Security over liberty?

I'm not expert as to how a true idiot speaks, but I may be learning.

 

Save the rhetoric for the nationalists. The nanny state won't allow people to be responsible for themselves. It's a crime.

 

Yes. You are being a true idiot about this issue. And a tyrant.

 

You think YOU can tell me what I can or cannot do with my property and You can drive on my roads without being responsible for your actions and I'm the tyrant?

I have yet to see a post of yours containing a rational thought. Even an irrational, actual, thought! All you have done to date is rant about not getting your way and how this nation, maybe the world, should kowtow to your way of thinking. Which makes the chaos theory look good.

 

Yeah um, STEALING from me just in case I cause an accident in the FUTURE is nothing except STEALING. (*)(*)(*)(*) your Nanny State.

That's all I see from you. You post ultra-right-wing-style-fascist comments and that's it.

 

You miss the point. Why does the government have to force me to protect myself. Are you telling me they should outlaw fast food and sodas because they are harmful? No. Me not wearing my seatbelt doesn't hurt anyone else, so there is no constitutional reason for the government to force me to do it. Would I wear my seatbelt anyway? Yeah 99% of the time. But I dont need big brother forcing me to.

 

People are losing responsibility because the government is doing it for them silly.

 

And that accusation to you of leftist shows the incredible ignorance of many people of what is being leftist or not.

Here supporting you a true leftist That likes freedom over the rest

And yeah, in this forum there are many fascists and they don't like to be called like that.

 

I live in Europe, and in Europe is compulsory wear seatbelt. In this case, the truth that this save many lifes, and that is not a problem to wear it. It is not annoying. The same with helmets in the case of the motorbikes.

In other topics I could consider wrong some state intromission but in this, no. I don't consider that is removing freedom to you.

Then, I suppose that also you can drive after drink a few litres of alcohol. The government can't say you if you can drive being drunk or not. I control myself. That remembers me an ex-president of Spain, Aznar, that he said that he can drive being drunk.

However I don't care so much about it

 

What? That isnt the same as driving drunk. Driving without my seatbelt only puts me at risk. I should have all the freedom in the world to put my own life in danger. Driving drunk, however, puts others at risk, so it definitely shouldnt be legal.

 

You wearing a seatbelt protects ME and me wearing a seatbelt protects YOU, too. If you lose control of your car, [a little recognized fact, a car is always controllable in some direction. but that direction may not be the direction that the road or you want to go], you cannot REGAIN control of your car if you have been thrown into the passengers seat or the back seat. The seatbelt keeps you AT the steering where you have a CHANCE of steering the car out of trouble. Seatbelts have probably saved more lives by having an accident NOT happen than they have saved IN accidents.

 

Why do you love restraining everyone else's essential freedoms, yet supposedly hate it when any "Democrat" restrains yours?

 

Back to the OP, were you pinged by radar or was your speed an estimate by the cop?

 

I dunno, it wasn't me driving and I didn't go to court. But the speedometer isn't inaccurate and it was never above 62 mph. We never did no 74 (*)(*)(*)(*)ing mph.

Do you REALLY have SO much FAITH in the Big Tyrannical Violent ROBBING THIEVING Police State, that you think they'd be totally honest about everything? They are the epitome of organized crime! Why would you trust them? Are you that foolish?

 

If you don't know, you aren't protecting your liberties. Didn't the driver ask the question on how the cop ascertained the speed you were travelling?

If the question wasn't asked, the driver deserves everything he got.

In Australia one can have any driving offense heard in court. If there is no proof of a driving offense like a radar read out for example and the police goes on an estimate, the case will be thrown out of court.

 

YOU DON'T GET IT. The Tyrannical Police State accepts NO dissent, whether justified or not. They will STEAL and PILLAGE and MAIM and even VIOLENTLY ATTACK you whenever they please, and if you disagree with their decisions, they will OVERPOWER you, quite simply.

There is no point in arguing with The State. We have to simply DESTROY it and start again from scratch. I'm calling for a bloody revolution.

 

You didn't answer my question. Was the question asked of the cop on how the speed was ascertained?

 

Yes. He obviously ignored us. They DONT ACCEPT DISSENT OR JUSTIFIED DISAGREEMENT WITH THEIR MAIMING. WHAT do you not get about that???

 

Was the matter heard in court? If so, what was the outcome?

 

Actually it hasn't gone down in court yet. It was a few days ago. But obviously The State will NEVER accept the word of the maimed; it will only accept it's own word. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to pull of this (*)(*)(*)(*) where they maim you and take your things legally.

 

How about you get the full story and the outcome of the court hearing and then report back to us? Do this before shooting from the hip.

 

You are a statist fool if you really don't get it. I hope The State crushes you and your family that way you can appreciate their evilness.

/discussion

 

You have to wonder, though -- how often does that policy get cops into trouble?

 

Rarely. The Police State wants to make it to where we are their (*)(*)(*)(*)ing treasure island which they can maim whenever they want and hurt us however badly they want so they can benefit from it.

Moral relativism at it's finest!!

 

Honestly mate, you come across as a teenage driving hoon caught driving recklessly and is now trying to shift the blame on someone else.

Time to grow up!