Support |
Zune.net
Zune Forums > off topic > forum games >

THINGS THAT MUST GO

Started by NSILMike at 10/4/2009 01:32:01. Topic has 499 replies.
sort posts by:oldest / newest
Page 41 of 42 (500 items)
« First ... < 38 39 40 41 42 >

Join Date: 12/8/2007 20:43:37

Posts: 10,128

V
10/4/2009 01:32:01
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
 Lil Frier wrote:
I'd rather have higher insurance costs if it means making my own decisions. And common sense is that it's mainly to give the police another petty reason to fine people. The seat belt fines are more than the insurance in a lot of cases. It's $200-300 in places.
You may....but insurance is a pool of folks cooperating for coverage- it's what the pool of folks want.  You have no innate right to drive...you have to participate in the system if you want to drive.  
I strongly disagree with your assessment of common sense... the cops I know aren't looking for cheap thrills, they're sick of pulling mangled bodies out of car wrecks.  And, once upon a time I was a volunteer fireman...and I can tell you first hand that it seriously sux to see that.  I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. 
And don't confuse fines with insurance.  They are not related.  If you don't like the fines, vote or protest the issue...or wear your seatbelt, or both.
0 helpful ratings, 0 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 1/14/2008 20:24:27

Posts: 492
10/4/2009 02:02:11
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
I do wear my seat belt. But you assume that the cops are the ones that are establishing these laws. They are made by politicians, who are notoriously greedy and like to spend gobs of money whenever they can. There maybe be the benefit of lower insurance rates, but that's not the incentive the politicians were going for.

They use safety for drivers as their excuse for these laws, but they don't have the right to choose how people deal with their own lives and what they decide is safe and unsafe for them. I'd wear it even if there wasn't a law, but I don't believe there should be a law FORCING people to do it.

I actually saw a car that had wrapped around a light pole (I was at the junk yard and saw the wreckage of the car...worst-looking car ever). I was told told that the only way anyone could have survived that would have been by NOT wearing their seat belt and being ejected from the car on impact. The belt would have trapped them in the car and crushed their body, but being thrown from the vehicle MIGHT have allowed them to go rolling down a hill or something and have injuries instead of dying.

I know it sounds kind of nuts and demented, but I should be allowed to choose if I want to die in a car or against a tree. If you start using general safety as excuses for things, then you open the floodgates to banning guns for protection because someone MIGHT get shot accidentally. Then you can say no cars because their high speeds can cause more deaths than walking or a bike.

If people REALLY wanted more safety, they wouldn't be pushing for smaller and smaller cars than give the driver LESS room, and make it easier for them to be crushed by a car in the event or an accident.
0 helpful ratings, 1 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 12/8/2007 20:43:37

Posts: 10,128

V
10/4/2009 02:29:27
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
 Lil Frier wrote:
I do wear my seat belt. But you assume that the cops are the ones that are establishing these laws. They are made by politicians, who are notoriously greedy and like to spend gobs of money whenever they can. There maybe be the benefit of lower insurance rates, but that's not the incentive the politicians were going for.

They use safety for drivers as their excuse for these laws, but they don't have the right to choose how people deal with their own lives and what they decide is safe and unsafe for them. I'd wear it even if there wasn't a law, but I don't believe there should be a law FORCING people to do it.

I actually saw a car that had wrapped around a light pole (I was at the junk yard and saw the wreckage of the car...worst-looking car ever). I was told told that the only way anyone could have survived that would have been by NOT wearing their seat belt and being ejected from the car on impact. The belt would have trapped them in the car and crushed their body, but being thrown from the vehicle MIGHT have allowed them to go rolling down a hill or something and have injuries instead of dying.

I know it sounds kind of nuts and demented, but I should be allowed to choose if I want to die in a car or against a tree. If you start using general safety as excuses for things, then you open the floodgates to banning guns for protection because someone MIGHT get shot accidentally. Then you can say no cars because their high speeds can cause more deaths than walking or a bike.

If people REALLY wanted more safety, they wouldn't be pushing for smaller and smaller cars than give the driver LESS room, and make it easier for them to be crushed by a car in the event or an accident.
No, nothing I said assumes the cops make the laws.  You keep missing the point.  It's not at all about what you (or I, or any individual) want. It's a cooperative financial system where a bunch of people have agreed to pool their money to insure against accidents and claims in return for the right to drive a car.  Like it or not, that is the system that we as a society have installed.  If you don't like it, come up with something better, advocate for it and get it installed.   
No, you don't have the right to decide whether you die in the car or against a tree as a result of driving.  You may want that right, but you don't have it... this is precisely the point of the insurance system.  If you are at fault and cause an accident, we as a majority rule democratic society have decided that the victim has the right to compensation.  Without insurance, an at fault driver who cannot afford to pay that compensation will go bankrupt, and the victim will not receive full compensation.  Or, you can pool a bunch of folks, knowing that statistically only a fraction of them will have or cause accidents...you then pool their insurance premiums to pay out when there is a valid claim.  The at fault driver is covered and is not ruined financially forever, and the victim is compensated.  Got a better system?  I doubt it...a whole lotta very smart people put that system together and a whole lotta even smarter people are trying to come up with a better one (that's how you get rich...) and so far, have not.  Nothing in this systems tramples your individual rights...because your individual rights do not extend so far as to impede someone elses...as in, other drivers are not required to contribute to the insurance pool to cover the additional risks for drivers who speed, or don't wear seat belts, and so on...
0 helpful ratings, 0 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 1/14/2008 20:24:27

Posts: 492
10/4/2009 03:37:23
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
My not wearing a seat belt does not impede upon the rights of others, so that makes no sense.

And, yes, if I really want to, I CAN decide if I want to die in a car or against a tree. Just because there is a law saying I have to wear a seat belt doesn't mean they will be able to stop me from not wearing it at all times.

Sure, insurance is good and all, but seat belts do NOT determine the price. You act as if removing that law would create a sudden outburst of wrecks and serious injuries. It MIGHT raise a person's insurance a small bit, but there is no proof to that. They implemented those laws, yet insurance costs continue to go up, so that's not proven true.

I'm done with this and am no longer reading your crap because I disagree and am not required by law (YET) to accept the beliefs and ideals of others as true.
0 helpful ratings, 1 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 12/8/2007 20:43:37

Posts: 10,128

V
10/4/2009 14:50:14
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO

 Lil Frier wrote:
My not wearing a seat belt does not impede upon the rights of others, so that makes no sense.

And, yes, if I really want to, I CAN decide if I want to die in a car or against a tree. Just because there is a law saying I have to wear a seat belt doesn't mean they will be able to stop me from not wearing it at all times.

Sure, insurance is good and all, but seat belts do NOT determine the price. You act as if removing that law would create a sudden outburst of wrecks and serious injuries. It MIGHT raise a person's insurance a small bit, but there is no proof to that. They implemented those laws, yet insurance costs continue to go up, so that's not proven true.

I'm done with this and am no longer reading your crap because I disagree and am not required by law (YET) to accept the beliefs and ideals of others as true.
Go do some research...nothing I said isn't well known business process basics in the insurance industry.  I'm not trying to convince you of a position...this is just the way the system is currently set up.  And of course seat belts alone do not determine price...seat belts are one of many factors, including your age, your sex (in some states,) your years of driving experience, your location (urban, suburban, rural, etc.) your car, and so on.  Seat belts have a well demonstrated positive impact...thus it is in everyone's econiomic (and health) interest to require them.  From the insurance companies point of view, making you wear seatbelts is not about being 'your nanny to teach you what's good for you'- it's about economics and keeping premiums lower than they would be otherwise.  http://www.superpages.com/supertips/how-does-insurance-work.html

And there is enormous evidence as to the benefit of wearing seatbelts both in terms of lives and injuries, and also in terms of medical costs.  Here is just one example:  http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/seatbelts.shtml

which says, "Increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent and estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually."

$8.8 Billion.  Beliefs and ideals...?  Yeah, right.  How about I  believe that I don't like paying any more for auto insurance than I have to, and I certainly don't want to pay a premium upside to cover easily avoidable costs.
0 helpful ratings, 0 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 5/27/2008 17:39:27

Posts: 342
10/4/2009 17:02:54
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
TTMG:
The previous debate.
Clothes on really hot women, or at least shirts and bras on women w/ really nice T!TS!!!!!lol
If your into photography and your with a group don't expect everyone else to always have to wait up while you
keep trying to get your perfect shots. Be realistic.
Drinking fountains that either just trickle out or drench you.
JON, NATE, and KATE.
People who have 3 n 4 accidents a year but always blame the other drivers.
Grown men w/ the name Spencer.
People who have to verbally object people who voice they want to be cremated, as if it is so terrible. Save it!!!!
News promos talking about what a great station they are while running clips of old traffic reports.
Back roads of Montana billboard. Being attacked by a grizzly bear is not my idea of getting away.
"Just a friendly reminder",and "after that being said".
0 helpful ratings, 0 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 1/14/2008 20:24:27

Posts: 492
10/4/2009 19:51:55
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
 meadows radio wrote:
TTMG:
The previous debate.
Clothes on really hot women, or at least shirts and bras on women w/ really nice T!TS!!!!!lol
If your into photography and your with a group don't expect everyone else to always have to wait up while you
keep trying to get your perfect shots. Be realistic.
Drinking fountains that either just trickle out or drench you.
JON, NATE, and KATE.
People who have 3 n 4 accidents a year but always blame the other drivers.
Grown men w/ the name Spencer.
People who have to verbally object people who voice they want to be cremated, as if it is so terrible. Save it!!!!
News promos talking about what a great station they are while running clips of old traffic reports.
Back roads of Montana billboard. Being attacked by a grizzly bear is not my idea of getting away.
"Just a friendly reminder",and "after that being said".



THANK YOU
0 helpful ratings, 1 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 3/25/2008 03:16:11

Posts: 1,408
10/6/2009 00:19:38
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
all of this MF 'in rain in Georgia.

Eno
0 helpful ratings, 0 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 5/10/2008 03:23:36

Posts: 8,818
10/6/2009 03:41:13
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
 meadows radio wrote:
Grown men w/ the name Spencer.
What about Spencer Tracy and Spencer Wells? (I even left out Spencer Tunick and all his work for public nudity)

Our form of democracy is bribery, on the highest scale.
-Gore Vidal
0 helpful ratings, 0 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 2/19/2008 05:58:12

Posts: 99
10/7/2009 06:16:04
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
illness, psychological disorders, degenerative diseases. i mean shouldn't scientists have invented some sort of genetically superior humans already, like in that movie Gattica. where people can have amazingly resilient immune systems, can live longer, be more physically fit and intelligent. what dark times my reality lives in. 

My gut is telling me no....but my gut is also very hungry.
0 helpful ratings, 0 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 11/14/2007 05:30:58

Posts: 6,245
10/7/2009 23:30:13
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
c0ckroaches Ick! [+o(]

For tips, FREE and legal music downloads, Zuneness and more: http://www.InsidetheCircle.net
0 helpful ratings, 0 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No

Join Date: 5/10/2008 03:23:36

Posts: 8,818
10/8/2009 03:29:39
re: THINGS THAT MUST GO
Artificial Turf.

Our form of democracy is bribery, on the highest scale.
-Gore Vidal
0 helpful ratings, 0 not helpful ratings
Was this post helpful? Yes No
Page 41 of 42 (500 items)
« First ... < 38 39 40 41 42 >
Zune Forums > off topic > forum games > THINGS THAT MUST GO
©2009 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved