RE: When will it end?...... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


TheHeretic -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 9:33:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Canada? [:D]



        You might be on to something, O59.  Looks like you are more likely to commit suicide, than die in a car crash up there...

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/health30a.htm







Intentional self-harm (suicide) [X60-X84, Y87.0]
11.4
11.4
11.2
11.3
10.8




Motor vehicle accidents2
8.6
8.3
9.2
9.0
8.7





Owner59 -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 9:34:58 AM)

 
Here`s an example of individual freedom taken to far.

This guy really didn`t think that traffic laws applied to him ,like stop signs or speed limits.

He touted himself as a great defender of individual freedom and liberty.

He was a republican of course.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-02-23-speed1_x.htm

A decade ago, South Dakotans who had never met or seen the governor knew Bill Janklow was a speeder. He had received a dozen speeding tickets and had been involved in a half-dozen accidents.Part of it was functional. He had a lot of ground to cover between church suppers and county fairs.

Part was political. Speed seemed to be Janklow's trademark; he even made light of it in his State of the State speech in 1999. It was a populist calling card that helped make him a man of the people, even after he went to Washington last year to serve in the House of Representatives.

But in August, Janklow ran a stop sign while driving at least 16 mph over the speed limit and hit and killed a motorcyclist. He was convicted in December of manslaughter and sentenced last month to 100 days in jail and fined $5,750. He resigned his House seat.




rulemylife -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 9:46:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

   "Yet again you are taking things to extremes trying to make a point."

Not extreme at all.There was a time when there were no laws for those things.

You don`t think there were whiners complaining about those things too ,as laws concerning them were implemented over time?

All those points are to show a historical perspective.Of course it seems silly to talk about which side of the road to drive.There was a time though,that one could drive on either side legally.

Of course it seems silly to say that laws keeping banks honest aren`t necessary.But there were people at one time,who said bank auditing was a form of government interference.

There was a time when cars,plans and modern medicine didn`t exist.

Each regulation and law brought out it`s own set of "individuals" to whine.



There will be crybabies whining,forever.Each time we collectively decide on a rule or law,there will people to complain.

If those complaining have a point and can sway a change,then there will be people whining about that too.


When will it end?

emm, Never?


Maybe it`s pride that makes us not want to be talked down too or told what to do.

Maybe some people just feel better when complaining or ranting.It`s a form of freedom.

There`s no end to things to complain about.

If one really wants to find things to get frustrated about but don`t have any,they`ll just make something up.


Yes it is silly.  But I don't recall complaining about which side of the road to drive on or about bank auditing.  So if I have refresh my memory. 

What I'm complaining about is government interference into our personal lives which has only a tortured argument to suggest it affects others.  

So yet again, you are trying to obscure the issue with a lot of nonsense that no one is disputing.




DomAviator -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 9:51:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


The worst offender of them all, has got to be the satanic Federal Aviation Administration.

Who the fuck do those devil worshiping FAA folks think they are to impose rules and guidelines for aircraft/air ports?There should only be suggestions,not hard rules about when, how and where to land/take off.

Forcing pilots to fly in recognized air traffic lanes,imposing altitude restrictions and no-fly zones is a form of nanny-state meddling.

Whoever gets to the landing/takeoff lanes 1st,gets to take off or land.If there is a crash,well,the "market" thing again,remember?

That control tower is filled with control freaks and mini-Napoleons anyway.Fuck them!

And to think, we pay their salaries.How dumb is that?We (the tax-payer)pay the air traffic controller`s salary,yet we let them order us around.

Pilots are individuals and America is all about individual freedom, so we mustn't tell them to get a license , regular physical exams or ongoing training/certification.

If they can start the engine and make it go,who is the government care either way?

If a guy crashes a plane and kills himself and his passengers,then the 'market' has spoken and gotten rid of the losers.See how freedom works?[8|]





Actually, while pilots often joke that FAA stands for "Fucking Asshole Association" the post above is FULL of factual errors.

#1) Nobody forces me to take off and land anywhere. Off airport landing and take offs are completely permissible. In both airplanes and helicopters I have made off airport take offs and landings... There is no rule that you have to use airports.... There is a dude ranch I vacation at in Colorado and the day Im coming the manager clears the horses out of one of the pastures so I can land there. If I am going to my cabin I land on the road infront of the driveway and taxi the plane into the driveway. My most recent helicopter time, we landed this guys Bell 206 in the grass behind a resteraunt so we could go in and get catfish and hush puppies... All entirely legal!

#2) Pilots do NOT have to fly in "recognized air traffic lanes." The closest thing to such an animal is the "Victor Airways" and I use them when flying IFR because the navigation is done for me and there is a publied Minimum Enroute Altitude so that I know how high I have to be to not hit anything without looking at the chart for towers, guy wires, etc. I would say less than 1% of the airspace in the country is restricted. (Not CONTROLLED but restricted is like "dont go here") If I am VFR (as most flights are but I prefer IFR) I can choose my own routing. Even IFR they will say "Cleared to 9,000" meaning I can climb to or descend from any alitude between the MEA and 9,000 without notifiying them or asking permission.

#3) About 93% of airports in the US are uncontrolled so it is indeed "whoever gets to take off and land first. If you plan to take off you dont ask anyone - you simply announce your intentions as in "Podunk Traffic Cessna 123AB departing runway two five" or "Podunk Traffic Cessna 123AB Ten miles out over the Bunghole VORTAC and 3000 for two five Podunk"... Podunk Traffic Alpha Bravo Turning Base Podunk Two Five" etc... There is no control tower at most airports and no air traffic control. Even many airports that have towers only operate part time... So the tower may be attended from 6am to 10 pm after which the field is uncontrolled.

#4) There have been MANY MANY MANY times I have refused an air traffic controllers instructions or clearances. The pilot in command NOT the controller is the final authority and has the right to reject any and all clearances. In fact, many times controllers will issue impractical and unsafe instructions simply because they are controllers NOT pilots... I have been asked to "maintain 200 kts" in a cessna (which doesnt DO 200 kts) and to slow a jet down below its stall speed. I have also had an interesting argument with a controller as to whether or not my gear was down when the aircraft had fixed gear. "Two Four Charlie your nose gear is NOT down!!!! Do not attempt to land your nose gear is NOT DOWN" "Of couse my nose gear isnt down, its a 170 not a 172 and they put the TAILWHEEL on it in Wichita, Kansas when they built it!!! This aircraft is a fixed gear taildragger - I have three down and WELDED IN PLACE!!! Meanwhile this fucking idiot was rolling out firetrucks!!!! But anyway, pilots routinely tell controllers no and have authority to do so. In fact if it becomes a pissing match and the controller doesnt back down and reassign a new clearance we can deviate from any instruction to the extent necessary for safety and submit a report.

#5) Not all pilots have licenses or medicals. Ultralight pilots need nothing except a mental disease or defect that posesses them to take a flying lawnchair with a chainsaw motor into the sky. Sport Pilots do not need a medical if they have a valid drivers license, neither do hot air balloon or glider pilots. You dont need ongoing training or certification unless you intend to carry passengers... An airmans certificicate is good for life. I could stop flying for 10 years then get back into a plane and make three take offs and landings and tell the passengers "Ya'll hop in now Im legal again!" If Ive made 6 instrument approaches I dont need an Instrument Proficiency Check, and I have actually NEVER had a bieenial flight review or a flight instructor renewal because I am meeting the requirements in other ways such as students signed off for a checkride so I bypass the regs. Ongoing training is really only for commercial / corporate / airline pilots and it is more of an insurance requirement than an FAA requirement. "Sure your pilots are good but if you want coverage on you $10,000,000 airplane you WILL send them for refresher training or we wont cover you for hull loss..."

So basically EVERY example you cited of the FAA is 100% wrong.... Its not as regulated as you think...




rulemylife -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 9:58:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


Here`s an example of individual freedom taken to far.

This guy really didn`t think that traffic laws applied to him ,like stop signs or speed limits.

He touted himself as a great defender of individual freedom and liberty.

He was a republican of course.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-02-23-speed1_x.htm

A decade ago, South Dakotans who had never met or seen the governor knew Bill Janklow was a speeder. He had received a dozen speeding tickets and had been involved in a half-dozen accidents.Part of it was functional. He had a lot of ground to cover between church suppers and county fairs.

Part was political. Speed seemed to be Janklow's trademark; he even made light of it in his State of the State speech in 1999. It was a populist calling card that helped make him a man of the people, even after he went to Washington last year to serve in the House of Representatives.

But in August, Janklow ran a stop sign while driving at least 16 mph over the speed limit and hit and killed a motorcyclist. He was convicted in December of manslaughter and sentenced last month to 100 days in jail and fined $5,750. He resigned his House seat.


I know the story well.  He's a scumbag.  What's your point?  Are you going to post a story next about a murderer to prove that shooting someone doesn't fall under the banner of personal liberty? 




dcnovice -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 10:48:20 AM)

<fast reply>

quote:

ORIGINAL: SummerWind

First I "have" to wear a helmet....
Then I "have" to wear a seatbelt...
Then I can't smoke in a bar...

Too many people making too many rules.....



I would draw a distinction (which may already have been drawn, since I'm coming late to thread) between your first two examples and the third. Helmet and seatbelt laws do have a "nanny government" aspect, protecting people from themselves, and I can see why such laws make folks bristle. I'm honestly undecided about whether the health/safety benefits warrant the governmental intrusion into individual choice.

The third example, though, involves more than one person's rights. Smoking in a bar affects the comfort and perhaps health of others, so it strikes me as a more reasonable sphere of governmental action.




Zensee -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 11:42:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I think it's the part where someone tries to stretch an argument to the point it becomes ridiculous and far-fetched.  We've now gone from seatbelts being a safety device to them being designed to help you control your vehicle in a crash.  Please share with us whatever documentation you have to support that.


OK - proof positive you have not read this thread before posting. Stop wasting my time with your baseless retorts.

Seatbelts are designed to reduce the likelihood and degree of injury in a collision. They also keep you in the driver's seat during emergent situations. This is a well known point of fact. It is also part of the standard operating procedures of responsible professional transportation companies. Seat belts are required 1) for driver safety - 2) to improve driver control in emergent situations.

If you are unable to comprehend this simple fact we have nothing more to discuss. Go for a drive and knock yourself out.


Z.




windchymes -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 12:23:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


Here`s an example of individual freedom taken to far.

This guy really didn`t think that traffic laws applied to him ,like stop signs or speed limits.

He touted himself as a great defender of individual freedom and liberty.

He was a republican of course.



For a second there, I thought you were going to talk about Gov. Corzine....the democrat.  [:D]




lusciouslips19 -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 1:20:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

Laws are important. If there were none you would have nothing to rebel against or to complain about. then life would surely be bleak.


HELL YES!  If I didn't have something to bitch about every day I might have to resort to watching Oprah and Maury.  Worse yet, I might actually have to find a life!  Perish the thought.  [sm=hair.gif]


[sm=jerry.gif]




rulemylife -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 2:49:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I think it's the part where someone tries to stretch an argument to the point it becomes ridiculous and far-fetched.  We've now gone from seatbelts being a safety device to them being designed to help you control your vehicle in a crash.  Please share with us whatever documentation you have to support that.


OK - proof positive you have not read this thread before posting. Stop wasting my time with your baseless retorts.

Seatbelts are designed to reduce the likelihood and degree of injury in a collision. They also keep you in the driver's seat during emergent situations. This is a well known point of fact. It is also part of the standard operating procedures of responsible professional transportation companies. Seat belts are required 1) for driver safety - 2) to improve driver control in emergent situations.

If you are unable to comprehend this simple fact we have nothing more to discuss. Go for a drive and knock yourself out.


Z.



Yes, I know.  It's always interesting when people can't support their arguments and have to resort to phrases like "it's a known fact" or that it's common sense.  If this fact is so "well known" I would think you could at least provide me a link so I could educate myself.




rulemylife -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 2:52:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

Laws are important. If there were none you would have nothing to rebel against or to complain about. then life would surely be bleak.


HELL YES!  If I didn't have something to bitch about every day I might have to resort to watching Oprah and Maury.  Worse yet, I might actually have to find a life!  Perish the thought.  [sm=hair.gif]


[sm=jerry.gif]


Yeah, whatever happened to Jerry?  Is he still on the air?




FullCircle -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 3:11:40 PM)

He didn't wear his helmet and someone struck him with a heavy mallet it wasn't pretty; blood everywhere but he should have seen it coming as nobody liked him.
He hosts this game show in the UK where people have to tell you truth about things in front of their family or they loose money. Questions such as; "Have you ever had an affair." and you know the answer is yes because that is why he is asking the question.




Roselaure -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 4:20:56 PM)

I love bikes and have a soft spot for bikers.  If you don't want to wear a helmet, don't.  But please be an organ donor, because your organs will be in pristine condition when you die of massive head trauma.




SummerWind -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 4:36:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Canada? [:D]



       You might be on to something, O59.  Looks like you are more likely to commit suicide, than die in a car crash up there...

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/health30a.htm







Intentional self-harm (suicide) [X60-X84, Y87.0]
11.4
11.4
11.2
11.3
10.8




Motor vehicle accidents2
8.6
8.3
9.2
9.0
8.7




How could that be?....... suicide is illegal......




SummerWind -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 4:42:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

<fast reply>

quote:

ORIGINAL: SummerWind

First I "have" to wear a helmet....
Then I "have" to wear a seatbelt...
Then I can't smoke in a bar...

Too many people making too many rules.....



The third example, though, involves more than one person's rights. Smoking in a bar affects the comfort and perhaps health of others, so it strikes me as a more reasonable sphere of governmental action.

Shouldn't the bar/restaurant owner be making the decision to provide a smoking versus a non smoking environment? This allows the consumer to ultimately decide where to eat based on a wider range of choices.




TheHeretic -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 4:44:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Yes, I know.  It's always interesting when people can't support their arguments and have to resort to phrases like "it's a known fact" or that it's common sense.  If this fact is so "well known" I would think you could at least provide me a link so I could educate myself.




http://auto.howstuffworks.com/seatbelt.htm


       There you go RML.  I don't know that something so simple, and well known among drivers requires a supporting link.  I made a choice whenever I got behind the wheel of that old truck, and I don't think it should have been an illegal choice, but I certainly wore the belt when I was bouncing around off-road.




TheHeretic -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 4:47:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SummerWind

How could that be?....... suicide is illegal......



       Not only that, they are able to rack up those kinds of rates in a country where guns are illegal/highly restricted




dcnovice -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 5:00:37 PM)

quote:

Shouldn't the bar/restaurant owner be making the decision to provide a smoking versus a non smoking environment? This allows the consumer to ultimately decide where to eat based on a wider range of choices.

I can see your point, but there's also the issue of the health of the people working in the bar.




Zensee -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 7:40:03 PM)

Pardon me rulemylife but where are the links supporting your assertions?

Links have been provided by others but you don't seem to have read the thread. I'm not responsible for coordinating the case in favour of seatbelts, for your benefit.

You don't need a link to understand that a seatbelt is much more likely to keep you in the driver's seat than no seatbelt. I am sorry you have not encountered this principle so far, during your driver training. Now you know.



Z.




youngsubgeoff -> RE: When will it end?...... (5/25/2008 7:44:30 PM)

oh for fucks sake... Bettman, youve already taken hour hstory from us, now you want our traditions? What next? a ban on fighting? Or beer? hotdogs?




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875