Saddam Down with Outkast

From : azwiley1

Q: tbone wrote well im certainly not trying to argue against personal responsibility but do you smoke do you like to eat fast food are you at all overweight do you like to hunt or even plink at targets do you do anything that a soccer mom wouldnt do i hope not because im sure not going to pay for your foolishness. and you shouldnt have to and why would you because we live in a civil society and we help people who are sick or injured even if their judgement is not up to your high standards. what a total load of crap. in a civil society you help people that for some reason cant help themselves at the time not reward people for stupidity. but the real foolishness is this... the net increase to the total medical costs incurred in this country due solely to the extra injuries received by unbelted motorists or motorcyclists or skydivers or whatever just has to be a drop in the bucket when you look at the big picture even if they do make good fodder in discussion groups. eliminating them would have somewhere between minimal and no impact on the whole of medical expenditures or insurance company costs thus even if they could be eliminated you wouldnt see any savings in your insurance bill. and you can back this up how perhaps you should look at the difference in auto insurance rates from state to state before saying things like this. the reason insurance rates vary from state to state are based on a myriad of complex reasons more regulatory than risk-based. if you really believe that the differences are based on seat belt laws then there is no point in my trying to convince you otherwise. i never said that it has anything to do with seatbelts and it has everything to do with risk. that is why so many insurance companies left nj. they were losing money. so in exchange for nothing or even in the absolute best case a pittance you are willing to accept the legal theory behind the seemingly endless stream of nanny laws that regulators seem more than anxious to come up with. doesnt seem like a very good bargain to me... because you are not looking at the big picture. what about all of the bogus law suits where people are rewarded for being stupid and we get to pay for it. if people would take responsibility for their actions there would be no need for these nanny laws but it doesnt look like that will ever happen. fail to protect the freedoms you despise and youll eventually lose the freedoms you love. i really dont know you but what you are saying seem to indicate that you want the freedoms but dont want to take the responsibility that comes with them and if you are unwilling to take that responsibility then you dont deserve the freedoms either. actually im saying the opposite... maintaining freedom requires a great deal of responsibility. one of these is to be well informed and to not surrender freedoms to regulators without a very good and compelling reason. there isnt one or at least not a good enough one in this case. exactly what freedoms are you giving up by doing what i suggested i really dont care if someone doesnt wear their seatbelt of screams down the highway on their bile wearing nothing more than a pair of shorts but if they are significantly hurt by these actions they should bear the responsibility for it. the laws that i would want are not nanny laws. they would do nothing more than assign responsibility for actions. if you dont wear your seatbelt you dont get a ticket its your choice and right not to but if you get injured because of it you cannot sue and must take responsibility for your injuries. no rights are taken away people are just forced to take responsibility for their actions something that has long been slipping away. if someone goes screaming down the road on their bike wearing nothing but shorts and they go down they do pay... in terms of severe pain for a long time if they live. but the rest of us wind up paying for it out of our pockets which also strains resources needed by people who are in trouble from no fault of their own. when you say they must take responsibility for their injuries what do you mean exactly i mean that if they get injured in an accident and they were not taking the required precautions such as wearing the seatbelt they lose the ability to sue with the possible exception of the other party being ticketed for reckless driving and being extreemly limited in making a claim against either insurance company unless they buy a policy with a provision for not wearing it. what if theyre stupid moronic idiots and have no money or insurance that is my point exactly!! if they dont have money or insurance wtf are they doing driving anyway. why should i put myself at risk for idiots like this. but even at that if they are using the safety equipment provided then they would be no worse off with what i want to do t

Replies:

From : mac davis

on fri 16 jan 2004 211030 gmt mike in mystic sandiedadog@hotmail.com wrote just change your name and noone will know the difference i wont do that. i want earn everyones trust back as i am. keith t .