Local funds find their way back to municipalities, and eventually the state. Where does the money that comes from laws like this one actually go to? It's one big scheme, and each time a citizen is given a ticket for no reason, they should ask what happens to their hard earned dollars.
You're pissed because you got a ticket. Stop taking a horribly stupid stance on something because you're out $109.
Well, I'd research the Tigard city budget, but (a) it wasn't me who got the ticket, and (b) I don't really give two shits about Tigard. barfo
Are you saying you're against rules and laws? So we shouldn't have laws about what goes into water, what kind of paint goes on toys, seatbelts (period) in cars, or penalties for running red-lights and endangering others? Seems kind of dumb to say that. There are laws and rules about all sorts of things. you can't fly a plane over the white house for a reason. you can't dump oil into the Willamette for any reason (dumping turds, that's a different story). You can't have children sitting in the front seat of your car right when they're born. If that's the "liberal argument", in which we're not safer as both a community and a person because of those laws, then we should be happy.
(c) I'm completely inside of your head. Are you a trust fund adult, or a PERS recipient? At this point, there is no way that I believe that you have ever owned your own business. If you had owned a business, then you wouldn't post such ridiculous things as they relate to the economy.
Alright, I'll be sure to reference this back when the state has outlawed red meat, cigarettes, alcohol, and anything else that might cause you harm. The government needs to protect you from yourself. Don't talk to me like I was driving drunk, ran a red light, or was going 60 in a 30. The only person I could have harmed was myself and it's my right to do so. I don't hear you arguing against abortion or Dr. assisted suicide, but guess what.... those both fall under the same umbrella in my book. Your body and you can do what you want with it.
I think that freeloaders posting from NE Portland should pay a huge fine for not stopping at every stop sign while riding their bikes. I also think they should pay a bike fee to help pay for roads, just like auto drivers pay a fee. Those fuckers are the biggest safety concern in the metro area.
whats that got to do with anything here? Why do you keep making these false connections between things? if you're under 18, it's against the law to buy tobacco, if you're under 21, it's against the law to buy beer/alcohol. You act like the "government" protecting us from ourselves is a bad thing. You think it's a bad thing that restaurants have to be inspected by health inspectors? Or that buildings have to be built to certain codes? Or that you have to have a drivers license to drive? or proof of insurance/title in your car? Is your complaint really about how you don't want them to tell you not to "harm" yourself? Or are you just too proud to admit you did something stupid and you're pissed you have to pay for it? Grr, I'm mad! The mean old government won't let me decide whats' best for me! Grr! We should be able to do whatever we want because we obviously know better. Well, go ahead and keep bitching about this, and stop wearing your seat belt. Prove your point, as your face impales on the windshield, or you're flying out of your windshield, getting ready to have a nice case of road rash on your face. Because ha, the joke will be on them, because you didn't listen to the man! It's your "right" not to endanger me, as you driving w/out a belt does potentially endanger me. Much like me driving while intoxicated, or with headphones on (ie, listening to music) endangers others. Your book is odd. Maybe in your book, someone should have an abortion while they're driving. After all, they're only hurting themselves.
I think cyclist should pay fines for skirting the traffic laws, even ones that make them only a "danger" to themselves.
Every single one of the laws you listed was a case of one person harming another, with the exception of seat belts. If you want to make an argument that kids should have to wear a seat belt until they're 18 that's fine and I'm totally in agreement of that. They're not adults and they shouldn't be able to make that decision until they're of age. But for an adult to have to wear something because the government says so is unconstitutional in my book.
Once again, you're listing laws that protect OTHER PEOPLE from being harmed. Health inspectors protect patrons from shoddy restaurants, you can't see the food being prepared in most cases so the government is protecting you from potentially dangerous food. Building inspectors? Same thing. Protecting people from living/working in a potentially dangerous building that was constructed by someone else. None of those examples match up with a seat belt. And FYI, I've hated this law since it went into effect. Whether or not I was caught has no bearing whatsoever. My point is, it's our choice to make. It's my choice if I want to eat red meat, or smoke cigarettes, and it should be my choice if I want to wear a seat belt. Just like it's a woman's choice to have an abortion if she wants to. Or are you saying that abortion should be illegal? Just curious.
I guess if you posting completely stupid shit is being 'inside my head', then you are inside my head. Knowledge of the economy? In this same thread you say that Nate's fine to the City of Tigard somehow helps Sam Adams, who as we all know is mayor of a completely different city. As for my knowledge of the economy, I'll just say "Scoreboard, baby". barfo
Did you not see the point that maris made about how you can be knocked unconscious if you are thrown around the car and could hit someone else? Or if you're rear-ended, you head but the steering wheel, and get knocked out and drive into another car or people? Ah, here is the crux though. If you want to eat there, why should the Government stop you? You'd only be hurting yourself.. Because see, you're not only hurting yourself potentially in an accident, w/out your seat belt. You hated the law since you were what, at most, 2 years old? Since it was mandatory in 83. And if you really hated it as a 2 year old, you were an incredibly cognitive 2 year old. When then I hope you demand paying for all the costs to pull your head out of the windshield. btw, biggest bullshit excuse "it's my life". If you're driving a car and you have family in it and say you're hit and not wearing a seat belt. You fly out of the windshield and die. You deprive your family of your life. So that's not just impacting your own life. Try thinking of more than yourself. I personally don't give a shit if you wear one or croak in a car accident. But to whine about it, seems like someone who just wants to bitch for the sake of being "anti-big brother" when it's not big brother. Neat one you did there. I took philosophy of the argument too. Are you going to ask me if I stopped beating my wife too?
It's just the nanny state knowing what's better for you than you do. The intentions are good, but my freedom and the freedoms of others is more important. As for the societal interaction argument, it simply can't be completely covered, nor should it be. I'm with Denny; seat belt and helmet laws are bullshit. And don't get me started on child seats; my child is my responsibility. It should be my right to decide when, for how long and what type of child seat I use.
