• Got the Contributing Memberships stuff finally worked out and made up a thread as a sort of "How-To" to help people figure out how to participate. So if you need help figuring it out, here's the thread you need to take a look at -> http://www.corvetteflorida.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3581 Thank you, everyone! Rich Z.

NEW FLA LAW EFFECTIVE JUNE 30TH

Heh ever since I got my 5pt harness installed, quite a few cops around town do a double take seeing me strapped in the seats.

I had my fair share of deadly accidents, I can tell you from that experience the seat belt didnt save my life, the bent steering wheel did. Soon as I lost control I remember just pushing myself into the seat using the wheel, it caused me to break my left arm but it kept me from going through the windshield. Not only that my seat was inchs from the steering wheel so I was pinned in there nice and tight..bruised lung and heart was no fun though.

A lot of people say my new harness setup is a pain and time waster...I just love the feeling of being in a velcro suit attached to the opposite material, my ass isnt going anywhere.
 
...I had my fair share of deadly accidents, I can tell you from that experience the seat belt didnt save my life, the bent steering wheel did. Soon as I lost control I remember just pushing myself into the seat using the wheel, it caused me to break my left arm but it kept me from going through the windshield. Not only that my seat was inchs from the steering wheel so I was pinned in there nice and tight..bruised lung and heart was no fun though...

So do I understand that you were not belted in during the above crash(es) and that it was the steering wheel and sheer strength that held you in?

Or, were you buckled in AND held on for dear life?

Please clarify for this old fart?
 
So do I understand that you were not belted in during the above crash(es) and that it was the steering wheel and sheer strength that held you in?

Or, were you buckled in AND held on for dear life?

Please clarify for this old fart?

I was holding on for dear life while buckled in. But the belt didn't lock upon impact which was no beuno but it was a dodge so I'd expect failure from
that car.
 
I've never been asked before or after for a search when I've been stopped. Every other law enforcement officer I've ever encountered has been courteous and friendly. Earlier that evening as I drove around Dothan, I saw a group of LEO's that pulled over several sporty cars (mustangs, camaros, etc). Later on that evening, I was pulled over by a group of LEO's.

I am as clean cut as they come and my cousin (who is a corrections officer) was in the car with me in uniform. I've never drank, smoked (anything), or done any sort of drugs. What exactly do you think his 'tip off' was? Apparently it was the bright blue corvette with the white stripe and out of state tag. Is it hard to believe he was just an asshole? It had nothing to do with him having any 'tip off', only his being an ass.

Please don't take this as me thinking all cops are assholes. This one I encountered in Dothan was simply that. Other than this guy, any time I've been stopped the officer was cool and easy to get along with.


Have you ever seen auctions run by law enforcement branches? Do you know what forfeiture laws are? Put two and two together......
 
Although I understand you sentiment, I don't think you'll see any more abuses of it than there may already be. If you're worried about it, install a mini-cam in the car (like some do for the track) and either keep it running or have an instant on switch and switch it on when you see a LEO.:eek:

Make sure it's date/timed.

Now that we have the paranoia protection in place:lmao: don't worry about searches and such. Without PC or a warrant, you're still no more likely to get your car searched than before. Again for the overly paranoid, simply install a big-brother cam and let it run during the stop:D

The easiest way NOT to get your car searched on a traffic stop, is to simply say NO!:NoNo:

Disregard all the BS they'll try to drop on you, guilt trip you and such, and just stand firm. If there's nothing to hide, even if they bring in a dog, they won't find anything.

Now...For those that disagree with the law, lets look at another side of the coin:



I agree





Ok, here's the problem. Other than our friendships, I generally wouldn't give a great damned what happened to most people!

So why the law? Simple: Cha-Chhing!! $$$$$$

Lets look at some:

The costs involved if you go through the windshield:

1) On scene investigation fatal/Serious bodily injury-Law Enforcement manpower costs.
2) Medical cost (on Scene)
3) Medi-Vac (if required) or general medical transport.
4) ER visit
5) Hospital stay and the associated costs therein.
6) Doctors bill
7) Physical Thereapy
8) Assisted living facility or home nursing care.
9) Coroner costs (if the above were not required)
10) Burial expense/Cremation.
11) Loss of income to your family
12) Increased insurance premiums across the board to make up for the losses.

If you have great insurance, most of the above won't impact you so much other than your deductibles and increased insurance costs. Of course, if your insurance is substandard, sooner rather than later, you or your loved ones will be out of pocket for costs:eek:

Unlike years past, hospitals can and do come after you for the overdue medical bills.

Costs to others:

You loose control (because you aren't buckled in and can't CYA and hang on to the steering wheel at the same time!) and hit/injure or kill someone else:eek:

Aside from potential criminal issues, that's going to get very expensive to a lot of people, real quickly!

If you have no insurance or your insurance really sucks....You may end up on the indigent care list so the government gets to foot you bills. Ok for you, sucks for the rest of us!

And of course, along with the potential for job/income loss, with HUGE medical bills comes the potential for bankruptcy and loss of your home, property, and "things."

See, when you file bankruptcy, a lot of other bills, not associated with this mess, will likely get swept up in the filing. This way, everyone gets to share in your loss!!:rolleyes:

The economy is bad enough as is. Lets not do things to help it get worse!!

And finally, on the economic front, look at the articles on the matter. It was started in ine the other day that the feds were threatening to pull aorud 30 billion or had another 30+ billion for the state, if the laws were enacted. Even Charlie couldn't turn that much money down!

As for the motorcyclist, being one I see both sides. That said, the measly 10k they're required to have to ride helmet less is a joke and whoever thought that crap up, needs to be drug down the road by their cojones!!:rolleyes:

It's difficult enough to survive a bike crash (BTDT too) without having one of the least protected and most critical parts of your body, take the "hit" if you will.

See, it's not all about "ME", it's more about the impact of my decisions on everyone else!

Aside from $$$ lets look at another issue.

Ever been in an out of control car? I have. Both belted and unbelted!!

Unbelted I took out part of a widshield and bent the steering wheel of a 1969 Camaro in an almost head on crash on I-4 with a DUI driver! I probably should not be here now.

Also slid out from under the steering whee and into the passenger side (bench seat) of a 71 Super Bee on a turn. Had to pull myself back under the wheel just to see where I was going (there's more to it this but I'll save it for comic relief night:D).

And I've bounced around the inside of a couple of patrol cars as well. Funny the crap you hit while airborne!
And yes, I've crashed a police motorcycle at speed. The helmet looked like crap afterward, but it did it's job!:thumbsup:

On the flip side (no pun intended), I've crashed at high speed and been held in place.

I've taught police tactical (pursuit) driving and hung those thight corners at reduiculous speeds....and been in TOTAL CONTROL of the vehicle because of the seatbelt.

And when dealing with a bad situation, rapid manuever, hi-speed pursuits, and such, it's nice not to have to hang on to the damend wheel while splitting your attention between driving, other drivers, ther perp and your but staying behind the wheel where it belongs!!!

So for the high performance enthusiast out here, it only makes sense to wear them based upon what and where we drive:thumbsup:



Me either, but as Ron White says: "You can't fix stupid!"

He's right...so now we're trying to legislate it:nonod:

Freedom of choice is not necessarily "stupid". It's freedom to choose, whether correct or not, based on what someone else may believe is stupid.

As for being involved in accidents as part of a career choice, well in such a case perhaps it would be best to have the JOB require the use of seat belts, when prudent, based on that likelihood.

As for the collateral damage and expenses caused by an accident, that could be very expensive for the party causing the accident, well, that is part of the risk a person takes in making their own decisions about how they drive and how they choose to protect themselves if such a situation should arise. Someone being sued because of their poor choice of action is not an unusual situation in the legal system, and certainly would be every bit as much incentive to NOT engage in such actions as putting a law in place that creates any penalty for a driver who chooses to not do what the law says he or she must, with or without and damages resulting from that choice.

In my opinion a law that states that you MUST wear a seat belt because you MIGHT get involved in an accident and it MIGHT save you and others from damage and expense is every bit as bad as laws that state that you cannot have this or that firearm because you MIGHT just use it in an illegal manner. It is basically a presumption of guilt before the crime or incident takes place, if ever.

You can't put rubber baby buggy bumpers on the entire world. And the government certainly cannot try to legislate those bumpers into place.
 
Freedom of choice is not necessarily "stupid". It's freedom to choose, whether correct or not, based on what someone else may believe is stupid.

As for being involved in accidents as part of a career choice, well in such a case perhaps it would be best to have the JOB require the use of seat belts, when prudent, based on that likelihood.

As for the collateral damage and expenses caused by an accident, that could be very expensive for the party causing the accident, well, that is part of the risk a person takes in making their own decisions about how they drive and how they choose to protect themselves if such a situation should arise. Someone being sued because of their poor choice of action is not an unusual situation in the legal system, and certainly would be every bit as much incentive to NOT engage in such actions as putting a law in place that creates any penalty for a driver who chooses to not do what the law says he or she must, with or without and damages resulting from that choice.

In my opinion a law that states that you MUST wear a seat belt because you MIGHT get involved in an accident and it MIGHT save you and others from damage and expense is every bit as bad as laws that state that you cannot have this or that firearm because you MIGHT just use it in an illegal manner. It is basically a presumption of guilt before the crime or incident takes place, if ever.

You can't put rubber baby buggy bumpers on the entire world. And the government certainly cannot try to legislate those bumpers into place.

:lmao:Well, yes they can:lmao:At least as it pertains to driving and traffic laws.
Don't misunderstand, I think many of our traffic laws are ludicrous. Pure BS for the purpose of generating revenue!!:mad:There were some that I simply refused to enforce! Blissfull ignorance is...well...blissfull:lmao:I just chose to be ignorant.

But I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with some of your observations.

Although I agree with you on the freedom to choose, there are a few instances where I have to rethink the position.

1st-fair is fair!
If we're going to allow motorcyclist to carry piss poor insurance amounts for the "option" to ride helmetless, then I think we should do the same for auto owners and seatbelts.
Then again, I believe that when you're out of the 10k mandated medical, you're either out of pocket or out of luck!

Tough love?
Maybe, but I'm tired of paying higher premiums for someone elses poor "choices."

Obviously this position in rediculous!

It still costs the TAXPAYER millions in lost revenue to help put humpty back together again after they fall off the freaking wall!

If I wasn't having to pay for this poor decision, then I probably wouldn't care.

So to that end, yes, that "choice" is a stupid choice.(yes,IMO)

And I don't much care for more government intervention in our private lives, but driving is a privelidge not a right and the government has the right to impose restrictions for that right!

If we don't like those restrictions, then I suggest we as a community, start fighhting those rules and regulations now and continue on a regular basis. It took decades for the motorcycle community to change the helmet laws, but they managed to do it.

They started with protests and rallys. Those were pretty much worthless.

Then they wised up, started dressing up, buying mouthpieces (lobbyist) and providing facts rather than just whining about the law.

Funny how well those changes worked out for the bikers.

As for the matter of job choice and crashes, it certainly makes an interesting observation.

I accepted the fact that I might be involved in a high speed crash on duty and new this every time I turned the ignition. Same holds true for gunfights, barfights and every other possible outcome while on duty. It's a known risk.
Yes, it truly is a job "choice" but I always try to hedge my bets:thumbsup:

Although Florida statute provides exemptions for traffic law "violations" for law enforcement while in the performance of thier duties, most departments now require the use of belts. The INSURANCE INDUSTRY has been the chief cause of this. Although it's ok to go unbelted, get hurt in a crash and watch your benefits go:wavey:
At the very least, you'll probably have to fight for them!! So why not just wear them to start with and God forbid you're injured in a crash, you'll get the benefits you deserve!

Besides, the general public is less bitchy when you stroke them a ticket when they see you wearing yours as well:thumbsup::D

I saw a deputy the other day, on the phone, no seat belt, and tailgaiting the car in front of him:rolleyes::nonod:Talk about a bad example?

As for the collateral damage argument, I don't quite understand your position? But the threat (or thought) of a lawsuit by those outside the civil or criminal justice system, is usually a non-issue. Most people don't even think about civil liability. When or if they do, they think their insurance company is going to take care of them:lmao: It's just not something that those outside the system think about.

Using that as an alternative for traffic laws iscertainly not a valid argument.

Like I said, I like the ability to choose and yes, I'd take the opportunity to choose to be careless; but only if we could guarantee that the taxpayer will not be held liable for everyone elses actions.
 
And I don't much care for more government intervention in our private lives, but driving is a privelidge not a right and the government has the right to impose restrictions for that right!

Now, that is an interesting statement right there....

Just how did the government swindle us into accepting that fallacy as a fact?

The roads are built and maintained with public funds taken from the public as taxes and fees. They are considered as PUBLIC roadways. Being's as the only true utility of such PUBLIC roadways is via driving vehicles upon them, then why do we not have the RIGHT to use that for which we have paid for?

Yeah, I'm feeling cranky lately. Getting tired of all the BS the government is trying to shovel down our throats while they stick the iron claw into our pockets to be taking ever increasing chunks of my money and pieces of my butt if I don't move fast enough to avoid the claws. Getting REAL tired of being treated like tax cattle to be used and abused as needed and squeezed harder because they want to spend more and more of the money they don't have with no real controls nor oversight from "the people". :mad:
 
I was holding on for dear life while buckled in. But the belt didn't lock upon impact which was no beuno but it was a dodge so I'd expect failure from
that car.

I wasn't aware that Chrysler had a problem with them. I know that some of the F-bodies had seatbelt retractor issues and there was a recall on certain years. We handled a few of those cases.

Learned something new today:thumbsup:

I'll bet that even though the shoulder belt failed to lock in, the lap belt held your arse in the seat!
 
The roads are built and maintained with public funds taken from the public as taxes and fees. They are considered as PUBLIC roadways. Being's as the only true utility of such PUBLIC roadways is via driving vehicles upon them, then why do we not have the RIGHT to use that for which we have paid for?

Exactly. The "driving is a privilege and not a right" praise agitates me to death. People who actually believe that really need to go back to watching veterans so that they don't become terrorists.
 
Now, that is an interesting statement right there....

Just how did the government swindle us into accepting that fallacy as a fact?

The roads are built and maintained with public funds taken from the public as taxes and fees. They are considered as PUBLIC roadways. Being's as the only true utility of such PUBLIC roadways is via driving vehicles upon them, then why do we not have the RIGHT to use that for which we have paid for?

Yeah, I'm feeling cranky lately. Getting tired of all the BS the government is trying to shovel down our throats while they stick the iron claw into our pockets to be taking ever increasing chunks of my money and pieces of my butt if I don't move fast enough to avoid the claws. Getting REAL tired of being treated like tax cattle to be used and abused as needed and squeezed harder because they want to spend more and more of the money they don't have with no real controls nor oversight from "the people". :mad:

Then get out there and work for CHANGE!!!

Not the O' Change, but real change!! Change where the public officals fear not listening to us, the constituents! Change where they no longer become "career politicians":mad:

And you're right about public funding for the streets and highways; however, the U.S. Constitution, although allowing us to move about freely (ie: without visas and ID cards for the moment:rolleyes:), grants any rights not specifically delegatted to the Federal Government, to the individual states.

You and I have the ability to roam from town to town, county to county and state to state. We can walk, ride bicycles, horseback or donkeys. What we are NOT guaranteed by the constitution, is the "right" to drive.

Interstates are actually designated as part of the National Defense Highway System and could in effect, be closed to all vehicular traffic other than military and it's designees in a time of national emergency. Travel on these NDHS roads is not guaranteed, it's "granted."

Sure, taxpayer dollars go to building and maintaining these roads, but those same tax dollars (well, similar ones anyway) go to fund various programs that we (you and I) may not endorse or care about. We don't have that much say about how and where our tax dollars are spent.

It simply is what it is and as stated, driving is a privilidge not a right and comes "with strings."

Don't care for the rules, get involved and change them!

As long as $$$ is involved and the states are held hostage by the feds, there will always be concessions.
 
Exactly. The "driving is a privilege and not a right" praise agitates me to death. People who actually believe that really need to go back to watching veterans so that they don't become terrorists.

We're starting to get way off topic, but WTH?

Please show me where in the constitution (state or federal) it states "driving" is a "right?"

Those idiots that want to watch vets as terr's and the ability to drive are two totally separate subjects:thumbsdown:
 
We're starting to get way off topic, but WTH?

Please show me where in the constitution (state or federal) it states "driving" is a "right?"

Those idiots that want to watch vets as terr's and the ability to drive are two totally separate subjects:thumbsdown:

Sorry Gordon, but you've got this all wrong. The Constitution does not GRANT rights to the people, it RESTRICTS the powers of government over the states and the people. This is specifically noted in the tenth Amendment because the founders of that document feared that it was not made sufficiently clear within the actual Constitution itself.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, the government cannot use the claim that if something is not specifically mentioned as being granted to the people, then they do not have that right. What it says is that the government is limited to such powers that are specifically delegated to IT by the Constitution, and everything else is a RIGHT of the states and the people.

Of course, the government has bent the intent of this clause and others to conform to what IT wants, but a literal reading and truthful interpretation of the Constitution and it's Amendments leaves no doubt about what was intended in those rules for which the government was supposed to be bound to.
 
Rich Z;88948-Sorry Gordon, but you've got this all wrong. The Constitution does not GRANT rights to the people, it RESTRICTS the powers of government over the states and the people. This is specifically noted in the tenth Amendment because the founders of that document feared that it was not made sufficiently clear within the actual Constitution itself.

Ok, so show me ANYWHERE where you and I as citizens have a "right" to drive?

We can use your example to further the point. Even Florida recognizes that driving is a prioviledge not a right. A drivers license is property of the State of Florida as are your tags.

I realize that the constitution doesn't grant rights. Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I mistated myself. I'm also aware that the document restricts the powers of the governement

That said, the states still have the "right" to set restrictions on driving, thus speed limits, seatbelt laws, etc.

Again, if we don't care for them, then I suggest we fight them from the beginning and stay on them until such time as the laws are changed or we voter the SOB's that voted for them out of office:thumbsup:

Oh, and I still think the seatbelt laws are good....and I hate wearing them!
 
Ok, so show me ANYWHERE where you and I as citizens have a "right" to drive?

We can use your example to further the point. Even Florida recognizes that driving is a prioviledge not a right. A drivers license is property of the State of Florida as are your tags.

I realize that the constitution doesn't grant rights. Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I mistated myself. I'm also aware that the document restricts the powers of the governement

That said, the states still have the "right" to set restrictions on driving, thus speed limits, seatbelt laws, etc.

Again, if we don't care for them, then I suggest we fight them from the beginning and stay on them until such time as the laws are changed or we voter the SOB's that voted for them out of office:thumbsup:

Oh, and I still think the seatbelt laws are good....and I hate wearing them!

That is the point. "Rights" are not granted by the government. They have not been granted the authority by the Constitution to do so. The Constitution that created the government granted them the PRIVILEGES needed to do what the Constitution authorized them to do. The retention of our RIGHTS was spelled out explicitly with the admonition that the government could not usurp those rights by making them privileges granted at their whim and under their control.

So by default we have a right to drive on the thoroughfares that our tax dollars paid for unless there is a Constitutional Amendment that grants the government the authority to change this right into a privilege.

Yeah, I'm sure there is some case history somewhere showing where the government does have this authority under their expanded definition of the COMMERCE CLAUSE in the Constitution, which has been used to extreme to stretch the powers of government to encompass nearly everything under the sun.

As for this being a state law, well this is where it gets sticky. The assumption here is that every state of the union had to agree to obey and protect the US Constitution in order to become a member of the United States of America. And in so doing, they had to be bound by the same restrictions as the federal government concerning what privileges they were granted and what rights were retained by the people. It just wouldn't make sense to have a bunch of states in the "united states" that did not adhere to the basic set of laws that made all the states a "union".

Yeah, I know this is all theoretical, and I would not be willing to spend the rest of my life and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to PROVE it in court, but I still believe that the government (whether federal or state) cannot take the money from us to build the roads and then say we can't use them without their permission. Which, of course, is exactly what is happening, but it rubs me the wrong way that this has happened. Just as it really rubs me the wrong way to see a sign something like "NO TRESPASSING. FEDERAL PROPERTY". Well just who the hell composes the members of that class "FEDERAL" anyway?
 
Those idiots that want to watch vets as terr's and the ability to drive are two totally separate subjects:thumbsdown:

The last sentence was meant as a joke. Not as effective without a smiley face?

The way I understand the Constitution is that it is meant to prevent the gov't from doing certain things. Of course, the Constitution failed pretty quickly, and as such we have the world as it is today. I think the only laws we should have are ones that restrict another person's basic human rights... can't pursue happiness if somebody murders you. Problem with my thinking here is where we draw the line. Which brings politicians back into existence.

Which is never a good thing.:hehehe:



To get back to being kind of in line with the original topic, I think seat belt laws are just a way to try to compensate for a lack of common sense. It's like blowing the engine in a car, but you put an air freshener in the car so you can't smell the burnt oil. So though I think wearing a seat belt is the right thing to do, I honestly don't see any good coming in the long term from more laws. The money would be better spent educating people to why. And if that doesn't work... natural selection! :lmao:
 
The natural progression of these sorts of laws can't help but get worse as more and more things come into the spot light to "save the people from themselves".

What about your eating and drinking habits? If a law would save a few lives, wouldn't it be worth it?

Personal hygiene? Participating in dangerous sports? How about making medical examinations MANDATORY every year? How about making a law whereby a driver can only drive a maximum number of miles or hours per day to reduce the risk of fatigue caused accidents?

I'm sure you can think of your own examples of such potential laws.....

Yeah, I know, the job of a legislature is to CREATE laws. But when are they going to run out of things to make laws against when new ones are created ALL OF THE TIME?

I've been saying for a long time that the day is coming when a person will be handed a manual (updated yearly) that will itemize everything that he or she CAN do. If what you want to do is not listed in the manual, then it is illegal to do.
 
:thumbsup:I ahve to agree. There's no good reason not to wear them.

How about freedom of goddamn choice?! It's bad enough all the bulls#!t that we have to put up with with a motor vehice for this garbage. Not wearing a seatbelt is YOUR problem, not the problem of others.

I think it's yet another infringement on our freedoms that they are slowly stripping away from us. So what? Are they going to start pulling me over everytime I'm driving my Trans Am because the cops can't "see" my seatbelt?:shrug01: I'm wearing it! Nothing says your seatbelt has to go from shoulder down. Old cars only have lap belts like mine so wtf?:thumbsdown: It's just another way for the state to create revenue.

Personally, I think its a little ridiculous for the state to ticket you for a seat belt and allow motorcyclists to ride without helmets.

Exactly the point I was making above. It's a crock of complete and utter bulls#!t.:thumbsdown::thumbsdown: Did you also know that motorcycle riders are NOT required to have insurance unlike motor vehicle drivers? Tallahassee can kiss my a$s!!!!
 
How about freedom of goddamn choice?! It's bad enough all the bulls#!t that we have to put up with with a motor vehice for this garbage. Not wearing a seatbelt is YOUR problem, not the problem of others.

I think it's yet another infringement on our freedoms that they are slowly stripping away from us. So what? Are they going to start pulling me over everytime I'm driving my Trans Am because the cops can't "see" my seatbelt?:shrug01: I'm wearing it! Nothing says your seatbelt has to go from shoulder down. Old cars only have lap belts like mine so wtf?:thumbsdown: It's just another way for the state to create revenue.

Exactly the point I was making above. It's a crock of complete and utter bulls#!t.:thumbsdown::thumbsdown: Did you also know that motorcycle riders are NOT required to have insurance unlike motor vehicle drivers? Tallahassee can kiss my a$s!!!!

They can kiss mine too, but unfortunately, we're stuck with them:lmao:There's not much good that happens in or around the capitol and from personal observations I feel most state agencies are at best, inept and inneffective.

That said, you'd have to read the rest of the 4 pages of BS to see where "choice" is not an option in the decision.

If we want to compare to motorcyclist, then so be it. Yes, motorcyclists are required to maintain a minimum of personal injury insurance. Last I looked it was 10K. An absolute joke considering the trememdous costs of head injuries and treatment.

When the $$$ runs out and you still need treatment and/or hospitalization, it becomes everyones problem. It's sort of like dominoes. When one falls they all begin to tumble:(

The statue implies that the seatbelt must be worn "properly" as designed by the manufacturer.
Most older cars had both a lap belt and a shoulder belt, just not together in one unit as we have today.

Before that, cars simply had a seat belt and prior to that, there were no belts.

Guys the guys and gals are gonna have to brush up on thier vehicle history:D
 
Exactly. The "driving is a privilege and not a right" praise agitates me to death. People who actually believe that really need to go back to watching veterans so that they don't become terrorists.

I hate that phrase, driving is a priveledge not a right. Driver licenses were issued way back when large trucks were damaging the street surfaces, they needed a way to tax those trucks some extra money to "repair" the streets. Before that, anyone could drive. Then they figured out if they had licenses for everyone they could get even more money, so they started applying licenses to all drivers. The government is all about money, nothing that they do is in our (the people's) interest, even if they say it's for our own good. Look at EVERY LAW the government has passed saying it's for our interest, and it's just a way for them to make money or to control us from uprising. It's true that people should wear seat belts, but I don't think they could care less about who dies, they are just looking for money.

Instead of putting more cops in bad neighborhoods and stopping crime at it's roots, they rather spend more money making more jail space to house criminals. Why? Cause in jail they can make those people work for free, cleaning roads, making license plates etc. The governments wants more people in jail. Have you heard of FEMA work camps? Get ready for this, those who are now losing thier jobs will be slowly put into these work camps where you bascailly work in exchange for food and housing. Everyday we lose more freedoms, it's begining to look like Hitler's Germany where he began by implementing new laws to fix things, and everyone loved him in the begining cause all of his new health programs and laws, but as people trusted him more he slowly began to squeeze people more and more with his laws, taking thier guns, adding curfews, like putting a frog in a pot and raising the heat slowly till it dies. Looks to me like we're headed in the same direction, cameras everywhere, you can't criticize the government..this isn't America anymore. :thumbsdown:
 
Back
Top