k, then why am I aloud to leave my house. Danger lurks everywhere...where is the line?
I should be able to make choices regarding my safety right? I mean, mountain climbing is dangerous, better outlaw it, people get concussions playing football, better outlaw backyard games. . . it just seems that anything can be a safety issue, that isn't good enough to tell me how to live.
well, the line has been drawn, because none of those things you mentioned have been outlawed....
In minnesota, I have to keep my kid in a car seat/booster until the age of 7.
Do you seriously have a problem with this one? Are you saying it should not be required that kids are put in car seats? And if that's what you're saying, I guess you're fine with the extra medical costs you ultimately pay for the injuries of these children? Do you also not think child abuse & neglect should be outlawed?
While in my office, a family of 4 (1 unemployed mom, 3 kids) who were on Medical Assistance, had two kids answer texts on their iPhones!
Do you think this family would be able to afford any & all medical bills that might arise for a family of four (especially if they had three kids who weren't in car seats and didn't wear bike helmets) had they not purchased a couple of $200 phones?
Let me see if I understand what you were saying. That is like saying that you got an income tax break for 5 years but now don't get it anymore. Is that costing you money or is it not? I believe that it is, they are getting more of my money now than they did before and that means I do not have it in my pocket.
Are you saying you feel entitled to a sustained tax break... sort of like some people say others feel entitled to the benefits of social programs?
This is a strange one for me, as you might be jumping a little too far. Speed limits are a PUBLIC health issue. Not a private one. Me not wearing a helmet is a private health issue, not a public one. But you can use this argument if you like, I just think it is flawed.
I think he makes a great point. How exactly are you reasoning that some things are public health issues and others are not? Look up any public health organization and you'll see bike helmets listed right along with speed limits as public health issues.
Do you mean that if you break the speed limit you are infringing on the rights of others, whereas if you fail to wear a bike helmet you are not? One could argue that the other drivers on the road put themselves in danger by choosing to engage in a potentially dangerous activity (driving on roads with no speed limit), so it’s their responsibility to protect themselves if they choose to and their own fault if they are hurt… thereby putting them in the same category as the bike riders who don’t wear helmets. One could also argue that, while failing to wear a helmet doesn’t infringe on the rights of others because others are not in danger, it does infringe on the rights of the taxpayers who frequently end up picking up the tab for the medical care of people with head injuries… thereby putting them in the same category as the driver who may be hit if there were no speed limits. Additionally, helmet and car seat laws are only for minors. The argument there is that the state has an obligation to intercede on behalf of children who can’t be responsible for themselves when parents are neglecting to protect their children’s safety. You also mentioned that smoking in public places shouldn’t be regulated, though that infringes on the rights of others as well.
I think your lines between public and private health are pretty subjective/artificial.
Me wearing a helmet does NOT make someone else more safe. Where is the line drawn then?
I don't get it. You started out by saying that when the taxpayers must pay more in taxes that means their freedom has been taken away. And now you're saying people should be able to engage in activities that ultimately take away more money/freedom from the taxpayers. You can't have it both ways.
I think people should just admit that freedom is not black and white. Ultimately, in whatever situation, someone will lose some "freedom". Our job is to navigate the shades of grey and try to come to the best possible solution that limits the loss of anyone's freedom as much as possible. But we can never do that as long as people continue to think the view they have constructed of what it means to preserve freedom is the only accurate view and no other views are valid, or as long as they continue to view freedom only from their own perspective without recognizing (or caring) that their "freedom" often comes at the expense of the freedom of others.
ETA: I also think it's important to acknowledge that concessions have been made to preserve your freedom, even at the cost of others. The public health folks don't ask the government to regulate that you can't leave your house or drive your car or play football, though, you're right, these things are also dangerous (and can therefore cost me, the taxpayer, money). They only look at what is most infringing upon the rights of the taxpayers and ask for regulation where the benifit (me not having to pay for your hospital bills) is judged to outweigh the cost (you having to wear a helmet).
I don't want the gov't involved more than they are...but I understand gov't role...
let's look at the helmet thing...let's say someone crashes their cycle...and are hurt pretty bad...to the point they qualify for disability via SSI...who pays for that...? answer, you and I...I guess that's limiting my freedom by limiting my choices by taking more money from me and you...
yeah, I know it's a stretch...but it's plausible...
And really, how hard is it to wear a helmet....? or to buckle your kid in...? or to not smoke in a restaurant...? It's not like the gov't is requiring you to do things that are hurtful to you and yours...while you may find them annoying...you're free to ignore them and enjoy the consequences...
personally, I would never allow my kid who was new at riding a bike to not where a helmet, but once he can ride it he should not be REQUIRED to wear it. You say it is a mere annoyance, but I don't want to be annoyed. That definitely isn't the role of the government
as a paramedic who gets to see the consequences of head injuries received by people involved in serious accidents who do not wear protective head equipment, let me tell you it's not a pretty sight.
but hey, go ahead. don't let something than can save your life annoy you. feel free to make a decision not to wear one. it's your life. not mine. can't have the government sticking their nose in. by the way, i assume you don't have a problem calling government paid/run emergency service personnel, and their equipment if ever you or a member of your family is unfortunate enough to have an accident while not wearing a helmet?
and you know that saying 'it can never happen to you'. that's a lie.
i will never understand someone that doesn't take whatever precautions they can to ensure their utmost safety. i know you can't control everything, but you can do what you can to try and minimize things. lifes a precious thing. we only get one of them.
as a paramedic who gets to see the consequences of head injuries received by people involved in serious accidents who do not wear protective head equipment, let me tell you it's not a pretty sight.
but hey, go ahead. don't let something than can save your life annoy you. feel free to make a decision not to wear one. it's your life. not mine. can't have the government sticking their nose in. by the way, i assume you don't have a problem calling government paid/run emergency service personnel, and their equipment if ever you or a member of your family is unfortunate enough to have an accident while not wearing a helmet?
and you know that saying 'it can never happen to you'. that's a lie.
i will never understand someone that doesn't take whatever precautions they can to ensure their utmost safety. i know you can't control everything, but you can do what you can to try and minimize things. lifes a precious thing. we only get one of them.
What's sad is that the regulation he's complaining about isn't even about the lives and safety of him and other adults; it's about the lives and safety of his and other people's children. :(
I’m not sure if this thread is about understanding the tea party or bicycle helmet safety, but I will try to offer some insight . . . and I should make it clear that I’m not associated with the Tea Party or the Republicans or the Democrats. But my parents are small business owners and they feel the sting of expansion of government and regulations first hand.
To give some background, they own a small campground wood packaging business in northern Indiana. Right now we are fighting off an invasion of Emerald Ash Borer which is a pesky beetle that is killing off all of the ash trees in Michigan and is heading south. Several years ago they received a two-week notice from the USDA that all wood, regardless of species, that crossed state lines needed to be kiln-dried and stamped with the USDA insignia. Since most of their wood is shipped to a distributer out of Chicago, they effectively had to shut down operations. They tried to explain that they have never had one Ash tree come though production but USDA would not consider reasoning. They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.
Was the wood they processed ever under threat of the beetle? No. Was the USDA willing to reason common sense or extend a grace period for compliance? No. Did it cost them several hundred thousand dollars and months of lost production to comply with an issue that doesn’t affect them? Yes.
They are understandably concerned with the expansion of government regulations and how it will affect their business. Most small business would have just closed shop rather than absorb the necessary cost to comply. They were kind of lucky that this happened to them when the economy was still strong . . . if this happened today, they would most likely have to close down.
My parents are not racists. They identify with the Tea Party but they don’t identify with the few a-holes that make the headlines (and for good reason). They are just trying to survive these hard times and provide twenty families with an opportunity to keep food on their tables.
They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.
wait, i'm confused. you say they chose option 1, did they lay off the workers?
I’m not sure if this thread is about understanding the tea party or bicycle helmet safety, but I will try to offer some insight . . . and I should make it clear that I’m not associated with the Tea Party or the Republicans or the Democrats. But my parents are small business owners and they feel the sting of expansion of government and regulations first hand.
To give some background, they own a small campground wood packaging business in northern Indiana. Right now we are fighting off an invasion of Emerald Ash Borer which is a pesky beetle that is killing off all of the ash trees in Michigan and is heading south. Several years ago they received a two-week notice from the USDA that all wood, regardless of species, that crossed state lines needed to be kiln-dried and stamped with the USDA insignia. Since most of their wood is shipped to a distributer out of Chicago, they effectively had to shut down operations. They tried to explain that they have never had one Ash tree come though production but USDA would not consider reasoning. They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.
Was the wood they processed ever under threat of the beetle? No. Was the USDA willing to reason common sense or extend a grace period for compliance? No. Did it cost them several hundred thousand dollars and months of lost production to comply with an issue that doesn’t affect them? Yes.
They are understandably concerned with the expansion of government regulations and how it will affect their business. Most small business would have just closed shop rather than absorb the necessary cost to comply. They were kind of lucky that this happened to them when the economy was still strong . . . if this happened today, they would most likely have to close down.
My parents are not racists. They identify with the Tea Party but they don’t identify with the few a-holes that make the headlines (and for good reason). They are just trying to survive these hard times and provide twenty families with an opportunity to keep food on their tables.
sorry but that doesn't justify anything
I've never molested children so there shouldn't be laws against it
give me a break
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
In minnesota, I have to keep my kid in a car seat/booster until the age of 7.
Do you seriously have a problem with this one? Are you saying it should not be required that kids are put in car seats? And if that's what you're saying, I guess you're fine with the extra medical costs you ultimately pay for the injuries of these children? Do you also not think child abuse & neglect should be outlawed?
While in my office, a family of 4 (1 unemployed mom, 3 kids) who were on Medical Assistance, had two kids answer texts on their iPhones!
Do you think this family would be able to afford any & all medical bills that might arise for a family of four (especially if they had three kids who weren't in car seats and didn't wear bike helmets) had they not purchased a couple of $200 phones?
Not putting your kid in a booster seat and outright abuse are two totally different issues, not sure why you are trying to make them seem the same.
I don't even want to approach the iphone situation with you.
They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.
wait, i'm confused. you say they chose option 1, did they lay off the workers?
I’m not sure if this thread is about understanding the tea party or bicycle helmet safety, but I will try to offer some insight . . . and I should make it clear that I’m not associated with the Tea Party or the Republicans or the Democrats. But my parents are small business owners and they feel the sting of expansion of government and regulations first hand.
To give some background, they own a small campground wood packaging business in northern Indiana. Right now we are fighting off an invasion of Emerald Ash Borer which is a pesky beetle that is killing off all of the ash trees in Michigan and is heading south. Several years ago they received a two-week notice from the USDA that all wood, regardless of species, that crossed state lines needed to be kiln-dried and stamped with the USDA insignia. Since most of their wood is shipped to a distributer out of Chicago, they effectively had to shut down operations. They tried to explain that they have never had one Ash tree come though production but USDA would not consider reasoning. They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.
Was the wood they processed ever under threat of the beetle? No. Was the USDA willing to reason common sense or extend a grace period for compliance? No. Did it cost them several hundred thousand dollars and months of lost production to comply with an issue that doesn’t affect them? Yes.
They are understandably concerned with the expansion of government regulations and how it will affect their business. Most small business would have just closed shop rather than absorb the necessary cost to comply. They were kind of lucky that this happened to them when the economy was still strong . . . if this happened today, they would most likely have to close down.
My parents are not racists. They identify with the Tea Party but they don’t identify with the few a-holes that make the headlines (and for good reason). They are just trying to survive these hard times and provide twenty families with an opportunity to keep food on their tables.
sorry but that doesn't justify anything
I've never molested children so there shouldn't be laws against it
give me a break
I'm not sure I was trying to justify anything. I was just telling a story.
And there is a wide gap between firewood and molesting children.
I’m not sure if this thread is about understanding the tea party or bicycle helmet safety, but I will try to offer some insight . . . and I should make it clear that I’m not associated with the Tea Party or the Republicans or the Democrats. But my parents are small business owners and they feel the sting of expansion of government and regulations first hand.
To give some background, they own a small campground wood packaging business in northern Indiana. Right now we are fighting off an invasion of Emerald Ash Borer which is a pesky beetle that is killing off all of the ash trees in Michigan and is heading south. Several years ago they received a two-week notice from the USDA that all wood, regardless of species, that crossed state lines needed to be kiln-dried and stamped with the USDA insignia. Since most of their wood is shipped to a distributer out of Chicago, they effectively had to shut down operations. They tried to explain that they have never had one Ash tree come though production but USDA would not consider reasoning. They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.
Was the wood they processed ever under threat of the beetle? No. Was the USDA willing to reason common sense or extend a grace period for compliance? No. Did it cost them several hundred thousand dollars and months of lost production to comply with an issue that doesn’t affect them? Yes.
They are understandably concerned with the expansion of government regulations and how it will affect their business. Most small business would have just closed shop rather than absorb the necessary cost to comply. They were kind of lucky that this happened to them when the economy was still strong . . . if this happened today, they would most likely have to close down.
My parents are not racists. They identify with the Tea Party but they don’t identify with the few a-holes that make the headlines (and for good reason). They are just trying to survive these hard times and provide twenty families with an opportunity to keep food on their tables.
help me understand...this gov't requirement happened several years ago....which lead your parents to join the tea party now...
Yes. Which to a degree makes sense since the Tea Party didn't exist several years ago. And I don't think they filled out a membership or anything. They just agree with the principle of limited government and free markets. Neither the Democrats or Republicans seem too concerned at the moment.
Yes. Which to a degree makes sense since the Tea Party didn't exist several years ago. And I don't think they filled out a membership or anything. They just agree with the principle of limited government and free markets. Neither the Democrats or Republicans seem too concerned at the moment.
considering the fact these bugs killed millions of trees, it seems right that the gov't took action to address the issue...sadly your folks were caught up in it...
and considering the "free markets" got us into the mess we are in (i.e., the great recession), thus forcing the gov't to take action, I just find it ironic that folks want both...
I guess the gov't could have taken no action, thus allowing the EAB's to continue to kill millions of trees...
I'd be willing to bet, if no action was taken, folks would be saying "the damn dare gobberment didn't do nothing to stop the EAB's..."
Yes. Which to a degree makes sense since the Tea Party didn't exist several years ago. And I don't think they filled out a membership or anything. They just agree with the principle of limited government and free markets. Neither the Democrats or Republicans seem too concerned at the moment.
considering the fact these bugs killed millions of trees, it seems right that the gov't took action to address the issue...sadly your folks were caught up in it...
and considering the "free markets" got us into the mess we are in (i.e., the great recession), thus forcing the gov't to take action, I just find it ironic that folks want both...
I guess the gov't could have taken no action, thus allowing the EAB's to continue to kill millions of trees...
I'd be willing to bet, if no action was taken, folks would be saying "the damn dare gobberment didn't do nothing to stop the EAB's..."
Agreed. It wasn't like Snidely Whiplash showed up in a USDA coat and demanded action. The USDA contact was a very nice man who showed empathy but didn't have the authority to make any judgement calls and could only follow his direct orders. I was just trying to provide an example of how fragile a small business is. They don't have the assets and lawyers to fight the government. It's comply or give up.
Yes. Which to a degree makes sense since the Tea Party didn't exist several years ago. And I don't think they filled out a membership or anything. They just agree with the principle of limited government and free markets. Neither the Democrats or Republicans seem too concerned at the moment.
considering the fact these bugs killed millions of trees, it seems right that the gov't took action to address the issue...sadly your folks were caught up in it...
and considering the "free markets" got us into the mess we are in (i.e., the great recession), thus forcing the gov't to take action, I just find it ironic that folks want both...
I guess the gov't could have taken no action, thus allowing the EAB's to continue to kill millions of trees...
I'd be willing to bet, if no action was taken, folks would be saying "the damn dare gobberment didn't do nothing to stop the EAB's..."
yep.....
I've changed my tune over the last 15 years....I used to spew the same anti-gov't that I see a lot of on here.
Anymore I say that the gov't won't screw us any harder than private industry does. I embrace socialized medicine because I see too many of our allies doing it successfully.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Yes. Which to a degree makes sense since the Tea Party didn't exist several years ago. And I don't think they filled out a membership or anything. They just agree with the principle of limited government and free markets. Neither the Democrats or Republicans seem too concerned at the moment.
considering the fact these bugs killed millions of trees, it seems right that the gov't took action to address the issue...sadly your folks were caught up in it...
and considering the "free markets" got us into the mess we are in (i.e., the great recession), thus forcing the gov't to take action, I just find it ironic that folks want both...
I guess the gov't could have taken no action, thus allowing the EAB's to continue to kill millions of trees...
I'd be willing to bet, if no action was taken, folks would be saying "the damn dare gobberment didn't do nothing to stop the EAB's..."
Agreed. It wasn't like Snidely Whiplash showed up in a USDA coat and demanded action. The USDA contact was a very nice man who showed empathy but didn't have the authority to make any judgement calls and could only follow his direct orders. I was just trying to provide an example of how fragile a small business is. They don't have the assets and lawyers to fight the government. It's comply or give up.
lol Snidely Whiplash...I love it...
and yes, I do agree with you, often times it is comply or give up...I really don't know what to do about that...
Agreed. It wasn't like Snidely Whiplash showed up in a USDA coat and demanded action. The USDA contact was a very nice man who showed empathy but didn't have the authority to make any judgement calls and could only follow his direct orders. I was just trying to provide an example of how fragile a small business is. They don't have the assets and lawyers to fight the government. It's comply or give up.
Snidely Whiplash, great refernece...takes me back some years lol....
it is unfortunate what happened to your family's business, but in situations like that where products, especially living products cross state lines and there is risk of spreading something bad to other states, then the federal government would be negligent if it did not step in. i feel for your family, but i can see the government's point as well.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Agreed. It wasn't like Snidely Whiplash showed up in a USDA coat and demanded action. The USDA contact was a very nice man who showed empathy but didn't have the authority to make any judgement calls and could only follow his direct orders. I was just trying to provide an example of how fragile a small business is. They don't have the assets and lawyers to fight the government. It's comply or give up.
Snidely Whiplash, great refernece...takes me back some years lol....
it is unfortunate what happened to your family's business, but in situations like that where products, especially living products cross state lines and there is risk of spreading something bad to other states, then the federal government would be negligent if it did not step in. i feel for your family, but i can see the government's point as well.
Nice pic Anyway, I think Snidely is too busy setting PJ's touring schedule and ticket pricing
It's been nice trading perspectives. I usually show up on " A Moving Train" every few months or so but sometimes it gets a little too bitter for me and I have to retreat to AET. On that point, I will retreat from the Tea Party thread because, well, I don't belong to the Tea Party and the only thing I know about them is that the guy from Tennessee that organized the first rally has a bigger head then Ted Kennedy and John Travolta combined. Hopefully another thread comes along that doesn't involve a super-inflammatory topic which I can add value to.
Let me see if I understand what you were saying. That is like saying that you got an income tax break for 5 years but now don't get it anymore. Is that costing you money or is it not? I believe that it is, they are getting more of my money now than they did before and that means I do not have it in my pocket.
Are you saying you feel entitled to a sustained tax break... sort of like some people say others feel entitled to the benefits of social programs?
This is a strange one for me, as you might be jumping a little too far. Speed limits are a PUBLIC health issue. Not a private one. Me not wearing a helmet is a private health issue, not a public one. But you can use this argument if you like, I just think it is flawed.
I think he makes a great point. How exactly are you reasoning that some things are public health issues and others are not? Look up any public health organization and you'll see bike helmets listed right along with speed limits as public health issues.
Do you mean that if you break the speed limit you are infringing on the rights of others, whereas if you fail to wear a bike helmet you are not? One could argue that the other drivers on the road put themselves in danger by choosing to engage in a potentially dangerous activity (driving on roads with no speed limit), so it’s their responsibility to protect themselves if they choose to and their own fault if they are hurt… thereby putting them in the same category as the bike riders who don’t wear helmets. One could also argue that, while failing to wear a helmet doesn’t infringe on the rights of others because others are not in danger, it does infringe on the rights of the taxpayers who frequently end up picking up the tab for the medical care of people with head injuries… thereby putting them in the same category as the driver who may be hit if there were no speed limits. Additionally, helmet and car seat laws are only for minors. The argument there is that the state has an obligation to intercede on behalf of children who can’t be responsible for themselves when parents are neglecting to protect their children’s safety. You also mentioned that smoking in public places shouldn’t be regulated, though that infringes on the rights of others as well.
I think your lines between public and private health are pretty subjective/artificial.
I love how the people on here have such great advise on how to care for and Raise a child when the loudest ones on here don’t even have children......If you do decide to have them, unless your to selfish to put another life before yours......Only Then will you understand why parents do not want the government to tell us how to raise them......I agree that helmets have a purpose....but one could argue helmets will not save a child From injury if they get hit by a car while riding their bike...should we outlaw bike riding all together ? We do worry that the child may get hurt on the bike but even more worrisome is when your child leaves to drive the car by their selves for the first time.....should that be outlawed to because they could get hurt...is it child abuse letting them drive alone? Should we all wear a helmet while driving a car? Is it child abuse letting your child walk to school....there have been plenty of children abducted walking to school...
In my day parents smoked in the house,
we rode in the back of pickup trucks,
we rode in the back of station wagons (can you imagine a rear end collision?)
there were no car seats
We did not wear helmets
we ate bacon
lots’ of hot dogs and
sugar
...and guess what? Most of us are still here,( baby boomers).........
Your argument that if a child gets hurt taxpayers pay the bill has no merit.....there are people that do have insurance and are paying there own bills ....
like the OP said we only have one life to live.... but don’t you think it’s best to live it to the fullest........
BACK TO THE Tea Party question .....we want less government in our personal lives...
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
BACK TO THE Tea Party question .....we want less government in our personal lives...
I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you there. We liberals don't want government involved in our personal lives either.
It's not their business to tell me who I can love, who I can talk to, who I should vote for, who I should listen to, who I can associate with, and it's certainly not any of their business to spy on my phone calls and my emails.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
BACK TO THE Tea Party question .....we want less government in our personal lives...
I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you there. We liberals don't want government involved in our personal lives either.
It's not their business to tell me who I can love, who I can talk to, who I should vote for, who I should listen to, who I can associate with, and it's certainly not any of their business to spy on my phone calls and my emails.
we agree?
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
I love how the people on here have such great advise on how to care for and Raise a child when the loudest ones on here don’t even have children......If you do decide to have them, unless your to selfish to put another life before yours......Only Then will you understand why parents do not want the government to tell us how to raise them......I agree that helmets have a purpose....but one could argue helmets will not save a child From injury if they get hit by a car while riding their bike...should we outlaw bike riding all together ? We do worry that the child may get hurt on the bike but even more worrisome is when your child leaves to drive the car by their selves for the first time.....should that be outlawed to because they could get hurt...is it child abuse letting them drive alone? Should we all wear a helmet while driving a car? Is it child abuse letting your child walk to school....there have been plenty of children abducted walking to school...
In my day parents smoked in the house,
we rode in the back of pickup trucks,
we rode in the back of station wagons (can you imagine a rear end collision?)
there were no car seats
We did not wear helmets
we ate bacon
lots’ of hot dogs and
sugar
...and guess what? Most of us are still here,( baby boomers).........
Your argument that if a child gets hurt taxpayers pay the bill has no merit.....there are people that do have insurance and are paying there own bills ....
like the OP said we only have one life to live.... but don’t you think it’s best to live it to the fullest........
BACK TO THE Tea Party question .....we want less government in our personal lives...
real nice comment about "too selfish to have children comment" aerial. really classy.
and i'm not saying you shouldn't live life to the fullest. i agree everyone should make the most of what time we have here. the difference between you and i is, i don't see a child wearing a helmet to protect himself as not living life to the fullest, i see it as common sense.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
Let me see if I understand what you were saying. That is like saying that you got an income tax break for 5 years but now don't get it anymore. Is that costing you money or is it not? I believe that it is, they are getting more of my money now than they did before and that means I do not have it in my pocket.
Are you saying you feel entitled to a sustained tax break... sort of like some people say others feel entitled to the benefits of social programs?
This is a strange one for me, as you might be jumping a little too far. Speed limits are a PUBLIC health issue. Not a private one. Me not wearing a helmet is a private health issue, not a public one. But you can use this argument if you like, I just think it is flawed.
I think he makes a great point. How exactly are you reasoning that some things are public health issues and others are not? Look up any public health organization and you'll see bike helmets listed right along with speed limits as public health issues.
Do you mean that if you break the speed limit you are infringing on the rights of others, whereas if you fail to wear a bike helmet you are not? One could argue that the other drivers on the road put themselves in danger by choosing to engage in a potentially dangerous activity (driving on roads with no speed limit), so it’s their responsibility to protect themselves if they choose to and their own fault if they are hurt… thereby putting them in the same category as the bike riders who don’t wear helmets. One could also argue that, while failing to wear a helmet doesn’t infringe on the rights of others because others are not in danger, it does infringe on the rights of the taxpayers who frequently end up picking up the tab for the medical care of people with head injuries… thereby putting them in the same category as the driver who may be hit if there were no speed limits. Additionally, helmet and car seat laws are only for minors. The argument there is that the state has an obligation to intercede on behalf of children who can’t be responsible for themselves when parents are neglecting to protect their children’s safety. You also mentioned that smoking in public places shouldn’t be regulated, though that infringes on the rights of others as well.
I think your lines between public and private health are pretty subjective/artificial.
I love how the people on here have such great advise on how to care for and Raise a child when the loudest ones on here don’t even have children......If you do decide to have them, unless your to selfish to put another life before yours......Only Then will you understand why parents do not want the government to tell us how to raise them......I agree that helmets have a purpose....but one could argue helmets will not save a child From injury if they get hit by a car while riding their bike...should we outlaw bike riding all together ? We do worry that the child may get hurt on the bike but even more worrisome is when your child leaves to drive the car by their selves for the first time.....should that be outlawed to because they could get hurt...is it child abuse letting them drive alone? Should we all wear a helmet while driving a car? Is it child abuse letting your child walk to school....there have been plenty of children abducted walking to school...
In my day parents smoked in the house,
we rode in the back of pickup trucks,
we rode in the back of station wagons (can you imagine a rear end collision?)
there were no car seats
We did not wear helmets
we ate bacon
lots’ of hot dogs and
sugar
...and guess what? Most of us are still here,( baby boomers).........
Your argument that if a child gets hurt taxpayers pay the bill has no merit.....there are people that do have insurance and are paying there own bills ....
like the OP said we only have one life to live.... but don’t you think it’s best to live it to the fullest........
BACK TO THE Tea Party question .....we want less government in our personal lives...
A helmet might NOT save a child from injury but it just might save their life. Which would you rather have an injury of a broken arm or brain damage or possibly death? I'd take a broken arm or leg over a head injury anyday. I never let my daughter ride her bike without her helmet, maybe because I'm a cyclist and i've faced too many close calls to ride without one.
Could you live with yourself if you let your child ride without a helmet and take a chance of death in an accident?
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Dissent is a good thing. These people dissenting are being marginalized by mainstream media, and most of the people on this board have eaten it up. They did the same thing with anti war protesters leading up to the Iraq invasion, never mind it was the first time in history people stood up to the authorities before they started dropping bombs. We were marginalized and outcast then, and these people are being marginalized now, while the elite go about their happy murderous policies.
Its a pattern of propaganda, evidence media serves the state.
Comments
well, the line has been drawn, because none of those things you mentioned have been outlawed....
Do you seriously have a problem with this one? Are you saying it should not be required that kids are put in car seats? And if that's what you're saying, I guess you're fine with the extra medical costs you ultimately pay for the injuries of these children? Do you also not think child abuse & neglect should be outlawed?
Do you have a source for this, please?
Do you think this family would be able to afford any & all medical bills that might arise for a family of four (especially if they had three kids who weren't in car seats and didn't wear bike helmets) had they not purchased a couple of $200 phones?
Are you saying you feel entitled to a sustained tax break... sort of like some people say others feel entitled to the benefits of social programs?
I think he makes a great point. How exactly are you reasoning that some things are public health issues and others are not? Look up any public health organization and you'll see bike helmets listed right along with speed limits as public health issues.
Do you mean that if you break the speed limit you are infringing on the rights of others, whereas if you fail to wear a bike helmet you are not? One could argue that the other drivers on the road put themselves in danger by choosing to engage in a potentially dangerous activity (driving on roads with no speed limit), so it’s their responsibility to protect themselves if they choose to and their own fault if they are hurt… thereby putting them in the same category as the bike riders who don’t wear helmets. One could also argue that, while failing to wear a helmet doesn’t infringe on the rights of others because others are not in danger, it does infringe on the rights of the taxpayers who frequently end up picking up the tab for the medical care of people with head injuries… thereby putting them in the same category as the driver who may be hit if there were no speed limits. Additionally, helmet and car seat laws are only for minors. The argument there is that the state has an obligation to intercede on behalf of children who can’t be responsible for themselves when parents are neglecting to protect their children’s safety. You also mentioned that smoking in public places shouldn’t be regulated, though that infringes on the rights of others as well.
I think your lines between public and private health are pretty subjective/artificial.
I am. Care to help me out?
I don't get it. You started out by saying that when the taxpayers must pay more in taxes that means their freedom has been taken away. And now you're saying people should be able to engage in activities that ultimately take away more money/freedom from the taxpayers. You can't have it both ways.
I think people should just admit that freedom is not black and white. Ultimately, in whatever situation, someone will lose some "freedom". Our job is to navigate the shades of grey and try to come to the best possible solution that limits the loss of anyone's freedom as much as possible. But we can never do that as long as people continue to think the view they have constructed of what it means to preserve freedom is the only accurate view and no other views are valid, or as long as they continue to view freedom only from their own perspective without recognizing (or caring) that their "freedom" often comes at the expense of the freedom of others.
ETA: I also think it's important to acknowledge that concessions have been made to preserve your freedom, even at the cost of others. The public health folks don't ask the government to regulate that you can't leave your house or drive your car or play football, though, you're right, these things are also dangerous (and can therefore cost me, the taxpayer, money). They only look at what is most infringing upon the rights of the taxpayers and ask for regulation where the benifit (me not having to pay for your hospital bills) is judged to outweigh the cost (you having to wear a helmet).
but hey, go ahead. don't let something than can save your life annoy you. feel free to make a decision not to wear one. it's your life. not mine. can't have the government sticking their nose in. by the way, i assume you don't have a problem calling government paid/run emergency service personnel, and their equipment if ever you or a member of your family is unfortunate enough to have an accident while not wearing a helmet?
and you know that saying 'it can never happen to you'. that's a lie.
i will never understand someone that doesn't take whatever precautions they can to ensure their utmost safety. i know you can't control everything, but you can do what you can to try and minimize things. lifes a precious thing. we only get one of them.
Sorry, I can't. I'm not part of it and don't know more than the average person about it's specifics.
To give some background, they own a small campground wood packaging business in northern Indiana. Right now we are fighting off an invasion of Emerald Ash Borer which is a pesky beetle that is killing off all of the ash trees in Michigan and is heading south. Several years ago they received a two-week notice from the USDA that all wood, regardless of species, that crossed state lines needed to be kiln-dried and stamped with the USDA insignia. Since most of their wood is shipped to a distributer out of Chicago, they effectively had to shut down operations. They tried to explain that they have never had one Ash tree come though production but USDA would not consider reasoning. They were faced with two options: 1) Close down and lay off 20 workers 2) Build an expensive kiln to dry the wood and go though a six month fight for USDA approval. Fortunately for the families that they employ, they decided to go for option 1.
Was the wood they processed ever under threat of the beetle? No. Was the USDA willing to reason common sense or extend a grace period for compliance? No. Did it cost them several hundred thousand dollars and months of lost production to comply with an issue that doesn’t affect them? Yes.
They are understandably concerned with the expansion of government regulations and how it will affect their business. Most small business would have just closed shop rather than absorb the necessary cost to comply. They were kind of lucky that this happened to them when the economy was still strong . . . if this happened today, they would most likely have to close down.
My parents are not racists. They identify with the Tea Party but they don’t identify with the few a-holes that make the headlines (and for good reason). They are just trying to survive these hard times and provide twenty families with an opportunity to keep food on their tables.
sorry but that doesn't justify anything
I've never molested children so there shouldn't be laws against it
give me a break
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Not putting your kid in a booster seat and outright abuse are two totally different issues, not sure why you are trying to make them seem the same.
I don't even want to approach the iphone situation with you.
I'm not sure I was trying to justify anything. I was just telling a story.
And there is a wide gap between firewood and molesting children.
help me understand...this gov't requirement happened several years ago....which lead your parents to join the tea party now...
interesting...
considering the fact these bugs killed millions of trees, it seems right that the gov't took action to address the issue...sadly your folks were caught up in it...
and considering the "free markets" got us into the mess we are in (i.e., the great recession), thus forcing the gov't to take action, I just find it ironic that folks want both...
I guess the gov't could have taken no action, thus allowing the EAB's to continue to kill millions of trees...
I'd be willing to bet, if no action was taken, folks would be saying "the damn dare gobberment didn't do nothing to stop the EAB's..."
yep.....
I've changed my tune over the last 15 years....I used to spew the same anti-gov't that I see a lot of on here.
Anymore I say that the gov't won't screw us any harder than private industry does. I embrace socialized medicine because I see too many of our allies doing it successfully.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
lol Snidely Whiplash...I love it...
and yes, I do agree with you, often times it is comply or give up...I really don't know what to do about that...
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Snidely Whiplash, great refernece...takes me back some years lol....
it is unfortunate what happened to your family's business, but in situations like that where products, especially living products cross state lines and there is risk of spreading something bad to other states, then the federal government would be negligent if it did not step in. i feel for your family, but i can see the government's point as well.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It's been nice trading perspectives. I usually show up on " A Moving Train" every few months or so but sometimes it gets a little too bitter for me and I have to retreat to AET. On that point, I will retreat from the Tea Party thread because, well, I don't belong to the Tea Party and the only thing I know about them is that the guy from Tennessee that organized the first rally has a bigger head then Ted Kennedy and John Travolta combined. Hopefully another thread comes along that doesn't involve a super-inflammatory topic which I can add value to.
Peace.
I love how the people on here have such great advise on how to care for and Raise a child when the loudest ones on here don’t even have children......If you do decide to have them, unless your to selfish to put another life before yours......Only Then will you understand why parents do not want the government to tell us how to raise them......I agree that helmets have a purpose....but one could argue helmets will not save a child From injury if they get hit by a car while riding their bike...should we outlaw bike riding all together ? We do worry that the child may get hurt on the bike but even more worrisome is when your child leaves to drive the car by their selves for the first time.....should that be outlawed to because they could get hurt...is it child abuse letting them drive alone? Should we all wear a helmet while driving a car? Is it child abuse letting your child walk to school....there have been plenty of children abducted walking to school...
In my day parents smoked in the house,
we rode in the back of pickup trucks,
we rode in the back of station wagons (can you imagine a rear end collision?)
there were no car seats
We did not wear helmets
we ate bacon
lots’ of hot dogs and
sugar
...and guess what? Most of us are still here,( baby boomers).........
Your argument that if a child gets hurt taxpayers pay the bill has no merit.....there are people that do have insurance and are paying there own bills ....
like the OP said we only have one life to live.... but don’t you think it’s best to live it to the fullest........
BACK TO THE Tea Party question .....we want less government in our personal lives...
I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you there. We liberals don't want government involved in our personal lives either.
It's not their business to tell me who I can love, who I can talk to, who I should vote for, who I should listen to, who I can associate with, and it's certainly not any of their business to spy on my phone calls and my emails.
and i'm not saying you shouldn't live life to the fullest. i agree everyone should make the most of what time we have here. the difference between you and i is, i don't see a child wearing a helmet to protect himself as not living life to the fullest, i see it as common sense.
A helmet might NOT save a child from injury but it just might save their life. Which would you rather have an injury of a broken arm or brain damage or possibly death? I'd take a broken arm or leg over a head injury anyday. I never let my daughter ride her bike without her helmet, maybe because I'm a cyclist and i've faced too many close calls to ride without one.
Could you live with yourself if you let your child ride without a helmet and take a chance of death in an accident?
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Dissent is a good thing. These people dissenting are being marginalized by mainstream media, and most of the people on this board have eaten it up. They did the same thing with anti war protesters leading up to the Iraq invasion, never mind it was the first time in history people stood up to the authorities before they started dropping bombs. We were marginalized and outcast then, and these people are being marginalized now, while the elite go about their happy murderous policies.
Its a pattern of propaganda, evidence media serves the state.
that said, wear your fucking helmet.