LIve Free or Die.

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

13th October 2011, 15:16
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave B

Why would you ask me to prove a statement which was clearly a personal opinion?

It's stuff like that which confirm my view that you genuinely don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, which would explain many of your posts.

What does that opinion have to do with the thread topic, if it is opinion, then the one I gave is just as valid, if this is now a personal opinion page of other posters, based on nothing but bias.
13th October 2011, 16:43
Dave B

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

What does that opinion have to do with the thread topic, if it is opinion, then the one I gave is just as valid, if this is now a personal opinion page of other posters, based on nothing but bias.

If you wish to state opinions you're welcome to, but when you state facts you should be expected to provide your evidence when questioned. Do you honestly not understand the difference? :\
13th October 2011, 18:00
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave B

If you wish to state opinions you're welcome to, but when you state facts you should be expected to provide your evidence when questioned. Do you honestly not understand the difference? :\

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave B

Ever get the feeling that Bob is one of those who would gladly ignore the law until such time as he is victim of a crime, at which time he'd go blubbing to the police about how his rights have been infringed? A hypocrite, in other words. A massive, massive hypocrite.

---------OK where are your facts that should not make me treat this as a trolls fecal droppings?
13th October 2011, 19:03
Malbec

I really see no problems with people not wearing their seatbelts, its Darwinism in action.
13th October 2011, 19:17
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

What are you prattling on about?
What the Constitution says, and what is going on, are two different things, which I maybe wrongly assumed you knew do to your backing of Fed. extortion that exists when the Fed. Government threatens to cut off funding if a state does not follow the Fed. mandate.

I never backed any sort of Federal extortion. I said it exists. If I were governor, I'd tell the Feds where to shove it. But I'm not, and there are precious few politicians out there that are brave enough to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

You are correct about the Tenth Amendment, no one here has said otherwise, so what is your point as you know the Tenth Amendment, as used, destroys the concept of Federalism?

You have said otherwise. YOU said that seatbelt, speed limit, and helmet laws are un-Constitutional. So I, once again, have to point out to you that since those laws are not enumerated powers of the Federal Government, that they are in the scope of the State governments. THAT is what the 10th Amendment says. THAT is the concept of Federalism. What you seem to be advocating for is a national government, where the powers that be in Washington DC have the ultimate say-so, and can do as they please. That is NOT what I want, that is NOT what the Founders wanted, and that is NOT what Conservatives stand for.
13th October 2011, 19:38
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I never backed any sort of Federal extortion. I said it exists. If I were governor, I'd tell the Feds where to shove it. But I'm not, and there are precious few politicians out there that are brave enough to do so.

You have said otherwise. YOU said that seatbelt, speed limit, and helmet laws are un-Constitutional. So I, once again, have to point out to you that since those laws are not enumerated powers of the Federal Government, that they are in the scope of the State governments. THAT is what the 10th Amendment says. THAT is the concept of Federalism. What you seem to be advocating for is a national government, where the powers that be in Washington DC have the ultimate say-so, and can do as they please. That is NOT what I want, that is NOT what the Founders wanted, and that is NOT what Conservatives stand for.

State do not have the right to pass any law that is un-Constitutional by either the States own, or Federal Constitutions. The Fed. one trumping all others.
That is the only place rights come from.
Other wise we would still have segregation.
Speed limits, are guide lines, or were, which gave discretion to law officers to determine if one was exceeding the advised safe speed, endangering others; therefore, at least at one time, one could go to court to challenge it and if the judge agreed with the driver that the driver was not posing a danger, the ticket would be overturned.
I defeated one ticket in that manner.
At the same time, tell me where the 55-- NATIONAL-- speed limit came from?

Seat-belt and helmet laws are laws protecting one from one's self.
Show me where in the Fed. Constitution this is allowed. Where any government can tell citizens what bathromm to use, where to sit in the bus, how to sit in a car, what road gear must be worn.
Show me where in the Constitution this is permitted.

The Federal Constitution has the FINAL say so in all cases, period.

MONEY, is the factor that stops challenges to Constitutional freedoms as no lawyer works for free, plus the abuse that comes from the Tenth Amendment, is partly because Washington, from top to bottom, does not want to give up powers it has, legal or otherwise, and big money, which could attempt a challenge to Tenth Amendment, sees no profit in it and probably a loss of power as they have Wahsington insiders in their back-pockets to a degree.

Our view of rights differ and I doubt we will ever agree.
13th October 2011, 19:41
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malbec

I really see no problems with people not wearing their seatbelts, its Darwinism in action.

The weak and feeble minded survive, while the strong and independent die.
Fascinationg take on things.
13th October 2011, 22:35
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The weak and feeble minded survive, while the strong and independent die.
Fascinationg take on things.

Indeed.

The wise in heart accept commands, but a chattering fool comes to ruin. - Proverbs 10:8
14th October 2011, 01:32
airshifter

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

Believe me when you see the aftermath of a motorcycle accident and the victim has their head split wide open on the road it affects all people who observe it.

But the same is true with the people in a bad car accident, a stabbing, shooting, or a motorcycle accident when the rider was wearing a helmet. If a rider impacts his head on any object his control of the bike is already gone, and the person being put at risk it only himself and any passengers on the bike.

Driving under the influence affects all people on the roads that you are driving on and can kill them as well.

Don't get me wrong, I've heard the neck vs head argument concerning helmets for years, and I've always worn a helmet when I've ridden. But these days especially riding a motorcycle in regular traffic is already a risk, and if people choose not to wear a helmet then that should be their choice IMO.
14th October 2011, 01:45
airshifter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Nice try but if their is an impact large enough to dislodge the driver of the, vehicle is already out control.
Not even the Fed. safety twits have tried to float that boat that I am aware of.

Think about what you just wrote for a second. If the initial impact is not minor enough to deploy the mandated airbags, it will not cause the driver to loose control, if it deploys the airbag, the airbag will GREATLY impact the driver causing he/she to lose control.
That would be a solid reason to eliminate the airbags if what you said were true.

You would be much better off seeking facts on the matter, as a number of studies have shown otherwise, both on vehicles with and without airbags. It was the basis for several states that challenged the motorcycle helment laws, providing evidence that belts had a great effect on others due to the drivers remaining in the seat and much more aware if wearing belts, where as with bikes the helmet didn't provide such ability to remain in control of the vehicle.

Due to the above a person not wearing a seatbelt infringes in the personal safety of others, a right which is not afforded in the Constitution. Then again, you seem to ignore a great number of aspects of the Constitution, so I'm sure that won't bother you at all.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page