Conservative Political Forum

     Comment if you so plz


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-dept-of-transportation-weighing-ban-on-all-driver-cell-phone-use/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-dept-of-transportation-weighing-ban-on-all-driver-cell-phone-use/)

It's an exciting development in that it'll be just one more example of the "we know better then you" attitude of lefties in general and the Democratic party in particular. Coming just ahead of the midterms it's hard to imagine better timing to remind the public which party is addicted to telling you how to live your life.

More please.

From the very same people who say salt and trans fats are bad, but smoking pot is OK........ :o

  I agree with you guys...except I believe they are right for once...cell phones kill and id bet if it could be investigated and proven...they cause more accidents than alchohol....its become a disease while people drive....

Nope, but if you are in an accident and you were on the phone/texting you should be nailed.  I'm so tired of the "Nanny" State legislating Morality, Common Sense, etc.

If people are treated like Children they will act like Children, when are people going to be held accountable for their actions instead of there is a "potential" for ______ so we must either ban or legislate it.

Being held accountable for your actions, what a fucking concept eh?   :o

In the old days the phone was a convenient and not a necessity. 
At home we got the phone for our own use and the answering machine for outside callers.  We do not drop what we are doing for the phone.    When going on vacations (walkabouts) I shut the answering machine off as we are gone 3 to 6 months out of the year. Do I have a cell?  LOL  YES  but I shut it off when I get in the truck the last thing I need to be doing is looking for my phone when driving.  It also has voice mail and my kids know I will turn it on sometime.
I would say NO, its a right we should all have.  But with 100% accountable.

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 08:40:19 AM
  I agree with you guys...except I believe they are right for once...cell phones kill and id bet if it could be investigated and proven...they cause more accidents than alchohol....its become a disease while people drive....

Any distraction while driving is dangerous.  My morning coffee, lunch in the car, or applying makeup are all things I have seen cause accidents.  Not for me but I have come close a few times in my younger years. ::) ::)

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 06:45:36 AM
     Comment if you so plz


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-dept-of-transportation-weighing-ban-on-all-driver-cell-phone-use/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-dept-of-transportation-weighing-ban-on-all-driver-cell-phone-use/)

If you left it to the states, it would not be a total federal ban.

Then let's ban car radios. Let's make it a crime to have a coca cola or bottle of water. Let's make it a crime to eat in a car. Let's make it a crime for a woman to put on makeup in the car and let's make it a crime for a woman in a bikini to ever be within sight of a motorist.

Quote from: Dan on October 09, 2010, 09:58:00 AM
Then let's ban car radios. Let's make it a crime to have a coca cola or bottle of water. Let's make it a crime to eat in a car. Let's make it a crime for a woman to put on makeup in the car and let's make it a crime for a woman in a bikini to ever be within sight of a motorist.

Or a cowboy in tight wranglers.... ;) ;) ;) ;)

Present-day testing is underway to install breathalyzer units into cars, locking-out the driver if a predetermined level has been exceeded.

It's tied to black-box technology which the government-owned GM and other automakers are installing in new cars. Nobody's willing to say what's being recorded by these systems. But the GM push to install OnStar also means GPS tracking for that vehicle at all times.

So if they can figure out where you are, they can figure out where a cell phone is, within that car. It's only a matter of time before they can also block you from calling out or receiving calls, depending on where you sit. ("Oh, those load-distribution sensors? Highway Safety Administration....") One passenger? You're outta luck. Both passengers up front? Ditto.

First they'll block all cellphone calls, then "relent" and allow it for back-seat users only. And they'll still lock you out if you used mouthwash with alcohol. It's all for your health, mind you. Forget about any rights you have within the second single largest investment you have ever paid money for.

Quote from: Solars Toy on October 09, 2010, 10:06:05 AM
Or a cowboy in tight wranglers.... ;) ;) ;) ;)

LOL you should see some of our cowgirls   :o  I am not dead yet.   ;D

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Let's do it for the chillens. Yadayadayada!

Quote from: Shooterman on October 09, 2010, 09:54:22 AM
If you left it to the states, it would not be a total federal ban.

Actually most States have these laws on the books, they just don't enforce them.
Ca has a law prohibiting eating or drinking while driving, and or anything that distracts a driver.
Things like items on the dashboard, to fuzzy dice on the mirror.

Though, they do use them when they want to pull over someone they suspect of other crimes.

Quote from: Solar on October 09, 2010, 10:42:51 AM
Actually most States have these laws on the books, they just don't enforce them.
Ca has a law prohibiting eating or drinking while driving, and or anything that distracts a driver.
Things like items on the dashboard, to fuzzy dice on the mirror.

Though, they do use them when they want to pull over someone they suspect of other crimes.

Washington state also has.   But like some old Blue laws only used as need.   ;D

   I stand by what I said...cell phones are the worst distraction to drivers EVER...barring drunk or twisted on drugs....simple reason...more people on cell phones than anything else aside from that theres studies proving its overall the worst distraction and getting worse.

    Not to many years ago...you had to pull over and use a phone booth to make a call...nothing wrong with pulling over and using your cellphone...you lazy bastids

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 11:09:03 AM
   I stand by what I said...cell phones are the worst distraction to drivers EVER...barring drunk or twisted on drugs....simple reason...more people on cell phones than anything else aside from that theres studies proving its overall the worst distraction and getting worse.

    Not to many years ago...you had to pull over and use a phone booth to make a call...nothing wrong with pulling over and using your cellphone...you lazy bastids

What about CB's they have been in use for more years then you have been alive I would say.  :o

Quote from: walkstall on October 09, 2010, 11:17:15 AM
What about CB's they have been in use for more years then you have been alive I would say.  :o

   Thats not even a close comparison and you know it

Quote from: Solar on October 09, 2010, 10:42:51 AM
Actually most States have these laws on the books, they just don't enforce them.
Ca has a law prohibiting eating or drinking while driving, and or anything that distracts a driver.
Things like items on the dashboard, to fuzzy dice on the mirror.

Though, they do use them when they want to pull over someone they suspect of other crimes.

I would think it is a states issue. but as worded, it was calling for a federal ban. Screw the Feds.

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 11:09:03 AM
   I stand by what I said...cell phones are the worst distraction to drivers EVER...barring drunk or twisted on drugs....simple reason...more people on cell phones than anything else aside from that theres studies proving its overall the worst distraction and getting worse.

    Not to many years ago...you had to pull over and use a phone booth to make a call...nothing wrong with pulling over and using your cellphone...you lazy bastids

Should it be federal law?

Quote from: Shooterman on October 09, 2010, 12:08:16 PM
I would think it is a states issue. but as worded, it was calling for a federal ban. Screw the Feds.

I agree, it's like the seatbelt law, the Fed gets a cut of every ticket written, just another revenue maker.

This is just more big brother, like insurance, those that had it back in the early 60s were completely protected, and cheap too, but when it became law, the price went through the roof.
Then they said we all have to wear motor cycle helmets because it was a burden on the medical system.
This is what happens when Gov gets involved, they justify it as a cost to business.
If they weren't forcing the taxpayer to subsidize the system, life would be much cheaper.

Funny how we used to get along without gov telling us just how to live.

  Start reading people...on how dangerous its become...typical I want my cell phone waaaaaa waaaaaaa you cant take it even i kill people waaaaa waaaaa...I was a cop too long and saw to many I wannas kill people

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 11:57:01 AM
   Thats not even a close comparison and you know it

In my book it is a distraction.  Be it a CB, phone, TV or a good looking cowgirl or cowboy. 
But then again you may think driving with only one hand all the time is ok. 

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 02:39:27 PM
  Start reading people...on how dangerous its become...typical I want my cell phone waaaaaa waaaaaaa you cant take it even i kill people waaaaa waaaaa...I was a cop too long and saw to many I wannas kill people

I know what you're saying, and I hate the things too.
To the point that I don't even use mine.

But statistically speaking, more people die in the home, and broken down, most are in the bathtub, but they far outweigh cell ph related deaths.
Maybe we need to outlaw bathtubs and only allow showers with foam walls and floors?

Hospitals kill more people than anyone?

In hospital     90,000     One American dies in a hospital from a medical error or a lethal infection every 6 minutes
Transport    43,443    One American killed by a traffic accident every 12 minutes
Poisoning    19,457    One American accidentally poisoned to death every 27 minutes
At home    18,048    One American killed in an accident at home every 29 minutes
Falls    17,227    One American killed in a fall every 31 minutes
Drunk driving    16,885    One American killed by a drunk driver every 31 minutes
Homicide    16,137    One American murdered every 32 minutes
Drowning    3,306    One American drowned every 159 minutes
http://www.itsmywill.com/itsmylife/stats.html (http://www.itsmywill.com/itsmylife/stats.html)

There are laws on the books in every State that allow police to deal with the problem, we don't need the Fed sticking their nose in States rights.

Remember when murder was murder?
Now we have hate crime laws, as if 1st degree wasn't enough, in comes the Fed, watering down 1st degree, to replace it with the PC version, called "Hate Crime".

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 02:39:27 PM
  Start reading people...on how dangerous its become...typical I want my cell phone waaaaaa waaaaaaa you cant take it even i kill people waaaaa waaaaa...I was a cop too long and saw to many I wannas kill people

Should it be a federal law, Zip? It's a simple question.

Quote from: Shooterman on October 09, 2010, 03:31:17 PM
Should it be a federal law, Zip? It's a simple question.

     It seems it has to be...cell phones cause more accidents and deaths than all other hazards combined...
My son in law is a traffic sgt mid sized pd...every single shift more than one up to several cell phone accidents...couple the cell phone WITH the other distractions...eating lunch on the cell phone driving...smoking on the cell phone while driving...coppin a feel on the cell phone driving whatever distraction you come up with...triple it with the cell phone...not everyone is a drunk driver...not everyone eats while driving....damn near everyone is on the cell phone and soon everyone will be....then take a 75 yr old coot...who thinks he has the reflexs he had when he was 22 on the cell phone...and on and on and on....cell phones got to go...and people in the know know they got to get out of vehicles....truckers on the cell phone...christ theres cops now on the damn cell p hones talking to their gfs and wives instead of doing their job...trust me on this one...cell phones are a vehicle scourge and need to be OUT of vehicles...its only going to get much much worse
  Id even bet every single one of you have had a close call ON THE CELL PHONE or more...if you really wanted to be honest

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 11:57:01 AM
   Thats not even a close comparison and you know it

Why? Or would you just rather insult people who dare to disagree with you and leave the explanations q bit cryptic?

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 03:48:13 PM
     It seems it has to be...cell phones cause more accidents and deaths than all other hazards combined...
My son in law is a traffic sgt mid sized pd...every single shift more than one up to several cell phone accidents...couple the cell phone WITH the other distractions...eating lunch on the cell phone driving...smoking on the cell phone while driving...coppin a feel on the cell phone driving whatever distraction you come up with...triple it with the cell phone...not everyone is a drunk driver...not everyone eats while driving....damn near everyone is on the cell phone and soon everyone will be....then take a 75 yr old coot...who thinks he has the reflexs he had when he was 22 on the cell phone...and on and on and on....cell phones got to go...and people in the know know they got to get out of vehicles....truckers on the cell phone...christ theres cops now on the damn cell p hones talking to their gfs and wives instead of doing their job...trust me on this one...cell phones are a vehicle scourge and need to be OUT of vehicles...its only going to get much much worse
  Id even bet every single one of you have had a close call ON THE CELL PHONE or more...if you really wanted to be honest

GHSA  Governers Highway Safety Association®

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html (http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html)

This is a very good web/sit for all states highway laws. 
Check out the left hand side.
Law Charts
Laws by State

What about the auto deaths resulting from speeding? What about the deaths resulting from aggressive or reckless driving such as tailgating and cutting people off?

Quote from: Shooterman on October 09, 2010, 03:56:39 PM

SHOULD IT BE A FEDERAL LAW OR IS IT A STATES ISSUE?

   Shooter did you misplace your magnifying reading glass read the very first sentence of my post which is an answer to your question....SEEMS IT HAS TO BE because the states dont have the balls to do it...

    Were talking lots of lives...LOTS...cell phones are death

  Oh and btw dsl blows brighthouse/roadrunner cable right out of the water...no comparison dsl is better

Touch my cell phone, I'll kill ya.


Billy

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 05:54:46 PM
   Shooter did you misplace your magnifying reading glass read the very first sentence of my post which is an answer to your question....SEEMS IT HAS TO BE because the states dont have the balls to do it...

    Were talking lots of lives...LOTS...cell phones are death

So what other federal laws should we pass, ( as conservatives, of course ) to protect us

QuoteOh and btw dsl blows brighthouse/roadrunner cable right out of the water...no comparison dsl is better

My experience with DSL was not good.

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 05:54:46 PM
  Oh and btw dsl blows brighthouse/roadrunner cable right out of the water...no comparison dsl is better

Hmmmm are you high jacking your own op.

If you live around the corner yes.  But if your at the end of the line good luck. 

Quote from: arpad on October 09, 2010, 07:21:47 AM
It's an exciting development in that it'll be just one more example of the "we know better then you" attitude of lefties in general and the Democratic party in particular. Coming just ahead of the midterms it's hard to imagine better timing to remind the public which party is addicted to telling you how to live your life.

More please.

With all due respect Arpad. What else would you expect from a Party permeated with liberals suffering from "Toxic Arrested Development", "Looking" for that all powerful "Father Figure" that will Make "Bad-Man-Go-Way". The sum total of issues that DON'T offend a liberal's sensibilities when examined to the point of objectivity, might possibly fill the head of a pin on a good day.

Quote from: walkstall on October 09, 2010, 07:29:35 PM
Hmmmm are you high jacking your own op.

If you live around the corner yes.  But if your at the end of the line good luck.

     Hijacking ?  what else is there to say.....something new ok

Drunks driving drunk also talk on cell phones...same with pot heads...not only are they driving high they are yapping on the cell...whatever distraction you can think of that causes accidents and kills...add the worst distraction to it...talking on the cell phone....and it gets worse every year
     
       
    The dsl thing was relevent to a prior conversation shooter and I had...

    It will be illegal to drive and use a cell phone in the future, whether the feds do it or more states but they will all have to do it....its already an insurance issue..several states have moved toward it already...studies have found that hands free cell phone talking is not much safer

Quote from: pikebishop2010 on October 09, 2010, 08:47:10 PM
With all due respect Arpad. What else would you expect from a Party permeated with liberals suffering from "Toxic Arrested Development", "Looking" for that all powerful "Father Figure" that will Make "Bad-Man-Go-Way". The sum total of issues that DON'T offend a liberal's sensibilities when examined to the point of objectivity, might possibly fill the head of a pin on a good day.

What I expect and what they do are two different things.

After all, there are so many ways in which the superior could impose their will on their inferiors that even a busy lefty can't get around to all of them. Then there's the matter of timing. After the mid-terms or six months ago this would've been lost among other issues but with some luck it'll become fairly widely-known in the weeks remaining before the mid-terms.

Some percentage of folks who might have ignored the elections or are undecided could look at this policy and wonder where this trend will go. In isolation you might be able to make a case for a policy like this but taken together with all the rest of the lefty's nanny state policies I think it makes a pretty good case for reigning the left in, i.e. voting against the Democrats.

Let's also tell little kids they can't drink sodas at school. Let's tell restaurants they can't use salt or the wrong types of fats. Smoking pot will be OK, since enough of the granola voters like it.

Dude, I get your point. But the irresponsible use by some shouldn't ban access to all. That's like saying no kid can drink a soda or no one can have salt in their food.

It just isn't your damned place to tell us what we can and can't do. Go get behind Barak Hussien Obama if that's the game you want to play.

You want to reduce car deaths. Then ban alcohol sales in all forms. That will save even more lives. Levy 2,000 speeding ticket minimums and 5,000 tickets for reckless driving like cutting people off. That will save lives too. My mother was almost killed 28 years ago when a truck driver hopped up on amphetamines ran a red light and broadsided her car with an 18 wheeler. Give a lifetime ban to truckers caught with substance abuse problems too. That'll save lives.

Quote from: zip on October 09, 2010, 10:46:28 PM
     Hijacking ?  what else is there to say.....something new ok

Drunks driving drunk also talk on cell phones...same with pot heads...not only are they driving high they are yapping on the cell...whatever distraction you can think of that causes accidents and kills...add the worst distraction to it...talking on the cell phone....and it gets worse every year

Question, Zip. Is there anything, in the name of public safety, of course, you would draw the line at Uncle Sugar being involved in?

I'm not crazy. Inunderstand there are some pretty basic things where government should step in. No heroin for example. But this is a very slippery slope and before you know it we have some self appointed busy body using the coercive power of the courts and law enforcement to tell me how to live because the bust body is certain he knows better than me.

Don't get me wrong zip, I don't like distracted drivers and more than you. I just don't like a nanny state telling me what I can and cannot do because it assumes I'm a nitwit.

If your argument was to make it a crime to have an accident while on a cell phone then I would say fine. But you lose me when you demand a blanket prohibition.

Quote from: Dan on October 10, 2010, 06:32:43 AM
I'm not crazy. Inunderstand there are some pretty basic things where government should step in. No heroin for example. But this is a very slippery slope and before you know it we have some self appointed busy body using the coercive power of the courts and law enforcement to tell me how to live because the bust body is certain he knows better than me.

Don't get me wrong zip, I don't like distracted drivers and more than you. I just don't like a nanny state telling me what I can and cannot do because it assumes I'm a nitwit.

If your argument was to make it a crime to have an accident while on a cell phone then I would say fine. But you lose me when you demand a blanket prohibition.

I think that is the issue that most have.
I would like to see something along the lines of having to drive in the slow lane while talking on the ph if you are on the freeway.
Nothing pisses me off more, than some moron on cruise control blocking traffic, oblivious to whats going on behind them.
Maybe if they were relegated to the slow lane, it might help.

I don't know but I'm tired of people pulling out in front of me and getting on my ass while they are on the phone.  Pay fucking attention idiots!

Quote from: arpad on October 10, 2010, 04:37:57 AM
What I expect and what they do are two different things.

After all, there are so many ways in which the superior could impose their will on their inferiors that even a busy lefty can't get around to all of them. Then there's the matter of timing. After the mid-terms or six months ago this would've been lost among other issues but with some luck it'll become fairly widely-known in the weeks remaining before the mid-terms.

Some percentage of folks who might have ignored the elections or are undecided could look at this policy and wonder where this trend will go. In isolation you might be able to make a case for a policy like this but taken together with all the rest of the lefty's nanny state policies I think it makes a pretty good case for reigning the left in, i.e. voting against the Democrats.

   This has absolutely nothing to do with the left wing nanny state...theres just as many conservatives in the country that realize that cell phones are a gross danger in vehicles...your goin off on some left wing conspiracy thing that doesnt even exist...if it was a GOP admin they would have to be visiting the same thing

Quote from: Dan on October 10, 2010, 04:53:53 AM
Let's also tell little kids they can't drink sodas at school. Let's tell restaurants they can't use salt or the wrong types of fats. Smoking pot will be OK, since enough of the granola voters like it.

Dude, I get your point. But the irresponsible use by some shouldn't ban access to all. That's like saying no kid can drink a soda or no one can have salt in their food.

It just isn't your damned place to tell us what we can and can't do. Go get behind Barak Hussien Obama if that's the game you want to play.

You want to reduce car deaths. Then ban alcohol sales in all forms. That will save even more lives. Levy 2,000 speeding ticket minimums and 5,000 tickets for reckless driving like cutting people off. That will save lives too. My mother was almost killed 28 years ago when a truck driver hopped up on amphetamines ran a red light and broadsided her car with an 18 wheeler. Give a lifetime ban to truckers caught with substance abuse problems too. That'll save lives.

    Dan dan dan...soda in schools are not a threat to everyone else only the fat kid drinking them...
So you guys are all against smoking bans in restaurants in bars and in public too then right ???
     A drunk with a cell phone is way more a threat then the drunk alone....
Like I said before take all the driving distractions you can think of, then add the cellphone...
     A woman on the cellphone backed out of a spot in supermarket and ran right into the side of my honda crv...caused two grand worth of dmg...She said im soooo sorry i didnt see you...I said you didnt see me because you were running your mouth on the phone and totally oblivious..

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gold-speculator.com%2Fattachments%2Fquinn-advisors%2F5205d1257180697-america-nanny-state-clip_image001-1-.gif&hash=b43ea5954b41e38829c5bed8ec0f020ee58e1c19)(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gold-speculator.com%2Fattachments%2Fquinn-advisors%2F5206d1257180697-america-nanny-state-clip_image003-8-.jpg&hash=fd76a9771ff9396651914e9dcfabab034e8127fa)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdebatableland.typepad.com%2Fphotos%2Funcategorized%2F2008%2F04%2F11%2Ffark101.jpg&hash=2b7e4dfb74c3567e108fcc52823bb90abb0e1c0d)

"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength"

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fconservablogs.com%2FLaissez-faire%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F10%2Fthe-flag.jpg&hash=acd85b476e328c4540ffafd4347adba71aa2c802)

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thereviewcrew.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2Fbig-brother.jpg&hash=54a408a120685b2cee23f22a7b62ec9fc53046f2)

Quote from: zip on October 10, 2010, 07:19:27 AM
    Dan dan dan...soda in schools are not a threat to everyone else only the fat kid drinking them...
So you guys are all against smoking bans in restaurants in bars and in public too then right ???
     A drunk with a cell phone is way more a threat then the drunk alone....
Like I said before take all the driving distractions you can think of, then add the cellphone...
     A woman on the cellphone backed out of a spot in supermarket and ran right into the side of my honda crv...caused two grand worth of dmg...She said im soooo sorry i didnt see you...I said you didnt see me because you were running your mouth on the phone and totally oblivious..

Zip, no one denies a cell phone can distract. So once again, let's ban alcohol. Let's ban makeup. Let's ban selling food or sodas to anyone that might put them in a car. Let's ban cigaretes. Since all of these things can distract a driver then they should be banned too. Right?

Quote from: Dan on October 10, 2010, 08:35:41 AM
Zip, no one denies a cell phone can distract. So once again, let's ban alcohol. Let's ban makeup. Let's ban selling food or sodas to anyone that might put them in a car. Let's ban cigaretes. Since all of these things can distract a driver then they should be banned too. Right?

    Dan take every distraction you named...and add the cell phone...not everyone smokes...not everyone puts makeup on...not everyone drinks...but everyone has a cellphone...proven killer more than all the rest put together...personal responsiblity doesnt apply and wont work....personal responsibility only works when MOST follow the rules and the law...there are no rules for cell phones...you either use it or you dont...and everyone does

We also need to ban car radios too. Anything that takes your eyes off the road while driving is a distraction and as Zip says anything that might distract some people must be prohibited by the government.

No, Zip, not everyone owns a cell phone. Keep one with a separate charged battery in the trunk for emergencies, maybe, but I don't even do that.

Quote from: zip on October 10, 2010, 07:19:27 AM
     A woman on the cellphone backed out of a spot in supermarket and ran right into the side of my honda crv...caused two grand worth of dmg...She said im soooo sorry i didnt see you...I said you didnt see me because you were running your mouth on the phone and totally oblivious..

Now I see why you would like a total federal cell phone ban.  How about one for very small cars you can not see when backing out. 

I have no doubt Zip is correct when he says a Cell ban would save lives.
How about Gov put speed governors in cars, so they can never go over the posted speed limit?
Or radios that only receive Muzak during commute times?

Point is, how much power are we willing to give the Fed?
Personally I'd like to see half the laws repealed, if someone wants to drive without a seat-belt, that's their prerogative.

My cell phone, like my firearms, while in my possession, have never caused harm to a human being.




_{Disclaimer; that is presuming I have, have had, or am now in possession of a cell phone and/or firearms.}

One thing is evident, we still do not know where the line should be drawn.

Just had to post the dangers of Cell phones.
Not picking on ya Zip, I just thought we could lighten it up a bit. ;)

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gitsiegirl.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F11%2Fevil_cell_phone.jpg&hash=e34790b5503587527b52fb320a688dc91b2c01ec)

Then picture this on the roadside with a cell, now that's a real hazard.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_wSm8v-ClSWY%2FTDMrTen3gTI%2FAAAAAAAAAZU%2FyHAFmomUYsU%2Fs1600%2FI%2527m%2Bkinda%2Bbizay.jpg&hash=c43cb7a6185b87bf9d16097bc0ed47a434c17dfc)
And last but not least, proof that Cell phones are dangerous. ;D
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_r4TzZPyyD-c%2FSkN2oDwh8QI%2FAAAAAAAAAE4%2F2xKQNfONREA%2Fs400%2FcellAd4.jpg&hash=5b8759ae84ff823dc039a05a753d6e8164027d47)

Quote from: zip on October 10, 2010, 08:37:56 AM
    Dan take every distraction you named...and add the cell phone...not everyone smokes...not everyone puts makeup on...not everyone drinks...but everyone has a cellphone...proven killer more than all the rest put together...personal responsiblity doesnt apply and wont work....personal responsibility only works when MOST follow the rules and the law...there are no rules for cell phones...you either use it or you dont...and everyone does

Says it all -

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdebatableland.typepad.com%2Fphotos%2Funcategorized%2F2008%2F04%2F11%2Ffark101.jpg&hash=2b7e4dfb74c3567e108fcc52823bb90abb0e1c0d)

Banning cars would save lives too. Just imagine how many car wrecks would be prevented if everyone was forced to walk.

Quote from: Dan on October 10, 2010, 11:35:24 AM
Banning cars would save lives too. Just imagine how many car wrecks would be prevented if everyone was forced to walk.

Now I walk a lot and enjoy it (but then I have the time) and they keep trying to run me over.  So next they will ban walking in a cross-walk. 

May not even be an issue in the near future.
  WASHINGTON (AP) - Google Inc. is road-testing cars that steer, stop and start without a human driver, the company says.
  The cars have traveled a total of 140,000 miles on major California   roads without much human intervention, according to a posting Saturday   on Google's corporate blog.
  The goal is to "help prevent traffic accidents, free up people's time   and reduce carbon emissions," project leader Sebastian Thrun wrote in   the blog post.
  It's not the first signal that Google wants to change how people get   form place to place. In a speech Sept. 29 before the Techcrunch   "Disrupt" conference, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said "your car should   drive itself. It just makes sense."
  "It's a bug that cars were invented before computers," Schmidt said.
  The New York Times published a report on the development earlier Sunday.
  The Mountainview, Calif.-based technology giant has sent seven test cars   a total of 1,000 miles without a human touching the controls at all,   the New York Times reported.
  The cars know speed limits, traffic patterns and road maps. They use   video cameras, radar sensors and lasers to detect other cars, Thrun's   posting says.
  Driving between Northern California and Southern California, the cars   have navigated San Francisco's Lombard Street, Los Angeles' Hollywood   Blvd. and the Pacific Coast Highway, the blog says.
  Engineers consider the cars safer because they react more quickly than   humans, the New York Times said. It said Google has not revealed how it   hopes to profit from the research.
  The cars are never unmanned, Thrun wrote. He said a backup driver is always behind the wheel to monitor the software.
  It says the technology is being developed by scientists who were   involved in an earlier set of unmanned car races organized by the   government's Defense Advance Research Projects Agency.\
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101010/D9IP2B2O1.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101010/D9IP2B2O1.html)

LOL so whats the cost of the person less driver.

What do they call not much human intervention. One time I would say would be unexcitable.  We have 5 tractor that will till the fields and plant on there own after the first programing down on the main farm.  But I would not have them people less.  lol  Thing can and do go wrong even with computer on board.   8)

Quote from: arpad on October 10, 2010, 04:37:57 AM
What I expect and what they do are two different things.

After all, there are so many ways in which the superior could impose their will on their inferiors that even a busy lefty can't get around to all of them. Then there's the matter of timing. After the mid-terms or six months ago this would've been lost among other issues but with some luck it'll become fairly widely-known in the weeks remaining before the mid-terms.

Some percentage of folks who might have ignored the elections or are undecided could look at this policy and wonder where this trend will go. In isolation you might be able to make a case for a policy like this but taken together with all the rest of the lefty's nanny state policies I think it makes a pretty good case for reigning the left in, i.e. voting against the Democrats.

No need for any of us to "speculate" the coming election anymore. They are releasing this Friday a report that there will NOT be a Social Security increase in 2011. If you'll remember what started this tsunami of protest, was the "Seniors" resentment of bam bam's irresponsible spending. Ostensibly being the first demographic ( which quickly morphed into the Tea Party ) to realize, organize, and seize the moment to any significant degree.
Now with this latest "Indignity"( don't forget that Congress voted themselves a raise in the midst of the current economic chaos ) just 3 weeks before election, the already energized base of the grassroots movement will undoubtedly become even more energized.
While ironically Congress is realisticly not directly the blame for the S.S. omission, they all collectively, with the Dem's in focus will take the fall. Getting caught up in the outraged momentum of the electorate that has become crystalized on a mission to oust encumbency. Stemming from the painful realization that they will be the first generation, NOT to pass on a better way of life to their children.   

As trends go, nanny state paternalism is out and personal responsiblity is back in.

Anyone who wants to lead us into another stupid rule is going to turn around and realize no one is following him anymore.  ;)