Heh, it\'s funny that you mention conservatives with Yoda, but I have to say, actual conservatives want our liberties and freedoms preserved, and liberals typically want more unnecessary fines/taxes put on obscure so-called "crimes". Just think of the ACLU.
I agree that it is normally "librals" who introduce "goverment protects you" laws like cell-phone driving, smoking bans, etc. However, conservatives are just as guilty of passing laws that violate "liberties" - Prop 8 in California and the 30 other states were all introduced by conservatives.
What is the hatred of the ACLU? As far as I remember, they are the one who stand up for induviduals who are being trampled by overbearing laws; they are the ones who sued against the driving check points, and are consistently trying to protect alleged criminals in their suits. They also are huge backers of the 4th admentment (against search and seizure) when it is under a much more constistant and sustained attack than the beloved 2nd.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The last two phrases, in particular are being removed; if the police obtain a warrent to arrest you for crime a, find no evidience of that, but instead find evidience of crime b (evidience that they would not have found without the warrent for a), they can arrest you for b.
That to me was one of the most appualing supreme court cases in a long time.
ALSO, the persumption of innocence is pretty much mute in our society. I refer you to the case of Rob Belogivich who is widely considered "guilty" by society though he has yet to stand trial for any crime.
anyone who supports the nra should support the aclu for exactly the same reasons. they are both constitional watchdogs. the converse is also true. if you support the aclu, you\'ve gotta support the nra. if you support one and not the other, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple.
well, you don\'t have to, but you\'ll look like far less of a douchenozzle to anyone with a brain you may come into contact with...
douchenozzle = best insult ever!
thanks! i\'ve been trynig to spread the word sinc 1989. seeing it on the daily show made my month!! no, i didn\'t originate it (i\'m sure others had thought of it before i did), but i sure as hell have been johnny douchenozzle-seeding the hell outta it ever since!
anyone who supports the nra should support the aclu for exactly the same reasons. they are both constitional watchdogs. the converse is also true. if you support the aclu, you\'ve gotta support the nra. if you support one and not the other, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple.
well, you don\'t have to, but you\'ll look like far less of a douchenozzle to anyone with a brain you may come into contact with...
I don\'t if that is true really. You can be pro 2nd amendment and not support the NRA. There are many pro 2nd amendment groups that do not condone what the NRA does or agrees with its agenda.
The ACLU is a little trickier IMHO. Personally my biggest gripe with the ACLU is their lack of support for the 2nd amendment and they def. come off a douchnozzles on that. Their BS answer that the NRA and others are their to protect the 2nd is bullshyte.
I am very pro 2nd amendment and a card carrying member of the ACLU but I am not to big on the NRA even tho I may agree with some of their arguments.
i guess my point is more that, if you support the rights of one constitutional watchdog to exist and \'protect\' a certain amdenment, then you have to support the rights of them all, in theory.
you may not agree with specific issues/policies a particular group may have, but if you support the need for (or rights of) constitutional protectors, you need to support them all.
i generally see the problem as folks who support #2 generally support the nra, but a lot of folks who i\'ve talked to around here who support the nra don\'t support groups like the aclu. now, if there were individual groups for each amendment/constitutional guarantee, it\'d be a lot easier. folks could still be opposed to methods or policies, but you\'re not gonna hear many people making the \'those liberal amendment #5 loving commies!!\' comments as you do \'those liberal, aclu-loving commies\'.
i think its easy to hate on the aclu because they take up such a wide range of cases that if you aren\'t a supporter of one issue, you can write off the whole organization.
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
I\'d say on average I drink once every 2.5 weeks. I went the whole month of april and if it wasn\'t for memorial day would\'ve gone all of may too w/o a drink.
I am anti-17th amendment.
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
I\'d say on average I drink once every 2.5 weeks. I went the whole month of april and if it wasn\'t for memorial day would\'ve gone all of may too w/o a drink.
Can I ask a serious question ?
I drink too much beer. But my biggest issue is finding a replacement beverage. I don\'t want to drink too much soda (sugar / caffeine), water gets boring after a while etc etc. What is your go to beverage ? I really like drinking beer but I know it isn\'t really that good for me.
Tea.
Green, black, white, herbal, doesn\'t matter.
Tea is basically "pleasantly flavoured water."
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
I\'d say on average I drink once every 2.5 weeks. I went the whole month of april and if it wasn\'t for memorial day would\'ve gone all of may too w/o a drink.
Can I ask a serious question ?
I drink too much beer. But my biggest issue is finding a replacement beverage. I don\'t want to drink too much soda (sugar / caffeine), water gets boring after a while etc etc. What is your go to beverage ? I really like drinking beer but I know it isn\'t really that good for me.
I\'ve never been a real beer drinker. Jack and Ginger. (Huge whiskey fan) Stoli Orange and Sprite with a Splash of Cranberry. Awesome mix that one.
As for non-alcoholic, I drink Iced Chai Soy Lattes like they are water..... i agree...tea is an awesome way to go. Lots of Black Iced Tea. Gatorade when i run.
there\'s no such thing as unspoken laws.
if i\'m being a law abiding, sober driver, staying off my cell phone, driving the speed limit and following all other "written" laws of the road... and my passangers want to get absolutely smashed, they should be able to do it. Their behavior has no effect on any other drivers or pedestrians.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
I would think uber conservatives would see this as BIG GUBERMENT intruding on their lives.
Yoda\'s just Yoda, I\'m not at all surprised by his opinion on this matter.
speaking of the cell phone thing- I also believe this law is totally unecessary...
There are an endless number of things happening while one is driving an automobile. I think my human brain/conscience is intelligent enough to know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my cellular phone, just as I know when I have the time and ability to eat some french fries, change a cd, or pick my nose while i\'m operating my motor vehicle.
Sorry but you\'re wrong. It has been proven in many different tests that talking on a cell phone even w/ a hands free device is a distraction and a detriment to one\'s driving.
When engaged in conversation w/ someone you can not see your mind compensates, you know forget it, if you don\'t get this by now you won\'t.
No need to apologize leith. I was not wrong. I did not say "Talking on my cell phone is not a distraction or detriment to my driving." I said I know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my phone. I feel confident in this because I have done it a bazillion times. I have also ignored many phone calls while I was driving because I knew I was not in a position to take on the distraction a phone conversation presents. Picking my nose is a distraction to my driving. So is changing a cd. So is packing up a fatty pipe to the dome. (and I know u know how to get down to that...) But many people do each and every one of these things every day. It is not my goal to make it illegal to do any of these things while one is driving.
In the United States of TimmyPeachtaintia, all persons would be free to talk, talk, talk away on their cell phones at their own discretion. Just be smart about it. And don\'t drive like an
**** (most importantly, keep right except to pass.)
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
I can say legitimately that, on average, I *get drunk* less than once a week. Maybe, maybe I average one night a week that i have a drink or two. But truthfully prob not.
I obviously have other bad habits, alcohol is just not my vice.
From a political theory standpoint; I am against this law.
I absolutely agree with you. I think this law is unnecessary.
I believe people should be responsible enough to allow other people to imbibe in their car respectfully and responsibly.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
Heh, it\'s funny that you mention conservatives with Yoda, but I have to say, actual conservatives want our liberties and freedoms preserved, and liberals typically want more unnecessary fines/taxes put on obscure so-called "crimes". Just think of the ACLU.
Truth- in politics real conservatives are supposed to want our liberties and freedoms preserved.
Yoda is obviously a unique case.
there\'s no such thing as unspoken laws.
if i\'m being a law abiding, sober driver, staying off my cell phone, driving the speed limit and following all other "written" laws of the road... and my passangers want to get absolutely smashed, they should be able to do it. Their behavior has no effect on any other drivers or pedestrians.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
I would think uber conservatives would see this as BIG GUBERMENT intruding on their lives.
Yoda\'s just Yoda, I\'m not at all surprised by his opinion on this matter.
speaking of the cell phone thing- I also believe this law is totally unecessary...
There are an endless number of things happening while one is driving an automobile. I think my human brain/conscience is intelligent enough to know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my cellular phone, just as I know when I have the time and ability to eat some french fries, change a cd, or pick my nose while i\'m operating my motor vehicle.
Sorry but you\'re wrong. It has been proven in many different tests that talking on a cell phone even w/ a hands free device is a distraction and a detriment to one\'s driving.
When engaged in conversation w/ someone you can not see your mind compensates, you know forget it, if you don\'t get this by now you won\'t.
No need to apologize leith. I was not wrong. I did not say "Talking on my cell phone is not a distraction or detriment to my driving." I said I know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my phone. I feel confident in this because I have done it a bazillion times. I have also ignored many phone calls while I was driving because I knew I was not in a position to take on the distraction a phone conversation presents. Picking my nose is a distraction to my driving. So is changing a cd. So is packing up a fatty pipe to the dome. (and I know u know how to get down to that...) But many people do each and every one of these things every day. It is not my goal to make it illegal to do any of these things while one is driving.
In the United States of TimmyPeachtaintia, all persons would be free to talk, talk, talk away on their cell phones at their own discretion. Just be smart about it. And don\'t drive like an **** (most importantly, keep right except to pass.)
Just because you have the sense to actually not take a call because you know it\'s distracting does not mean when you do take a call it\'s not a distraction. It just means you made a wrong choice in your vehicle.
Picking your nose, changing a CD, lighting a pipe are all actions that use a different part of the brain than when you are conversing on the phone.
No matter if you have done it a bazillion times it does not deny the FACT that your brain compensates for the activity.
When a person does not see the other person the mind compensates and concentrates on developing a frame of reference for the person on the call.
This causes your conscious mind that is driving to wander.
You\'ve never missed a turn or off ramp because you were on the phone right?
Bullshit.
I am not about to continue this because you obviously will not believe facts and think your brain works differently than the other billions of humans on this planet.
there\'s no such thing as unspoken laws.
if i\'m being a law abiding, sober driver, staying off my cell phone, driving the speed limit and following all other "written" laws of the road... and my passangers want to get absolutely smashed, they should be able to do it. Their behavior has no effect on any other drivers or pedestrians.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
I would think uber conservatives would see this as BIG GUBERMENT intruding on their lives.
Yoda\'s just Yoda, I\'m not at all surprised by his opinion on this matter.
speaking of the cell phone thing- I also believe this law is totally unecessary...
There are an endless number of things happening while one is driving an automobile. I think my human brain/conscience is intelligent enough to know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my cellular phone, just as I know when I have the time and ability to eat some french fries, change a cd, or pick my nose while i\'m operating my motor vehicle.
Sorry but you\'re wrong. It has been proven in many different tests that talking on a cell phone even w/ a hands free device is a distraction and a detriment to one\'s driving.
When engaged in conversation w/ someone you can not see your mind compensates, you know forget it, if you don\'t get this by now you won\'t.
No need to apologize leith. I was not wrong. I did not say "Talking on my cell phone is not a distraction or detriment to my driving." I said I know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my phone. I feel confident in this because I have done it a bazillion times. I have also ignored many phone calls while I was driving because I knew I was not in a position to take on the distraction a phone conversation presents. Picking my nose is a distraction to my driving. So is changing a cd. So is packing up a fatty pipe to the dome. (and I know u know how to get down to that...) But many people do each and every one of these things every day. It is not my goal to make it illegal to do any of these things while one is driving.
In the United States of TimmyPeachtaintia, all persons would be free to talk, talk, talk away on their cell phones at their own discretion. Just be smart about it. And don\'t drive like an **** (most importantly, keep right except to pass.)
Just because you have the sense to actually not take a call because you know it\'s distracting does not mean when you do take a call it\'s not a distraction. It just means you made a wrong choice in your vehicle.
Picking your nose, changing a CD, lighting a pipe are all actions that use a different part of the brain than when you are conversing on the phone.
No matter if you have done it a bazillion times it does not deny the FACT that your brain compensates for the activity.
When a person does not see the other person the mind compensates and concentrates on developing a frame of reference for the person on the call.
This causes your conscious mind that is driving to wander.
You\'ve never missed a turn or off ramp because you were on the phone right?
Bullshit.
I am not about to continue this because you obviously will not believe facts and think your brain works differently than the other billions of humans on this planet.
Leith, are u ser right now?
I am totally agreeing with you that talking on a phone is a distraction. This is fact. Rest easy broseph, my brain functions the same way everyone else\'s does.
Despite what the studies you have read have encouraged you to think, when I do talk on my phone, it is not as if I go blind and drive off the road. I\'m sure I have missed a turn or exit ramp while talking on my phone- it is a distraction! However, I have also successfully navigated entire trips while on my phone! Yay!
So here\'s the deal, I know chit chattin while drivin isn\'t usually the best idea. But I also think there do exist situations where it really shouldn\'t be a big deal if I answer the tele for a second. therefore i think it should be up to ourselves to decide, and i don\'t think it needs to be a law.
and the left lane is for passing