wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.

You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...



Incredible. Apparently we have yet another "responsible rightie" who
wants to do away with responsibility.

Some dipstick penniless rightie like JustHate smashes into my car and
causes injuries...and how do I recover my losses if the he has no insurance?

D'oh.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:06:40 -0400, H K
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.

You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...



Incredible. Apparently we have yet another "responsible rightie" who
wants to do away with responsibility.

Some dipstick penniless rightie like JustHate smashes into my car and
causes injuries...and how do I recover my losses if the he has no insurance?


Don't drive.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:06:40 -0400, H K
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.

You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...



Incredible. Apparently we have yet another "responsible rightie" who
wants to do away with responsibility.

Some dipstick penniless rightie like JustHate smashes into my car and
causes injuries...and how do I recover my losses if the he has no insurance?

You don't want that penniless driver on the road by reason of his
poverty? I don't want you on the road for being an inconvience for
the impoverished driver.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"H K" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it.
I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.

You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...



Incredible. Apparently we have yet another "responsible rightie" who wants
to do away with responsibility.

Some dipstick penniless rightie like JustHate smashes into my car and
causes injuries...and how do I recover my losses if the he has no
insurance?

D'oh.

You have to take his motorbikes and whatever else you could confiscate.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?


Managing? They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general welfare of
society. I know this is a difficult concept....

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:56:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?


Managing? They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general welfare of
society. I know this is a difficult concept....

That answer is much too easy, if not vague and ambiguous. "They are
state or federal laws"? It presumes, above other things, that
government is without its defects and ignores the probability that a
sated citizenry can be conditioned to accept doctrines which are alien
to the unassailable tenets of lberty. And it too handily dismisses
the realization that large and ostensibly majority factions of the
citizenry are disenfranchised in voice, subordinated to an inflexible
radicalism of boisterous minorities. If there is difficulty in
understanding, it is rooted in a simple, tacit, popular aphorism that
pronounces democracy as inherently benign. Subsequently, all laws of
a democracy are, by the virtue of having democracy as their venerable
progenitor, classified as befitting the "general welfare of society."
And these premises quickly fail when the opposing faction, when in
power, passes legislation that the radicalized faction deems onerous,
e.g. the Patriot Act. But then, the illumination of this salient
contradiction can be relegated to the category of "rant," to ease the
pain of having to recognize it.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:56:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude
by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it.
I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?


Managing? They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general welfare
of
society. I know this is a difficult concept....

That answer is much too easy, if not vague and ambiguous. "They are
state or federal laws"? It presumes, above other things, that
government is without its defects and ignores the probability that a
sated citizenry can be conditioned to accept doctrines which are alien
to the unassailable tenets of lberty. And it too handily dismisses
the realization that large and ostensibly majority factions of the
citizenry are disenfranchised in voice, subordinated to an inflexible
radicalism of boisterous minorities. If there is difficulty in
understanding, it is rooted in a simple, tacit, popular aphorism that
pronounces democracy as inherently benign. Subsequently, all laws of
a democracy are, by the virtue of having democracy as their venerable
progenitor, classified as befitting the "general welfare of society."
And these premises quickly fail when the opposing faction, when in
power, passes legislation that the radicalized faction deems onerous,
e.g. the Patriot Act. But then, the illumination of this salient
contradiction can be relegated to the category of "rant," to ease the
pain of having to recognize it.


I certainly agree it's a rant. Good for you. Do you feel better now? Poor
baby....

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:50:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:56:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude
by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it.
I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?


Managing? They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general welfare
of
society. I know this is a difficult concept....

That answer is much too easy, if not vague and ambiguous. "They are
state or federal laws"? It presumes, above other things, that
government is without its defects and ignores the probability that a
sated citizenry can be conditioned to accept doctrines which are alien
to the unassailable tenets of lberty. And it too handily dismisses
the realization that large and ostensibly majority factions of the
citizenry are disenfranchised in voice, subordinated to an inflexible
radicalism of boisterous minorities. If there is difficulty in
understanding, it is rooted in a simple, tacit, popular aphorism that
pronounces democracy as inherently benign. Subsequently, all laws of
a democracy are, by the virtue of having democracy as their venerable
progenitor, classified as befitting the "general welfare of society."
And these premises quickly fail when the opposing faction, when in
power, passes legislation that the radicalized faction deems onerous,
e.g. the Patriot Act. But then, the illumination of this salient
contradiction can be relegated to the category of "rant," to ease the
pain of having to recognize it.


I certainly agree it's a rant. Good for you. Do you feel better now? Poor
baby....

So I take it that you concur that the Patriot Act was (and is) a
statute passed for the general welfare of society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access