1

Because crunchy cheetos

Can you even get cheetos anymore that aren't crunchy? Could you within my lifetime?

 

2 It was new to me.  Thanks, sending to my friends!

Produced by "Sussex County"  WTF?  England?  NJ?

3 GLITTER BITCHES!

Can you even get cheetos anymore that aren't crunchy? Could you within my lifetime?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 27, 2010 03:28 PM (NfIvb)

they still sell puff around here. And they still suck as bad as Sun Chips

4 Yeah, looked again, UK!  Well done, chaps.

5

Kemp, I wondered why the woman wrapped her arms around and over his right shoulder.

 

Could be England.

6 I never wear my seat belt. Why? Because it's not the friggin' government's job to protect me from myself. We don't have a helmet law here, but I always wear my motorcycle helmet.

7 A well done commercial or psa can convey a lot of information in 90 seconds.

8 Is this old?

Slightly.  I posted it at The Splitters on March 23.

9 On the other hand, if you're single and childless, feel free to kill yourself.

10 maddog,

I imagine that you are being facetious, but in case you aren't; how about you sign a waver that your health insurance isn't intended to cover your injuries as a result of an accident if you aren't wearing your safety belt?

11

O/T - Great H2 comment.

Beasn, you ever had the urge to put your dick in the pickle slicer?

By ‘your dick’, you must mean my husband’s which is mine by default.

MOM, COMPOS IS THREATENING MY DICK WITH HIS POON!!

homo

12 #5
Kemp, I wondered why the woman wrapped her arms around and over his right shoulder.

Or the back seat of my 7 car.  Why BMW has the back seat belts buckle backward I don't know.

Thanks again, just sent it to 80 people, a good message for this weekend.

13 It's a little old, but it is an excellent piece of work and worth posting.

And I imagine it's more effective than the "Click it or ticket" campaigns that our overlords prefer, but then again this doesn't generate revenue. So there's that.

14

I imagine that you are being facetious, but in case you aren't; how about you sign a waver that your health insurance isn't intended to cover your injuries as a result of an accident if you aren't wearing your safety belt?

Tell you what, when you are paying for my insurance, I'll sign the waver. Until then, go fish.

15 how about you sign a waver that your health insurance isn't intended to cover your injuries as a result of an accident if you aren't wearing your safety belt?

I think AD&D Insurance may not pay if you are "Breaking the Law" as well.

16
Can you even get cheetos anymore that aren't crunchy?

You don't have Cheetohs Puffs in your local convenience stores?  What kind of backwater you livin' in, sheesh.

17 Or the back seat of my 7 car.  Why BMW has the back seat belts buckle backward I don't know.

I would imagine they use the same back seat assembly regardless of what country they plan to sell the car in. They wouldn't seem backwards in, say, England or Japan.

18 6 I never wear my seat belt. Why? Because it's not the friggin' government's job to protect me from myself.

Maddog, my dad was a pilot, we had seat beats in our 1963 Chevy and NO ONE could go anywhere if they weren't buckled. 

I made all my employees wear them.

One got hit head on by an 18 wheeler and lived.  He still thanks me all the time.  Wear them, we can't afford to lose a conservative, left the lefty go free.

19 Cheesy Poofs!

20 #17

Bingo!

21 Seat belts are the work of the neocons and Booosh! 

22 I don't wear them, they're made for midgets, they don't buckle. 

Cheap bastards don't make them long enough

23

Maddog, my dad was a pilot, we had seat beats in our 1963 Chevy and NO ONE could go anywhere if they weren't buckled. 

I'm not arguing that seat belts aren't a great idea or highly effective. More so than the bullshit airbags the government makes us buy. It just pisses me off no end for the fucking government to tell me to wear one in my own vehicle.

24 #23

OK, you crazy guy, just think to yourself  "the Morons told me to wear them"!

Will that work for you?

25 I never use a rubber when I fuck my whores, either.  No virus is telling ME what to do.

26 Thanks again, just sent it to 80 people, a good message for this weekend.

Posted by: Kemp at May 27, 2010 03:41 PM (2+9Yx)

Oh, you're the guy that starts that shit. 

27

26 I never use a rubber when I fuck my whores, either.  No virus is telling ME what to do.

Not the same damn thing, and you know it. Besides, the government hasn't told you you HAVE to wear a rubber.......yet.

28 #26

I don't either, cause I "just put the head in" 

Yeah, that's it.

29 The state forcing you to "embrace life" by mandating seat belt usage is completely acceptable because of the children, but the state allowing you to voluntarily purchase a license plate that says "choose life" is a gruesome violation of individual rights ('cause the state has no business telling you what to do with your body, or something).

My head hurts.

30

Again with that stupid 4 day growth tool look.

If my husband were a beard tooler, I wouldn't put my arms around him in the wrong direction-symbolic glitter drama.

31 The Europeans have an interesting take on public service ads.

Italy has resorted to shock tactics to warn women of the dangers of drinking while pregnant, launching a campaign based on the image of a foetus inside a cocktail glass.

32 how about you sign a waver that your health insurance isn't intended to cover your injuries as a result of an accident if you aren't wearing your safety belt?

If the govt didn't get in the way of my having choices like that in health care contracts then the govt would not need to make seat belt laws.

33 I've seen this video touted before.  Excuse me while I inject myself with a gallon of insulin now...

34 You know what is amazing about this ad? 

The eyes of the father and the daughter!  So much said without a word. 

The frumpy English outfits and the unsaved beard fit right in with the UK now.

Number of hits on You Tube?  7.5 MILLION!

35 Not the same damn thing, and you know it. Besides, the government hasn't told you you HAVE to wear a rubber.......yet.

Your not familiar with Nevada laws are you?

36

I cannot seriously be the only person that found this PSA  ghey.

???

37 they still sell puff around here. And they still suck as bad as Sun Chips

Posted by: fartbubble at May 27, 2010 03:30 PM (gAmQ1)

They've brought back Laura Scudder's potato chips in the SF Bay Area.  I am hoping they bring back their cheese puffs, which had it all over Cheetos.

And those little waffle cracker sandwiches filled with cheddar or blue cheese -- those were so good....

38 #36

Yeah, that fucking Nevada law sucks, so to speak.

I don't need a rubber in the joint, my ho's love it bareback.

39 #37

Yeah, you da only one.

40

Your not familiar with Nevada laws are you?

I would suppose those laws have to do with the public arch. I have no problem with the government telling me to use seatbelts on public transportation. I doubt Nevada tells you how to screw your wife or girlfriend.

41 37 I did too, Lacey. Makes me want to not wear a seat belt eventhough I have never not worn one, even to back the car into street. My mother always said that "if you live through it your face could be destroyed to the point of making people scream when they saw you." Nice, huh?

42 I hate wearing my seat belt too. I don't wear it when driving in the cityu because the cops are too busy to worry about it, and I rarely go fast enough that it will matter. I just blast the radio to drown out the annoying reminder beep. On the highway, I wear it, mainly becuase I don't need a ticket from a local yokel or Statey who is behind on his quota. Also, my 11 year old will admonish me to no end...the school got to her.

43 I would suppose those laws have to do with the public arch. I have no problem with the government telling me to use seatbelts on public transportation. I doubt Nevada tells you how to screw your wife or girlfriend.

Ummm..
How do I say this with my usual tact.
if your renting a girlfriend, they do have laws mandating certain PPE be worn.  Which I believe was the original statement.

44 Girls, pray tell what is ghey about the ad?

Family, little girl, mom, with no ring on, and scruffy dad.

I didn't see the dad's boyfriend, was he in the back somewhere?

45 Embrace life....wear your seatbelt when you drive to the abortion clinic.

46 Oh, and the little girl has bad teeth, so they really are English.

47 never wear my seat belt. Why? Because it's not the friggin' government's job to protect me from myself.

Hey, I smoke crack for the exact same reason!

48

I cannot seriously be the only person that found this PSA  ghey.

 

Thanks, Lacey.  I was thinking the same thing.  But I didn't want to interrupt the rubber rift.

49 #45  I didn't see the dad's boyfriend, was he in the back somewhere?

Boy, please let it be so!

50

@44

I take it your not familiar with the old west story of the prostitute who got into a gunfight with another prostitute, and got shot in the "pubic arch". The newspaper made a typo and it was printed as "public arch" which most people agreed was more appropriate anyway.

51

Room was too big for england. Everything there is in miniature.

Ok, maybe not ghey but definately beta or delta.

He should wear shoes when he drives too. No wonder he's having wrecks in the living room.

52 This was a bit too saccharine for me.   Did seem a bit off too.

53 Maddog, you've still let the government make the decision for you. By taking a knee-jerk contrary position, you're being dictated to just as much as if you were buckling up.

54

54 Maddog, you've still let the government make the decision for you. By taking a knee-jerk contrary position, you're being dictated to just as much as if you were buckling up.

If I ever get stopped for it, I'll try that argument on the cop. Or mebbe I'll blame Boosh...

55 I take it your not familiar with the old west story...
Yup.
But.
Unless the IRS re-opens the Mustang. Short duration intimate relations for hire is strictly a private business transaction, not really like your guvmint trolley. It would be the along the lines of guvmint mandated the use of seat belts in rental cars.

56 OT - *seen on Tim Blair's blog*

AUSTRALIAN doctors are considering a controversial form of genital mutilation on baby girls.

Australian doctors are considering a controversial form of genital mutilation on baby girls.

The practice involving cutting a girlÂ’s genitals, sometimes with razors or pieces of glass, could be allowed in a clinical setting to stem illegal backyard procedures which are leaving young girls scarred for life.

The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians will next month discuss backing “ritual nicks”, a modified form of genital mutilation.

57 Maddog, you've still let the government make the decision for you.

I doubt he actually is.  I think that's just an excuse.

I also oppose seatbelt laws, but I am baffled by people who don't wear their seatbelts.

58 #58 I also oppose seatbelt laws, but I am baffled by people who don't wear their seatbelts.

Agreed.  If people don't want to wear a seat-belt, let them take the responsibility for their (in)actions.  Besides, the gene-pool needs some bleach.

59 #52

Ok, maybe not ghey but definitely beta or delta.

Your points are well taken.

No shoes, hey, their is NO CAR. 

It's a commercial.  You figured out he was driving, right?

I've give ya beta, whatever that means.  It's England, they haven't done Macho since the Village People sang it.

Maybe the music is a put off, but it wasn't for me.  The slow mo?  How else you going to do it?

I give it more than a B+.  7.5 million hits says a lot of others do to.

60 I hate PSA's anyway.  They are just another intrusion of the "compassionate" government telling me what to do.  My idea of a good PSA would be something like:  "Catfights can harsh the buzz of any party".

61

Ugh--you did this because the AF launched its 101 Critical Days of Summer campaign today?  I had to watch "Blood on the Pavement IV" during Commander's Call. 

Those British PSAs are horrible to watch, but if you watch them at 4x speed they look like a Benny Hill skit. 

62 Can you even get cheetos anymore that aren't crunchy? Back in my day, Cheetos were soggy and we were glad to get 'em like that!

63

Because crunchy cheetos are just better.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 03:26 PM   Dont forget DiT: the new Texas seatbelt laws become enforeceable on June 1 2010.

64 Just for the record, maddogg,, I don't agree with the seat beat law, and I VOTED against it when I was in the legislature, BUT I wear mine every fucking time!

The morons officially tell you to also!

65 Cheetos make my fingers orange. And Mom got mad when I wiped them on the tablecloth.

66

Yup.
But.
Unless the IRS re-opens the Mustang. Short duration intimate relations for hire is strictly a private business transaction, not really like your guvmint trolley. It would be the along the lines of guvmint mandated the use of seat belts in rental cars.

If I ever hire a hooker, and I'm in my own place, and she has no objection, I will not consider the governments concern over whether I need a rubber or not.

If the government can force you to wear a seatbelt in your own vehicle, they there is really no limit to what they can tell you to do.

67

Girls, pray tell what is ghey about the ad?

Well, my first instinct was to laugh.

And the confetti is symbolic of what exactly.... intestines??

A better, more realistic ad, would show someone's life flashing before their eyes right before they slammed into a tree.

68

Again with that stupid 4 day growth tool look.

You mean the "Miami Device"?

69 If the government can force you to wear a seatbelt in your own vehicle, they there is really no limit to what they can tell you to do.

Whoa! No one is arguing that oh bane and executioner of the straw people. If they made suicide illegal, would you shoot yourself out of spite?

70 You got this from the Hostages?  What are you doing reading that ghey site?  Hell, they suck so bad, they are even banned from commenting here.

71 Traumatic brain injury and a lifetime of laying in a bed trying to remember who your family was while shitting yourself is not as sexy as it seems.

Wear your fucking seatbelt.

72 And the confetti is symbolic of what exactly.... intestines??

It's what tempered glass looks like when it shatters and flies through the air. Sheesh, even I picked up on that.

73 #68

A better, more realistic ad, would show someone's life flashing before their eyes right before they slammed into a tree.

No doubt, but I suspect they didn't have the budget to do that. 

The confetti is your life, one piece at a time.

Think artsy here.

74 wear your seat belt and feel the shuedenfrude of people calling the oil spill and sestak, obama's katrina and obama's watergate.

75 #73
Mike's right too.

76

>> Dont forget DiT: the new Texas seatbelt laws become enforeceable on June 1 2010.

What's new about em?  They up the fine again?

>> And the confetti is symbolic of what exactly.... intestines??

Broken glass.

 

77 I was got Folked while wearing my seat belt by a hot legislator.

78

Whoa! No one is arguing that oh bane and executioner of the straw people. If they made suicide illegal, would you shoot yourself out of spite?

Making suicide illegal is just stupid. And never had any effect on those who choose it. When the Major tells the troops to charge that hill, shall they refuse on the grounds that suicide is illegal? 

79

Broken glass.

Meh. I'm going with intestines.

Think artsy here.

You.Cannot.Make.Me, Sir.

80

A better, more realistic ad, would show someone's life flashing before their eyes right before they slammed into a tree.

 

Or a slo-mo presentation of a horribly ripped coratid artery bleeding out.

81

57 Reasons given by practising populations include religion, despite the Koran not requiring it, and that it can help maintain cleanliness and health.

Instead there should be a campaign: If you cut a child you go to jail.

82 I always wear my seat belt, & not because the government tells me so. It's because it's common sense. Also have known people who've lost friends due to the fact that the person wasn't wearing their seat belt, as well as read about what happens to people who haven't.

83

@57

 General Napier to the Indians (*) regarding the practice of Suttee..."You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

84 Making suicide illegal is just stupid. And never had any effect on those who choose it. When the Major tells the troops to charge that hill, shall they refuse on the grounds that suicide is illegal?

Your missing my point. If the government makes something that is stupid, reckless, and very likely to get you killed, illegal, despite it being none of their business, you act, stupid, reckless, in a manner likely to get you killed......out ...of.....protest...?

Methinks there are better ways to protest government incursion rather than going around doing the really stupid shit they've told me not to do. Because if acting stupid and irresponsible is my protest, it kind of shoots down my main argument that man kind is capable of self responsibility and competent in making decisions in his own life without government incursion.

85 Posted by: Luca Brasi at May 27, 2010 04:07 PM (YmPwQ)

Do you sleep with the fishes?

86

Because crunchy cheetos are just better.

As opposed to soggy Cheetos, which I assume Dave gets by...you know what? No. I'm not going for the cheap, sick joke. I'm better than that. I'm going to live by my New Years resolution of avoiding tactless statements. 

Ummm..
How do I say this with my usual tact.
if your renting a girlfriend...

Oh, you mean if you're fucking a prostitute?

87 Legalize Prostitution:

No man deserves to go through life with blue-balls. It's just cruel.

88 I need a drink, off to the club, see you morons later, God willing.

89 No man deserves to go through life with blue-balls. It's just cruel.

I've never understood the purpose of criminalizing prostitution. What's the difference between screwing a broad for money on a personal level and screwing a broad for money on camera?

Can you just record the event, promise to post it on the internet some time in the future, and get off scotch-free?

90

I need a drink, off to the club, see you morons later, God willing.

Buckle up!

91 No man deserves to go through life with blue-balls. It's just cruel. Posted by: sifty at May 27, 2010 04:45 PM (dOK6D) Then don't get married.

92 I always wear my seatbelt.  I have a lovely scar right between my eyes from when I didn't, slammed into someone and went face first into the windshield.  Yeah, life lesson learned there.

I don't support mandatory seatbelt laws but I do think it's a good idea to wear one.  I'm pissed off about the mandatory air bags.  I've mentioned this before, but I'm so short that the air bag deploying is strongly likely to break my face.  No dealer around here is going to deactivate it since the penalties and potential liability are too high.

93 RE: Seat belts - I drive a 3-ton 4X4 Expedition.  I don't need seat belts, you do.

RE: Nevada Rubber Law - If you rent a girlfriend at a legal establishment, your dick will be inspected and washed and you will put on your seat belt before the ride.

Never been to a cathouse in Nevada, don't live in Nevada and I know that Health Dept. regs say you gotta wrap that rascal before you do the deed. 

94 Married two years now. And it keeps getting better all the time. I won the wife lottery, and I know it.

95

Methinks there are better ways to protest government incursion rather than going around doing the really stupid shit they've told me not to do. Because if acting stupid and irresponsible is my protest, it kind of shoots down my main argument that man kind is capable of self responsibility and competent in making decisions in his own life without government incursion.

It's only stupid and irresponsible if you don't know what your doing. I'm no kid, and I've seen many mangled bodies in wrecked cars. As a matter of fact, I have experienced more than one high speed crash when I was younger and was truly irresponsible. I know what it's like to be upside down in a burning car in the dark looking for a door or window handle to escape and not being able to find one, while watching the flames lick up from the dashboard. I know the possibilities and the risks I incur. So that part of your argument does not apply to me.

However, your "cut off your nose to spite your face" argument does have merit. I have been known to be more than a little contrary and stubborn.

96

Do they still show "Signal 30" and "Mechaized Death" in driver's ed classes anymore?

Do they even have driver's ed classes anymore?

97 #91

I will!

98 90 Can you just record the event, promise to post it on the internet some time in the future, and get off scotch-free?

No need to be scotch-free.

99 Married two years now. And it keeps getting better all the time. I won the wife lottery, and I know it. Posted by: sifty at May 27, 2010 04:51 PM (dOK6D) Your IP Address seems to indicate you are blogging from the State Mental Institution in your State? /

100 maddogg, I'm with ya', to a point, but circumstances tend to dictate (or at least suggest) ones considerations. As a 35+ yr. motorcycle pilot, I won't wear a helmet, nor will I try to justify my choice to non-bikers. That said, I drive 2 older trucks ('66 Ford 3/4 ton, '67 Ranchero) with bench seats. No airbags? How 'bout no shoulder belts. I wear my lap belt primarily to keep my a$$ behind the wheel should some other moron hit me. Became a habit. That, and my beautiful, headstrong daughter won't let me ride with her if I don't buckle up. ('an I bought the d@mn car!)

101 97 Do they still show "Signal 30" and "Mechaized Death" in driver's ed classes anymore?

Don't know what it was called, but we watched a movie about drinking & driving. That was 8yrs ago.

Do they even have driver's ed classes anymore?

Yes. My youngest brother did his 1yr ago. TX has a program called Driver's Ed in a Box, & it's quite strict. But it allows the parents to teach the children themselves.

102 Close, I live in a suburb of the Los Angeles National Mental Disorder and Illegal Alien Reservation.

103 If the government can force you to wear a seatbelt in your own vehicle, they there is really no limit to what they can tell you to do.

As far as I know, seat belt laws do not extend to driving your car on private property. The government cannot force you to stop forward motion when you see a red light on private property either. However, if you want to use the public roads, you agree to these conditions. While I appreciate your libertarian outlook, your argument fails in this case.

104 Close, I live in a suburb of the Los Angeles National Mental Disorder and Illegal Alien Reservation. Posted by: sifty at May 27, 2010 04:56 PM (dOK6D) Oh CA, that says it all. But seriously, that's great you and your wife get along so well. I've been married 27 years with 2 great kids. Now if we can only throw them bums out in 2010

105 ot: pajamas media has an article of the imam for the ground zero mosque stating that US policies were to blame for 9/11.  when will the nation learn?

106 OT: The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

107 Thanks for the blood pressure boost, Miss80's.

108 OT:  Red headline on Drudge:

BP Halts Efforts as Crude Continues To Spew

109 The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 27, 2010 05:01 PM (Yq+qN)

Jihadis our enemies?  No, they're our peace partners.

110 Signal 30 movies were the best.

They made the girls in my high school throw up and pass out.

Signal 30 Part I

Signal 30 Part II

111 108 Thanks for the blood pressure boost, Miss80's.

I'm just the messenger. But I'm glad they're being honest & showing us who they truly are. Perhaps it will cause some Americans to realize how important it is to participate in the governing of this nation. Wise & informed choices are vital to good governance.

112 The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 27, 2010 05:01 PM (Yq+qN)

the video cuts the quote off in the middle. Full video still doesn't sound good but it is a little better than what people are reporting

113 Making suicide illegal is just stupid. And never had any effect on those who choose it.

Laws against suicide allow officers to intervene without having to think too hard about complicated legal justifications.

They make it easier to get suicide survivors into short-term hospitalization for their protection.

These laws are not deterrents.  The idea is not "Well, I would kill myself, but it's illegal so I won't".  The idea is more like "My schizophrenic son went off his meds and slashed his wrists; can the cops help me keep him safe?".

114 I won't wear a helmet, nor will I try to justify my choice to non-bikers.

Well I am a biker, and I have made more than one unscheduled trip to the ground. Not only do I always wear the dang thing, but my helmet will say SNELL on it. Your choice, but...I can't see doing that and not having a death wish.

115 Hope everyone has called their Senators and demanded they vote NO on Reid's spending bill.  He plans to have them vote today and stay in session throughout the weekend until it gets passed.

116 Red headline on Drudge: BP Halts Efforts as Crude Continues To Spew Posted by: WalrusRex at May 27, 2010 05:06 PM (xxgag) But Obama assured us he was in charge and he was gonna kick some BP ass? Maybe he never learned how to do that in the Senate? Oh yeah he was never really in the Senate? My bad.

117 OT: The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 27, 2010 05:01 PM (Yq+qN)

Hmm... were we having a discussion last night about the Federal death penalty?  I'd say that John Brennan ought to qualify for execution as a traitor, based on his expression of support, sympathy and succor for America's existential enemies.

118 >>Wear your fucking seatbelt.<< Fuck you. Mind your own business.

119

Because crunchy cheetos

Can you even get cheetos anymore that aren't crunchy? Could you within my lifetime?

 In my part of the world growing up it's JAX cheese puffs not Cheetos.

BTW when they are curled just right you can stick them in your nose like elephant tusks.  Down side is you blow orange boogers for a few hours.

120

Two Israelis have been arrested for shouting insults at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, yelling, "Jerusalem is not for sale" from afar.

 

121 The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

Imagine if this read "the presiden'ts counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called crusading a 'legitimate tenet of Catholicism' "

122 I would rather be safe than sorry. Why risk your life in such a rash manner just to protest government policies? Aren't there better ways of voicing displeasure? Imagine the accident report & how it would read it the paper. Would it convince anyone to stop wearing a seat belt out of protest?

123

 However, if you want to use the public roads, you agree to these conditions. While I appreciate your libertarian outlook, your argument fails in this case.

Then you argument would be that if you go on public property, you agree to cede your rights by that act alone?

Driving is a privilege, and I understand the reason. By going on the public street you take responsibility for your actions in regard for other people's safety. But then the government takes it upon itself to protect you from your own actions. It can be argued endlessly. I will just say I abhor the government getting involved in such a personal matter as my wearing a seat belt.

124 Except for railwriter. He can drink bourbon and pop Ambien and drive in the forest without a seat belt with his lights off at new moon in a convertible.

125 OT:  Red headline on Drudge:

BP Halts Efforts as Crude Continues To Spew

Posted by: WalrusRex at May 27, 2010 05:06 PM (xxgag)

Apparently not an unexpected development, and too soon to tell if it presages failure or is just a hiccup in the top kill procedure.

But it does make Obama look like he came to the Gulf Coast to declare victory on the assumption that the top kill would be completed successfully by the time he arrived.  And it's also interesting that BP has to take a break in its effort in order to obtain Federal approval for the next step.

That, and what Bobby Jindal is saying about the sand berms -- that the Feds have only approved one and will not approve more unless and until the first one is effective -- shows that the Federal government is not taking the approach of "try the best-guess solution as quick as possible, then evaluate success or failure, and all the while keep thinking up and preparing back-up plans in case."  Instead, they are still in a bureaucratic mode of seeking efficiency over speed.

126 Oh good.  So now we can call them Islamic extremist shits. 

Works for me.

127 119 Hmm... were we having a discussion last night about the Federal death penalty?  I'd say that John Brennan ought to qualify for execution as a traitor, based on his expression of support, sympathy and succor for America's existential enemies.

He's running with the more modern interpretation that jihad doesn't involve violence, which I've heard when I've questioned some Muslims. But the issue is that he completely rules it out, when even the aforementioned Muslims admit that it's a legitimate interpretation. In other words, Brennan knows nothing of the Koran.

128 I prefer Crazy Head-Choppin' Muz Cavemen.The CHCMC, for short.

129 John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms." 

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either. 

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

130 O/T but snort-worthy. Can you say chicanery??

131 man-lesbian. I confessed it once. fell flat.

132

But Brennan argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause." 

"Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam," he said. 

The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds. 

"In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU.

133 Retired Navy Lt. John Finn, the oldest Medal of Honor recipient from World War II, has died at his Southern California home. He was 100. Navy Lt. Aaron Kakiel says Finn died early Thursday on his ranch near Live Oak Springs, where he lived for more than 50 years. Finn earned the nationÂ’s highest military valor award for his heroism during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He received the Medal of Honor on Sept. 15, 1942, from then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Born July 23, 1909, in Los Angeles, Finn was the oldest of the 97 Medal of Honor recipients still living. During the Dec. 7, 1941, attack, Finn manned a machine gun and began firing from an exposed location on Japanese aircraft, suffering serious wounds in the process. His Citation: For The President of the United States of America, in the name of Congress, takes pleasure in presenting the Medal of Honor to Lieutenant John William Finn, United States Navy, for extraordinary heroism distinguished service, and devotion above and beyond the call of duty. During the first attack by Japanese airplanes on the Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, on 7 December 1941, Lieutenant Finn promptly secured and manned a .50-caliber machinegun mounted on an instruction stand in a completely exposed section of the parking ramp, which was under heavy enemy machinegun strafing fire. Although painfully wounded many times, he continued to man this gun and to return the enemyÂ’s fire vigorously and with telling effect throughout the enemy strafing and bombing attacks and with complete disregard for his own personal safety. It was only by specific orders that he was persuaded to leave his post to seek medical attention. Following first aid treatment, although obviously suffering much pain and moving with great difficulty, he returned to the squadron area and actively supervised the rearming of returning planes. His extraordinary heroism and conduct in this action were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

134 I will just say I abhor the government getting involved in such a personal matter as my wearing a seat belt.

Posted by: maddogg at May 27, 2010 05:14 PM (OlN4e)

Should your calculated risk not pay off - should you be involved in an accident that causes you injury - the government gets involved in the aftermath by sending out an ambulance to scrape you off the pavement and take you to a hospital.  I would fully support your right not to wear a seat belt if you had a sticker on your window, a card in your wallet and maybe a tattoo on your neck that told emergency personnel that they had no obligation to rescue, retrieve or resuscitate you unless they found sufficient cash on you to pay for the service.

135 Piss on John Brennan. Ignorant PC tool.

136 Piss on John Brennan. Ignorant PC tool. Posted by: sifty at May 27, 2010 05:22 PM (dOK6D) I'm drinking a beer right now, give me a minute or 2 and I'll join ya

137 Did you notice that Brennan used the Arabic word for Jerusalem (al-Quds) before saying Jerusalem? That tells you everything you need to know.

138 The poor peaceful dears have CHAD: Crazy Haji Asshole Disorder

139

 man-lesbian. I confessed it once. fell flat.

 

You can claim that if you only get tongue stiffies.

140 117 Hope everyone has called their Senators and demanded they vote NO on Reid's spending bill.  He plans to have them vote today and stay in session throughout the weekend until it gets passed.

I would, but it would be an exercise in futility (Sphincter and Ralph Wiggum).

141 142 Did you notice that Brennan used the Arabic word for Jerusalem (al-Quds) before saying Jerusalem? That tells you everything you need to know.

Yes and yes. 

142

Did my lying eyes deceive me or did I see skittles in that clip?

143 My senators are Cornyn & Kay Bailey. They're too fickle to bother calling. Whichever way the wind is blowing is the way they'll vote, or so it seems.

144

Should your calculated risk not pay off - should you be involved in an accident that causes you injury - the government gets involved in the aftermath by sending out an ambulance to scrape you off the pavement and take you to a hospital.  I would fully support your right not to wear a seat belt if you had a sticker on your window, a card in your wallet and maybe a tattoo on your neck that told emergency personnel that they had no obligation to rescue, retrieve or resuscitate you unless they found sufficient cash on you to pay for the service.

You shall receive all of that just as soon as I am relieved of the enormous tax burden confiscated from me at every turn for same. Agreed? BTW, on top of those taxes, I pay for my own health insurance. And I carry the card.

145 I used to never wear a seatbelt, and the night I got engaged, my intended asked me to, saying, "I don't want to lose you."  Well, who can resist that kind of sappy crap?  Been wearing one for twenty-seven years now.  And this ad made me tear up, but I'm all hormonal and shit all the time these days.

146

Should your calculated risk not pay off - should you be involved in an accident that causes you injury - the government gets involved in the aftermath by sending out an ambulance to scrape you off the pavement and take you to a hospital

 

 

I don't know where you live, but I had to pay for my ride to the hospital.  Then I payed for my treatment once I got there.  So your logic is lame as far as I'm concerned.

147 Is that Dave in Texas or Drew in Compromise? Fuck seat belts. If my boys were wearing them they all three be dead on I 95. Fuck you sissy pussy fucks. Live free or die.

148 Soona, same here, You get a bill, and it ain't cheap.

149 However, if you want to use the public roads, you agree to these conditions. While I appreciate your libertarian outlook, your argument fails in this case.

I stand corrected. There is a person arguing that the guvmint has a right to tell me what safety equipment is appropriate while I exercise my right to travel. (The justification of degrading the recognized right to travel to a privilege rests solely on the premise of risk to others and their property further erosion of the right to travel is unacceptable.) Even if "driving" is a privilege traveling is a right and unless they can show me the threat to others' life/liberty/property that is posed by my failure to use a safety device, they have no business mandating it's use on the "privilege" pretense.

150

but I'm all hormonal and shit all the time these days.

 

There's medicine you can buy for that now.  You can get it at your local grocery store.

151

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 27, 2010 05:20 PM (Yq+qN)

He seems conveniently to gloss over the fact that among the methods Islam approves for purifying one's community is murdering innocent men, women and children -- provided, of course, that one eschews the Western concepts of innocence and guilt, and use the Islamic concepts that define unbelievers, apostates, and the insufficiently devout as guilty.

I wonder who the recruits in Pakistani training camps will accept as a more trustworthy authority on what is Islamic: John Brennan or Mullah Omar?  In fact, I wonder who young disaffected Muslims looking at Internet content in their rooms in American suburbs will accept as a more trustworthy authority on what is Islamic: John Brennan or Anwar Al-Awlaki?

152

Alexthechick:

 

If you are seriously worried about air bag deployment all you have to do is remove the fuse for it.  Now, no professional would ever do such a thing due to potential liablity but it is something you could do yourself.

 

 

153

I demand that you install a fire supression system in your house.

Posted by: polynikes - government bureaucrat at May 27, 2010 05:24 PM (m2CN7)

You mean, along the lines of the smoke detectors the building inspector demanded we have in each bedroom and in our hallway before he would sign off on our remodeling of our bathroom?

154 Even if your Senators are fickle, they still want to keep their jobs.  Doesn't hurt to call .....

155 Should your calculated risk not pay off - should you be involved in an accident that causes you injury - the government gets involved in the aftermath by sending out an ambulance to scrape you off the pavement and take you to a hospital

The issue with this line of thinking is. Many recreational activities are dangerous. If you make something illegal based on the risk of an ambulance might be needed, and medical bills might rack up. You could use that logic to make almost any recreational activity illegal.

Skiing, seen more than one airlift
Trail riding on a motorcycle? HA!
Going dune hopping? Not anymore!
Hunting, hiking, mountain climbing GASP! free climbing? We'd need a helicopter NO WAY!

156 Forget it MikeTheMoose, stick a fork in these motherfuckers. To paraphrase somebody- we know what you are, we're just negotiating the price. Live free or die.

157 157 The Muslims in my community are far more honest about jihadism than he is, though they are quick to point fingers at various sects. (Quite a few Muslim women in suburban Houston are only nominally religious & don't even wear headscarves.)  They admit that yes, it is an interpretation of the Koran, but {insert extremist sect} over there believes that.

158

Skiing, seen more than one airlift
Trail riding on a motorcycle? HA!
Going dune hopping? Not anymore!
Hunting, hiking, mountain climbing GASP! free climbing? We'd need a helicopter NO WAY!

You forgot horses. I hate the damn dangerous unpredictable beasts. One hurt my back so bad I couldn't get out of bed for a week.

159 Every single off-road vehicular activity and potentially dangerous sport activity will require a government permit, fee, and waiver within 10 years, more likely in 5.

Followed shortly by "bacon permits" and "Barbecue Environmental Impact Permits".

If ya can't eat and ya can't move without say-so, you are cattle.

Obamacare was the green light to regulate and tax every single aspect of our lives through the prism of "health care costs".

160 I use the belts and insist my passengers do as well because it's the obvious thing to do.

That said, a Brit, John Adams,  published a neat paper in 1981 that generated a lot of heat because it concluded that seat belt laws do little if anything to decrease the actual level of death and accidents. He tried to demonstrate that the laws that compelled people to buckle up caused some of them to feel safer and therefore engaged in riskier driving. Which invariably lead to rates of accidents and injuries similar to the periods prior to the seat belt laws. He developed the term 'risk compensation' to describe this natural inclination for humans to adjust to perceived risk and self-defeat their attempts at all-encompassing safety.

So, ultimately, wear your belts but SLOW THE FUCK DOWN, YOU ASSHOLES!

161

Even if your Senators are fickle, they still want to keep their jobs.  Doesn't hurt to call .....

 

Not this congress.  The dems know that they fell on their swords when they voted in HC.  They're dead in the water already.  They don't give a shit what they do anymore.

162

I don't know where you live, but I had to pay for my ride to the hospital.  Then I payed for my treatment once I got there.  So your logic is lame as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Soona at May 27, 2010 05:33 PM (odqZH)

Like I said, if you can afford it, you should get the service.  I note that there are a lot of folks out there who get the service and have either no means or no intention of paying the bill afterward.  But when those people let their refusal to wear a seatbelt turn a minor accident into a major injury accident, they expect the cost of treating their injuries to be picked up by all the rest of us.

I'm not saying that mandating seat belt use is the proper solution: I am saying that people who don't wear seat belts should be held completely responsible for any consequences of their decisions, up to and including being cut off from medical treatment when their own personal funds run out.  If that means being taken off the ventilator and allowed to die, well, they knew the risk when they started the car.

163 However, if you want to use the public roads, you agree to these conditions.

Maddog I apologize for my earlier snark and officially revoke your title of bane and executioner of the straw people.

You forgot horses.

Yes but I could have gone on all day. I've been hurt more than once by them, my dad's had friends killed by them.

164 Mike, forget it. The thin skinned should stay away from here

165 The issue with this line of thinking is. Many recreational activities are dangerous. If you make something illegal based on the risk of an ambulance might be needed, and medical bills might rack up. You could use that logic to make almost any recreational activity illegal.

Skiing, seen more than one airlift
Trail riding on a motorcycle? HA!
Going dune hopping? Not anymore!
Hunting, hiking, mountain climbing GASP! free climbing? We'd need a helicopter NO WAY!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 27, 2010 05:41 PM (0q2P7)

I didn't say "make it illegal" -- I said, if you want it legal, take full responsibility for it.  Don't require others to pay to rescue you if your personal decision puts you in a position that requires rescue.

166
based on the risk of an ambulance

*ahem*  I believe you meant 'AMBERlamps', MtM.

167

>> Down side is you blow orange boogers for a few hours.

 

Wait, wait, I'm not seeing the downside.

*All the folks up in arms about the gummint and their laws and shit*

Please chill, at least to me. I'm not telling you what the fuck to do (they are, go yell at them)*  I don't care whether you wear a seatbelt or not.

Do.Not.Care.

It's just a commercial.  I found it a lot more interesting than the Texas "CLICKITORTICKET, SHITHEAD" stuff I see around here.

Truly, I'm not interested in imposing upon your driving freedoms.

 

...

 

(You're still gonna get a ticket tho.  Tell the judge to fuck off, lemme know if it works.)

168

I didn't say "make it illegal" -- I said, if you want it legal, take full responsibility for it.  Don't require others to pay to rescue you if your personal decision puts you in a position that requires rescue.

Making the decision to drive to work puts you in that very same position. So where is your argument going? Do you know? Stepping out of the house to go to the mailbox and you get hit by a car, so you are responsible? That road has no end.

169

Yes but I could have gone on all day. I've been hurt more than once by them, my dad's had friends killed by them.

After reading the frightening accounts of the friends of Mike the Moose's father, I'm signing an executive order to ban horseback riding until I can ascertain through round-table discussions that fail-safe mechinisms such as steel cages or airbag technology can guarantee absolute safety to all riders.

170

Making the decision to drive to work puts you in that very same position. So where is your argument going? Do you know? Stepping out of the house to go to the mailbox and you get hit by a car, so you are responsible? That road has no end.

Posted by: maddogg at May 27, 2010 06:02 PM (OlN4e)

If you can show me how I am responsible because I drove the car that hit me, you have a point.  Unless, say, I am jaywalking across the street and the car that hits me has no expectation that I am going to violate his right-of-way in that manner.

Or is there no difference between reasonable and unreasonable behavior?  Should I have the same expectation of being hit by a car when I am crossing with the light in a marked crosswalk as when I am jaywalking?  Should I have the same expectation of being hit by a car when I am on the walkway from my front door to the sidewalk as when I am jaywalking?

And is there no difference in risk between one behavior and another?  If I go free-climbing, to use Mike's example, am I engaged in behavior with an equivalent risk to crossing the street to the mailbox?

And what is your difficulty with the concept that people ought to bear the cost of the consequences of their decisions?  Like I said, if you want the seat belt laws repealed, I'm right there with you -- as long as it's agreed that I don't have to bear the costs incurred if your refusal to wear a seat belt goes wrong.  Are you arguing that I should be required to bear those costs?

171 >>Except for railwriter. He can drink bourbon and pop Ambien and drive in the forest without a seat belt with his lights off at new moon in a convertible.<< Stalker!

172

Or is there no difference between reasonable and unreasonable behavior?  Should I have the same expectation of being hit by a car when I am crossing with the light in a marked crosswalk as when I am jaywalking?  Should I have the same expectation of being hit by a car when I am on the walkway from my front door to the sidewalk as when I am jaywalking?

And is there no difference in risk between one behavior and another?  If I go free-climbing, to use Mike's example, am I engaged in behavior with an equivalent risk to crossing the street to the mailbox?

And what is your difficulty with the concept that people ought to bear the cost of the consequences of their decisions?  Like I said, if you want the seat belt laws repealed, I'm right there with you -- as long as it's agreed that I don't have to bear the costs incurred if your refusal to wear a seat belt goes wrong.  Are you arguing that I should be required to bear those costs?

So just WHO decides what is and is not reasonable behavior? A government star chamber? Should you have the same expectation of getting hit while using a crosswalk? Probably. The difference is who gets the blame, rather than risk. And your probability changes with location.

Whether you should or should not help bear those costs has been decided for you, by the same government that tells me to wear a seatbelt. I argue that the government has no right to tell me to wear a seatbelt and no right to make you pay for my decisions. Do you see that happening any time soon?

173 I'm not gonna let the government tell ME to wear pants!

174

HEY. This SOB isn't wearing his seat belt!

 

175 The way I drive if I get into an accident the seat belt would on prolong the torture.

176 Thats pretty effin' impressive, Dave. Something tell me some here would disapprove.

177

If you won't dog me about Marlboros, I won't dog you about seat belts.

 

Live and let die. (DAAAH DAAAAAAAAH liveandletdie DAAAH DAAAAAH)

178 @178 So we agree: the government should not be able to force you to wear a seatbelt, nor should it be able to force me to pay for the costs you incur if you're injured while driving without wearing a seat belt. Now, who can evade the government's intrusiveness more easily and without detection? You, by driving without a seat belt, or me, by refusing to pay the portion of my taxes that go to treating people who weren't wearing their seat belts when they crashed? You like to think that you're sticking it to the government every time you refuse to buckle up. But the government has conveniently arranged things so that you are in fact sticking it to ME. And please - the existence of such things as traffic laws, stop lights and marked crosswalks absolutely changes the relative probability of being injured when complying with those conventions compared to flouting them. It doesn't help your argument to pretend that jaywalking across a busy street has identical risk to crossing with the light in a crosswalk.

179 Fuck seatbelts.

180

But the government has conveniently arranged things so that you are in fact sticking it to ME.

Cry me a river Susy.

Ain't gonna do it.

2 wrongs don't make a right. You can't use the government's intrusiveness to justify more intrusiveness. Well you can, but then you're a socialist.

Fact of the matter is, I pay for my own health insurance AND, with my inflated rates I pay for a bunch of poor people's care and old people's care and illegal's care. So don't pull that "I have to pay for you" crap. No you don't liar.

You think non-seatbelt users as a group are all on the dole? Seatbelt use correlates with net drain/support on government funds? You think that that's really what's driving up health care costs - failure to use seat belts?

No you don't, liar.

181

However, if you want to use the public roads, you agree to these conditions.

That public road is as much mine as anyone elses.

Who do I hurt by not wearing my seat belt? It does not effect you in any way. I'm minding my own business and using my road, that I payed for and belongs to me as much as anyone else.

How bout if we come to an agreement that if you use public park facilities, you do so under certain arbitrary conditions, such as you must have a dildo placed up your ass while using park facilities.

Hey, you don't have to use the park. No one's forcing you to sodomize yourself on your own property.

182

You think non-seatbelt users as a group are all on the dole? Seatbelt use correlates with net drain/support on government funds? You think that that's really what's driving up health care costs - failure to use seat belts?

No you don't, liar.

Posted by: Entropy at May 27, 2010 08:30 PM (eL+YD)

My, someone's hostile today.

You think that I should bear any cost that results from your refusal to wear a seat belt?  If you want to risk your neck, by all means, do so -- just don't ask me to pay for the aftermath if your risk leads to you breaking your neck.  That's all I ask.

Or do you really believe you should have the right to incur a risk that I have to pay for?  We call that moral hazard, and we've seen that in lots of contexts recently, large and small.

183

You think that I should bear any cost that results from your refusal to wear a seat belt?

You think you have bared any of the costs that result from my refusal to wear a seat belt?

 

 

 

 

You haven't and you won't either. yet, it's still the law and I still get ticketed for it.

Try another one.

184

As a two-time survivor thanks to seat belts of serious head-on crashes, and as an opponent of seat-belt laws, I have to say I love this ad. Waking up in a wreck and realizing your life has been saved by a 3-inch wide strip of plastic AGAIN does tend to bring the point across. If you don't want to wear one, then don't. There are plenty of dangerous things in life we all have to "pay for". If you have the sense to know they work, then make it a habit out of it so you do it automatically and if you do a dumbass thing like fall asleep at the wheel (yeah, 2nd crash) you can live to tell about it.

The "confetti" is broken glass. It's what you get in a head-on crash. Sort of points out that that's what's just happened. Otherwise the guy would just look like he was making stupid faces for no reason.

Why is the kid wearing pink wings?

 

185

How does this crap play out? I can get health coverage for anything if I pay for it right? Whether I was or wasn't wearing my seat belt? You're not proposing the death penalty for failure to buckle up by denying me services even could I pay for them?

And how does one pay for health services? Health insurance.

So guess what, I got health insurance. I go into the hospital I'm getting treated.

So what you're saying is, if someone doesn't wear their seat belt AND doesn't have health insurance, THEN we shouldn't treat them.

So you're so opposed to payment plans and credit extention, you're going to kill people over it? I can't get the treatment now, and pay the hospital WITH INTEREST later, even if the (for profit) hospital finds this arrangement favorable to them, because YOU say so.

No, so I get credit. I get a chance to not die, and then work and pay off my medical bills.

Unless I don't pay the bills. Then, presumably, the next time I get in an accident I won't get treatment?

That's all it boils down to. Kill the people who don't pay their hospital bills (who are most likely poor). No medical care for the poor.

The people who don't pay their own bills are the ones draining the health care system and jacking up costs for everybody else and getting government subsidization. It's the not paying of the bills. It's not lack of seat belt usage.

The people who can pay their own bills can pay their own bills and will get healthcare no matter what stupid ass shit they do. As it should be.

But you're gonna go with the scheme where, because you're poor and also a fat ass, we're not gonna treat you for diabetes. We're just gonna let you die.

OK. Fine. Roll with that.

I have money. I'm not wearing my seat belt and I'll be as fat as I please. Don't go telling me you're going to prohibit health providers from giving me duly rendered health care because you don't like my choices. Specify clearly that we're only talking about poor people here.

186

You like to think that you're sticking it to the government every time you refuse to buckle up. But the government has conveniently arranged things so that you are in fact sticking it to ME.

And please - the existence of such things as traffic laws, stop lights and marked crosswalks absolutely changes the relative probability of being injured when complying with those conventions compared to flouting them. It doesn't help your argument to pretend that jaywalking across a busy street has identical risk to crossing with the light in a crosswalk.

Now you have the gumption to tell me what I think? What an ass. A presumptuous ass, at that. I'm not thinking I'm sticking it to the government, thats for small self important people like you. I simply refuse to comply. And if you think thats sticking it to you, well tough titty.

And, like I said, your chances of getting hit jaywalking depend on your location. Your refusal to acknowledge that simple bit of logic means you are simply looking for justification for being a whiney little pussy, which you are.

187

 just don't ask me to pay for the aftermath if your risk

What risk?

Nobody understands risk. Humanity is, on the whole, statistically illiterate. That's why statistics can be made to say whatever they want, why they worse than lies and damn lies. People are innumerate of them.

What risks shouldn't you pay for? Which bean counter actuary decides the limits?

Every time you step outside your home  you incur some risk of injury or death. Every time you don't step outside your home you incur some risk of injury or death.

The way it pretty much works is every single second you live, the statistical likely and risk of death rises, until it reaches 100%, and then you die (if not sooner).

Driving on the road has a greater risk of injury than air travel. If you choose to drive cross country rather than fly, are you incurring uneccessary risk?

You talk about 'risk' like it was a boolean concept. There is risk, or there isn't. It isn't. There's always risk. It's a percentage game. There's no absolute safety in anything.

If you're saying you don't want to pay for anybody elses anything under any circumtances, you're really phrasing it all the wrong way. Risk has nothing to do with it.

188 Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once. Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, It seems to me most strange that men should fear, Seeing that death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come.     My body my choice.

189 It's just good sense to make sure your loved ones wear seat belts.  I don't agree with the nanny government making it a law, though the argument that it causes tremendous problems in the medical field when people don't is pretty compelling.  Not just the price of injuries, but the time taken from everyone else.  It makes a huge difference in hundreds of incidents each day that people buckle up.

I like the pleading.  I don't know why people don't want to wear these things.  If they don't fit you right, get an adjuster pad thingy from Amazon.

190

If you're saying you don't want to pay for anybody elses anything under any circumtances, you're really phrasing it all the wrong way. Risk has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Entropy at May 27, 2010 09:12 PM (eL+YD)

Your risk of having an accident in your car isn't much affected by whether you're wearing your seat belt -- unless you factor in the ADDED risk that may accrue from wearing a seat belt if you're the kind of driver that drives more aggressively when he feels more personally safe (one of the other posters mentions this effect above).  Let's call the probability of your having an accident A, representing some probability between 0 and 1 of crashing within the next 10,000 miles.

However, the risk of injury IF YOU DO HAVE AN ACCIDENT is much higher if you aren't wearing a seat belt than if you are.  If U is the probability of major injury unrestrained and R is the probability restrained, U > R.  And if the crash is at high speed, U >> R (up to the limit where you or the car that hits you is going so fast that the probability of death is 1.0 in either case).

The probability, then, incurring a major injury in a car wreck in the next 10,000 miles is A*U without your seatbelt and A*R with it.  Since U > R, A*U > A*R.  You're not running a greater risk of having a wreck by not wearing a seat belt, but you're running a greater risk of incurring a major injury in a wreck without one.  The difference might well be the difference between a few hours in an ER with a few stitches to show for it and a few months in a hospital with some permanent deficits to show for it.

Like I have said all along, if you can afford to pay for the consequences of your choice, then by all means go without a seat belt.  I am not a fan of mandatory seat belt laws or mandatory motorbike or bike helmet laws.  I just hope that if and when those laws are repealed, they are replaced with laws that set out strict liability for injury on the part of people who don't wear the belt or helmet and end up with otherwise-preventable injuries as a result.

191

Perhaps, since smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, we shall not treat smokers for lung cancer, as it's a waste of societal resources they've brought on themselves?

Everyone knows how dangerous smoking is.

And yet, the risk of getting lung cancer is much less than the risk of being killed by a drunk driver whether you smoke or not. The risk of getting lung cancer, at any time during your entire lifetime (without bothering to look it up) is something like .0004%.

Smoking increase the risk a tremendous amount, really, to a staggering .001% or some such.

These are guesses, but I'd wager not far off.

Very dangerous business. Playing with fire here. Totally asking for it.

A person who choses to live more than x+1 miles from the place they work chooses more risk of death than a smoker does. You can tell people to stop smoking, but who shall tell them to commute less? You can punish the 'risk' of smokers, but who punishes the commuters?

For all the hoopla about the evils of tobacco, every day a few hundred million people do things that are far more dangerous to their own health, and almost infinitely more dangerous to the health of innocent bystanders, and no one seems much to care.

It is of less consequence (and of less cost) whether or not people wear their seat belts while driving, than it is of how far they drive to begin with. People who start too damn far away from where they want to go expose themselves to greater unnecessary risk.

While NOT wearing my seatbelt, in choosing to drive 15 less miles than you who do, it's quite possible I am in fact being SAFER. And you are the reckless one.

How shall we structure our punishments and excessive-risk limits now? In an intellectually consistent manner, please. Pray tell.

The President's power shall be puny compared to the Actuary-in-Chief.

The Actuary-in-Chief shall be completely transparent. He has no reason to be otherwise. Because even in transparency, he shall be completely unaccountable. No one (much, anyway) will have the slightest clue what the hell he's doing with his math.

And of course, we have to be careful about that secondhand smoke business. What with the risk to first-hand smokers being significantly less dangerous than child bearing, and the risk to second-hand victims being .... completely unproven to exist at all, we must clearly do something.

Who shall penalize the destitute mothers for their risky and cavallier behavior? You won't see me doing anything stupid and risky like giving birth to children.

192

And, like I said, your chances of getting hit jaywalking depend on your location. Your refusal to acknowledge that simple bit of logic means you are simply looking for justification for being a whiney little pussy, which you are.

Posted by: maddogg at May 27, 2010 09:09 PM (4zspv)

Wow.  Apparently you're running out of anything resembling an actual argument.

Maybe if you tracked the actual argument, you might not be reduced to taunting.

I asked: "Should I have the same expectation of being hit by a car when I am crossing with the light in a marked crosswalk as when I am jaywalking?"

And you responded with: "So just WHO decides what is and is not reasonable behavior? A government star chamber? Should you have the same expectation of getting hit while using a crosswalk? Probably. The difference is who gets the blame, rather than risk. And your probability changes with location."

Which is weird: I'm really just as likely to be hit by a car when crossing in a marked crosswalk with the light as I am running across the middle of a busy street?  One wonders what crosswalks and traffic lights are for, if no drivers actually take notice of them and yield to pedestrians.  You must be awfully agitated if you're trying to get people to believe that.

As for your indifference to how your choices impose costs on others, yeah, I see that all the time.  I wouldn't have thought to see it among the posters here, though.  What puzzles me is why you seem eager to shirk the responsibility for your own choices.

193

Posted by: stuiec at May 27, 2010 09:42 PM (W+GYq)

This post failed to address anything I have said stuiec.

You have explained why not wearing a seatbelt gives you a greater risk of injury in an accident, but not a greater risk of an accident.

Great..... and?

It does not tell us why this risk crosses some threshhold of inacceptability compared to other actions that are tolerated.

It certainly has nothing to do with what you quoted me saying in your response.

If you're saying you don't want to pay for anybody elses anything under any circumtances, you're really phrasing it all the wrong way. Risk has nothing to do with it. Posted by: Entropy at May 27, 2010 09:12 PM (eL+YD)  

Interpret that as me asking you whether you were simply adverse to paying for anybody under any situation regardless of risk.

You answer that there is some, unquantified risk under this situation, and therefor, you are adverse to paying for it.

There is risk in every situation.

So I must ask again: Are you simply adverse to paying for anything in any circumstance of someone else's?

Again - risk is not boolean. You continue to speak as if it was boolean.

194

So I must ask again: Are you simply adverse to paying for anything in any circumstance of someone else's?

Again - risk is not boolean. You continue to speak as if it was boolean.

Posted by: Entropy at May 27, 2010 09:58 PM (eL+YD)

I am saying that if you have an accident that, if you'd been wearing your seat belt, would have caused you to get a few stitches on your chin but that, because you chose not to wear your seat belt, causes you to be in intensive care for a couple of weeks and in the hospital for a total of five months, with ongoing costs for physical therapy and assistance with your resulting disability, the only financial claim you should have on anyone besides yourself should be the equivalent of an ER visit and a few stitches.  For the rest, you should be on your own -- unless you've convinced an insurance company to write you a policy that covers you for injuries incurred when you're not wearing a seat belt.

See, life and health and auto insurers DO take risk into account, and DO write policies for smokers that have higher premiums that reflect the higher probability that a smoker will develop serious health problems or even get into a car wreck because of the distraction of handling the cigarette.  That's pretty much what I am talking about: the insurers don't burden their non-smoking policyholders with the costs incurred by the choices of their smoking policyholders.  What do you find wrong with that principle, and why shouldn't it apply to seat belts and safety helmets?

And you might want to review the meaning of Boolean: my argument is based on the probability of compound events (in this case, a car wreck and a resultant injury).

195

I'm not thinking I'm sticking it to the government ... I simply refuse to comply.

Right on brother! Viva la resistance!

tinyurl.com/3yxga8z

Personally I could care less whether the man feels stuck to. I mean, I'd prefer that he did - but not if he was vindictive about it, which he is.

All the better he doesn't even know I've stuck it to him.

196 There was a commercial a few months ago that warned against texting while driving.  That one was very gruesome and realistic.  It was so horrifying that I decided NOT to show it to my niece that's driving now.  In contrast to this one.

197

I am saying that if you have an accident that, if you'd been wearing your seat belt, would have caused you to get a few stitches on your chin but that, because you chose not to wear your seat belt, causes you to be in intensive care for a couple of weeks and in the hospital for a total of five months, with ongoing costs for physical therapy and assistance with your resulting disability, the only financial claim you should have on anyone besides yourself should be the equivalent of an ER visit and a few stitches. 

That totally misses my point.

For the rest, you should be on your own

Which is? What is the rest?

You've yet to quantify the threshhold you find unacceptable, or for that matter acknowledge that there is a threshhold and risk is not of binary nature.

You keep insisting that there is risk.

Well yes. Yes there is.

my argument is based on the probability of compound events

No, it's not. Your argument is based on the TRUE presence of an unquantified risk, which is merely asserted to be excessive (relative to the unstated).

if you'd been wearing your seat belt, would have caused you to get a few stitches on your chin but that, because you chose not to

If, but, candy, nuts. This is a hypothetical scenario not a statistical probability. You've not told me why this risk is riskier than other risks, or less acceptable than other risks.

What is the metric?

You say seatbelts. OK seatbelts.

You say also smoking. OK smoking.

Skydiving? Perhaps skydiving? Or else base jumping then? Certainly.

Bicycling without a helmet?

Eating McDonalds twice a day?

Not excercising for 30 minutes a day?

Living in a high crime neighborhood?

Are all decisions about what constitutes excessive risk to be ad-hoc on the whim of mighty stuiec or is there even a metric? Have you even made an attempt to analyze the actual risk of not using a seatbelt, or are we to replace the study of statistical analysis with the intuitive gut-judgement of stuiec?

You do realize I hope, that working intuitively, human beings have been shown to be absolutely abominable, atrocious, preposterously incompitent at risk assessment?

That - that it is a question not of any risk but of excessive risk - you have not yet even conceded. What makes this risk excessive? Do you dispute that it is a question of excess?

Please do not tell me again that there is a risk associated with certain behaviors. I know that there is a risk.

Does the fact that there is any risk make it excessive risk?

At what level of probability of injury does risk become reckless? .05%? 5%? 50%?

198

That's pretty much what I am talking about: the insurers don't burden their non-smoking policyholders with the costs incurred by the choices of their smoking policyholders. What do you find wrong with that principle

Nothing. Untill you apply it to something other than what it is.

Insurance if a voluntary agreement. You can say they charge more for this or more for that - but in matter of fact, they charge whatever the hell they want.

It's their perogative.

And you can accept their fees in return for their service or reject them.

What you are going on about is something else.

How do you think it works now?

When someone gets hurt doing anything - if their insurance does not pay for it for any reason (because it's not covered, or because they haven't any insurance, or they exceed their limit) do you think the hospital does not bill them?!?!?

That the hospital simply says "Oh, no probs, bro, stuiec will pay for it!"

If so, you are gravely mistaken.

You allready ARE responsible for your own healthcare bills (either you, or your insurance provider) - no matter how you incurred the injury.

Whether or not someone pays their bills is another matter entirely. And I stress - another, different matter of discussion altogether.

So what do you propose? That those who do not pay their bills once should not be treated a second time and left to die without cash up front, until he's settled accounts?

If so, what the flying fuck does that have to do with seatbelts? Unless ... it is the only connection I can make.. truly horrifying, that because SOME are deadbeats, ALL shall be subject to some byzantine risk-mitigation and cost savings scheme wherein they will be left to die without cash up front if they become injured in some government prohibited way?

Again - what the hell does wearing a seatbelt have to do with you paying for other people? You do not pay for those who don't wear seatbelts. You only pay for those who don't pay their own bills. Seatbelts are non-sequitar. Or rather - since seatbelts are the topic, this 'who pays for medical care' bullcrap is totally nonsequitar, unless you're suggesting it as a punishment.

Or are you suggesting that, perhaps, people should be forced to pay for their own bills? Perhaps have wages garnished or possessions repossessed to cover unpaid health care costs?

If so - what the flying fuck does this have to do with seatbelts???... Unless....  Are you suggesting that deadbeats who do wear seatbelts SHOULD get their healthcare payed for by you, and only risk-takers should get bills?!?

199

So what do you propose? That those who do not pay their bills once should not be treated a second time and left to die without cash up front, until he's settled accounts?

If so, what the flying fuck does that have to do with seatbelts? Unless ... it is the only connection I can make.. truly horrifying, that because SOME are deadbeats, ALL shall be subject to some byzantine risk-mitigation and cost savings scheme wherein they will be left to die without cash up front if they become injured in some government prohibited way?

Again - what the hell does wearing a seatbelt have to do with you paying for other people? You do not pay for those who don't wear seatbelts. You only pay for those who don't pay their own bills. Seatbelts are non-sequitar. Or rather - since seatbelts are the topic, this 'who pays for medical care' bullcrap is totally nonsequitar, unless you're suggesting it as a punishment.

Or are you suggesting that, perhaps, people should be forced to pay for their own bills? Perhaps have wages garnished or possessions repossessed to cover unpaid health care costs?

If so - what the flying fuck does this have to do with seatbelts???... Unless....  Are you suggesting that deadbeats who do wear seatbelts SHOULD get their healthcare payed for by you, and only risk-takers should get bills?!?

Posted by: Entropy at May 27, 2010 11:07 PM (eL+YD)

If a guy gets injured in an accident and doesn't pay his bills, then it certainly makes a difference whether he was wearing his seatbelt: will the rest of us have to pay for a short ER visit and stitches, or for intensive care treatment, a long hospital stay and maybe lifelong assistance?

And if that person has health insurance and auto insurance but hasn't paid an additional premium for driving without a seatbelt, why should other policyholders have to bear that additional cost in their premiums?

Why would you insist that someone who voluntarily decides not to wear his seat belt bear none of the additional costs that decision imposes in the event it goes wrong?  Are you opposed to holding that person accountable for his choices, for the consequences he knew could result from those choices?

Like I said, if you can afford it, I'm all for your right not to wear a seat belt.  If YOU can afford it.

200

Which is weird: I'm really just as likely to be hit by a car when crossing in a marked crosswalk with the light as I am running across the middle of a busy street?  One wonders what crosswalks and traffic lights are for, if no drivers actually take notice of them and yield to pedestrians.  You must be awfully agitated if you're trying to get people to believe that.

I'm not agitated, I just don't give a fuck about arguing the point with you. M'kay? And I'm not interested in getting people to believe any damn thing. I think for myself, and expect others to do their own thinking.  Your argument is pointless to me, and I'm sure mine falls on equally deaf ears. So that exactly, is the point?

201

I'm really just as likely to be hit by a car when crossing in a marked crosswalk with the light as I am running across the middle of a busy street?

If you cross in a marked crosswalk with the light 20' in front of a car going 40mph and accelerating, you are more likely to be hit than crossing in the middle of a busy street 40' in front of cars going 20mph.

Risk is situational.

If you drive into a wall, a seatbelt will decrease your chances of injury or death.

If you drive off a pier, a seatbelt will increase your chances of injury or death.

Some (legitmate, albeit un-PC) studies suggest that smoking only increases the risk of lung cancer in people who are genetically predisposed to having an increased risk of lung cancer associated with smoking.

Meaning for some people smoking raises the risk of lung cancer, and for some people, it doesn't at all.

If your grandfather smoked and got lung cancer, and your aunt smoked and got lung cancer, and your cousin smoked and got lung cancer (yet no one else in your family smoked, and no one else got lung cancer), odds are actually very very good that if you smoke, you'll wind up with lung cancer, but otherwise probably not.

But if, like me, both grandfathers, one grandmother, one mother, 4 great grandfathers and innumerable grand-uncles and grand-aunts all smoked, most from ages 14 to 84, one unfiltered HEMP, and not a damn one got lung cancer..... well I'm not very worried about the big C. At least not in my lungs.

202

stuiec, please try to follow me here, because I do not believe you are addressing me head on on anything.

If a guy gets injured in an accident and doesn't pay his bills, then it certainly makes a difference whether he was wearing his seatbelt: will the rest of us have to pay for a short ER visit and stitches, or for intensive care treatment, a long hospital stay and maybe lifelong assistance?

Does that question of whether you have to pay for anything hinge on whether or not he wears his seatbelt, or whether or not he pays his damn bills?

Do you think seatbelts are the sole determinate of the injuries resulting from car wrecks?

If a guy gets injured in an accident and he doesn't pay his bills, and he was wearing his seatbelt, will the rest of us have to pay for intensive care treatment, a long hospital stay, and maybe lifelong assistance?

Furthermore - and most importantly - how would you handle it, either way? You say 'we should not have to pay'. OK - then what happens? Please describe to me how you propose to not pay for him.

What will happen when he arrives at the ER?

And if that person has health insurance and auto insurance but hasn't paid an additional premium for driving without a seatbelt, why should other policyholders have to bear that additional cost in their premiums?

Should the choice of covering injuries to a driver who was not wearing his seatbelt, or whether or not they pass along the costs to other customers, be left to the insurance company who covers him, or the government, or to you?

Given that the insurance of the person who CAUSES the crash is responsible for ALL the physical harm that results from it, which imposes a greater cost onto insurers - failures to wear seatbelts, or successes to crash shit up? Does crashing shit up cause a potential raise in insurance costs, and therefor, insurance premiums?

Should people who crash shit up get their damages payed for by all of us?

Why would you insist that someone who voluntarily decides not to wear his seat belt bear none of the additional costs that decision imposes in the event it goes wrong? 

Where the flying fuck have I suggested that? I insist, actually, that ALL people should bear ALL their costs regardless of whether or not they wear seatbelts. DO YOU? If so - what has this discussion to do with seatbelts at all?

But the most important question of all - if you should response to anything at all, respond to this please. Before I can address any other aspect of this argument:

How? What happens when the man arrives in the ER, perhaps comatose? And if not comatose? And then what, after that?

203

Entropy

I think the real problem here is that Stuiec simply has no real concept or experience with personal freedom. He doesn't know what it is, and therefore assigns it a value of zero. He doesn't understand what the hell we are talking about.  So you mention"A" and he discusses "B". It's like he just has no understanding or experience outside the urban hive mentality.

204

We have not yet gotten to the issue of personal freedom, really. I do not know what his opinion of that is.

There is a quite legitimate issue that with freedom, and choice, neccessarily comes consequence.

But I still do not know what he even proposes though.

I doubt you disagree with that. I don't, and he doesn't. It's just that... it's hard not to construct strawmen when he says these unrelated things in responses and fails to connect any of them to what he's responding to, leaving us taking guesses how it's supposed to be related.

He says he doesn't want to pay for deadbeats who take crazy risks.

Even besides (and now I come to see, before) we try to discuss what constitutes a crazy risk, I've got to know what the hell he actually wants to do about it.

He doesn't want to pay for it. OK... how? Beyond desire, what is the proposal?

205 Entropy, I'm in agreement with you regarding "If it doesn't effect anybody else, F' em."  The problem with this particular example arises when/if you're physically removed from being able to control you vehicle. Obviously, this probably won't be an issue in a head-on or simular impact that stops everything in place, but a side impact, or rear-ender, and you're just along for the ride in a couple tons of rolling steel. In my case, I drive older (mid '60s) trucks, so my lap belt just keeps me planted behind the wheel. BTW, I've been stopped more than once by some under-30 punk cop, trying to nail me for a violation cause he couldn't see a shoulder belt. Dumb-ass kids just don't appreciate the classics. Peace.

206

But the most important question of all - if you should response to anything at all, respond to this please. Before I can address any other aspect of this argument:

How? What happens when the man arrives in the ER, perhaps comatose? And if not comatose? And then what, after that?

Posted by: Entropy at May 28, 2010 12:00 AM (eL+YD)

I am not a fan of all ERs being forced to treat all comers without regard to ability to pay.

As for a guy injured in a wreck, I'd want the first responders to take note of whether he was wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash.  If so, I'd expect them to begin treatment before looking for evidence of ability to pay -- but at whatever point it was determined that the injured party had previously skipped out on medical bills, I'd favor treatment being stopped at the earliest opportunity.  He can become the concern of a charity hospital or a public hospital (that is, if the public in that locality has decided to pay collectively for health care for indigents).

But if the guy in the wreck wasn't wearing his seat belt, I'd definitely favor the first responders checking for evidence of his ability to pay: proof of auto insurance with medical liability, a credit card, proof of health insurance with a rider for not wearing a seat belt, a wad of cash.   I am presuming a self-reliant kind of guy who doesn't care to wear a seat belt is perfectly capable of carrying the necessary proof of ability to pay.

And yeah, if he wasn't wearing his seat belt and he's got no proof of ability to pay, I am not concerned whether he bleeds out on the pavement.  Why would I be more concerned for his life than he is?

207

If he says everyone should be paying for themselves... which he does so much as say ... that is not inconsistent with freedom but neccessary for it.

But... that has not a damnable thing to do with seatbelts at all.

To that, he says that those who don't wear seatbelts take risk and potentially incur more costs.

Yes... so what? What about it?

Like I said:

1 That those who do not pay their bills once should not be treated a second time and left to die without cash up front, until he's settled accounts?

2 that because SOME are deadbeats, ALL shall be subject to some byzantine risk-mitigation and cost savings scheme wherein they will be left to die without cash up front if they become injured in some government prohibited way?

3 that, perhaps, people should be forced to pay for their own bills? Perhaps have wages garnished or possessions repossessed to cover unpaid health care costs?

4 that deadbeats who do wear seatbelts SHOULD get their healthcare payed for by you, and only risk-takers should get bills?!?

What have seatbelts to do with #1 or #3? How else can seatbelts be worked into this apart from #2 or #4 (which are very illiberate and statist)?

But I am trying not to build straw men. If he'd tell us....

208

I think the real problem here is that Stuiec simply has no real concept or experience with personal freedom.

Posted by: maddogg at May 28, 2010 12:17 AM (4zspv)

My concept of personal freedom includes the freedom from being stuck paying costs you incur in the name of your personal freedom.  Does your concept of personal freedom include making other people pay for your choices?

209

I doubt you disagree with that. I don't, and he doesn't. It's just that... it's hard not to construct strawmen when he says these unrelated things in responses and fails to connect any of them to what he's responding to, leaving us taking guesses how it's supposed to be related.

He says he doesn't want to pay for deadbeats who take crazy risks.

No, I agree, you pay your money and you take your chances. He seems worried about paying for someone who takes "unnecessary" chances, but fails to acknowledge that while he is worried about some money, the risk taker risks his life and/or health. He just repeats the same argument over and over and never says who is to decide what constitutes "unrealistic risk". I suspect he is willing to let someone in government decide who is a risk taker. And I find that unacceptable. Life is short, it should be an interesting ride.

210

My concept of personal freedom includes the freedom from being stuck paying costs you incur in the name of your personal freedom.  Does your concept of personal freedom include making other people pay for your choices?

I'll tell you what Stuiec, if you will send me an itemized bill for all I have cost you from my numerous trips to the emergency room and hospital for injuries incurred. I will happily reimburse you/ M'kay?

211

but a side impact, or rear-ender, and you're just along for the ride in a couple tons of rolling steel. In my case, I drive older (mid '60s) trucks, so my lap belt just keeps me planted behind the wheel.

I do not like trucks. Personal taste thing - big boats. I feel like I'm trying to steer a barge. I likes me tiny low sporty cars that hug the road. I'm locked in betwix wheel and seat, door and center console. The only way I'd get out of the drivers seat (unless someone surfaced with a subterranean exploratory vehicle and crashed into my underbody and sent me up through the moonroof) is if I jellified. At which point... it hardly matters where I am.

Which.. at any rate, if I'm going to be sideswiped in the passenger side, I've got the door to keep me from going anywhere.

If I'm going to be t-boned on the drivers side, I'd quite frankly much rather fly over to the passenger side if I could. Hell if I saw it coming, I'd be diving over the console for the passenger side. All the more reason to not be locked in a seatbelt.

What I know and have seen of car wrecks, you really don't want to be on the side the car hits when you get T'd.

In a compact vehicle steering is not an issue... I doubt the thing is going anywhere of it's own volition afterwords.

212 Entropy. what is your ride? My wife has a mid life crisis car. A Crossfire. When I drive, she talks to Jesus

213

Motherfucker.

Well maddogg was right.

A government constituted by you, stuiec, is one to be feared and rebelled against.

You're free to your opinion, but (ironically) you'll have it OVER MY DEAD BODY.

As for a guy injured in a wreck, I'd want the first responders to take note of whether he was wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash.  If so, I'd expect them to begin treatment before looking for evidence of ability to pay

So if the motherfucker is incompitent, not paying attention, CAUSES an accident, who cares - so long as he does what he's told.

Socialized healthcare and no bills for those who obey, DEATH for those who do not. Better hope your cashwad/proof of insurance doesn't go flying out the window in the crash.

-- but at whatever point it was determined that the injured party had previously skipped out on medical bills, I'd favor treatment being stopped at the earliest opportunity. 

Because, y'know, letting the bastard die as the FIRST approach is emminently reasonable. No need to garnish his wages or, I dunno, repo the damn car he couldn't have crashed up if he didn't have.

Let's get needlessly draconian from the start.

I am not concerned whether he bleeds out on the pavement. 

Nah... bullshit. I don't believe you believe this. It's internet talk. You don't want to back down and you don't have any actual consequences to face with tough guy talk.

214

My ride? Some time back a Trans Am. I have a real soft spot for TA's. No car hobby right now... too expensive (and large, don't have storage). For a daily driver I have a grand prix coupe.

I've got a custom bike that started off as a stripped down unfaired 1983' GL1100 Honda Goldwing.

http://tinyurl.com/2vhl6bw

Runs low 12's stock, that before I tore a good 200lbs of plastic and bags off it. I'm still fixing it up and making modifications but sometime next year I plan to put a supercharger on it

Not crotchrocket fast but not bad for a cruiser.

When I bought it it looked like this:

http://tinyurl.com/33l4u5m

(and that's after cleaning it it up and scrubbing it down, clearing the birds nest out of the airfilter etc.)

A bike hobby means much less space than a car, less stuff on it (less labor) and much cheaper then tinkering with a car hobby.

215 Low 12's is pretty impressive for a  GL-1200. And as a 30+ year biker, I know a basket case is a bitch. I ride a BMW boxer. Bought it new in '92. Got over 100 grand on it now. My major hobby is gunsmithing. I build rifles. Including one from scratch. Current projects include a M44 Polish Mosin-Nagant tanker carbine which has had the bolt cut off and rewelded in the downturn position, and a custom carved mannlicher stock installed. Along with custom machined hardware. I am an amateur machinist so I make many of my own parts.  I can build many things the socialist government would disapprove of, and Steuic too.

216 Time to crash. Been in the bourbon. Gotta go to work tomorrow to make sure Stuiec gets his payment. Good Night

217

Hehehe. I got a FOID card and some old WWII antiques. I keep meaning to get to the gun store, I'm going to pick up a Ruger GP-100 (.357 mag revolver) and start hitting the practice ranges more often.

That and I recently started brewing my own beer.

If Obama crashes everything into shambles I'll trade you Belgian Witbier for a rifle and reliable supply of blackpowder

I suppose I could make myself blackpowder, but I don't know where to forage brimstone, and I really don't relish the traditional saltpeter making...

218 That seatbelt commercial is gayer than barney franks anal dildo.  I don't wear seatbelts for 3 reasons:
1) They wrinkle my shirts
2) Real men don't need seatbelts
3) My wife and kid don't like me that much

219

I have no problem with the government telling me to use seatbelts on public transportation

Fine.

Mind you some much of "public transportation" isn't public. Cab companies and some bus companies are private companies driving private vehicles.

220

Mind you some much of "public transportation" isn't public. Cab companies and some bus companies are private companies driving private vehicles.

Good point.

221 It is not enough to do good; one must do it the right way.