driving privilages!!!

LAWS CREEP! They continue to engorge themselves on our freedoms and become manipulitive tools for forcing "social-change"!  I can just predict what these fucked up Bush-terror laws will morph into 10 years from now!

Go ACLU!! And any other wack-job groups that are willing to fight against these unconstitutional and dangerous powers in the hands of fools!!!

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval2543 reads

Helmut and seatbelt laws rock.  So do airbags.  

Nothing violates anybody's rights like having their brains hosed off the streets.  It's a big violation of my rights to be offered that serving too.  Even if they were dumb enough to betray them, I have a right to live with reduced nausea.  :)

You talk about laws "creeping" but the Patriot Act is already a creeper on delivery.  

As for helmut and other safety laws: the government should be there to protect rights.  As I said about having one's brains hosed off the streets . . .

-- Modified on 2/14/2007 9:55:43 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
Ben Dover2369 reads

But the air-bags are "passive" in my vehicles and I don't mind that they are there...

I've learned to protect myself from Jonny-law with illegally-dark window-tint, thus giving me the privacy I need to buckle up before rolling my window down to hand him my out-of-state liscence that will bounce my ticket off my Minnesota record, LMFAO!

However, we are close in agreement, I do not mind the regulations that force auto-makers to produce a safer, cleaner product, because we all know that as long as "Big-Detroit" is in bed commiting anal-insest with "Big-Oil" there will be no change!!

I'm not a complete anarchist, I do see some need for some government, but a much more limited "by the people/for the people" style of system than the "big-nanny-gov" that we have now! IMHO, of course... (I need the "opinion-disclaimer" in this post so that my "views" cannot be taken as "anti-american" and thus result in the FBI using "any means necessary" to hunt me down and contain me for an indefinent period of time on the grounds that I may be conspiring to act in a way that is "destructive" to Americans and the Government... Which I AM! I am in support of destroying this monster that my parents generation created! And I plan on doing it by VOTING DEMOCRTAT during the next election! LMAO! This shit won't get fixed until the system that created it breaks, and Dems have the fast-track-plan for our un-doing as a super-power... So, I guess I'm a faux-democrat this time around... I've been a faux-republican for way too long and look what it's got me, same shit and 5 cents less tax burden, lol!

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval1915 reads


Especially when your auto-insurance company then won't pay for it.  With airbags, (which weren't standard before seatbelt laws) you are then protecting your right to break your neck or get a concussion.  How could you sellout!  How could you settle for that!

ReplyQuoteReport
Ben Dover1674 reads

Air-bags were standard in all vehicles under 9,200# before Minnesota got the manadtory seatbelt law passed which made it a finable offense and allowed it get logged on a persons driving-record... The "no-fault" policies of Minnesota insurance are still a grey area on if or not the claim will be paid... We are known as the "nanny-state", so very little personal responsibility can be placed on an indavidual here... I'll bet they'd still have to pay, but it might be a legal struggle before they'd be forced to...

I got lots of those silly non-binding seatbelt tickets "back in the day" when the law was aimed at "raising awareness", but as the teeth of gov grew, I grew thicker skin...

Honestly, when I do go on a long trip, or engage in "performance driving" I usually buckle-up, but it is rediculous to enforce such a thing in an area of country roads when I rarely meet a car...

Sometimes, I get sloppy and forget to wear it when I travel to Minneaplois and drive in rush-hour, I guess if I go through the windshield someday in the city, it's be my own damn fault...

(What a novel concept! "my own fault"... At least something will still be mine... since the government has taken ownership over virtually everything else in life!)

IMHO!! (I almost forgot the "disclaimer" in my post, whew! I suspect the unconstitutional anti-terror powers have eroded and expanded to be used against me by now to seek me out and force me to buckle up! If not, I'll bet they will soon....)

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval2205 reads


It sounds to me like giving people a ticket for seat belt violation *is* holding them responsible.  You might argue that, no, only a grave injury will hold them responsible.  Yes, unless they're dead, but it also holds their family, their friends and their insurance company responsible too.  

Also, after your gravely injured or dead, you probably can't benefit from your newly-found virtue of responsibility-- and it's probably going to be too heavy for you anyway.  Though your friends and family might, as long as it's not so common that there's little to compare it to.  In which case, having the occasional violator receive a grave injury will teach everyone a better lesson.  Not that it's a service anybody should volunteer for...  

So, who benefits the most when it's "your fault" you got a ticket and you're held personally responsible for it?  

ReplyQuoteReport
Ben Dover2073 reads

to buckle or wear helmets, and I'm NOT anti-safety, I just believe a man should be able to make his own decisions and be allowed to suffer or benefit from his choices...

I also would be fine with the insurance companies denying claim due to "disregard for safety" when thing go wrong...

Likewise, I believe that if someone gets cancer from smoking (such as my father did) that the insurance company should be free to deny benefits to them based on "unnecessary risks" and kick them to the curb... Same argument for morbidly obese, ect, ect...

As far as who "benefite MOST when I pay that ticket for no seatbelt... #1 would be GOVERNMENT, since they get the direct-payment of the assesed-fine, and #2 would be my insurance co. since they get to justify a preimium-increase due to my "reported-negligence" that they have "freedom of access" to view! Hmmm...

If I was a "conspiracy theorist", I'd say that stuff all happened by cleaver moves of the tax-n-spend gov looking at "ticket-revenue" to fund budget-overages, combined with "insurance-lobby" efforts to spin these claims beyond reasonable frequency of occurance and hyper-drive policy... BUT, I'm just a regular guy that realizes this is all just the unintended compound-effects of wonton do-gooder legislate behavior pin-heads who win a popularity contest that propells them into congress-seat that they may or may not have ANY qualifacations to hold... Thus 10,000 page laws get written that look like "diarrhea of the pen"!!  IMHO! As always...  

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval2769 reads


There's individual responsibility and risk there as I've said.  It just isn't too manly.  I have to admit, paying fines are pretty lame.  It does put the government in the position of taking away the warrior's risk. Psychologically, there's no thrill with it, and it's emasculating in general.  We need "Fight Club."  

As for who benefits, you could allay your fears by demanding that the government refund ticket revenues equitably to taxpayers.  Or demand another such plan like donating it to a charity.  Or, you could return it, or a large portion of it if the person has no more violations over the next year or something.  In other words, people have control over this if they would only take it.  

When the government collects fines, the next question should be who really benefits from them then?  Does it go into the mayor's pocket?  Does it get the police chief's son on the payroll?  Does it allow them to hire 5 more paper pushers part time?  The idea of the government "benefiting" is only legitimate if somebody within it benefits: with power, with money, with perks, with anything else.

It's not like a corporation.  Unless some individual(s)  benefits from the fines (and actually many times this is allowed to happen) or unless the power to fine is being abused, just how can your complaint be substantial?  

As for whether the voters award the originators of these policies with better congressional offices-- that really depends on if their policies make them popular. Right? Now, should cutting down on highway deaths make them more popular?  Without a doubt.  Should taking away people's money make them more popular?  

The thing is, if the policy is very successful, it's possible to then believe it isn't needed.  I mean, if patrolmen are issuing tickets aggressively, and therefore nobody is getting killed or maimed on the highways, then the annoyance factor takes over and people demand the government back off.  So, then highway deaths sky-rocket.    

Discussions of Congressional qualifications are another matter entirely.  I've never given a lot of thought to what qualifies a person for a legislature.

ReplyQuoteReport
BBrain2615 reads

. . . should public works send your family a bill?

ReplyQuoteReport
Ben Dover2644 reads

...I could send public-works a bill for all the wasted money that my county has extorted out of me in a system of triple and quadruple taxation that would drive the founding fathers to CIVIL WAR if they were alive under this tax-and-spend system of today!

Just leave my brain-matter on the pavement, the birds will pick at it for a few days, and the insects and worms will get the rest...

ReplyQuoteReport
jack01165332549 reads

since you never go fast enough for bugs to splatter in your eyes, nor fast enough for gs to twist you from the drivers' seat.  

Good thing for you that the cops are too stupid to notice your illegally dark windshields, or figure out your nefarious evasions of the tyrannical laws; and of course you can put the FBI off by just telling them to look somewhere else...damn BenD you're so clever!

ReplyQuoteReport
Tusayan2105 reads

Just wondering... do the "Helmut" laws only apply to motorcycle riders from Germany?

ReplyQuoteReport
Ben Dover2798 reads

... even if it become "law".

I'm not saying that we are "Nazi-like" in this country with all of our "behavior laws", we are far, far from the evil that the Nazi-movement brought upon this earth... America will never become that..

We are merely obsessed with "utopia" in this country, and we assume that every aspect of life needs a law to "nanny" us and keep us from harm... But these laws have a layering to them, and a progression, which often ends up producing a compound-effect of over-regulation... There's nothing wrong with wearing a "helmet" when riding a motorcycle... I even OWN a few helmets, and occationally wear one if I'm going on a long trip, but it's not governments "responsibility" to keep my brain-matter in my skull, it's mine!

Just like with seatbelts... The programs to "educate" the public to the dangers of not wearing a seatbelt failed, people didn't care, so "do-gooders" in the legislator decided to make it a "crime" not to wear one... THAT IS SO WRONG!

I want the right to pick and choose my own level of safety, how I choose to use any land in my posession, who and why I want to "assemble" with others and what I want to do with my body! is that so hard to ask?? But in the current climate of laws layered upon laws IT'S BECOME IMPOSSIBLE!


(BTW, my motorcycles and a couple chainswaw are the only things left in my life that do not run on veggie-oil, bio-diesel, propane/methane/CNG, or alcohol... thus I consume around 100 gal. of "pertol-fuel" per year, but only due to the lack of alternatives... but Alternatives are coming! A diesel-motorcycle is available in europe that will run on pure veggie-oil, but do to USA-EPA old-ass law that dictates it must pass "emissions" on PETROL-DEISEL, I cannot import one or liscense it! THANKS JIMMY CARTER! Great job he did as prez micromanaging thousands of things in our lives that he had no fore-sight into, and now we are STUCK under his short-range symptom-treating regulations that NEVER even looked at the source of a problem when ploting a course to "solutions"... What are the chances we'll ever REPEAL the laws that prevent up as a nation from becoming "energy-progressive"??

Not a chance in hell is my guess...

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval2631 reads


Now *that* would be intrusive government interference.

ReplyQuoteReport
Ben Dover2353 reads

...Because just look how well all these other car-pool laws have helped us...

Well, there's some cute german girls out there, they can ride on the back of my motorcycle if they'd like, but I've got a "gas, grass, or ass" policy, 'cuz nobody rides for free, hehehe!

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!