These people are correct, too much government in our lives. It should be a personal decision to wear a seat belt or helmet. Freedom before everything else!!
This representative needs to be out of office, if she survived the November election!
These people are correct, too much government in our lives. It should be a personal decision to wear a seat belt or helmet. Freedom before everything else!!
i was in an accident where we flipped 11 times at 70km down a 250 foot forested embankment. no one died. seat belts work, it's not big brother. watch some crash test footage if you're still retarded.
Don't worry folks, we are winning this battle. Very soon we will puke up all of these unconstituional statutes that are designed to control us.....and when the statutes go....so do the misguided retards who carelessly assumed "unauthorized authority" over us. Very soon these tyrants will wish they had never heard of politics. They have already taken it too far.....payday is coming.
a red light IS NOT the SAME THING as a seatbelt law...this dimwit Sally....is all about BIG BROTHER...she has no right to tell us what to do.....trying to push her weight around........we're sick of her types.....SICK SICK of em....so Sally i suggest you live in Russia or China....you would like how they look after your every move.......a shame to our country these kind of politicians and their everywhere now...brainwashed
honestly the issue here is that safety laws are important. If it wasn't then why would we make sure that our children are in the correct child's seat or buckled in. Its all about what will most likely keep someone safe. I do not know when that happened with the young lady in the story about her friends but unfortunately they were crushed because they were being safe instead of being thrown and being killed. Either way they would of died more than likely.
@Cronomew1 look man..........your just another one who submits to the whims of big government..we don't need government to tell us to be safe....We don't need government telling us we can't grow our own vegetables cause its not "safe and not FDA approved " BILL S-510....We are Americans and America is being turned into a socialist empire......big brother.....we are capable of making our own safety decisions.....time to vote out the likes of Sally Socialists
Ridley, thanks for all your hard work. If I may give you some advice, you have to prepare a better questions asking skills before you ask people. Yes, those politicians will try to trick you even you have a good questions, but people will see through that. It will make you sound and look better, and more people will support you.
Let's not forget, the argument here is not whether seat belts save lives. The real argument here is whether the govt has the right to force people to wear seats belts when the only person they are potentially harming are themselves. Thomas Jefferson said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." If it seat belts today, tomorrow it could be red meat, then sugar, then McDonalds (depending on political influence.)
I think both sides are missing the point. If someone believes that seat belts are either safe or unsafe, they should be FREE to make an argument, or to start an awareness campaign. That should be enough.
Trying to legislate that decision for others is coercion. Coercion is the problem, not seat belts. If the argument for seat belts is strong enough, then legislation is superfluous. Conversely, if the argument isn't strong enough, then it shouldn't be legislated.
Seatbelts saves lives, that's why they were introduced. If they don't serve a purpose then they shouldn't be legally required to include them in cars. Also a point about someone who would have lived if they weren't wearing a seatbelt, the chances of that happening would be less than winning a lottery. This law should have been in place a decade ago.
She was against it until insurance companies gave her a pile of money to help get a seat belt law passed. That's who is behind this crap. Insurance companies want to have less accidents so they pay out less. This creep is the best legislator money can buy!
What does this politician have against immigrants? It seems she needs to confirm how long people have been New Hampshire residents before addressing their questions.
Lib-tards get up in people's faces all self righteous and sanctimonious and then act shocked and surprised when the person has a negative reaction (which is the drama gold that the Libs were mining for in the first place.)
Alternative Headline for this Video:
"Libertarians Laugh at Tragic Car Accident Victim"
I'm neither a hippie nor an anarchist. I'm a happily married Christian young working professional who happens to believe the government should follow the Constitution. Perhaps that's why I didn't get your infantile exaggeration.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but perhaps that's why it's not *my* channel. I am, however, a Free Stater, which is why I corrected your false stereotpyes. I understand your stereotypes, and I have some of the same negative feelings you do about a certain segment of the FSP, mostly centered in Keene, but that doesn't represent the entire FSP.
"they died because they were buckled in. They died because they were not thrown from the car."
The pro seatbelt rep really should have just walked away at that point. Fault her for being an empathetic human being and not being able pull the plug and say "this conversation is over."
That is really the most asinine and absurd rationale for not wearing a seatbelt that I have ever heard.
If you get thrown out of a moving car your chances of dying are a lot greater than if you were buckled.
"If you get thrown out of a moving car your chances of dying are a lot greater than if you were buckled." --
That's true, but there are still those who survived because they were not buckled and those that died because they were. They're the minority, but they exist. The question is whether you believe you should decide that those people should be dead so that you possibly save the lives of others.
It can happen, but only by freak chance and circumstances.
The libertarian woman seems to believe that her three family members would have survived the car crash if they hadn't been forced to wear seat belts.
That is a disingenuous argument.
I'm kind of apathetic about seat belt laws. But at the same time I think the state has a duty to keep unsafe drivers off the roads. A person who doesn't wear a sea belt while operating a moving vehicle is exhibiting inherently unsafe behavior.
I wouldn't call it "freak chance." The doctor I heard testify at the hearing on this bill (he was testifying FOR the seatbelt bill by the way) said it happens in 1-3% of cases. It's the minority, but I wouldn't call it "freak chance."
I believe the doctor's claim was that, of people who die in car accidents, 97% of them are helped or would've been helped by having a seat belt on. 3% of them are harmed by wearing a seat belt or would've been harmed had they been wearing one.
That not wearing a seat belt inherently unsafe behavior. Maybe we shouldn't be allowed on the street without a safety vest--probably safer, huh? Maybe we have to wear one unless we're alone--less banging into each other that way.
@fczwartek: Unsafe for whom? The person without the seatbelt. In a auto v. bicycle accident, the auto is almost sure to win. So, bicycles should be outlawed? I'm not going to look up how many people are injured in ground level falls--or how seriously. But people do get injured when they fall at 32f per sec squared. We'd be safer if we wore helmets and pads all the time. How about a law.
@fczwartek: Well, the only thing I responded to is your characterization of not using a seat belt as inherently risky and unsafe behavior. It might be more risky and more unsafe. I'm not at all ambivalent at all. I've been against it since it was passed here--and the Supreme Court wrong overruled a state constitutional precedent to allow it.
Because there is no reasoning with ego minded anarchists who pull answers completely out of their asses and plug their ears when someone tries to talk.
I have responded logically to each of your points. If you believe I have not, please point out where, and specifically what logical mistake I have made, or what the fallacy is in my argument. If you have additional arguments, please proffer them.
You can't just spew phrases like "plug their ears", or "try to talk" (as if someone could stop you on you tube) and expect it to cover your inability to make and defend a rational argument. You're only lying to yourself.
She's very eager to look for reasons to be dismissive of the opinions of people, i.e. they haven't been in NH long enough for their opinions to matter to her. She seems to be trying to point out some hypocrisy about people doing the same to her because she's from MA, but did THESE people say that to her?
"I'm more important than you, because I have lived here longer.." I agree with previous comments calling her a superfluous bitch. someone return her to Massachusetts, pronto..
Be glad that you live in a nation where the penalty for breaking a law such as seat belt wearing is only a fine. Nothing violent about that. IDK about Iran's seat belt laws but I'm sure the penalty's are much different.
What happens if you don't pay the fine? That's right, the guns come out.
If I sent you threatening letters, demanding you send me money, and promising to lock you in a cage if you don't, would you consider that a violent act? How about if I followed through with the threats, as the government is all to happy to do? I'm guessing yes.
Maybe we should send criminals money, flowers, and offer them jobs so they can get back on their feet. Actually we do have social programs that do that kind of stuff, but after they do the time.
Maybe in your anarchist society, a mob with torches and pitch forks will punish the criminals. CHAOS!?!
Or maybe in your fantasy world where there are no laws, people are just good. No need for laws because here in fantasy land everybody's perfect
I have no problem with using force to stop those who harm others or their property -- thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. Such force is defensive. Also, those who harm others or their property should be made to pay restitution to the victim, for the damage they have caused.
What I have a problem with is aggressive violence -- the use of violence against those who have not harmed anyone or anyone's property.
Simply apply the basic morality most of us apply to our daily lives, to government. Any individual, including me, has a right to stop a murderer, or someone who's attempting to rob them.
I don't have a right to extort money from someone because they're not wearing a seat belt, because they own a house, because they bought something at a restaurant, or because they have a job.
If an action would be immoral for any individual in a group, it's immoral for the group too.
By the way if you just buckle up you don't have to pay any fine so what's the big deal? Let the idiot's who refuse to buckle up for whatever reason pay some money back into the system. It creates revenue. And we all know how much you guys hate paying taxes. Well here is a minor solution for creating revenue elsewhere. Charge idiots fines for not buckling up.
That's a good question. I think I would try to talk them down, but I don't think I would stop them forcefully. If I had some reason to believe they were not in their right minds, I might stop them forcefully, so that they could consider the situation in a more sober light. Ultimately, it's their decision, but I would do my best to convince them to make a better choice.
Lol, that was "right mind" not "minds" in my prior response.
Regarding your second point, the fact that there is a choice does not make it any more moral. Suppose I demanded you pay me money unless you work out three times a week, eat more vegetables, or send your kid to the boy scouts. It would still be immoral. You have a right to make these choices for yourself.
Revenue should be obtained by fees for service, subscriptions, donations, etc -- the way the rest of us morally obtain revenue.
See my prior examples. Even Al Capone gave people a choice -- stop competing with him if you don't want your house burned down. Heck, even a mugger gives people a choice: your money or your life. The fact that there's a choice doesn't make it moral.
Interestingly enough, you know the main business Al Capone maintained a monopoly on, by force? Alcohol. Guess who will hurt you these days if you try to compete with them in the alcohol business? That's right, the state of NH.
Yep, and good on the Feds for doing so. The police do good things sometimes, I'm the first to admit it. Unfortunately, they also do very bad things a lot of the time -- and the ratio is worse than it's been in the past. Also, their means of obtaining funding is immoral.
We need something like the police -- but they should be focused on people who harm others, like Capone, and they should be funded by moral means.
When people harm themselves.. it harms society. Fuck your individual rights. You talk about community well individual greed and irresponsibility is not community. You don't know the first thing about contributing and being part of a working society.
Actually, I'm quite responsible. I work hard at a full time job, I go to school, and I volunteer. I also give hundreds of dollars a month to charity. Real ones -- not your corrupt and inefficient government run excuse for "charity".
For some reason, the other charities manage to find funding without stealing. Maybe that's because they're competent.
I'm sorry to see your disdain for the rights of your fellow man. I hope someday you'll reconsider your violent behavior.
Many of your goals are worthwhile. You just need to work to accomplish your goals in a peaceful manner, and you need to respect your neighbors' choices. Real societal change doesn't come at the barrel of a gun anyway ;).
For example, I've got a friend who's a conservationist. He joins with others to buy land, and keep it undeveloped. He also works to increase appreciation of natural spaces, in the public. He's accomplishing his goals in a moral way -- rather than threatening his neighbors.
That's not true, nicko978. If I told you to give me $10,000 or I would cut off your leg, that is a "choice," and it's still extortion. If I told you to give me $10,000 or I would lock you in a cage for five years, that is a "choice" and it's still extortion...and it's exactly what the government does.
I wear a seat belt, because it's the safe thing to do. But you have no damn business extorting money from me if I don't.
Respecting your neighbors is the adult thing to do. The fact that someone makes different choices than you does not make them a child, nor justify you treating them like one, Mr. tyrant.
"You don't want to be "nurtured" well then don't act like children." --
So our choice is to do what you want or to do what you want. Being childish is hitting people when you want their blocks. Being an adult is making your own decision without violence or temper tantrums. I think the child here is you.
Government is community and no where is it more open to the everyone than here in the USA. You are the minorities, bitching about the way the rest of us go about our daily lives. Inconsiderate and ungrateful are the two words that come to mind when I watch these videos. The other word I think of is anarchy.
Actually, I respect your right to go about your daily life, and make your own decisions about your life and finances, as long as you don't harm others.
I just want you to respect my right to do the same.
The fact that you have a majority does not give you the right to abuse the personal and property rights of the minority.
"Actually, I respect your right to go about your daily life, and make your own decisions about your life and finances, as long as you don't harm others."
Yeah so when you "free staters" have unscheduled rallies and protests outside private businesses and even homes, that is not respect.
I don't know what you're referring to -- give me a specific event if you want my opinion.
But if you're referring to the candlelight vigil outside Rivera's house, or Burke's house, I absolutely support them. They WERE harming others, that's the point. They had kidnapped and abused a person who had not harmed anyone, and were holding him indefinitely simply for remaining silent. Furthermore, the vigils did not take place on their property, but on "public" property.
Apply basic moral standards to your behavior in government, that is all that is necessary. It would be immoral for you as a private individual to demand money from someone because they didn't wear a seat belt. It doesn't magically become moral because you get a bunch of other people together who also want to do so.
If an activity would be immoral for an individual, it does not magically become moral when a number of such individuals get together and call themselves "government".
Nick you should watch "The Last Days of Sophie Scholl." Most of the arguments you use on this thread are used by the German interrogator. before she is beheaded.
Sounds like a good movie maybe I'll read the script tomorrow.
Oh and these are not what I would consider my "arguments". Just a bunch of worthless in one ear out the other BS because none of the people here seem to like reasoning. From now on instead of wasting my time and having all the cry babies thumb me down because they don't dare debate me. I'll just troll around and make fun of the ridiculous crap some of them say.
I'm quite happy to have a rational discussion with you. Instead of giving up and trolling, why don't you engage in an honest, open minded manner? If you cannot do so, don't waste your time or anyone else's by trolling. It would only make you appear petty and the positions you currently espouse appear weaker.
The stupid "you can't run a red light" argument has been used by every alphabet soup organization in the government that doesn't have any other excuse for "knowing what's best for YOU.
The seat belt law doesn't protect the "public", it protects the person behind the wheel. When they want to play the benevolent dictator to "protect" us all.
You can't wrap everyone in bubble wrap.
She doesn't seem to understand the whole "live free or die" thing. Maybe she needs another 34 years in state.
How can you see enforcing a seat belt law through fines as violent? You must be a serious hippie pacifist to think that. If that's the case then I don't even want to hear your argument.
If you don't pay them, they'll keep sending you increasingly threatening letters, and eventually will issue a bench warrant and throw you in jail, or show up with guns to steal your home out from under you.
That's violence, just the same as a mugger, kidnapper, or other thief. And it's aggressive violence, because not wearing a seat belt doesn't harm anyone, Furthermore, even if it did, the restitution should go to the victim, not to government.
You say you have no sympathy for criminals -- what about criminals like Hariett Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, MLK, and Gandhi? The law has enforced atrocity many times in history -- both in this country and others. You should support what is right, not blindly support what is legal.
I propose that laws conform to the basic rules for common decency that we all recognize in our daily lives -- most notably, that aggressive violence is unacceptable.
"I propose that laws conform to the basic rules for common decency that we all recognize in our daily lives -- most notably, that aggressive violence is unacceptable."
And I propose that Artless Disobedience is unacceptable.
Yeah some guy isn't making money off you "free staters". Real estate, selling sway voters, selling things at the rallys, taking donations, probably selling you pot (LOL), and whatever else. I'll watch this movement dissolve in the next few year.
I love freedom but I value principles and respect over asshats and disrespectful punks.
As much as I love freedom and respect your right to free speech. Sometimes I just want to see on the news. "police put punk free staters in their place".
You have no principles. "Freedom" is an empty slogan to you, as evidenced by your desire to see violence enacted on people by the police because they hold opinions you disagree with.
I encourage freedom of speech. But not when it disrupts private business. Not when you don't respect others. Not when you break the law. Don't be selfish because you don't agree with society. Speak your mind but don't threaten society with your ignorant protesting.
I'm not threatening anyone. I believe in letting you be free to make your own choices. By contrast, if I don't pay for your immoral and wasteful policies, you will send men with guns to kick me out of my home.
Oh, and if you believe in freedom but "not when you break the law" you don't believe in freedom at all. All a government would have to do is outlaw any freedom, and you'd be right on board with the worst tyranny.
As recognized in the Declaration of Independence, rights do not come from government.
"I will blindly support any law no matter how abusive" is not a principled stance, it is the stance of a serf. Immoral laws should not be obeyed, or enforced.
Outlawing cars entirely would also save lives. Better yet, we could just lock everyone in rooms with padded walls and feed them lots of fruits and vegetables -- that would save even more lives.
People have a right to make decisions, for themselves, weighing risk and reward for certain activities. It's not my life, so it's not my right to force them to make only decisions of which I approve.
Cops use the seat belt law in my state as an excuse to circumvent the US constitution that protects from illegal searches. They will stop anyone they profile with the excuse of I thought you were not wearing your seatbelt. Then they go on a fishing expedition to shakedown their victim for any fines or other non-violent offences. Because it is easier than going after criminals who harm people.
Good. I love it when my local police stop unwanted guests from entering our town. God bless our freedom to keep "them" out of our little piece of the USA.
Your piece of the USA is your land. You have a right to keep people off of it. You have no right to keep people out of NH, or out of your town, because you don't own that land. The police don't own it either.
If you own land, you have the right to let anyone on it you choose.
It is my opinion also that seatbelts have saved WAY more lives than they have taken. I and my family wear seat belts while operating our vehicles. HOWEVER, no matter how many lives it saves I do not agree that it should be forced under LAW.
Money should not be stolen from people to pay for people's medical care either. They should be taken care of by charities, community organizations, friends, family, etc.
That's one of the problems with your B.S. government "philanthropy". As soon as the government make a new entitlement, they use it as an excuse to control people's lives.
Why, the government should mandate what people have for dinner! After all, if they become obese, "society" will have to take care of them.
Accidents which would typically kill a non-seat belted person will horribly disable the seat belted person. So if your argument is what will save society money you should be against seat belt laws.
Also according to the NHTSA New Hampshire's fatal car crashes per population is lower than the national average. Total traffic accident deaths is 140 per year in NH of which 40 were not in a vehicle. So should pedestrians be required to wear bubble wrap because 10 of the 40 were pedestrians?
First it is irrelevant if a person who lived in the state has lived there for 30 years or 30 days. The laws effect them the same and therefore have a right to express their opinion.
However, it is my personal opinion that a representative should have an acceptable amount of time living in an area prior to CREATING laws that effect the people within so they may get to know who they are representing.
Instead of letting her talk over you, as soon as she mentioned going through "red lights", you should have raised the point that that is not on the same grounds. Running a red light and putting others in danger is nowhere near the same level as wearing seat belts, which only affect you, and does not put others in danger. And when you criticized her for not letting you finish a sentence, you should have said "...and look, she smiles about it!"
To the guy and gal questioning the rep. (and free staters in general) It's great that you're out there doing this, but you do need to brush up on interview skills. Watch ridley, Jan Halfeld, and Steven Colbert to get an idea of some interview techniques, and then practice and role play with each other before trying to get footage.
Of course the topic can be emotional especially when discussing tragedies, so forgive me if I've been overly critical.
Live free or die. Unless you're retarded and need laws to keep you from doing stupid shit. If you don't have enough common sense to wear a seat belt then I guess we need to pass laws so you do. And we will. Mark my words NH will have seat belt laws.
Nick, you have no right to threaten violence against other people, or extort money from them, because they put themselves at risk in a way you consider unwise. You don't own their bodies, their lives, or the fruit of their labor.
If you want to stop people from doing things you consider unwise, try educating people, and convincing them -- not threatening violence against them.
Yeah what we should do is like buy a bunch of camera's and go disagree with society on everything. Let's disagree on what to disagree on. This movement is so loosely designed that it caters to all kinds of different people so it gains support real quick. Then it all crumbles. Happens all the time. But not before some scam artists make a killing off dues, bribes for selling votes and endorsing politicians.
Problem in this country is the general public is dumb.
You know what caters to all kinds of people? Liberty. You have the freedom to make decisions about your own life and your own finances, as long as you don't harm others, as do I.
I can stand with anti-gun pacifists and militia members, libertines and social conservatives, commune members and capitalists, poor and wealthy, etc, because we all just want to be free.
It's only when you start creating one sized fits all mandates from Concord, or Washington, that diversity creates conflict.
the rep is a bitch, pretends to be for NH but is pro-globalist by action being arrogant and deceitful, an oxymoron in the flesh, also, her living longer is an insult to newborns and the youth, wonder if she respects buried people more then the living/breathing, they've been buried there longer then her, likely is why she supports young dying in war/battle and the womb. she looks alt lifestyle, sad. just her attitude shows so much about it/her, man wannabee, an ego gone wild.
i've no idea nick0978, it kept interrupting to spew rhetoric & insults like you. I sense you're a pro-Corps(e) employee? anti-people, pro-corps(e), in short, your not of/with people, you attack people, you are for peons/puppets, those who put ax to apple trees to put up plastic fruit factories to hire Nick's, fiat fruit for fiat $ for fiat people. Those who hate life, have nil but want for material gain, so you like policies that favor Corps(e) & debase life essentials, that's material worship.
Representative democracy, where do you get this garbage from. You don't believe in the chemtrail genocide going on above your head, you like Bill Mahr. Your really starting to let your slip show.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Now what the hell is wrong with wearing seat belts?
Do you strap your own kids in?
QQ, QQ, QQ about BS.
Seat belts save lives, and statistically prevent injuries, which means less people in the ER and cheaper health insurance rates, and less tax money spent on emergency dispatchers.
But no you guys just love to B*tch about random stuff.
When A sovereign man or woman is treated as a child by force of tickets and jail you are living in a tyrannicle situation. I mean we are all adults here let us learn the hard way or not. GOD I believe will always make things right because that is what he does. My mother in law had her leg ripped off in an accident but if she was wearing her seat belt she would have died from the steering wheel impaling her. Instead she was thrown out . her leg was surgically attached. She is alive today.
I am a mechanic and a car enthusiast. The fact is that in the MAJORITY of all car accidents you are much safer when wearing a seatbelt then not wearing one. There are some cases where being ejected from the car could also save your life but they are few and far between in comparison.
porter...the point is mainly that it shouldn't matter if it is safer or not for the adult individual. The point is that EVERY ADULT INDIVIDUAL has the right to decide how they will keep themselves safe. If they die becuase THEY didn't take the necessary precautions...their fault. But gov shouldn't FORCE us to be safer. Wearing a seatbelt or not doesn't affect ANYONE else on the street....different than the STUPID example she gave about red lights. Red lights DO affect OTHERS.
Shes trying real hard to do the typical politician runaround, but she not very good at it. That I-hate-your-guts smile on her face is creepy as hell too.
So long as not causing ingury to others people should be free. However, the lady in this video (the one who cries) is just as bad as the representative.
Protip, a debate that hings on argumentum ad misericordiam is asinine. Everyone in this video appears to be guilty of fallacy.
The difference between running a red light and not wearing a seat belt is obvious, because not wearing a seat belt is not hurting another person but running a red light is hurting other people. We should have personal freedom to chose the seat belt or not.
If you dont want to wear a seatbelt, it's ok, as long as you are alone in the car. Laws should be in place to protect people from others, in such if you are alone in the car, you can choose the wear it or not. It is unlikely your tumbling body will hurt anyone. But when you are not alone in the car, you should.
shes being passive agressive and obviously doesnt want to be questioned..she said laws are implemented for the safety of the people. There might come a time when the gov't becomes so big and powerful, it will want to shackle you to your cell, for your own safety
These people are correct, too much government in our lives. It should be a personal decision to wear a seat belt or helmet. Freedom before everything else!!
This representative needs to be out of office, if she survived the November election!
stephenabm 6 months ago
These people are correct, too much government in our lives. It should be a personal decision to wear a seat belt or helmet. Freedom before everything else!!
stephenabm 6 months ago
i was in an accident where we flipped 11 times at 70km down a 250 foot forested embankment. no one died. seat belts work, it's not big brother. watch some crash test footage if you're still retarded.
areno666 8 months ago
Don't worry folks, we are winning this battle. Very soon we will puke up all of these unconstituional statutes that are designed to control us.....and when the statutes go....so do the misguided retards who carelessly assumed "unauthorized authority" over us. Very soon these tyrants will wish they had never heard of politics. They have already taken it too far.....payday is coming.
mozartgenetics 1 year ago
a red light IS NOT the SAME THING as a seatbelt law...this dimwit Sally....is all about BIG BROTHER...she has no right to tell us what to do.....trying to push her weight around........we're sick of her types.....SICK SICK of em....so Sally i suggest you live in Russia or China....you would like how they look after your every move.......a shame to our country these kind of politicians and their everywhere now...brainwashed
232323C 1 year ago
honestly the issue here is that safety laws are important. If it wasn't then why would we make sure that our children are in the correct child's seat or buckled in. Its all about what will most likely keep someone safe. I do not know when that happened with the young lady in the story about her friends but unfortunately they were crushed because they were being safe instead of being thrown and being killed. Either way they would of died more than likely.
Cronomew1 1 year ago
@Cronomew1 look man..........your just another one who submits to the whims of big government..we don't need government to tell us to be safe....We don't need government telling us we can't grow our own vegetables cause its not "safe and not FDA approved " BILL S-510....We are Americans and America is being turned into a socialist empire......big brother.....we are capable of making our own safety decisions.....time to vote out the likes of Sally Socialists
232323C 1 year ago
shes nasty!
mcurt9 1 year ago
Ridley, thanks for all your hard work. If I may give you some advice, you have to prepare a better questions asking skills before you ask people. Yes, those politicians will try to trick you even you have a good questions, but people will see through that. It will make you sound and look better, and more people will support you.
bestwrmd 1 year ago
Obviously we need laws that force us to maintain our health. Isnt heart disease the #1 killer?
mindprism 1 year ago
What a nutcase that rep is...
Macedon51 1 year ago
Let's not forget, the argument here is not whether seat belts save lives. The real argument here is whether the govt has the right to force people to wear seats belts when the only person they are potentially harming are themselves. Thomas Jefferson said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." If it seat belts today, tomorrow it could be red meat, then sugar, then McDonalds (depending on political influence.)
thenewsurvivalist 1 year ago
Re: the debate in the video...
I think both sides are missing the point. If someone believes that seat belts are either safe or unsafe, they should be FREE to make an argument, or to start an awareness campaign. That should be enough.
Trying to legislate that decision for others is coercion. Coercion is the problem, not seat belts. If the argument for seat belts is strong enough, then legislation is superfluous. Conversely, if the argument isn't strong enough, then it shouldn't be legislated.
simex909 1 year ago
Seatbelts saves lives, that's why they were introduced. If they don't serve a purpose then they shouldn't be legally required to include them in cars. Also a point about someone who would have lived if they weren't wearing a seatbelt, the chances of that happening would be less than winning a lottery. This law should have been in place a decade ago.
elitehacker01 1 year ago
@elitehacker01 did you read what I wrote?
simex909 1 year ago
NO VICTIM, NO CRIME. It's not that hard to understand. So yes, red light tickets without a victim are also wrong, you moron!
libertarianjury 1 year ago
She was against it until insurance companies gave her a pile of money to help get a seat belt law passed. That's who is behind this crap. Insurance companies want to have less accidents so they pay out less. This creep is the best legislator money can buy!
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 1 year ago
Is this bitch nancy pelosis idiot sister? She looks like she's completely out of it.
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 1 year ago
How do people like her get elected ?
RightWingTV 1 year ago
What does this politician have against immigrants? It seems she needs to confirm how long people have been New Hampshire residents before addressing their questions.
Danny11354 1 year ago
"democracy is not freedom" video. Maybe some here should watch it, Kokesh should check it out also.
cdimmm 1 year ago
Christ, that bitch asking questions is annoying as hell.
savemyplaylist 1 year ago
Lib-tards get up in people's faces all self righteous and sanctimonious and then act shocked and surprised when the person has a negative reaction (which is the drama gold that the Libs were mining for in the first place.)
Alternative Headline for this Video:
"Libertarians Laugh at Tragic Car Accident Victim"
fczwartek 1 year ago
i think you should make a show called The Ridley Retort.
RidleyReport 1 year ago
Ridley Retort, Ridley Retort, something something something something, Ridley Retort!
Love it! Thanks Ridley.
fczwartek 1 year ago
*rim shot*
jonnyheysus 1 year ago
"Libertarians Laugh at Tragic Car Accident Victim"
That would be a better title.
unclesamsbastardson 1 year ago
heh looks like the ridley report finally has a new dedicated troll....
RidleyReport 1 year ago
The only community you guys know of are your worthless communes.
nicko978 1 year ago
Lol, what communes? You're kidding right?
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
I've never heard of a libertarian commune in NH. Pray tell, what are you talking about?
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
oh i thought you would understand if I exaggerated just a little.
Isn't exaggeration like a second language to you hippie-anarchist activists?
nicko978 1 year ago
I'm neither a hippie nor an anarchist. I'm a happily married Christian young working professional who happens to believe the government should follow the Constitution. Perhaps that's why I didn't get your infantile exaggeration.
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
this isn't a "constitutional" channel it's more of an anarchy channel than anything.
nicko978 1 year ago
Perhaps, perhaps not, but perhaps that's why it's not *my* channel. I am, however, a Free Stater, which is why I corrected your false stereotpyes. I understand your stereotypes, and I have some of the same negative feelings you do about a certain segment of the FSP, mostly centered in Keene, but that doesn't represent the entire FSP.
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
"they died because they were buckled in. They died because they were not thrown from the car."
The pro seatbelt rep really should have just walked away at that point. Fault her for being an empathetic human being and not being able pull the plug and say "this conversation is over."
That is really the most asinine and absurd rationale for not wearing a seatbelt that I have ever heard.
If you get thrown out of a moving car your chances of dying are a lot greater than if you were buckled.
fczwartek 1 year ago
"If you get thrown out of a moving car your chances of dying are a lot greater than if you were buckled." --
That's true, but there are still those who survived because they were not buckled and those that died because they were. They're the minority, but they exist. The question is whether you believe you should decide that those people should be dead so that you possibly save the lives of others.
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
It can happen, but only by freak chance and circumstances.
The libertarian woman seems to believe that her three family members would have survived the car crash if they hadn't been forced to wear seat belts.
That is a disingenuous argument.
I'm kind of apathetic about seat belt laws. But at the same time I think the state has a duty to keep unsafe drivers off the roads. A person who doesn't wear a sea belt while operating a moving vehicle is exhibiting inherently unsafe behavior.
fczwartek 1 year ago
I wouldn't call it "freak chance." The doctor I heard testify at the hearing on this bill (he was testifying FOR the seatbelt bill by the way) said it happens in 1-3% of cases. It's the minority, but I wouldn't call it "freak chance."
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
1-3% of the time the person wearing the seat belt dies?
Or the person not wearing the seat belt survives?
Or the person who was wearing a seat belt and died could have survived if they weren't wearing a seat belt?
Or the person who wasn't wearing a seat belt and survived would have died if they had been wearing a seat belt?
lol!
fczwartek 1 year ago
I believe the doctor's claim was that, of people who die in car accidents, 97% of them are helped or would've been helped by having a seat belt on. 3% of them are harmed by wearing a seat belt or would've been harmed had they been wearing one.
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
@fczwartek: What a crock of crap. Conversation over.
newdarnaccount 1 year ago
What's a crock of crap?
fczwartek 1 year ago
That not wearing a seat belt inherently unsafe behavior. Maybe we shouldn't be allowed on the street without a safety vest--probably safer, huh? Maybe we have to wear one unless we're alone--less banging into each other that way.
newdarnaccount 1 year ago
Fact is that wearing a seat belt is a lot safer than not wearing one.
Only about 17% of all drivers and passengers do not wear their belts. But those 17% make up more than 55% of all car accident fatalities.
5x more people wear belts than the number of people who don't, but the small number people who don't make up a majority of car accident fatalities.
Clearly not wearing seat belt is inherently risky and unsafe behavior.
How is that a "crock of crap"?
fczwartek 1 year ago
@fczwartek: Unsafe for whom? The person without the seatbelt. In a auto v. bicycle accident, the auto is almost sure to win. So, bicycles should be outlawed? I'm not going to look up how many people are injured in ground level falls--or how seriously. But people do get injured when they fall at 32f per sec squared. We'd be safer if we wore helmets and pads all the time. How about a law.
newdarnaccount 1 year ago
Apparently you weren't reading anything I wrote.
I said I am ambivalent about seat belt laws.
fczwartek 1 year ago
@fczwartek: Well, the only thing I responded to is your characterization of not using a seat belt as inherently risky and unsafe behavior. It might be more risky and more unsafe. I'm not at all ambivalent at all. I've been against it since it was passed here--and the Supreme Court wrong overruled a state constitutional precedent to allow it.
newdarnaccount 1 year ago
Because there is no reasoning with ego minded anarchists who pull answers completely out of their asses and plug their ears when someone tries to talk.
nicko978 1 year ago
I have responded logically to each of your points. If you believe I have not, please point out where, and specifically what logical mistake I have made, or what the fallacy is in my argument. If you have additional arguments, please proffer them.
You can't just spew phrases like "plug their ears", or "try to talk" (as if someone could stop you on you tube) and expect it to cover your inability to make and defend a rational argument. You're only lying to yourself.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
She's very eager to look for reasons to be dismissive of the opinions of people, i.e. they haven't been in NH long enough for their opinions to matter to her. She seems to be trying to point out some hypocrisy about people doing the same to her because she's from MA, but did THESE people say that to her?
AnarchyInYourHead 1 year ago
People holding presumptions of power will exceed their authority to exercise those powers.
NoLongerFooled 1 year ago
what a.................BITCH!
NoLongerFooled 1 year ago
lol this woman is such a drama queen, when all else fails start reciting a sob story
narx86 1 year ago
"I'm more important than you, because I have lived here longer.." I agree with previous comments calling her a superfluous bitch. someone return her to Massachusetts, pronto..
VertNinja 1 year ago
Comment removed
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, I'm a NH native, and I hope she heads back to MA.
Or better yet, I hope she learns to live peaceably with her neighbors, and to respect their decisions.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Be glad that you live in a nation where the penalty for breaking a law such as seat belt wearing is only a fine. Nothing violent about that. IDK about Iran's seat belt laws but I'm sure the penalty's are much different.
nicko978 1 year ago
What happens if you don't pay the fine? That's right, the guns come out.
If I sent you threatening letters, demanding you send me money, and promising to lock you in a cage if you don't, would you consider that a violent act? How about if I followed through with the threats, as the government is all to happy to do? I'm guessing yes.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago 2
Well how do you suppose laws should be enforced?
Maybe we should send criminals money, flowers, and offer them jobs so they can get back on their feet. Actually we do have social programs that do that kind of stuff, but after they do the time.
Maybe in your anarchist society, a mob with torches and pitch forks will punish the criminals. CHAOS!?!
Or maybe in your fantasy world where there are no laws, people are just good. No need for laws because here in fantasy land everybody's perfect
nicko978 1 year ago
I have no problem with using force to stop those who harm others or their property -- thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. Such force is defensive. Also, those who harm others or their property should be made to pay restitution to the victim, for the damage they have caused.
What I have a problem with is aggressive violence -- the use of violence against those who have not harmed anyone or anyone's property.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago 2
Simply apply the basic morality most of us apply to our daily lives, to government. Any individual, including me, has a right to stop a murderer, or someone who's attempting to rob them.
I don't have a right to extort money from someone because they're not wearing a seat belt, because they own a house, because they bought something at a restaurant, or because they have a job.
If an action would be immoral for any individual in a group, it's immoral for the group too.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Would you stop someone from committing suicide?
By the way if you just buckle up you don't have to pay any fine so what's the big deal? Let the idiot's who refuse to buckle up for whatever reason pay some money back into the system. It creates revenue. And we all know how much you guys hate paying taxes. Well here is a minor solution for creating revenue elsewhere. Charge idiots fines for not buckling up.
nicko978 1 year ago
That's a good question. I think I would try to talk them down, but I don't think I would stop them forcefully. If I had some reason to believe they were not in their right minds, I might stop them forcefully, so that they could consider the situation in a more sober light. Ultimately, it's their decision, but I would do my best to convince them to make a better choice.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Lol, that was "right mind" not "minds" in my prior response.
Regarding your second point, the fact that there is a choice does not make it any more moral. Suppose I demanded you pay me money unless you work out three times a week, eat more vegetables, or send your kid to the boy scouts. It would still be immoral. You have a right to make these choices for yourself.
Revenue should be obtained by fees for service, subscriptions, donations, etc -- the way the rest of us morally obtain revenue.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Hey if you think that it's extortion then. LOL
See I live in the real world and I know what extortion really is.
Extortion is when you don't have a choice.
God you guys can't be serious LOL extortion that's a good one.
nicko978 1 year ago
See my prior examples. Even Al Capone gave people a choice -- stop competing with him if you don't want your house burned down. Heck, even a mugger gives people a choice: your money or your life. The fact that there's a choice doesn't make it moral.
Interestingly enough, you know the main business Al Capone maintained a monopoly on, by force? Alcohol. Guess who will hurt you these days if you try to compete with them in the alcohol business? That's right, the state of NH.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
now we're comparing mobsters to state gov?
nicko978 1 year ago
If the shoe fits. They both maintain a monopoly by threatening violence against would-be competitors, do they not?
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Off topic since you brought up Al Capone.. (LOL).. I just want to ask you this. Who can we thank for taking him down?
nicko978 1 year ago
Yep, and good on the Feds for doing so. The police do good things sometimes, I'm the first to admit it. Unfortunately, they also do very bad things a lot of the time -- and the ratio is worse than it's been in the past. Also, their means of obtaining funding is immoral.
We need something like the police -- but they should be focused on people who harm others, like Capone, and they should be funded by moral means.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
When people harm themselves.. it harms society. Fuck your individual rights. You talk about community well individual greed and irresponsibility is not community. You don't know the first thing about contributing and being part of a working society.
nicko978 1 year ago
Actually, I'm quite responsible. I work hard at a full time job, I go to school, and I volunteer. I also give hundreds of dollars a month to charity. Real ones -- not your corrupt and inefficient government run excuse for "charity".
For some reason, the other charities manage to find funding without stealing. Maybe that's because they're competent.
I'm sorry to see your disdain for the rights of your fellow man. I hope someday you'll reconsider your violent behavior.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Many of your goals are worthwhile. You just need to work to accomplish your goals in a peaceful manner, and you need to respect your neighbors' choices. Real societal change doesn't come at the barrel of a gun anyway ;).
For example, I've got a friend who's a conservationist. He joins with others to buy land, and keep it undeveloped. He also works to increase appreciation of natural spaces, in the public. He's accomplishing his goals in a moral way -- rather than threatening his neighbors.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
"When people harm themselves.. it harms society. Fuck your individual rights." --
That's the most selfish thing I've heard in awhile. My life is worthless to you unless it helps you and your community. Wow.
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
You are selfish. and you smell like bong resin. hippie.
nicko978 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You are selfish. and you smell like bong resin. hippie." --
That's funny, considering I'm one of the very few people in this Country who can truthfully say they've never used Marijuana once - not ever.
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
"Extortion is when you don't have a choice. " --
That's not true, nicko978. If I told you to give me $10,000 or I would cut off your leg, that is a "choice," and it's still extortion. If I told you to give me $10,000 or I would lock you in a cage for five years, that is a "choice" and it's still extortion...and it's exactly what the government does.
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
no it's exactly what your ego brain see's. Because hippies see what they want to see.
nicko978 1 year ago
I'm not a hippie. You're going to have to reevaluate your stereotype.
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
I love the wonderful ladies that have been cameo-ing lately. Yum!
dtmbcorp 1 year ago
We are all immigrants except, the most abused here.
ISamuelII 1 year ago
It's like trying to get a teenager to wear a helmet. Teenagers don't have enough common sense. Neither do any of you who oppose seat belt laws.
You don't want to be "nurtured" well then don't act like children.
nicko978 1 year ago
I wear a seat belt, because it's the safe thing to do. But you have no damn business extorting money from me if I don't.
Respecting your neighbors is the adult thing to do. The fact that someone makes different choices than you does not make them a child, nor justify you treating them like one, Mr. tyrant.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago 2
Excellent points
holder2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You don't want to be "nurtured" well then don't act like children." --
So our choice is to do what you want or to do what you want. Being childish is hitting people when you want their blocks. Being an adult is making your own decision without violence or temper tantrums. I think the child here is you.
OnGuard4Liberty 1 year ago
Government is community and no where is it more open to the everyone than here in the USA. You are the minorities, bitching about the way the rest of us go about our daily lives. Inconsiderate and ungrateful are the two words that come to mind when I watch these videos. The other word I think of is anarchy.
nicko978 1 year ago
Actually, I respect your right to go about your daily life, and make your own decisions about your life and finances, as long as you don't harm others.
I just want you to respect my right to do the same.
The fact that you have a majority does not give you the right to abuse the personal and property rights of the minority.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
"Actually, I respect your right to go about your daily life, and make your own decisions about your life and finances, as long as you don't harm others."
Yeah so when you "free staters" have unscheduled rallies and protests outside private businesses and even homes, that is not respect.
nicko978 1 year ago
LOL - That is the little part where they stick their fingers in their ears and say lalalalalalalala.
SSILENTNATION 1 year ago
I don't know what you're referring to -- give me a specific event if you want my opinion.
But if you're referring to the candlelight vigil outside Rivera's house, or Burke's house, I absolutely support them. They WERE harming others, that's the point. They had kidnapped and abused a person who had not harmed anyone, and were holding him indefinitely simply for remaining silent. Furthermore, the vigils did not take place on their property, but on "public" property.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Apply basic moral standards to your behavior in government, that is all that is necessary. It would be immoral for you as a private individual to demand money from someone because they didn't wear a seat belt. It doesn't magically become moral because you get a bunch of other people together who also want to do so.
If an activity would be immoral for an individual, it does not magically become moral when a number of such individuals get together and call themselves "government".
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Nick you should watch "The Last Days of Sophie Scholl." Most of the arguments you use on this thread are used by the German interrogator. before she is beheaded.
RidleyReport 1 year ago
Sounds like a good movie maybe I'll read the script tomorrow.
Oh and these are not what I would consider my "arguments". Just a bunch of worthless in one ear out the other BS because none of the people here seem to like reasoning. From now on instead of wasting my time and having all the cry babies thumb me down because they don't dare debate me. I'll just troll around and make fun of the ridiculous crap some of them say.
nicko978 1 year ago
I'm quite happy to have a rational discussion with you. Instead of giving up and trolling, why don't you engage in an honest, open minded manner? If you cannot do so, don't waste your time or anyone else's by trolling. It would only make you appear petty and the positions you currently espouse appear weaker.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
The pompously presumed leaders need more fear in them to foster humility.
rea1001 1 year ago
The stupid "you can't run a red light" argument has been used by every alphabet soup organization in the government that doesn't have any other excuse for "knowing what's best for YOU.
The seat belt law doesn't protect the "public", it protects the person behind the wheel. When they want to play the benevolent dictator to "protect" us all.
You can't wrap everyone in bubble wrap.
She doesn't seem to understand the whole "live free or die" thing. Maybe she needs another 34 years in state.
conspiracy777 1 year ago
Long live the ridley report
haze42082 1 year ago
the free state is great! Its a shame the laws in N.H are very strict.
haze42082 1 year ago
How can you see enforcing a seat belt law through fines as violent? You must be a serious hippie pacifist to think that. If that's the case then I don't even want to hear your argument.
nicko978 1 year ago
If you don't pay them, they'll keep sending you increasingly threatening letters, and eventually will issue a bench warrant and throw you in jail, or show up with guns to steal your home out from under you.
That's violence, just the same as a mugger, kidnapper, or other thief. And it's aggressive violence, because not wearing a seat belt doesn't harm anyone, Furthermore, even if it did, the restitution should go to the victim, not to government.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Yeah I have no sympathy for criminals.
Its called law!?!? What do you propose anarchy?
nicko978 1 year ago
You say you have no sympathy for criminals -- what about criminals like Hariett Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, MLK, and Gandhi? The law has enforced atrocity many times in history -- both in this country and others. You should support what is right, not blindly support what is legal.
I propose that laws conform to the basic rules for common decency that we all recognize in our daily lives -- most notably, that aggressive violence is unacceptable.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I propose that laws conform to the basic rules for common decency that we all recognize in our daily lives -- most notably, that aggressive violence is unacceptable."
And I propose that Artless Disobedience is unacceptable.
nicko978 1 year ago
What, praytell, is "Artless Disobedience"?
And does this mean you endorse aggressive violence?
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Yeah some guy isn't making money off you "free staters". Real estate, selling sway voters, selling things at the rallys, taking donations, probably selling you pot (LOL), and whatever else. I'll watch this movement dissolve in the next few year.
I love freedom but I value principles and respect over asshats and disrespectful punks.
As much as I love freedom and respect your right to free speech. Sometimes I just want to see on the news. "police put punk free staters in their place".
nicko978 1 year ago
You have no principles. "Freedom" is an empty slogan to you, as evidenced by your desire to see violence enacted on people by the police because they hold opinions you disagree with.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
No you are looking at it the wrong way.
I encourage freedom of speech. But not when it disrupts private business. Not when you don't respect others. Not when you break the law. Don't be selfish because you don't agree with society. Speak your mind but don't threaten society with your ignorant protesting.
nicko978 1 year ago
I'm not threatening anyone. I believe in letting you be free to make your own choices. By contrast, if I don't pay for your immoral and wasteful policies, you will send men with guns to kick me out of my home.
It is you who threaten others.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Oh, and if you believe in freedom but "not when you break the law" you don't believe in freedom at all. All a government would have to do is outlaw any freedom, and you'd be right on board with the worst tyranny.
As recognized in the Declaration of Independence, rights do not come from government.
"I will blindly support any law no matter how abusive" is not a principled stance, it is the stance of a serf. Immoral laws should not be obeyed, or enforced.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
What's immoral about forcing someone to wear a seat belt? When it's statistically proven to save lives.
nicko978 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"What's immoral about forcing someone to wear a seat belt? When it's statistically proven to save lives. "
What's immoral about forcing someone to quit skiing when it's statistically proven to save lives?
See how this works now?
wakunahum 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well. you might as wall say "What's anti-code of conduct about forcing someone to wear a seat belt?"
Does that sound better, or worse?
Just how safely do you want to die?
ThePresidentialTouch 1 year ago
Outlawing cars entirely would also save lives. Better yet, we could just lock everyone in rooms with padded walls and feed them lots of fruits and vegetables -- that would save even more lives.
People have a right to make decisions, for themselves, weighing risk and reward for certain activities. It's not my life, so it's not my right to force them to make only decisions of which I approve.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
I fractured my spine from wearing a lapbelt in an accident. The doctors said I might have broken my neck without it..
bob733333 1 year ago
In Minnesota, a cop can pull you over for not wearing the seat belt, then give you a large fine. Sally Kelly needs to grow up a little.
bob733333 1 year ago
Cops use the seat belt law in my state as an excuse to circumvent the US constitution that protects from illegal searches. They will stop anyone they profile with the excuse of I thought you were not wearing your seatbelt. Then they go on a fishing expedition to shakedown their victim for any fines or other non-violent offences. Because it is easier than going after criminals who harm people.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
Good. I love it when my local police stop unwanted guests from entering our town. God bless our freedom to keep "them" out of our little piece of the USA.
nicko978 1 year ago
Your piece of the USA is your land. You have a right to keep people off of it. You have no right to keep people out of NH, or out of your town, because you don't own that land. The police don't own it either.
If you own land, you have the right to let anyone on it you choose.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now I know why people are telling her to "go back to Massachusetts", what an ignorant biotch!
cresidue 1 year ago
Classy broad... Walk away while someone is in the middle of telling her about the loss of her loved ones.
klaptongroovemaster 1 year ago
Comment removed
cresidue 1 year ago
New Hampshire sounds like a cool place.
moronpaul 1 year ago
Also on a note about seatbelts.
It is my opinion also that seatbelts have saved WAY more lives than they have taken. I and my family wear seat belts while operating our vehicles. HOWEVER, no matter how many lives it saves I do not agree that it should be forced under LAW.
TheGrayman1234 1 year ago
when you're a vegetable because you didn't wear your seat belt society has to take care of you.
What's the big fucking deal. Strap in. Those who don't pay a fine which creates revenue, Get with the 21st century.
nicko978 1 year ago
Money should not be stolen from people to pay for people's medical care either. They should be taken care of by charities, community organizations, friends, family, etc.
That's one of the problems with your B.S. government "philanthropy". As soon as the government make a new entitlement, they use it as an excuse to control people's lives.
Why, the government should mandate what people have for dinner! After all, if they become obese, "society" will have to take care of them.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
government is community
nicko978 1 year ago
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
libertyfizz 1 year ago
Accidents which would typically kill a non-seat belted person will horribly disable the seat belted person. So if your argument is what will save society money you should be against seat belt laws.
Also according to the NHTSA New Hampshire's fatal car crashes per population is lower than the national average. Total traffic accident deaths is 140 per year in NH of which 40 were not in a vehicle. So should pedestrians be required to wear bubble wrap because 10 of the 40 were pedestrians?
libertyfizz 1 year ago
First it is irrelevant if a person who lived in the state has lived there for 30 years or 30 days. The laws effect them the same and therefore have a right to express their opinion.
However, it is my personal opinion that a representative should have an acceptable amount of time living in an area prior to CREATING laws that effect the people within so they may get to know who they are representing.
TheGrayman1234 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We're coming for you in November, Sally.
Kisses,
Citizens for Sensible Legislation
dmgoddard 1 year ago
Comment removed
dmgoddard 1 year ago
Sealtbelt law's sucks..
FaithlessLiberty 1 year ago
Instead of letting her talk over you, as soon as she mentioned going through "red lights", you should have raised the point that that is not on the same grounds. Running a red light and putting others in danger is nowhere near the same level as wearing seat belts, which only affect you, and does not put others in danger. And when you criticized her for not letting you finish a sentence, you should have said "...and look, she smiles about it!"
voteforpigeon 1 year ago
what a cunt
jcase15 1 year ago 3
To the guy and gal questioning the rep. (and free staters in general) It's great that you're out there doing this, but you do need to brush up on interview skills. Watch ridley, Jan Halfeld, and Steven Colbert to get an idea of some interview techniques, and then practice and role play with each other before trying to get footage.
Of course the topic can be emotional especially when discussing tragedies, so forgive me if I've been overly critical.
WorBlux 1 year ago
These are good suggestions.
waifofthenorth 1 year ago
"It's great that you're out there doing this, but you do need to brush up on interview skills. Watch ridley, Jan Halfeld"
nah just go get footage.
RidleyReport 1 year ago
that was hard to watch
buddybudster89 1 year ago
Live free or die. Unless you're retarded and need laws to keep you from doing stupid shit. If you don't have enough common sense to wear a seat belt then I guess we need to pass laws so you do. And we will. Mark my words NH will have seat belt laws.
nicko978 1 year ago
Nick, you have no right to threaten violence against other people, or extort money from them, because they put themselves at risk in a way you consider unwise. You don't own their bodies, their lives, or the fruit of their labor.
If you want to stop people from doing things you consider unwise, try educating people, and convincing them -- not threatening violence against them.
waifofthenorth 1 year ago
No wonder this country is turning to shit. These people are in office? Man.
Anothercoilgun 1 year ago
Yeah what we should do is like buy a bunch of camera's and go disagree with society on everything. Let's disagree on what to disagree on. This movement is so loosely designed that it caters to all kinds of different people so it gains support real quick. Then it all crumbles. Happens all the time. But not before some scam artists make a killing off dues, bribes for selling votes and endorsing politicians.
Problem in this country is the general public is dumb.
nicko978 1 year ago
You know what caters to all kinds of people? Liberty. You have the freedom to make decisions about your own life and your own finances, as long as you don't harm others, as do I.
I can stand with anti-gun pacifists and militia members, libertines and social conservatives, commune members and capitalists, poor and wealthy, etc, because we all just want to be free.
It's only when you start creating one sized fits all mandates from Concord, or Washington, that diversity creates conflict.
waifofthenorth 1 year ago
the rep is a bitch, pretends to be for NH but is pro-globalist by action being arrogant and deceitful, an oxymoron in the flesh, also, her living longer is an insult to newborns and the youth, wonder if she respects buried people more then the living/breathing, they've been buried there longer then her, likely is why she supports young dying in war/battle and the womb. she looks alt lifestyle, sad. just her attitude shows so much about it/her, man wannabee, an ego gone wild.
BankofSpirit 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and the hippie punks behind the camera are any better?
nicko978 1 year ago
yup
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
i've no idea nick0978, it kept interrupting to spew rhetoric & insults like you. I sense you're a pro-Corps(e) employee? anti-people, pro-corps(e), in short, your not of/with people, you attack people, you are for peons/puppets, those who put ax to apple trees to put up plastic fruit factories to hire Nick's, fiat fruit for fiat $ for fiat people. Those who hate life, have nil but want for material gain, so you like policies that favor Corps(e) & debase life essentials, that's material worship.
BankofSpirit 1 year ago
Representative democracy, where do you get this garbage from. You don't believe in the chemtrail genocide going on above your head, you like Bill Mahr. Your really starting to let your slip show.
cdimmm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you guys behind the camera should be ashamed of yourselves. punks.
nicko978 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Damn they're being so f'cking rude to her too. asshats.
nicko978 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
HAHA she's whiping the floor with the "free stater" so far im at 2:45 right now.
nicko978 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now what the hell is wrong with wearing seat belts?
Do you strap your own kids in?
QQ, QQ, QQ about BS.
Seat belts save lives, and statistically prevent injuries, which means less people in the ER and cheaper health insurance rates, and less tax money spent on emergency dispatchers.
But no you guys just love to B*tch about random stuff.
nicko978 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
seatbelts increase deaths - period.
British Medical Journal findings support this:
fascistsoup(.)com/2010/02/27/s eatbelts-cause-more-pedestrian -and-cyclist-deaths/
suedeslounge 1 year ago
Eh, that's actually not true, but it's not like you'd look up the other side at all.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
Already did and I sent them messages waiting for reply. They're punks. Look at how juvenile they're acting. You can't be serious guy cmon.
I thought the "free state" movement was more than just a bunch of amateur activists with juvenile attitudes.
I guess I was wrong.
nicko978 1 year ago
That's not the issue nick. Are you willing to pick up a machine gun and point it at someone if they aren't wearing a seat belt?
Remember all a law is factually is an opinion backed up by a gun.
WorBlux 1 year ago
There are much more important things to discuss at this time.. seat belts? Please..
Lets focus people, it's not a good time to be wasting much needed energy.
Peace
truefictions 1 year ago
When A sovereign man or woman is treated as a child by force of tickets and jail you are living in a tyrannicle situation. I mean we are all adults here let us learn the hard way or not. GOD I believe will always make things right because that is what he does. My mother in law had her leg ripped off in an accident but if she was wearing her seat belt she would have died from the steering wheel impaling her. Instead she was thrown out . her leg was surgically attached. She is alive today.
deathmarch5 1 year ago
Live free or die!
greenback001 1 year ago 2
wow, Sally sucks.
Frettsy 1 year ago 2
I am a mechanic and a car enthusiast. The fact is that in the MAJORITY of all car accidents you are much safer when wearing a seatbelt then not wearing one. There are some cases where being ejected from the car could also save your life but they are few and far between in comparison.
porterzcustomz 1 year ago 2
porter...the point is mainly that it shouldn't matter if it is safer or not for the adult individual. The point is that EVERY ADULT INDIVIDUAL has the right to decide how they will keep themselves safe. If they die becuase THEY didn't take the necessary precautions...their fault. But gov shouldn't FORCE us to be safer. Wearing a seatbelt or not doesn't affect ANYONE else on the street....different than the STUPID example she gave about red lights. Red lights DO affect OTHERS.
AStarSpangledGirl 1 year ago
7:12
PERFECT!
LIQUIDDEMONS 1 year ago
Shes trying real hard to do the typical politician runaround, but she not very good at it. That I-hate-your-guts smile on her face is creepy as hell too.
tarossi400 1 year ago 2
I know people who have been in New Hampshire 20 minutes that would =tell this bitty to go back to mAssachewshittz.
LibertyPictureFrames 1 year ago
What a disgusting way to say "Live Free or Die". Don't let this idiot rattle you Ivy.
God Bless Freedom!
LibertyPictureFrames 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So long as not causing ingury to others people should be free. However, the lady in this video (the one who cries) is just as bad as the representative.
Protip, a debate that hings on argumentum ad misericordiam is asinine. Everyone in this video appears to be guilty of fallacy.
rdhayes06 1 year ago
Comment removed
rdhayes06 1 year ago
icky bad
katards 1 year ago
The difference between running a red light and not wearing a seat belt is obvious, because not wearing a seat belt is not hurting another person but running a red light is hurting other people. We should have personal freedom to chose the seat belt or not.
superskunkfooker 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
99mees 1 year ago
If you dont want to wear a seatbelt, it's ok, as long as you are alone in the car. Laws should be in place to protect people from others, in such if you are alone in the car, you can choose the wear it or not. It is unlikely your tumbling body will hurt anyone. But when you are not alone in the car, you should.
iamufreak 1 year ago
shes being passive agressive and obviously doesnt want to be questioned..she said laws are implemented for the safety of the people. There might come a time when the gov't becomes so big and powerful, it will want to shackle you to your cell, for your own safety