PDA

View Full Version : Another "law' that chaffs my hide



rebelyell62
02-09-2007, 05:14 AM
The nation wide seat belt law!
It floors me that the Government passes laws for "my own well being" I don't wear seat belts. If you do that is fine, personnal choice.
I also don't talk on the phone, shave, read the paper,text wessage, watch movies, apply makeup,etc.etc. while behind the wheel.
IMHO I like to concentrate on driving!
Much of our kinder, gentler, society, can't pour p#$% out of a boot, with directions printed on the heel, bilingually (sic) of course, let alone "multi task" on the road.
I do, and will continue to smoke in my truck. I don't throw the butts out the window. I field strip them and place the butt in my cup holder. When outside, Ido the same, put the butt in my pocket or trash can.
I consider myself an adult, capable of making my own decisions ( some may argue that point).

Assault weapon bans, hi cap magazine bans, plastic gun bans,lead bans. the list goes on and on.
Mr. Franklin said it best "Those willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety, deserve neither"

sbl
02-09-2007, 06:21 AM
When there's no Law, there's no Bread.

Ben Franklin

Trooper Graham
02-09-2007, 09:45 AM
The nation wide seat belt law!
It floors me that the Government passes laws for "my own well being" I don't wear seat belts. If you do that is fine, personnal choice.


I also don't talk on the phone, shave, read the paper,text wessage, watch movies, apply makeup,etc.etc. while behind the wheel.


IMHO I like to concentrate on driving!



"

I don't buckle up to guard against my own stupidity. I buckle up to guard myself from everyone else's stupidity.

Robert A Mosher
02-09-2007, 10:03 AM
I don't buckle up to guard against my own stupidity. I buckle up to guard myself from everyone else's stupidity.

Amen, brother. I've come to drive with the assumption that everybody else out there is about to do something stupid - it keeps me alert and I try to have a lot of room between me and them. All too often they prove the theory right, and I am pleasantly surprised when I see someone who drives really well (they are also out there).

Robert A. Mosher

7thMDYankee
02-09-2007, 10:06 AM
I agree with the spirit of your complaints... However... If people elect to not protect themselves from injury they should bear the burden of that choice. In other words, if my brother-in-law is dead set against motorcycle helmet laws (and he is) he should not be allowed to collect Social Security disability insurance when he crashes and his brain becomes salad dressing. Same goes for everything else... seat belt wearing, smoking, etc... What people do to themselves or allow to happen is their business - when they want public money to deal with those decisions, though, then it's mine and every other tax payers' business.

Also, when your behavior affects others around you... well, I got rear-ended on my way to a re-enactment a couple years back. Kid on a cell phone. I applaud you for being a conscientious driver, but not everyone is. Sadly, when common sense becomes endangered or extinct - it is legislated. In other words - don't blame the government when the real blame is on your fellow citizenry.

Trooper Graham
02-09-2007, 10:51 AM
I agree with the spirit of your complaints... However... If people elect to not protect themselves from injury they should bear the burden of that choice. In other words, if my brother-in-law is dead set against motorcycle helmet laws (and he is) he should not be allowed to collect Social Security disability insurance when he crashes and his brain becomes salad dressing. Same goes for everything else... seat belt wearing, smoking, etc... What people do to themselves or allow to happen is their business - when they want public money to deal with those decisions, though, then it's mine and every other tax payers' business.


.

This is the biggest problem in our society today, people not taking responsibility for their own ignorant actions. The blame is put on everyone except themselves.

rebelyell62
02-09-2007, 10:54 AM
I too, ride a motorcycle, and rarely wear a helmet.
If I'm out riding with a headful of intoxicants and crash and burn, well it sucks to be me. Irresponsibility on my part.
But If I'm out riding (as happened last summer on Rt. 50 near Dillsboro)and the local soccer mom in her $50,000 SUV decides to change lanes without so much as a glance at her side mirror ( I was that close) running me onto a 3 foot gravel median before she realized "WHOOPS I THINK THAT WAS A MOTORSIKLE" that my friends is a horse of another color.

Citizens should be made to stand accountable for their actions good and bad.
And fully realize there are repercussions for such action.
I feel the vast majority of drivers fail to realize they are in control of a 2,000 lb. machine moving any where from 25 to 80+ mph. That's a tremendous responsibility.

When it's necessary for me to travel to the city (Cincinnati or the like) I am litteraly a nervous wreck after the journey.It is dog eat dog out there on the road. No courtesy in the least! Every other person on a cell phone.
I reckon I'm just old fashioned. It pains me to see this great nation of ours in such a state.
Please know, it is not my intention offend. Only my sincere hope that we as a nation wake up and smell the coffee.

MStuart
02-09-2007, 12:52 PM
"We" elect the fine folks that pass these laws. They claim to speak for their constituants when introducing and enacting whatever it is they're legislating these days, be it seat belts, smoking, or any of the other things that are done for the good of "the people".

Did you ever notice that some of them are "rich folks" who have never really got their hands dirty or worked for a living? But they claim they're just like you and me?

Mark

Army30th
02-09-2007, 01:43 PM
The elected officials are nothing like us. When was the last time you saw a backwoods, moonshine makin', hard workin' blue collar type get elected to the Presidency? Or someone with only a high school education?

You haven't, and you never will. If you have the money to campaign, that's fine. But filing the paperwork should be free, NOT a quarter of a million dollars. I do think you should be of sound mind, but if you can think clearly, hold a conversation and generally know what's wrong with AMERICA, and not the rest of the world, you should be allowed to run. I believe the Constitution states the only requirements are for you to be over age 35 and a natural born citizen.

The minds of the elected officials are on one thing, and one thing only: themselves and everyone else except the citizens of this fine country.

This is, of course, my opinion. You remember the old adage: Opinions are like (certainly body part here), everyone has one!

Trooper Graham
02-09-2007, 02:22 PM
When was the last time you saw a backwoods, moonshine makin', hard workin' blue collar type get elected to the Presidency?


Or someone with only a high school education?


!

The above were true the Presidency of the US would be a family affair in this county. :D :D

rebelyell62
02-10-2007, 06:20 AM
IMHO
The last "peoples" President we had was the late President Reagan.

There are some who say he was merely an actor. Iran/ Contra etc.

I for one remember a great sence of pride throughout the nation at the time.

I fear men such as he are slowly fading away.

I just don't feel our leaders have their fingers on the real pulse of America.
They are more like wrapped around our juggler. Elitists. More than willing to tell a nation of sheep WHAT we NEED from them to keep us warm and fuzzy, and free from the boogy man.

Graves Mercantile
02-10-2007, 07:10 AM
It's interesting that a "national" seat belt law needed to be passed. Considering that 49 of 50 states already have a seat belt law on the books. The only state opposed to seat belt laws, New Hampshire, has rejected them repeatedly over the years. This is just another Federal intrusion into a state issue. God bless the fine folks of New Hampshire and their libertarian stance against draconian seat belt laws! Huzzah!

I totally agree that if you choose not to wear a seatbelt you should have to pay the consequences, not SSI or Blue Cross. I also believe that this is a country founded on the principal of individual rights, freedoms and personal responsibility.

There are dangerous drivers out there and I will always wear my seatbelt, but I should have the right to not wear it. It is my life, my body and I should be able to choose what to do with it. But not at the detriment of others or at a cost to my community.

sbl
02-10-2007, 09:05 AM
I blame Reagan the way I blame the Chrome Bulldog on the Mack truck that runs me down.




IMHO
The last "peoples" President we had was the late President Reagan.

There are some who say he was merely an actor. Iran/ Contra etc.

I for one remember a great sence of pride throughout the nation at the time.

I fear men such as he are slowly fading away.

I just don't feel our leaders have their fingers on the real pulse of America.
They are more like wrapped around our juggler. Elitists. More than willing to tell a nation of sheep WHAT we NEED from them to keep us warm and fuzzy, and free from the boogy man.


So they're screwing with the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus, making up a war and you're worried about Seat Belts?

Michael Pierpoint
02-10-2007, 09:55 AM
I have been in the fire service for a long time cutting people out wrecks. You are a lot better off wearing seatbelt staying in the vehcle than taking the chance to let it roll on top of you, but of course by that time you would'nt know. Come to Southren Illinois on I-57 and if you see a BIG RED TRUCK look for me.

Michael Pierpoint

tompritchett
02-10-2007, 11:27 AM
However... If people elect to not protect themselves from injury they should bear the burden of that choice. In other words, if my brother-in-law is dead set against motorcycle helmet laws (and he is) he should not be allowed to collect Social Security disability insurance when he crashes and his brain becomes salad dressing.

The true cost that we pay for others stupidity is not through taxes to support public disability and social security payments but rather increased insurance premiums (both health and auto liability) that must cover the increased medical costs incurred as a result of their stupidity. The lobbying for mandatory seat belt and motorcylce helmet laws primarily comes from the insurance industry and the ER medical doctors. Ideally, the best approach would be instead of mandatory "wear" laws would be laws that would allow insurance companies to automatically exclude any claims for injuries that result as a direct result of not wearing such devices as well as laws that prevent plaintiffs from recovering through civil courts any expenxes associated with said injuries. Unfortunately, such laws would never fly because they would appear to favor the insurance companies (but in reality those that pay premiums) over the "little person". Since we will never see such laws, I would rather see mandatory "wear" laws than have to pay elevated health and auto liability premiums because of the stupidity of those who do not know how to adequately protect themselves.

Trooper Graham
02-10-2007, 02:42 PM
making up a war



Making up a war started with President Polk and his Mexican War so making up a war is nothing new to our history.

sbl
02-10-2007, 03:42 PM
Trooper Graham,

I was just discussing this with another non-history forum..

Thornton Affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Affair

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Thornton Affair, also known as the Thornton Skirmish, was an incident between the militaries of the United States and Mexico. It served as the primary justification for U.S. President James K. Polk's declaration of war against Mexico in 1846, sparking the Mexican-American War.

The incident is clouded by over a century and a half of propaganda, half truths, and great exaggerations by the participants on both sides. However, it can be ascertained that the event occurred sometime around dusk on April 25, 1846, and continued into the early hours of April 26......" read more at the site.


Of course we won that war and got a good chunk of territory to boot and got our troops the heck out of the lower Mexico ASAP. Folks were mad about that war too, like Lincoln and Thoreau.

Rob
02-10-2007, 04:00 PM
My sister spent twenty-two years in hospitals and nursing homes before she died, all as a result of forgetting to buckle her seat belt just one time.

Her head hit the pillar in between the front and rear doors on the opposite side of the car. And this was back in the days when those bad boys were made of solid steel, with no padding whatsoever. The police found her on the floor behind the front passenger's seat. (She had been driving.)

That's all it took. One time. One moment of forgetfulness, and her whole world changed. Newly married, and about to spend her first Christmas with her hubby. What a waste.

:cry:

If you are looking for sympathy, you'll find it in the dictionary. Somewhere after the word "stupid".

CivilWarBuff1863
02-10-2007, 04:01 PM
It should be your choice, just like wearing a helmet here in PA on a motorcycle.

It's your choice if you want to wear a helmet or not while riding in PA. Same should apply to those in cars who wear seat belts. It's your choice and yours alone. If they make it manditory to wear seat belts why not put seat belts on motorcycles too. I know it's a dumb idea but still it's not fair to many. Oh and i've seen plenty of cops not wearing their seat belts either.

Trooper Graham
02-10-2007, 04:10 PM
Trooper Graham,

I was just discussing this with another non-history forum..

Thornton Affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Affair

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Thornton Affair, also known as the Thornton Skirmish, was an incident between the militaries of the United States and Mexico. It served as the primary justification for U.S. President James K. Polk's declaration of war against Mexico in 1846, sparking the Mexican-American War.

The incident is clouded by over a century and a half of propaganda, half truths, and great exaggerations by the participants on both sides. However, it can be ascertained that the event occurred sometime around dusk on April 25, 1846, and continued into the early hours of April 26......" read more at the site.


Of course we won that war and got a good chunk of territory to boot and got our troops the heck out of the lower Mexico ASAP. Folks were mad about that war too, like Lincoln and Thoreau.

From what I have studied about Polk and the Mexican War it started deliberetly when Santa Anna turned down Polks offer of 30 million for Calif, Arizona and NM. I say Santa Anna because the mex gov was mostly for it. Polk didn't create the border incident because there were many actual incidents but used it after the deal was turned down and in the end Polk still purchased the territory but for half the original amount. It was our first Manifest Destiny by force.
Hitler did the same thing to attack Poland.

sbl
02-10-2007, 06:40 PM
Trooper,



From what I have studied about Polk and the Mexican War it started deliberetly when Santa Anna turned down Polks offer of 30 million for Calif, Arizona and NM. I say Santa Anna because the mex gov was mostly for it. Polk didn't create the border incident because there were many actual incidents but used it after the deal was turned down and in the end Polk still purchased the territory but for half the original amount. It was our first Manifest Destiny by force.
Hitler did the same thing to attack Poland.

I think you may be mistaken about Santa Anna. He had been out of the Presidency since 1844 and exiled to Cuba since since 1845.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_de_Santa_Anna

"....President Valentín Gómez Farías was desperate enough to accept the offer and allowed Santa Anna to return.

"Meanwhile, Santa Anna had secretly been dealing with representatives of the USA, pledging that if he were allowed back in Mexico through the US naval blockades, he would work to sell all contested territory to the United States at a reasonable price. Once back in Mexico at the head of an army, Santa Anna reneged on both of these agreements."

"Santa Anna declared himself president again and unsuccessfully tried to fight off the United States invasion."

This incident was well after the war was on.

I think Jackson's actions in Florida might count as force.

reb64
02-10-2007, 07:09 PM
[QUOTE=rebelyell62]IMHO
The last "peoples" President we had was the late President Reagan.

In my opinion, Pres Bush is one of the greatest Presidents ever.

reb64
02-10-2007, 07:11 PM
It should be your choice, just like wearing a helmet here in PA on a motorcycle.

It's your choice if you want to wear a helmet or not while riding in PA. Same should apply to those in cars who wear seat belts. It's your choice and yours alone. If they make it manditory to wear seat belts why not put seat belts on motorcycles too. I know it's a dumb idea but still it's not fair to many. Oh and i've seen plenty of cops not wearing their seat belts either.


your choice but if your own my insurance then they shouldn't have to pay, RH

Trooper Graham
02-10-2007, 07:47 PM
Trooper,




I think you may be mistaken about Santa Anna. He had been out of the Presidency since 1844 and exiled to Cuba since since 1845.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_de_Santa_Anna

"....President Valentín Gómez Farías was desperate enough to accept the offer and allowed Santa Anna to return.

"Meanwhile, Santa Anna had secretly been dealing with representatives of the USA, pledging that if he were allowed back in Mexico through the US naval blockades, he would work to sell all contested territory to the United States at a reasonable price. Once back in Mexico at the head of an army, Santa Anna reneged on both of these agreements."

"Santa Anna declared himself president again and unsuccessfully tried to fight off the United States invasion."

This incident was well after the war was on.

I think Jackson's actions in Florida might count as force.

The contested territory mentioned in the link was not the Territory of Calif, Arizona and NM but was the land between the Rio Grande and the Nueces. On the surrender aggreement of the Texas territory it was agreed the line was the Rio Grande and the Mex said it was the Nueces. It was this land between which experienced the border incidents. A state representative sent by Polk to Mexico City with the 30 million offer for the purchase of the above was about to be signed until Santa Anna showed up and said he could defend Mexico. Eventually the US rep was sent packing. The rest is history.

sbl
02-10-2007, 08:23 PM
Trooper Graham,

What I'm getting from a quick look at Wikipedia is that Polk used the Thornton Affair (the Texas area border) and the rejection of diplomat John Slidell and the 30 Million offer (the offer to buy California and New Mexico territories) by the Mexican Government as the cause for the war.

Santa Anna wasn't around at this point in time. He reneged on his deals with the US after he got to Mexico with the war got going.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Mexican_War

Trooper Graham
02-10-2007, 08:39 PM
Trooper Graham,

What I'm getting from a quick look at Wikipedia is that Polk used the Thornton Affair (the Texas area border) and the rejection of diplomat John Slidell and the 30 Million offer (the offer to buy California and New Mexico territories) by the Mexican Government as the cause for the war.

Santa Anna wasn't around at this point in time. He reneged on his deals with the US after he got to Mexico with the war got going.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Mexican_War

I stand corrected about Santa Anna being there at beginning. He took advantage of the first defeats of the mexican army to regain power by decievement.

What you stated was the reason for going to war with Mexico I throughly agree. It was Polk who first practice Manifest Destiny by force. Jefferson was a much better political businessman.

jda3rd
02-10-2007, 09:38 PM
Things like this, though presented as being in our best interest, nibble away at our Constitutional rights. The gradual shift away from a 1,000 year + tradition of English Common Law, toward codified statutory law worries me.

Seat belt laws, helmet laws, baby seat laws? Those should be between the individual and their insurance providers, they are not the area that our national government or our state governments should be dabbling in.

It stems, I think from a basic liberal tendency toward government control of the individual: " 'Liberal'. In politics, a cant name, which has been applied since 1815 to the party in each country which advocates constitutional institutions where they do not exist, or their extension into a more popular character where they do."* Hence, Big Government/Big Brother. It seems to make little difference which party is labeled 'conservative' or 'liberal', this definition holds true.
Hmmm, I like a "less is more" style of government. If only the Libertarians were more realistic.


*A Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art. Harper & Brothers, New York, 1843, p663.


Frank Brower

bob 125th nysvi
02-11-2007, 09:17 AM
but I would like to see an addedum that says if you are in an accident and aren't waering one:

1) You and your family get no insurance payments from either insurer for ANYTHING or ANY REASON

2) You are automatically barred from rec'g any type of government assistance. such as Disability, SSI or your family survivor benefits.

If you really want to take responsibility for your own actions pony up and write the congressmen involved that this is the addemedum you want on the law.

What people really want is permission to do what they want and for others to take responsibility for cleaning up the mess.

And oh yeah if you don't like the laws being passed get out and vote for someone who will change them.

My neice was complaining about not being able to drink until she was 21 and I asked her how many times she and her 18 year old friends actually voted in an election. She said never and I said that's why she can't drink until she's 21.

7thMDYankee
02-11-2007, 10:43 PM
I shudder to think, though, what our premiums looked like if they had to litigate every incident... I agree with what you are saying, but I would only add that the responsible citizen is paying for others twice - increased premiums and the taxpayer supported burden.

Malingerer
02-12-2007, 09:21 AM
[QUOTE=rebelyell62]IMHO
The last "peoples" President we had was the late President Reagan.

In my opinion, Pres Bush is one of the greatest Presidents ever.
Well, he is certainly one of the most hilarious.

"It's your money. You paid for it."—LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."—Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006

"One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards."—Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2006

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."—Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006

President Bush: Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on?
Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times: I can take them off.
Bush: I'm interested in the shade look, seriously.
Wallsten: All right, I'll keep it, then.
Bush: For the viewers, there's no sun.
Wallsten: I guess it depends on your perspective.
Bush: Touché.
—Exchange with legally blind reporter Peter Wallsten, to whom Bush later apologized, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006
"I was not pleased that Hamas has refused to announce its desire to destroy Israel."—Washington, D.C., May 4, 2006

"The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany."—Washington, D.C., May 5, 2006

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."—Washington, D.C., April 18, 2006

"I like my buddies from west Texas. I liked them when I was young, I liked them then I was middle-age, I liked them before I was president, and I like them during president, and I like them after president."—Nashville, Tenn., Feb. 1, 2006

"I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome."—Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005, on the reception of American forces in Iraq

"And Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."—To FEMA director Mike Brown who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his job performance.—Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

"My answer is bring them on."—On Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."—Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."—Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002

"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."—Philadelphia, May 14, 2001

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."—Sept. 6, 2004, Poplar Bluff,MO

Best regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

sbl
02-12-2007, 10:17 AM
No way do I want to "put food on my family!"

Malingerer
02-12-2007, 11:04 AM
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

toptimlrd
02-12-2007, 01:18 PM
I for one am glad that unlike the President, every slip of the tounge or mispeak I make, have made, or will make will not be recorded for posperity. I think all of us would be rather sheepish about it if it were. And yes the blade cuts both ways..........

It depends on what the definition of is is (Clinton, W)

I actually voted for the budget before I voted against it (Kerry)

If you do not think Sadam needs to be removed then you should not vote for me (Kerry)

Sadam is rebuilding his weapons program and we need to stop him (Sen. Clinton, H)

The war was a mistake (Clinton, H)

Tell the Russians the bombing starts in 5 minutes (Reagan joking with advisors when he didn't realize there was a hot mike within range)

I think if we look close enough all of our politicians are guilty of misspeak on more than a few occasions. So how's that for putting the shoe on the other hand? ;-)

sbl
02-12-2007, 02:10 PM
Well Robert,

These cases are odd cases of usually sensible people making mistakes, stuff taken out of context or worn out misquotes. The President is a serial abuser of the language. If he was a beloved statesman who worked for the betterment of all Americans his gaffes would be an endearment.

"Nuk-U-lar"

Malingerer
02-12-2007, 02:49 PM
Robert, you're right. Anyone can make a gaff and certainly when one speaks in public as often as the president, the opportunities are endless - but.... some of these are just breathtaking:

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breech of the levees."
— Bush, on "Good Morning America", six days after repeated warnings from experts about the scope of damage expected from Katrina, Sept. 1, 2005.

Especially breathtaking in light of the pronouncement of "one of our best presidents ever".

Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

MStuart
02-12-2007, 03:00 PM
"Nuk-U-lar"

I'd bet that 5 out of 10 "regular folks" don't pronounce it right, either.

In other news, a "major winter storm" (3-6 inches of snow) is headed for the 'burgh, amongst other places. The grocery stores are filled with folks stocking up on bread, milk, and toilet paper "just in case".

People are funny sometimes. I'm gonna go buy some stock in Charmin.

Mark

Rob
02-12-2007, 05:50 PM
"Nuk-U-lar"

Jimmy Carter used to butcher that word all of the time - and he worked with Admiral Rickover on the nuclear sub program.

sbl
02-12-2007, 09:09 PM
Rob,

You're right. I remember a cartoon showing a Govt. Issue warning sign reading...

"NO ONE BEYOND THIS POINT THAT SAYS NUK-U-LER!"

Jimmy Carter is the best former President ever.

tompritchett
02-12-2007, 09:22 PM
Jimmy Carter is the best former President ever.

With emphasis on former. As an office holder, he would have made a far better Presidental Chief of Staff than a President.

Out of office, he has probably shown more class than any other former President with the only possible exception being the recent collaborations between Clintion and G.H. Bush.

toptimlrd
02-12-2007, 10:00 PM
Rob,

You're right. I remember a cartoon showing a Govt. Issue warning sign reading...

"NO ONE BEYOND THIS POINT THAT SAYS NUK-U-LER!"

Jimmy Carter is the best former President ever.


Yep, I really miss that old double digit inflation, mortgage rates in the teens, and incredible unemployment. Not to mention it's about time a former President dispensed with the class shown by others in not criticizing the future office holders. At least we only had to suffer with him for 4 years. I better stop before I burst a vessel.

Rob
02-12-2007, 10:18 PM
The inflation was inherited from his predecessors. Remember wage and price controls? That little bit of socialist legislation which the Democrats could never have gotten away with?

Ah, but let's talk about the Susan B. Anthony dollar, better known as the "Carter quarter", for either its size or its value - I don't remember which...

toptimlrd
02-12-2007, 10:18 PM
Well Robert,

These cases are odd cases of usually sensible people making mistakes, stuff taken out of context or worn out misquotes. The President is a serial abuser of the language. If he was a beloved statesman who worked for the betterment of all Americans his gaffes would be an endearment.

"Nuk-U-lar"

I guess beloved statesman depends on your point of view. I personally like someone with resolve and dedication and not someone who "goes with the flow".

So what part of "either you are with us or against us" did people not understand when we started the endavour? I only hope Iraq is not our last stop. And before someone asks me the answer is yes, if I was still able to I would volunteer (I was deemed medically ineligible due to a degenerative knee problem during my training for active duty in '91 after being out of ROTC for a few years). Also my teenage son has decided he too will join the armed forces following college so yes I would send a son as well and pray for his safe return as I do for all our men and women in uniform.

A full supporter of the men and the mission.

sbl
02-13-2007, 06:26 AM
Robert,

"So what part of "either you are with us or against us" did people not understand when we started the endavour?"

The part where we supposed to go shopping, no draft, no general mobilization, no "Apollo Project" on fuel, tax cuts for the top etc etc etc. The talk was tough with the usual lack of follow through by this administration You, your son, and this country deserve better.

scvga52
02-13-2007, 07:02 AM
This is what you got when the North won the war.......Big Goverment, getting bigger........A Goverment that can give you all you need, can take away anything it wants.......You have no Freedom to choose for yourself.......That was what the South was fighting for, the right to choose what is best for yourself.......WELCOME TO NORTHERN AGRESSION.........

Malingerer
02-13-2007, 08:15 AM
This is what you got when the North won the war.......Big Goverment, getting bigger........A Goverment that can give you all you need, can take away anything it wants.......You have no Freedom to choose for yourself.......That was what the South was fighting for, the right to choose what is best for yourself.......WELCOME TO NORTHERN AGRESSION.........
Ahem...:"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition." Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy; March, 1861.

I guess the right to choose "what is best for yourself" didn't apply to 'everyone'.

Best regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC.

toptimlrd
02-13-2007, 09:32 AM
Robert,

"So what part of "either you are with us or against us" did people not understand when we started the endavour?"

The part where we supposed to go shopping, no draft, no general mobilization, no "Apollo Project" on fuel, tax cuts for the top etc etc etc. The talk was tough with the usual lack of follow through by this administration You, your son, and this country deserve better.


Perhaps you are right, and as soon as someone better throws their hat in the ring, I'll support them. For the time being though I am satisfied we have the best we can hope for with the current field of politicians. We'll have to see who runs in 2008 but the current crop of candidates worry me on both sides. About the only one I see that I support has not even decided whther or not they are going to run.

Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy, the trilatereal commission, and the new world order. ;-)

toptimlrd
02-13-2007, 10:03 AM
Ahem...:"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition." Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy; March, 1861.

I guess the right to choose "what is best for yourself" didn't apply to 'everyone'.

Best regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC.


Peter,

I'll give him credit for at least trying to get us back on a topic related to our hobby. I see I ended up breaking my rule against mixing politics with my recreation again which I wish I had not. There are multiple websites out there where we can scream, shout, and yell about our political feelings, but I really don't think this is one of them.

To the point about slavery's role in the ACW, there is of course no doubt that the fear of an abolitionist in the White House was a leading cause of the secession of the Southern States but to simply state the tired old argument of Slavery vs. States Rights cheapens the debate. Yes every sothern state included slavery as part of its constitution and many of the Confederacy's founders spoke of the preservation of slavery. Slavery was and is an abomination and was rightfully ended. Now having said that, I believe that most people on the Federal side likely held similar views Mr. Stephens did. Lincoln himself said (paraphrase) if I could preserve the Union by freeing no one I would, likewise if I could preserver the Union by freeing all I would also. In short, outside of the minority abolutionists nobody was fighting for the end of slavery when the war started. Much like the war on terror today where radical Islamic fundamentalism is the elephant in the room, slavery was the elephant at that time that nobody wanted to see.

Malingerer
02-13-2007, 10:35 AM
Robert,
My reply was to scvga52's post concerning the war of 'northern aggression' and the confederacy's noble fight for 'individual rights'. Stephens, Toombs, and others made it abundantly clear that the entire 'raison d'etre' for the existence of he Confederacy was the preservation of slavery. Period. There was nothing implied in my post about the yankees being the 'good guys' or that Lincoln's prosecution of the war was to free the slaves. The notion that the founders of the Confederacy cared one whit for the individual rights of the common man of the South is ludicrous - they were a bunch of eletist aristocrats who were willing to destroy the worlds best hope of a republican democracy all so they could continue to own their fellow human beings.

With respect,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

toptimlrd
02-13-2007, 10:43 AM
Robert,
My reply was to scvga52's post concerning the war of 'northern aggression' and the confederacy's noble fight for 'individual rights'. Stephens, Toombs, and others made it abundantly clear that the entire 'raison d'etre' for the existence of he Confederacy was the preservation of slavery. Period. There was nothing implied in my post about the yankees being the 'good guys' or that Lincoln's prosecution of the war was to free the slaves. The notion that the founders of the Confederacy cared one whit for the individual rights of the common man of the South is ludicrous - they were a bunch of eletist aristocrats who were willing to destroy the worlds best hope of a republican democracy all so they could continue to own their fellow human beings.

With respect,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

I know, I'm just tryong to springboard this inot a more appropriate topic for this forum,

Malingerer
02-13-2007, 10:52 AM
OK, fair enough. I'll give scvga52 credit for putting in plain view that favorite ole' myth of the noble confederate soldier fighting to preserve a nation in which seat belt laws and other restrictions on personal freedoms would never be enacted.

regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

scvga52
02-13-2007, 11:00 AM
Ahem...:"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition." Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy; March, 1861.

I guess the right to choose "what is best for yourself" didn't apply to 'everyone'.



I guess that why only 6% of Confederate Troops owned slaves, It wants wash.......

Malingerer
02-13-2007, 11:08 AM
Alright, let me make ECON 101 as simple as I can for you. The reason that such a small percentage of Confederate soldiers owned slaves is that they were expensive - not because of any moral qualms on the part of Southern yomanry. Thus, only the wealthiest portion of the Southern population owned slaves. These are the guys who organized the seccession movement and became the Confederacy's leaders.
That washes pretty well.

Best regards,
Peter Julius,
proud greatgrandson of Henri Thibideaux, 3rd Miss Inf.

vamick
02-13-2007, 12:11 PM
Robert,
My reply was to scvga52's post concerning the war of 'northern aggression' and the confederacy's noble fight for 'individual rights'. Stephens, Toombs, and others made it abundantly clear that the entire 'raison d'etre' for the existence of he Confederacy was the preservation of slavery. Period. There was nothing implied in my post about the yankees being the 'good guys' or that Lincoln's prosecution of the war was to free the slaves. The notion that the founders of the Confederacy cared one whit for the individual rights of the common man of the South is ludicrous - they were a bunch of eletist aristocrats who were willing to destroy the worlds best hope of a republican democracy all so they could continue to own their fellow human beings.

With respect,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

that last part....how is leaving a republican democracy 'destroying it'??.. was it really so fragile that a few states leaving meant its demise?..no I say that the war that was procecuted came nearer to 'destroying' the union along with a whole lotta people of both nations...

Malingerer
02-13-2007, 12:50 PM
OK (deep cleansing breath), if individual states could reject their covenant with the nation then that nation ceases to have structural integrity - because, in theory, then any other state, at any other time in the future, could then leave when provoked - ergo the 'nation' ceases to exist. I'm not sure what's so tough about that concept - states separate the country ends.
regards,
Peter Julius

sbl
02-13-2007, 02:03 PM
Peter,

Not to mention in "our" time period, British Canada to the North, French occupied Mexico to the South, a slave-holding Brazil waaay South and Russia looking for friends, there were numberous forces ready to pick up the pieces in some way from the US spliting up.

bob 125th nysvi
02-13-2007, 02:41 PM
This is what you got when the North won the war.......Big Goverment, getting bigger........A Goverment that can give you all you need, can take away anything it wants.......You have no Freedom to choose for yourself.......That was what the South was fighting for, the right to choose what is best for yourself.......WELCOME TO NORTHERN AGRESSION.........

Secessionist AGGRESSION against those in the south who DID NOT want to secede, like all of Northwest Virginia (voted 3:1 Against) or Eastern Tennessee (Voted 2:1 against).

Or for allowing the enslavement those of African-American desent who were free when their armies over ran a location.

Or the CSA instituted the FIRST military draft in American history

Or how a SOUTHERN controlled government threatened military force against the members of the Hartford Convention when New England wanted to secede from the US over the war of 1812 (that they felt was a Southern inspired land grab).

Sounds pretty big government/aggressive to ME.

Funny how we only remember what we want to or how RIGHTS only apply to those peiople who agree with us.

bob 125th nysvi
02-13-2007, 02:48 PM
Alright, let me make ECON 101 as simple as I can for you. The reason that such a small percentage of Confederate soldiers owned slaves is that they were expensive - not because of any moral qualms on the part of Southern yomanry. Thus, only the wealthiest portion of the Southern population owned slaves. These are the guys who organized the seccession movement and became the Confederacy's leaders.
That washes pretty well.

Best regards,
Peter Julius,
proud greatgrandson of Henri Thibideaux, 3rd Miss Inf.

slaves were economically unsound in a subsistance (yoemanry) farming economy being additional mouths to feed without necessarily tilling enough acres to make up the difference.

It's like Dairy farming in NY. For every 40 head you need one helper. The problem is it takes about 65 head to PAY for one helper.

Slaves can only be effectively used by LARGE Capitalist enterprises where the value of their labor is higher than the cost of their maintenance (unless you are like the Nazi's were maintenance wasn't an issue).

And just because they didn't OWN them didn't in anyway imply they wanted them to be citizens

bob 125th nysvi
02-13-2007, 02:53 PM
that last part....how is leaving a republican democracy 'destroying it'??.. was it really so fragile that a few states leaving meant its demise?..no I say that the war that was procecuted came nearer to 'destroying' the union along with a whole lotta people of both nations...

with a democracy is you put up with LOSING an election and working on winning the next one. Or eventually accepting the fact that what you want is not desired by the majority of voters therefore you have to change.

Conceptually, departing a democracy when you lose (the 'its my ball and I'm taking it home unless you let me play quarteback' mentality) is not any different than a 3rd world military deciding they didn't like the election results and putting a general in charge the following day.

The one concept that makes democracy work is that you agree to disagree CIVILLY.

Doug Cooper
02-13-2007, 05:01 PM
The true cost that we pay for others stupidity is not through taxes to support public disability and social security payments but rather increased insurance premiums (both health and auto liability) that must cover the increased medical costs incurred as a result of their stupidity. The lobbying for mandatory seat belt and motorcylce helmet laws primarily comes from the insurance industry and the ER medical doctors. Ideally, the best approach would be instead of mandatory "wear" laws would be laws that would allow insurance companies to automatically exclude any claims for injuries that result as a direct result of not wearing such devices as well as laws that prevent plaintiffs from recovering through civil courts any expenxes associated with said injuries. Unfortunately, such laws would never fly because they would appear to favor the insurance companies (but in reality those that pay premiums) over the "little person". Since we will never see such laws, I would rather see mandatory "wear" laws than have to pay elevated health and auto liability premiums because of the stupidity of those who do not know how to adequately protect themselves.

Very well said Tom.

Has anyone noted that perhaps the instigator of this thread was simply bored, stood outside the door, tossed in a grenade and then sat back to watch the fireworks?

Hurrah for mandatory safety laws...it ain't about freedom, its about safety. In the military safety is HUGE, and nobody gripes about it because safety rules and regs are written in blood. Everybody gets it. Would that the general populace had the same level of understanding that unsafe actions interfere with the mission of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

For those who value "freedom" more than their own and other's safety, take heart. There are plenty of other ways one can be stupid without breaking laws, hurting anyone but yourself and/or costing us all more in insurance premiums, grief and suffering. Just takes a bit of creativity...and careful reading of the Darwin Awards.

jda3rd
02-13-2007, 07:59 PM
A good book I'm reading, regarding the slavery issue:

"Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery"

by a group of journalists from the Hartford Courant. The writers don't try to lessen the onus of slavery placed on the South, rather they point out that it wasn't only the fault of the South, and y'all Yankees were every bit as guilty, and should bear as much of the burden as we Southerners.

Frank

tompritchett
02-14-2007, 06:38 AM
Alright, let me make ECON 101 as simple as I can for you. The reason that such a small percentage of Confederate soldiers owned slaves is that they were expensive

I actually took some documented bills of sale for unskilled slaves and ran the numbers through a program for converting then dollars to now dollars. The result was that the cost of those particular slaves back then was the equivalent of a subcompact car now (slightly less than $20,000).

tompritchett
02-14-2007, 08:03 AM
I guess that why only 6% of Confederate Troops owned slaves, It wants wash.......

First of all, while a very small percentage may have actually "owned" slaves in terms of titled ownership (I would still love to see the reference for this 6 - 8% figure people love to throw around), according to the 1860 census, just under a third (30.8%) all families in the states of the Confederacy owned slaves. Therefore, while there may have been less than 10% of soldiers that actually had titled ownership to one or more slaves, there were considerable more that came from families which owned slaves. (As far as slave owning familes being exempt from the draft, less than 3% of Southern families owned more than 50 slaves and less than 2% owned less than 100 slaves {I forgot whether or not the cut-off was ownership of 50 or 100 slave}).

Sgt_Pepper
02-14-2007, 08:09 AM
A good book I'm reading, regarding the slavery issue:

"Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery"

by a group of journalists from the Hartford Courant. The writers don't try to lessen the onus of slavery placed on the South, rather they point out that it wasn't only the fault of the South, and y'all Yankees were every bit as guilty, and should bear as much of the burden as we Southerners.

Frank

I'm pretty sure I've seen that point made somewhere... :)

tompritchett
02-14-2007, 08:18 AM
slaves were economically unsound in a subsistance (yoemanry) farming economy being additional mouths to feed without necessarily tilling enough acres to make up the difference.

It's like Dairy farming in NY. For every 40 head you need one helper. The problem is it takes about 65 head to PAY for one helper.

Slaves can only be effectively used by LARGE Capitalist enterprises where the value of their labor is higher than the cost of their maintenance (unless you are like the Nazi's were maintenance wasn't an issue).


A couple of points. Slaves were used for more than just field hands; they were also used in Southern manufacturing as workers. Second, while extra field hands may not have been economically feasible for dairy farming, they were very necessary for the three major Southern cash crops - cotton, sugar, and rice. These were labor intensive operations as they were practiced in the 1850's and 60's, even in the few years immediately after the end of the war. In fact, during the Johnson Reconstruction Era it could be argued that much of his adminstration's Reconstruction policies prior to the mid-term elections were more designed to get the freed black labor force back into fields than to protecting the rights of the freed blacks. Therefore, for the states that relied on the export of these cash crops, slave (and later cheap and reliable) labor was not only very economical but actually essential to those economies.

Finally, not all slaves were associated with large plantations. Many were also domestic slaves serving in the functions of "live-in" housekeepers, cooks, valets, etc. In fact, according to the 1860 census, 53% of all slave holding families in the states that would become the Confederacy owned 5 or less slaves. In fact, 29.7% percent owned 2 or less.

bob 125th nysvi
02-14-2007, 12:26 PM
A couple of points. Slaves were used for more than just field hands; they were also used in Southern manufacturing as workers. Second, while extra field hands may not have been economically feasible for dairy farming, they were very necessary for the three major Southern cash crops - cotton, sugar, and rice. These were labor intensive operations as they were practiced in the 1850's and 60's, even in the few years immediately after the end of the war. In fact, during the Johnson Reconstruction Era it could be argued that much of his adminstration's Reconstruction policies prior to the mid-term elections were more designed to get the freed black labor force back into fields than to protecting the rights of the freed blacks. Therefore, for the states that relied on the export of these cash crops, slave (and later cheap and reliable) labor was not only very economical but actually essential to those economies.

Finally, not all slaves were associated with large plantations. Many were also domestic slaves serving in the functions of "live-in" housekeepers, cooks, valets, etc. In fact, according to the 1860 census, 53% of all slave holding families in the states that would become the Confederacy owned 5 or less slaves. In fact, 29.7% percent owned 2 or less.

but yeoman famers (and this was my point) numerically were the majority of farmers and they operated relatively small plots that slave labor was not viable for because of its cost.

The large cash crops farms had the scale of production that made slavery economically (barely) feasible. A lot of southern planatation owners wealth was a mirage (just like the English nobility of the previous century) in that it was based on the theoretical value of the land the controled and the value of the crop after it was harvested. A lot of their 'wealth' was actually credit that had to be repaid.

And yes the freedmen didn't want to go back onto the large farms because they knew they were just substituting peonage for slavery. A relatively small step up. They wanted to join the yeoman class of farmer in that they would own their own little farms that would support their families.

Also of course Johnson and company wanted them back on the big plantations as laborers because: (A) They didn't know WHAT they were going to do with a lot of landless unemployed former slaves and they weren't willing to confiscate and break up the plantations. (B) They were still under the mistaken impression that 'King Cotton' was going to be Aemrica's most important export. They didn't realize that the North's industrial capacity had become dominant force in the economy.

Many slaves were technicians (black smiths, etc), laborers (teamsters, loading ships, etc.) jobs that whites didn't want but were essential to small businesses which were the base of the southern industrial economy. Thus it is logical that many slave holders held very few slaves because they didn't need them.

The one figure you left out is that a very small percentage of the slave holders owned the majority of the slaves. This group also happened to be the dominant force in the South's upper society and political structure.

I agree that the vast majority of Southerns weren't fighting for slavely persay, I submit that the leadship who led them to seccession and then into war had a large vested interest in the continuance of the 'peculiar institution' and disingenously used the chimera of 'States Rights' as a cover to maintain their economic and political positions, which were based on slavery.

rebelyell62
02-14-2007, 02:14 PM
How has a harmless thread regarding "safety" legislation morphed into a discussion of slavery.

I reckon what I meant was the fact that, for every generation that has proceeded me, there seems to be more and more people who fail to hold themselves accountable for their actions
If a 15 year old "kid" murders someone, it is because of Hollywood or games.
Heck , I heard on the radio the other day a group of people want to ban smoking on film (movies) no mention of banning drug/alcohol use, perverse language / unnatural acts. I guess all that is OKEE DOKEEY in the world in which we live.
I believe I was born 200 years too late. Good Lord our government / police agencies have more than they can handle now, let alone setting up road blocks to enforce a silly seat belt law!
I look around and fear for the babies who are being born today!!!!
What will this "nation" look like in 20 years?
Kids can name every hoodlum football player in the NFL, every "rapper" but can't tell you who our president is!!
There has been a very subtle but very damaging change to our way of thinking. We are degenerating. Am I the only one who feels this way?

I feel our government, in many ways, is nothing more than an insatiable beast.Congressmen who make a mockery of the seat they hold. No morals, ethics,etc. just feed the idiots more soundbites, and everything will be fine.

I reckon we are all responsible ,to one degree or another the color of the world around us. And no I do not plan on renouncing my citizenship and move to Russia.
I love my country, but I loathe the road we are on.