[Abe_Froman]

Re: The Sausage Emperor Has no Clothes!

Let's go back to what you said here, buddy.

Well, Abe, if the Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally, it''s the first I''ve heard of it. I''d love to reference some reputable legal scholars who agree with you. But there''s a long, long body of cases, going back to Marbury v. Madison, that gives the Supreme Court the power to decide on the Constitutional validity of state and Federal legislation.

The Supreme Court GAVE ITSELF by judicial fiat the power to decide. Nobody gave them the power. That was the context of the decision. Take a class in Constitutional law. And let's juxtapose a couple of your statements:

Uh-oh! Right to life rhetoric alert! Do you really think having a right to privacy is repugnant? You don''t like legal abortion, and I understand that. But many Americans do.

Just because legislation is unpopular doesn''t make it illegitimate or wrong.

Obviously then, you aren't above reason. You could then see that any mandate legalizing abortion is unconstitutional via the 5th amendment No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That is all it takes to prevent the taking of life.

That logic isn''t quite as solid as one of your Kielbasas, Abe! I''m glad it''s not true, since I could list a litany of unjust laws that were perfectly popular through the ages, from Jim Crow to anti-asian immigration laws, to laws against Jews and Communists, all the way up to the present anti-homosexual witch hunt in the military. Abe for Fuhrer! I mean, uh, president.

The majority of the laws you just stated were unconstitutional. And if you want to believe that homosexuals are good for our armed forces, fine. Obviously you've never spent any time serving them. I challenge you to find a military officer that will agree with you.

You obviously have a problem with Christianity, and YOU are fostering the anti-Christian additude that is quickly becoming a witch hunt in this country. The fact that I am a conservative Christian is enough for you to immediately label me a rascist and a Nazi.

That shows just how willing you are to have a logical discussion, Stalin boy.

 

[Abe_Froman]

Re: The Sausage Emperor Has no Clothes!

By the way, do you even ride a motorcycle? While we're calling each other names, I just thought I'd say that I bet you can't ride one very well.

 

[Abe_Froman]

Re: Oh no, its the Gestapo!

Aren't you the same idiot who said Abe for Fuhrer in an earlier post? Take your own advice, you hypocrite.

 

[Abe_Froman]

Re: The Sausage Emperor Has no Clothes!

Dumped your bike 15 times? I guess not.

 

[Abe_Froman]

Re: Damn Straight!

Woooo.... Good one...

 

[Abe_Froman]

Re: You have been duped by the insurance companies

>>Also, your floodgate argument doesn't pan out. >>Laws are passed, in general, when there's a >>compelling need for them, not just at the whim >>of a few people. No, really.

Just what country do you live in? Have you heard of the N.O.W.? GLAAD? ACLU? PETA? ALF? The Supreme Court? The Democratic Party? Al Gore?

Unneccessary, unconstitutional laws are passed at the whim of a few people all the time. FDR started this whole Socialist Security, welfare and IRS-gestapo state that we now live in almost single-handedly.

 

[Abe_Froman]

Re: Oh no, its the Gestapo!

BTW---That one's for you Gabe.

 

[056]

Touchy, touchy!

Wow, Abe, it sure doesn't take much to set you off! But you obviously only disagree on 3 of my points, or you just don't have time to respond to the others.

Of course the Supreme Court gave itself some power. It had to, since there wasn't any other branch of governement availiable to do the things they now do. And since they've had that power for close to 200 years, I'm assuming most folks feel it's OK.

Yes, government-funded abortion would violate the 5th amendment (but remember, Abe, the 5th amendment, as most of the bill of rights does, only protects from Government action.), but only if EVERYBODY agreed that first or second trimester embryos were a human life. That's a modern-day christian thing, and although you can call me names for disagreeing with you, it doesn't make you right. Talmudic scholars feel a life doesn't become human until the "quickening", and the law follows that. So don't come from the position of absolute truth. You are entitled to your opinion on this and I respect it, but it's far from objective reality. Just your opinion.

"The majority of the laws you just stated were unconstitutional. And if you want to believe that

homosexuals are good for our armed forces, fine. Obviously you've never spent any time serving them. I challenge you to find a military officer that will agree with you. "

Sure, those laws are unconstitutional NOW! But Jim Crow lasted 80 years before being struck down by the courts. You said that if everybody likes a law, it's constitutional. I said no. It's tyranny of the majority, Abe, something our founding fathers abhored.

As far as gays in the military, I spent 7 years in the armed forces, 4 as an NCO. And I don't have a problem with it. (No, I'm not gay.) For a very interesting and in-depth discussion of the problem, read Randy Shilts' "Conduct Unbecoming", if you're not afraid of hearing opinions contrary to your own.

As far as my anti-christian bias, I have no idea of what you're talking about. I never called you a racist, and my "fuherer" comment was just to poke fun at your implication that the majority is always right. Sorry if I offended you. Also, I challenge YOU to find evidence of this so-called witch hunt. I have never heard of anybody jailed, fired, or even bad-mouthed officially for being a christian. The only problem I have with fundamental christianity is when the movement tries to pass laws and dictate policy that tells me and my family what to do. As a jew, I don't want to be christian, so keep your opinions and morality to yourself and your community. I can think for myself.

I have plenty of respect for Christians, from Martin Luther King, jr to the many hundreds of churches and christian groups dedicated to human rights and charity world wide. If you think because I am leary of the christian right influencing legislators I hate all christians, you need to start using Prozac.

 

[056]

Re: Oh no, its the Gestapo!

You're right! That's why I'll be at Sears Point tomorrow, practicing!

Have fun at work!

 

[Bluto]

Thoughts on Gabe''s Posting

I will begin by saying that Gabe has a lucid viewpoint and a well-reasoned line of thinking. But his reasoning is predicated on assumptions that are not consensual to all of us as citizens.

In the same way that Gabe backed up and addressed fundamental issues of law in the course of discussing helmet laws, I wish to back up a bit further in a way which I think will illuminate the rift between supporters and opponents.

To accept the legitimacy of a constitutional argument for helmet laws or anything else requires an acceptance of the legitimacy of the authority from which it descends, and this is where many foes of government regulation part ways with those who argue on a legal basis. It's like arguing a theological detail with a non-believer, and it's missing the point. While I would like this government much better if I felt that my rights under the constitution were being supported rather than infringed, I believe that the constitution is a tool of a corrupt authority which is no more or less than a very big organized crime syndicate. So what this illegitimate authority and its lackeys think my rights are or are not is immaterial to me.

As I see it, my rights of self-determination as a human being far exceed any "rights" granted me by thugs in return for allegiance to their rule. The social contract only holds any compelling moral force if there is another option besides to comply with the will of those who can inflict the most violence (which is ultimately what determines who gets to rule a place.)

For folks who purport to represent the will of the people to instead put more and more conditions on participation in the system (which no one is at liberty to opt out of except by death) is unfair at best and outrageous at worst. A helmet law is just one of a hundred thousand examples of the sort of behavior-limiting rules that make many people chafe, not because of the limitation per se, but because it is dictated by morally inferior beings motivated by self-interest or worse.

God made men, but it was men, dishonest men, who made law. And they made it to suit their own purposes. Why shouldn't someone be resentful of this and use his available means to resist? Every restrictive law matters to someone, and this one matters to many of us as motorcyclists. It is no surprise that here is where some will choose to make their stand, even when others think them foolish to fight for a right that is unwise to exercise.

If the powerful were less obsessed with control, we would not even be having this discussion.

 

[MotorcycleMan]

And not pay for smokers who get lung cancer, etc.?

 

[056]

Wow! Deep thoughts!

And very well written! I wanted to grab my itchfork and join the mobs of oppressed workers on the streets, ready to storm the ramparts of the the powerful thugs!

But then I looked outside, and do you know what I saw? I saw ordinary people, walking and talking on the sidewalks, I saw cars driving up and down the street, I saw delivery trucks making their deliveries, a police car driving along, the mailman whistling as he made his rounds.

Your impassioned speech would make a lot more sense if you really DID live in a repressive regime, like North Korea or China. But I just don't see things the way you do. I think there is a lot of economic and social oppurtunity in this country, and everyone almost benefits from our system just the way it is. I really can't think of one thing the government won't let me do that I really want to do.

But you are 100% right. It is all about an almost theological difference. Some people believe living in a well-ordered society with a strong, stable federal government and powerful judiciary is a good thing. Then there are those who would rather live in some kind of libertarian anarchy, with only their fists and private business to protect their interests.

Guess which side I'm on?

Bravo for a well-writen post.

Gabe, the morally inferior being motivated by self-interest.

 

[Bluto]

Self-interest

It is not a moral flaw to be motivated by self interest-- unless your job and responsibility is to act in the collective interest. It is in this capacity that our power elite are a constant letdown.

 

[Bluto]

Whose Fists; Whose Interests?

"...some kind of libertarian anarchy, with only their fists and private business to protect their interests."

I was going to let this go, but I couldn't.

The only fists (and clubs, and chemical weapons, and firearms, etc.) that I see used with any regularity during the course of ordinary civil life are employed by agents of authority. Whose interests they represent are the interests of power, and not mine or those of people I know.

None of the people I know who promote civil liberties or local rule are inclined to accomplish their ends by force. Many police officers I have met and observed are quick to respond to resistence, pointed questioning, or even scrutiny with physical force.

Whose misdeeds are we to dread under a more libertarian paradigm? And what exactly are we avoiding by clinging to a brutal authority? Not violence, that's certain.

Make no mistake; when you have to measure your words in the presence of a cop, behave in an insincerely submissive way, or refrain from protest at his misbehavior in the interest of self-preservation, you are coping with life in a police state.

 

[Colorado_F4]

Re: You have been duped by the insurance companies

As far as I'm concerned the whole insurance thing is just like a casino. The odds are always in favor of the house. Otherwise they wouldn't be running their businesses. So, statistically, the average customer pays a lot more money to the insurance companies then they ever get back.

Sure, the insurance industry just wants to make money like everybody else. But what would be in the public's best interest would be to have the equivalent of Credit Unions that do insurance instead of banking. A sort of not-for-profit, member-financed insurance pool where rates are more reasonable because profit is not the goal.

But, look at how much the banking industry tries to block credit unions. The insurance company lobbyists would to the same thing and so it'll never happen.

 

[Colorado_F4]

Re: You have been duped by the insurance companies

I would add lobbyists to Abe's list of groups that get laws passed based on the desires of the few rather than the many. The older and wiser I get, the more I see that everything is all about money. Do you really believe that Congress always does what the citizens want, and never gives extra consideration to lobbyists who are contributing big money to the Party? I wish I still believed that........

 

[Colorado_F4]

Re: Allow me to point out a bit of hypocrisy in your essay

Gabe,

I acutally thought about this after I posted it and thought "hypocrisy" was probably too strong a word. What I thought was hypocritical was that you first used the argument saying that if it saves money, it's justified, and then later you say that the "safety nazis" are only trying to save lives, implying that they are all doing their thing out of the goodness of their hearts and not influenced by money.

Anyway, sorry if my original post was inflammatory.

Regarding the Gulf War, let me ask you this: why do you think the USA fought that war? Please don't take my cynicism as an insult to the men & women who did the work - I have high esteem for people such as yourself who took on a dangerous job when your country asked you to. My comments are directed at the people making the decision on whether to fight or not. I believe that their motivation was largely due to the financial interest of the USA. Do you think that because you were involved that maybe you can't analyze it objectively?

And you are right about the safety advocates, that a lot of them could care less about the money and are interested in helping people. Just as the men & women who were sent to the Persian Gulf were honorable citizens whose intentions I would never question. But once again, it's the decision makers and the people/groups with big influence who I question. Sadly I believe the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety will have immeasurably more influence on issues such as helemt laws than any of us. And they, I believe, are motivated mainly by money.

 

[Colorado_F4]

Oh man, the Columbia blew up??? First the Challenger and now this!?!?



But seriously, w. patella, your post makes good points....

 

[Colorado_F4]

Re: Wow! Deep thoughts!

First of all Gabe, what's an itchfork? (Sorry I would've let that go if you hadn't ragged on posters' spelling).

More importantly though, I think you are too quick to dismiss Bluto's thoughts. Many people thought your post was the most eloquent and well-written post in favor of helmet laws. I believe that Bluto's post is the most eloquent and well-written post against such laws.

Just because the masses are not outside planning to overthrow the goverment does not mean everybody is happy with the government. In fact I think that's a large part of Bluto's point. If you did grab your itchfork and march to the police station, what do you think would happen? Remember the WHO protestors in Seattle? The police let everybody know who was boss.

I really can't think of one thing the government won't let me do that I really want to do.

Well I'm happy for you. But surely you realize that many others don't agree with you.

Many people that the government has no right telling them they can't take recreational drugs.

Many people feel they should be able to drive/ride down an empty road at 100mph if they feel like it. (Myself included, so I do it once in a while even though I'm not supposed to).

Many people feel they should be able to roll through a stop sign at 3am when they can clearly see that the only car is 1/2 mile away (happened to me... the car was a cop).

Many people feel they should be able to modify their vehicle with no regard at all to what kind of pollution it spews.

Many people feel they should be able to ride their motorcycle or mountain bike on any public land.

You don't have to agree with any of that, and I only agree with some of it. But the fact of the matter is that if you think long enough, you will find a law that you don't agree with and probably have broken because you figured you knew a little better than the lawmakers.

I'm sure you'll just dismiss this example as well, but have you ever exceeded the speed limit? If so you are doing something the government won't "let" you do. If a cop decided he didn't like your fancy bike, the fact that you were going 55 in a 50 is all the reason he needs to pull you over and force you to take as much of your time as he feels like taking.

But more to the point.... what Bluto is saying is that the goverment doesn't have a right to decide whether or not you put on a helmet. All the stuff about saving other peoples' money and saving lives and how it's stupid to not wear a helmet is all irrelevant. All that is just fluff. The real issue is: who decides what I do and how I do it. Answer should me: me.

 

[Colorado_F4]

Enough with "I don't want to pay when your brains spill"

1) Most people have auto insurance AND health insurance. Therefore most people who crash in a motorcycle are covered by their insurance, or that of the jerk in the car who caused the accident. So stop with the "I will have to pay your medical bills" crap.

2) Be honest and objective here. Riding a motorcycle AT ALL greatly increases your chance of getting injured vs. driving a car. So if you are really going to use this argument about not wanting to have to pay in the form of tax dollars or higher insurance premiums, you really should be advocating elimination of motorcycles from the roads. Oh, or is that too exreme? Helmet laws are not too extreme? But banning motorcycles is? And you get to decide what's too extreme?