LIve Free or Die.

Interesting opinion.

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Live Free or Die - YouTube

Do you know what. He was spot on for the first 7:30 minutes. Couldn't disagree with him at all.

Then he went off on the usual right wing crap and 60 seconds later, I couldn't take any more and turned off.

Such a pity some people cannot make a perfectly balanced and reasoned point without trying to slant it to suit their extreme views :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Do you know what. He was spot on for the first 7:30 minutes. Couldn't disagree with him at all.

Then he went off on the usual right wing crap and 60 seconds later, I couldn't take any more and turned off.

Such a pity some people cannot make a perfectly balanced and reasoned point without trying to slant it to suit their extreme views :(

---

To be fair; when I first heard it I agreed with you totally. When I listened again, to the whole thing, what he says is true because in this country, the U.S. of A., the two cannot be separated which is shown with every new law and banning or controlling of item x, y or z.

The seat belt laws are a prime example, especially as in Minn. a seat-belt violation costs as much as being 1-19 miles an hour over the speed limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

To be fair; when I first heard it I agreed with you totally. When I listened again, to the whole thing, what he says is true because in this country, the U.S. of A., the two cannot be separated which is shown with every new law and banning or controlling of item x, y or z.

The seat belt laws are a prime example, especially as in Minn. a seat-belt violation costs as much as being 1-19 miles an hour over the speed limit.

---

I say, speed on bro, and don't use that belt, so when the guverment mandated airbag pops in your face, and knocks your head plum off the body and into the back seat, well, speeed on bro, hell ain't close to half full....and the road to hell is paved with due process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

I say, speed on bro, and don't use that belt, so when the guverment mandated airbag pops in your face, and knocks your head plum off the body and into the back seat, well, speeed on bro, hell ain't close to half full....and the road to hell is paved with due process.

---

You pay your money and you take your chances.

So far though-- most constabulary, when you are pulled over for speeding, if you are not wearing your seat-belt most often give you only the seat-belt ticket.
I have never gotten both at once.

It's very strange but I used to think that motorsport fans were actually safer than average drivers: we understand the physics and risks of driving and get all our adrenaline kicks on the track so no need to take it onto the public roads. However I notice that in another thread there's someone who seems proud of routinely driving at 120mph on British motorways (although I suspect that may be insecure posturing), and here someone is happy to admit speeding without a seatbelt.

I've no problem with personal freedom, and if people want to kill themselves on the road that's just Darwinism at its ultimate: weeding out the stupid; but RTAs do have a nasty habit of involving innocent people.

I guess there is also a small but very vocal group of bitter, aging, has-been boyracers and grumpy grampas with a chip :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

I guess there is also a small but very vocal group of bitter, aging, has-been boyracers and grumpy grampas with a chip :p

---

Are you saying you are a part of a large group of aging panti-waists who drop their pants and squat when authorities say crap?

Well, what ever suits your ego.

No.
Learn to read. It's never too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

No.
Learn to read. It's never too late.

---

It has seemed to be for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

I guess there is also a small but very vocal group of bitter, aging, has-been boyracers and grumpy grampas with a chip :p

---

I did not know you had a chip.

.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Riebe-bot is still trying to pass the Turing test. :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

I did not know you had a chip.

---

no, just bored :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

It's never too late.

---

Might be. I told him to wear his seatbelt, but he didn't......and they did a crap job sewing his head back on. But hey, at least they found it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

no, just bored :p

---

Quit bending over and you will not be getting bored so often.

Maybe he saw you as the authority... careful you don't ever tell him NOT to jump off a cliff !

If he quits posting....well.......................and ....I guess that means you will now be bending over now more than ever.

Praise be and pass the KY

KY = Kentuckian Kool-aid ?

yep, goes in real slick and smooth

as yer missus said to the bishop

@ Mr Riebe,

When we take a risk we do so because the reward outways this risk.

So my question is, what reward do you get for driving your car without wearing a seatbelt?

(Is it the relief of every journey when you get out of the car and think, 'YES! I MADE IT! I'M ALIVE!')

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

@ Mr Riebe,

When we take a risk we do so because the reward outways this risk.

So my question is, what reward do you get for driving your car without wearing a seatbelt?

(Is it the relief of every journey when you get out of the car and think, 'YES! I MADE IT! I'M ALIVE!')

---

We are endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Being left alone to travel in my car as I wish is covered by that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Being left alone to travel in my car as I wish is covered by that.

---

Not if the law says otherwise:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Whether you like the laws or not, the WRITTEN laws have the backing of the legal system of the land, period.
Laws change, thank God, but until they do, if you disobey them you are a criminal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Not if the law says otherwise:

---

The/a Constitution, whether Federal or State, is not the legal system.

Constitution trumps laws as has been proven in court.

I do not have the money to challenge them so I just ignore them.

Rather be a free criminal than butt-kissing law abider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The/a Constitution, whether Federal or State, is not the legal system.
Constitution trumps laws as has been proven in court.

I do not have the money to challenge them so I just ignore them.
Rather be a free criminal than butt-kissing law abider.

---

Really, it's a pity that you disagree with yourself then:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Whether you like the laws or not, the WRITTEN laws have the backing of the legal system of the land, period.

Laws change, thank God, but until they do, if you disobey them you are a criminal. Do so is up to the individual and if a Christian, whether the one can stand before God and say-- "I did what I believed was proper."
Here is what the book you supposedly are using for you empty rhetoric says about authority.

[b]Romans 13:1-7 states, ----“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.--- The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

---

Rather be a free criminal than butt-kissing law abider eh? Is that what you believed is proper?

[youtube]xaSqVlgKB6s[/youtube]

[youtube]g-9JR2P4wWI[/youtube]

What about drunk driving? I remember a particularly horrific ad about it when I was working in Ireland. Something with a car rolling through a hedge and flattening a child playing football in his yard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Really, it's a pity that you disagree with yourself then:



Rather be a free criminal than butt-kissing law abider eh? Is that what you believed is proper?

---

It depends on the laws, of course if you think racial segregation is better than ignoring or outright breaking the law-- that is your perogative.

If you think laws are some holy thing to be obeyed at all costs, that is your perogative also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Fining someone who is not wearing a seatbelt is enforcing what really should be common sense to any individual driving a motor vehicle. They are there to stop you crushing your rib cage and vital organs on the steering wheel of your car, and also to prevent you from being thrown through the windscreen. A friend of mine and my wife's had an accident in 2009 where she was texting on her phone whilst driving and not wearing her seatbelt. She crossed over the white lines and had a head on crash which resulted in her being ejected out of the car and landing in the road. She had a blanket put over her and was pronounced dead when a passing doctor decided to have another go at reviving her. He saved her life and she now has paralysis down her left side and has brain damage that will never get better. She lost some of her looks which was awful considering she was a budding model and is still only 22 years old. She was incredibily stupid for using her phone whilst driving and even more so for not wearing a seatbelt. What are your opinions of people who drive along talking on their phones? Do you think it takes away ones freedom if they are fined when caught?

I don't even have to think about putting on a seatbelt as its second nature and pure common sense. Being told to wear one is the law and not taking away your rights and freedom. What utter tripe. Belting up also helps save the mental state of paramedics who arrive on the scene and are able to treat people in most cases rather than scooping them off the road. I do get the impression you judge everything in your life on freedom and entitlement and are angry at anything that remotely suggests you don't have a choice in the matter. :dozey:

---

That is your opinion and God help us if such become the standard in the U.S. and it is already too close.

I was spoit out of a car that went end over end at triple digits. Why I was going that fast is not relevant.
A Sheriff saw the accident and was writing up a fatal accident report when I walked up to his car. To say the least he was stunned.
To put a even bigger burr under your saddle, I recieved no ticket of any sort.

Had I been belted into the car, the roll bar was bent down to eye-level and the seat was broken in two.
Those of you who wish squat when ever big-brother says crap, fine for you, but take your self-righteous ego and eat it, it does not become you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

I was spoit out of a car that went end over end at triple digits. Why I was going that fast is not relevant.
A Sheriff saw the accident and was writing up a fatal accident report when I walked up to his car. To say the least he was stunned.
To put a even bigger burr under your saddle, I recieved no ticket of any sort.

---

If you were the driver, then it is only because of the grace of the Sheriff that you even retain your licence. Driving at 100+mph is very good grounds for either reckless or negligent driving; on the face of it, not wearing a seatbelt is the least of the offences here.

It shows flagrant disregard for the standard which you've posted and claim to uphold:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

If you were the driver, then it is only because of the grace of the Sheriff that you even retain your licence. Driving at 100+mph is very good grounds for either reckless or negligent driving; on the face of it, not wearing a seatbelt is the least of the offences here.

It shows flagrant disregard for the standard which you've posted and claim to uphold:

---

My standards change with the society I am in.
When I am by myself, they serve my purpose, which is never based on any superiority over others, at the same time if people think I will jump through hoops, only if it serves me and mine, and then only till I tire of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Constitution trumps laws as has been proven in court.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

It depends on the laws, of course if you think racial segregation is better than ignoring or outright breaking the law-- that is your perogative.

---

I hate to suck a different argument into this one, but ....

How do you not see the flaw in your own logic? You do realise that racial segregation was perfectly legal at one point in our history, and was even deemed Constitutional, right? Heck outright slavery is enshrined in our Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I hate to suck a different argument into this one, but ....

How do you not see the flaw in your own logic? You do realise that racial segregation was perfectly legal at one point in our history, and was even deemed Constitutional, right? Heck outright slavery is enshrined in our Constitution.

---

Flaw?
Slavery is not in the Constitution, it was latter addressed by an Amendment:

Originally, the Framers were very careful about avoiding the words "slave" and "slavery" in the text of the Constitution. Instead, they used phrases like "importation of Persons" at Article 1, Section 9 for the slave trade, "other persons" at Article 1, Section 2, and "person held to service or labor" at Article 4, Section 2 for slaves. Not until the 13th Amendment was slavery mentioned specifically in the Constitution. There the term was used to ensure that there was to be no ambiguity as what exactly the words were eliminating. In the 14th Amendment, the euphemism "other persons" (and the three-fifths value given a slave) was eliminated.

Hmmm, you woulder one be a good law abiding citizen and treat those put upon by racial segregations laws as the underlings they are?


I say to hell with that law, live free or die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Flaw?
Slavery is not in the Constitution, it was latter addressed by an Amendment: [i]

Article 1, section 2, "person held to service or labor"

---

What in the world do you think that means if not slavery? Have you ever read anything about the debates surrounding the drafting of the Constitution? The Three-Fifths Compromise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Hmmm, you woulder one be a good law abiding citizen and treat those put upon by racial segregations laws as the underlings they are?

---

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say there. You are the one that says that the law as written is the only source of rights. I'm meerly pointing out the fact that the law as written for the vast majority of this country's history took the rights of minorities away. I have a HUGE problem with that, as my philosophy says that we are all created equal and that we all have the rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. You have made it perfectly clear that you only respect the law as written. Therefore you are fine with laws permitting slavery, segregation, and probably worse. I really don't believe that you think that way (maybe I'm giving you too much credit), but your logic as presented sure leads down that path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

I say to hell with that law, live free or die.

---

But you have made it perfectly clear that you believe you have no right to life, unless it's sanctioned by the State. So you will do what they say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

The advantages of wearing a seat belt far outweigh the disadvantages in the the majority of cases and this is obvious. People can be badly injured whilst belted into a car but seat belts also prevent minor accidents from turning into major ones most of the time. Its not rocket science. If you think being forced to wear a seat belt in your car by the law is another case of 'Big Brother' taking away your rights, then you are once again giving the impression of paranoia. You seem to stand by the law of your country when it suits, but there also seems to be a chip on your shoulder when it stops you doing things you want to do. Freedom can be interpreted in many ways, but it also should have been explained to some it seems that freedom never means total freedom in any society. Unfortunately we don't have some special power watching over us and protecting us and laws are made to protect people in the absence of common sense.

---

That is the essence of a VERY large objection to government interference with over regulation. Natural selection took care of those for thousands if not millions of years, but the government always knows better? Rubbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

You pay your money and you take your chances.

So far though-- most constabulary, when you are pulled over for speeding, if you are not wearing your seat-belt most often give you only the seat-belt ticket.
I have never gotten both at once.

---

Consider yourself lucky then. You ALWAYS get them both here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What in the world do you think that means if not slavery? Have you ever read anything about the debates surrounding the drafting of the Constitution? The Three-Fifths Compromise?
Whether you like it or not, slavery is not addressed in the Constitution. Slavers wanted slaves to be full persons by the way.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say there. You are the one that says that the law as written is the only source of rights. I'm meerly pointing out the fact that the law as written for the vast majority of this country's history took the rights of minorities away. I have a HUGE problem with that, as my philosophy says that we are all created equal and that we all have the rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. You have made it perfectly clear that you only respect the law as written. Therefore you are fine with laws permitting slavery, segregation, and probably worse. I really don't believe that you think that way (maybe I'm giving you too much credit), but your logic as presented sure leads down that path.

But you have made it perfectly clear that you believe you have no right to life, unless it's sanctioned by the State. So you will do what they say.

---

You try to lump every legal matter into the same ****, same pile manner.
You are wrong.

Thank God our rights are in the Constitution and are not simple laws. LAWS can be eradicated easily.
Items in the Constitution cannot, i.e. Second Amendment and First Amendment (Although partly because people are too stupid, or ignornat, the First Amendment rights are being taking away and to hell with whether or not it is legal .
The U.S. citizenry acts more and more like sheep being led to slaughter with Obama leading the divide and separate charge.)

We have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Rights are granted to U.S. citizens in the Constitution, which can ony be amended by the people.
Laws can be written by any dick-head who is a god wannabe. I.e. seat-belt, parking, spitting, racial, divorce etc., etc., etc. laws.

You are trying to lump them together with your God given rights, false standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Passing a law to make you wear a seat belt for your own safety is not taking away your freedom or is it an unreasonable request in modern society..

---

Yes it is in any free society.
In a dictatorship where you do as told it is expected, but has no place at any time in a free society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

So where the hell do we start drawing the line Bob? Just about everything you disagree with is taking away your freedom it seems. Do we abolish speed limits because we want to drive faster under the notion of our right? What about drinking and driving?
[Before the Feds, stuck their noses where it does not belong-[Oh yes the Fed. speed limit was actually extortion, if a state did not follow the Fed. demand, they lost all Fed. money] some, including Connecticut of all place, had no speed limit. Even at that speed limits were reccomendations, which Constabulary could decided if exceeding was proper or niot.
How does seat-belt use affect other drivers as vehicle speed does?)

Surely we should be free to judge whether or not we are able to drive under the influence of alcohol in a free society?
(Too much alcohol can cause a reaction in the driver, whose vehicle then can affect other drivers on the road.
Amazing how .10 was good enough for so long before the Feds. demanded .08 again with failure to comply, extortion takes place a Fed. money is cut off.)

How about talking on mobile phones whilst driving? Why should a law tell us we can't answer calls whilst driving and take our attention off the road when talking is such a free thing to do? Seriously. (Again lack of attention to driving, caused by a phone call or even dialing, can cause the drivers vehicle to affect other drivers on the road due lack of attention.)

When we start thinking about the guidelines/laws in place concerning such activities it becomes obvious why they are there in the first place from my perspective. Suggesting a few safety laws are the result of a dictatorship is quite frankly laughable and screams paranoid IMO. Its impossible to have a totally free society or the type of society you dream of. A country where people are allowed to do whatever the hell they want is dangerous and certainly not somewhere I'd wish to live or have any place in the western world.

---

Your analogies are laughable, as wearing a seat-belt or Big-brother telling parents how their children should ride in a car is the U.S. Fed. government, or States putting their noses where the Constitution says it does not belong.
Helmet laws were defeated and so could seat-belt and child seat laws but politicians are more worried about their image than garanteeing their electorate their freedoms.
Do you think the U.S. government owes all those killed by mandatory air-bags financial restitution and should those who forced the law suffer the same penalties as drunk drivers who are involved in a fatal accident?
After all people are dead because of others actions and ignorance.

Airbags associated with increased probability of death in accidents, study finds
June 2, 2005
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that airbags installed in automobiles have saved some 10,000 lives as of January 2004. A just-released study by a statistician at the University of Georgia, however, casts doubt on that assertion.
In fact, said UGA statistics professor Mary C. Meyer, a new analysis of existing data indicates that, controlling for other factors, airbags are actually associated with slightly increased probability of death in accidents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I can't see your logic on any of this at all and have no idea why you would want such guidelines outlawed.

---

You and me neither. The notion that such laws are but a few steps from Auschwitz, which is what some would seem seem to suggest, is absurd in the extreme unless one believes in a literally lawless society.