[farmboy]

Because seatbelts do save the taxpayers the cost of caring for the injured for the rest ot their lives the state does make sense in demanding their use. The same arguement applies to motorcycle helmets, if it can be proven that helmets prevent more injuries than they cause.

[Tux]

farmboy, on 10 February 2010 - 11:29 AM, said:

Because seatbelts do save the taxpayers the cost of caring for the injured for the rest ot their lives the state does make sense in demanding their use. The same arguement applies to motorcycle helmets, if it can be proven that helmets prevent more injuries than they cause.

VERY slippery slope.

[Benjamin Dover]

Tux, on 10 February 2010 - 11:36 AM, said:

VERY slippery slope.

Does requiring everyone to purchase health insurance also apply to the slippery slope?

[farmboy]

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. The state should have the right to govern the proper way to conduct yourself on the roads to reduce the danger to all those who use them.

[LawSchoolDropout]

Benjamin Dover, on 10 February 2010 - 01:27 PM, said:

You can call whomever you like. The rants you wish for us to read focus strictly on the GOP despite the overwhelming evidence of the left-wing takeover of the dem party resulting in the massive spending by the gubmint.

I think it is laughable that you focus on the GOP while they are in the minority.

Sorry but, your myopic view of the political spectrum grows tiresome. Dismissed was all I could muster.

Myopic? Ironic.

If you would listen a little closer you would realize that I believe that we need "real" fiscal conservatives in government. Your team isn't conservative, they are irresponsible. The Dems are dems, they tend to address problems through government action which, excluding a handful of issues, is unnecessary. But at least they are willing to offset their spending with revenue rather than act like an drunk unemployed teenager at a strip club with an Amex card. These dems, liberals, or whatever elsy you call them, they are not the reason that fiscal conservatives aren't being elected. That role is being occupied by the GOP who hand picks candidates and control distribution of a significant amount of election funding. They claim the title and sweet talk the voter convincingly sufficient to crowd out the real fiscal conservative and when they don't deliver they blame it on someone else. These fake conservatives had a 6 year run in control of every branch of elected government and the result was the worst fiscal management of the government since Hoover, a military spread as thin as oil on water, and an economy on the brink of depression.

It's not my fault you are being hoodwinked and led astray. None of this was by accident and all of it could have been avoided had there been a fiscal conservative party in this country. So what are our options, concede? Delegate our authority as voters to people who are going to do the opposite of what they say? Accept irresponsible management of our tax dollars? If the issue is off the table then what is left for the GOP to offer? Tax cuts and simultaneous wasteful spending? That's a recipe for disaster. I prefer to see the GOP purged of all its current leadership and rebuilt as a fiscally conservative party capable of more than lip service and capable of understanding that doing nothing can be worse that no doing what you prefer. But that won't happen until the voter holds them to account which will never occur as long as you are looking the other way.

[Tux]

farmboy, on 10 February 2010 - 11:41 AM, said:

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. The state should have the right to govern the proper way to conduct yourself on the roads to reduce the danger to all those who use them.

So the purpose of the law is to protect you from yourself. Yeah, that's "freedom".

[Benjamin Dover]

LawSchoolDropout, on 10 February 2010 - 11:58 AM, said:

Myopic? Ironic.

If you would listen a little closer you would realize that I believe that we need "real" fiscal conservatives in government. Your team isn't conservative, they are irresponsible. The Dems are dems, they tend to address problems through government action which, excluding a handful of issues, is unnecessary. But at least they are willing to offset their spending with revenue rather than act like an drunk unemployed teenager at a strip club with an Amex card. These dems, liberals, or whatever elsy you call them, they are not the reason that fiscal conservatives aren't being elected. That role is being occupied by the GOP who hand picks candidates and control distribution of a significant amount of election funding. They claim the title and sweet talk the voter convincingly sufficient to crowd out the real fiscal conservative and when they don't deliver they blame it on someone else. These fake conservatives had a 6 year run in control of every branch of elected government and the result was the worst fiscal management of the government since Hoover, a military spread as thin as oil on water, and an economy on the brink of depression.

It's not my fault you are being hoodwinked and led astray. None of this was by accident and all of it could have been avoided had there been a fiscal conservative party in this country. So what are our options, concede? Delegate our authority as voters to people who are going to do the opposite of what they say? Accept irresponsible management of our tax dollars? If the issue is off the table then what is left for the GOP to offer? Tax cuts and simultaneous wasteful spending? That's a recipe for disaster. I prefer to see the GOP purged of all its current leadership and rebuilt as a fiscally conservative party capable of more than lip service and capable of understanding that doing nothing can be worse that no doing what you prefer. But that won't happen until the voter holds them to account which will never occur as long as you are looking the other way.

Well, my team is composed of 2 senators and 1 representative.

You may have noticed that I have been very critical of Republican spending.

You however, cannot seem to visualize that the supposed PAYGO is not happening, it is fantasy.

So, when you find the ability to criticize the left for their failed social experimentation, I will be capable of taking you seriously.

[Benjamin Dover]

Tux, on 10 February 2010 - 11:58 AM, said:

So the purpose of the law is to protect you from yourself. Yeah, that's "freedom".

You must have missed this:

Does requiring everyone to purchase health insurance also apply to the slippery slope?

[LawSchoolDropout]

farmboy, on 10 February 2010 - 01:41 PM, said:

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. The state should have the right to govern the proper way to conduct yourself on the roads to reduce the danger to all those who use them.

Technically speaking, a driving license isn't a license to drive, its a license to do so on public property. That why you don't have to have a license at the circle track or the drag strip. If there is any harm from not wearing a seat belt it is your own which you can offset with insurance. I dare say if you look at seat belt laws you will find they are the ones who lobby and benefit from such laws.

[Tux]

Benjamin Dover, on 10 February 2010 - 12:13 PM, said:

You must have missed this:

Does requiring everyone to purchase health insurance also apply to the slippery slope?

I think what you are struggling to articulate is this:

Would requiring everyone to purchase health insurance represent a "slippery slope" ?

I don't know. Perhaps you can clue us in to your thoughts on the subject in a separate thread. (and preferably on another board )

[Benjamin Dover]

Tux, on 10 February 2010 - 12:30 PM, said:

I think what you are struggling to articulate is this:

Would requiring everyone to purchase health insurance represent a "slippery slope" ?

I don't know. Perhaps you can clue us in to your thoughts on the subject in a separate thread. (and preferably on another board )

Ouch, I am so hurt, no, devestated. Give me a moment please............

Okie Dokie, I feel better now.

Perhaps you could simply answer the question, or is this one of those "Tux Foot in mouth" moments?

[Tux]

Benjamin Dover, on 10 February 2010 - 12:47 PM, said:

Perhaps you could simply answer the question, or is this one of those "Tux Foot in mouth" moments?

Come now Ben, I'm sure many would love to read your essay comparing/contrasting helmet laws with health care reform. I'm sure we'll all find it stimulating.

[Conrad]

This thread has gone in so many directions, I had to go back and look to see what the original topic was about. Needless to say, we are now nowhere near it and haven't been in quite a while.