Looking for something to do this holiday weekend? See our picks for some fun local events.
The only thing that hurts more than paying an income tax is not having to pay an income tax.
What’s bugging you today?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
What might arguably be the most important “news” events of “the day”?
Cases before SCOTUS?
Presidential cabinet appointments?
N Korea testing nuclear weapons?
The scope of the Constitution & the 2nd Amendment?
No, apparently the biggest event ongoing (operative word) is the audacity of some adult private citizens, in their privately owned vehicles, on the roads they pay for…..not buckling their seatbelts.
” in their privately owned vehicles, on the roads they pay for…..not buckling their seatbelts.”
So, Jim Lucas, as long as folks are in their privately owned vehicles on the roads they paid for, they should be able to do pretty much anything? Just curious.
And like it or not, RT local reporters aren’t really going to be writing about any of the other topics you named.
I was perfectly happy to see the seatbelt stories, especially yesterday’s. Especially if they induce even a handful of people to change their habits.
#2 gdad, if you wish to critique my comment, please do do as offered.
I clearly stayed within the already established context of private seatbelt use. I never said anything vaguely resembling, “pretty much anything”.
If you haven’t noticed, the RT does print articles/stories from other than in-house sources.
If anyone reading the pieces decides to begin wearing their belts, that’s fine with me. Their choice.
Sorry to be so blunt here but if you’re so stuffed about being forced to wear a seatbelt, you need to get over it. I can’t believe this is even still being debated. Driving a car and the requisite responsibilites that come with that are a privilege and not a right. As such, wearing a seatbelt is part of the requirement. Of course, don’t get me started on how stupid it is not to wear one when driving or when a passenger.
Could you possibly find a more relevant dead horse to beat?
Did anyone happen to see the cover story in Time Magazine last week, “Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us” ? I read the article and found it to be spot on as to the problems I’ve been screaming about for the past 10 years with regard to medical costs and the costs of insurance.
Everyone has been so wrapped up in getting insurance for everyone that no one has kept an eye on the actual costs being paid for services rendered. It’s a joke!
I went to my dentist last Thursday and was presented a bill for a Fluoride Treatment that was not covered by my health care plan. Now, let me be clear, the amount of fluoride that was given to me by my hygenist was probably no more that one to one and one half ounces. Imagine my surprise when I was told that I owed $20 for the treatment.
I went through the roof. There is no justification for charging $20 for that treatment when the same product can be purchased in bulk quantities that will treat multiple patients for less than $20 dollars per containter.
When I pushed back on the charge, my dentist became very defensive and said he didn’t set the price, that my insurance company and employer did to which I replied…well, I can’t type exactly what I replied…so suffice it to say that I disagreed with his comment in a most direct way.
He then told me if I didn’t like the pricing, I could find myself another dentist and he proceeded to cancel my future appointments because he was not going to justify his pricing to anyone.
Tip of the iceberg it would appear to me. Perhaps we should all start questioning the charges and drive them down.
Thank you very much, Jim Lucas, but I reckon I’ll reply to your comment as I please. You ain’t the blog police.
One of your main points was that he GA had no business telling you what to do in your private car on roads that you helped pay for, and I simply demonstrated how silly that notion is.
To remain relevant and viable, the RT doesn’t need to be printing multiple stories from outside sources about the topics you listed. They need pieces on local news and issues generated by their own writers.
Jim doesn’t seem to understand that the RT is a local newspaper that gets its national and international news from wire sources and syndicates. You don’t see the President calling on RT reporters during his press conferences.
If it is truly a safety issue, make it punitive. Otherwise, shut it. Officers are just looking for any excuse to pull you over and charge you with whatever they see fit. If they cannot bust you with that illegal meth, then they’ll just stick you with some revenue maker like “no seat belt” or the speeding tax.
Sure these unbuckled adults are in their cars on a public road. But they need to buckle for 2 reasons.
1. Driving unbuckled is a danger to other motorists. They might come thru the windshield into my car.
2. They may get thrown into oncoming traffic and cause a secondary accident when the drive swerves to miss them.
I do not accept the premise that officers sit around and look for any excuse to pull you over.
#9 Al….touche. Not sure if bleeding.
Hope I don’t dream of flying bodies (at least not in this context).
Ladies & gentlemen. I will buckle my seat belt if & when I darn well please.
“I do not accept the premise that officers sit around and look for any excuse to pull you over.”
Good for you.
I know better. And if 9 out of 10 policemen were subjected to polygraphs…
“I was perfectly happy to see the seatbelt stories, especially yesterday’s. Especially if they induce even a handful of people to change their habits.”
Change “seatbelt” to “missionary sex with your heterosexual partner.”
Now you see where everyone is coming from?
“Especially if they induce even a handful of people to change their habits.”
#10 Good for you, Jim Lucas. Hope you don’t end up like the unbuckled and now dead people I’ve seen.
#8 George Krutz, in my 41 years of driving I can remember being pulled over for nearly no reason exactly once. And even then I was a long-haired teen driving a car full of teens around at midnight in Staunton, Va. Nuff said. But even then I wasn’t charged with anything. I don’t understand how all those nasty cops have missed harassing me for so many years when all they’re out there for is ticket people for no reason.
I love the silly paranoia on threads like this.
“Change “seatbelt” to “missionary sex with your heterosexual partner.”
Now you see where everyone is coming from?”
Nope, George Krutz, that made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
That’s fine. People who don’t wear seatbelts are dolts.
George! Now there I need a seatbelt!
gdad….did that horse & buggy have a seatbelt? (smiley face)
I freely agree that seatbelts save lives.
I freely agree that texting and driving should not mix.
I freely agree that smoking in a confined space like a car with a child inside is abusive.
I freely agree that eating, lighting a cigarette, putting on make-up, arguing, and listening to loud music are very distracting for most people.
I freely agree that there are many, many things common sense should dictate to us all.
I do not agree that we should legislate and codify every behavior or make non-compliance in and of itself, a crime.
And I, too, believe that people that do not wear seatbelts are dolts. Worse… they are stupid. There, I said it.
I think people that do not wear helmets whilst driving two-wheeled suicide machines are stupid.
I think that people that stick their tongues into a 120v socket are stupid.
HOWEVER, just because I THINK they are stupid, doesn’t mean mean I need a government regulating every little facet of their (or my) behavior.
Just as I am free to state my opinion, one should be free to be stupid.
IMO, the problem is that the government doesn’t seem to know where to stop when telling me what I (or you) can or cannot do.
Silly Paranoia? The law is probably still on the books, or at most recently removed… it is (or was) illegal in Virginia to have intercourse in any other position than “missionary.”
I am not making this up.
Are you following me now? This law was made “way, way” back. There’s no telling what your regulators and legislators are capable of.
And God forbid if you are not married! Or Gay! “or worse!”
#17 Mrs. Saunders, I agree.
Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary.
There is a state law prohibiting “corrupt practices of bribery by any person other than candidates.
You may not engage in business on Sundays, with the exception of almost every industry.
If one is not married, it is illegal for him to have sexual relations.
You may not have oral or anal sex.
Police radar detectors are illegal.
Citizens must honk their horn while passing other cars.
Children are not to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.
It is illegal to tickle women.
No animal may be hunted for on Sunday with the exception of raccoons, which may be hunted until 2:00 AM.
Geez, Sandi, you sound like an anarchist! Though I agree with you.
George, I take your point but in fairness I think we should at least note that not all that many laws or regulations come out of thin air or even the wickedly active machinations of politicians. PEOPLE carry their concerns and statistics and research to the various politicians and then laws happen. Sometimes those people are a grieving family, a victim, or the aggrieved in some way and sometimes those people are lobbyists with dollar signs for pupils, but it is not the fault of the government that we so often get what we ask for. Telling us no has its perils.
That’s a good point, Sandi. I would only point out, re your last sentence – “Telling us no has its perils” – that that is why the Founders (and I realize we are talking different levels of government here, but please indulge me) established a Senate that was appointed rather than elected. The primary peril to an elected representative is losing votes; but by making one chamber appointed, it insulated against just that sort of thing.
Well obviously I need to re-examine this issue.
#25 Well….that would be refreshing. I tend to point-counter point to almost Hamlet degree.
But alas, must “be”.
I do realize your #25 was in good humor. So is this.
#16 “gdad….did that horse & buggy have a seatbelt? (smiley face)”
Since you asked, Jim Lucas, the Pennsylvania Horse and Buggy Driver’s Manual, with rules and advice about seat belts at the end: ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20632.pdf
Sorry to hear you don’t value your life enough to buckle up. And I wasn’t kidding about the mangled bodies I’ve seen, including people who would have survived nearly unscratched.
gdad….thanks for taking in stride. If you began driving 41 years ago….then I am older than you. So I also poke fun at myself.
gdad….I’m not going to argue that buckling might not be safer than not. Nevertheless your last statement, # 27 is perhaps just a little presumptuous….and beside the point.
Name is required
A valid email is required (email@example.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Fri, 24 May 2013 22:01:28 +0000