Distracted driving laws

Since when did the IRS begin calculating wealth & re-distributing it?
Dude, I think you're losing....you might wanna take a few minutes & regroup...or maybe dr moen,phd willl ride to your rescue?

By the way, I noticed you dodged the question I posed in post #19.

 

LOL

 

Like you answer any question presented to you! Like I must answer to David! LOL

 

Ya know, it really isn't dodging on my part when you simply don't like the answer.

 

I'm sure that's how you see it. And that's what makes you you. Me? I'm not afraid of losing an argument, or of being wrong, or of acknowedging when you're right... as long as I learn the truth about something. I don't lie to myself since nothing good can come of it. To me, "...it really isn't dodging..." is your way of justisfying being wrong, without admitting you're wrong. If that works for you, fine. But you can expect me to dig deeper into your comments because I wanna learn from it, and I will.

 

....and you should...
Now, why wouldn't you go out & earn a living so you could provide for your family, do some good for society & carry your own weight without asking others to do it for you?

 

Hitler being a socialist, a national socialist, thought that every German should have a car, henceforth, he had the Volkswagon built which if I remember correctly means something along the lines of "peoples car".

 

Socialist Military parade, notice the hats, driving to the front to confront the captaiist pigs and being cheered by the masses.

 

You keep asking the same question, a very, very dumb question, expecting me to answer it. You have no idea WHY it's dumb, because you lack the ability to put yourself into someone else's shoes and understand the issues they face. You think that, because you succeeded... anyone can. You, are a fool. And that's the nicest thing I can say about you at the moment.

 

The beauty of living in this country is the fact that anyone can succeed. The only limitations you have are self-imposed....to think any other way is simply excuse-making. Who is going to prevent you from starting a business? Who is going to keep you from going to school in order to make yourself more employable? Really, who is going to stop you? I challenge you to answer honestly.

You may call me a fool (again, the lefties with the name calling) but what does that make you? I support my family. I've worked hard to make sure I won't have to ask anyone else to provide for me. I'll accept the responsibility to carry my fair share. So I'm a fool, huh? Look who's trying to take from whom.

 

Believe me, you get too much of my soiled money as it is...

 

"Ehhhhhh!!!"...(the sound of an annoying buzzer)... That's a belief you are absolutely wrong on. That you can't see it is absolute proof you are a fool. A successful fool, but still a fool. In a just World, you would not have succeeded. You can thank luck for being on your side when it comes to money, but it wasn't there when the ability to reason was doled out.

 

Oh? I didn't realize anyone was giving me money, or help of any kind... (thinks on it) ...nope, you too are wrong, I haven't received a dime of aid from anyone since I was 19 (death benefit). I can see how you'd think that though, and that would be the norm, but that doesn't apply to me. I'm betting you, on the other hand, would have fought tooth and nail to get as much money from every type of agency around... despite your hatred for Socialism.

 

What about the tax refund you get that is greater than the taxes you paid? You aren't contributing yet you benefit.

 

How am I wrong? Again, who is going to stand in your way if you want to go back to school? Who is going to stop you from coming up with a new idea? Who is going to keep you from going out there & busting your tail to start your own business? Sounds like you are your only obstacle and your exucse-making mindset is your worst enemy.

 

Originally this was a good question David but as usual it has veered off the subject.

A few of us actually gave responses related to the subject.

So I guess I'm "bumping" the OP here. It was a good subject originally and I'm curious to find out what you all think about it. Since you were the OP David I'd love to hear your thoughts. We might actually agree somewhat after all. It's happened before.

 

I think the Constitution explicitly spells out exactly what drivers can and cannot do. I think the founding fathers further regulated rights based on vehicle type, make and model. They also told us how much tire pressure is allowed, minimum insurance requirements, safety belt requirements, child seat restrain laws, and fuel efficiency standards. What more do you guys want, of course the writers of the Constitution foresaw the creation of motorized vehicles. They thought of everything and whenever they didn't we always have the Right-wingers to tell us what they intended of course with a healthy dose of capitalistic profit-driven motive as an incentive.

 

I'll expand upon my reply. I think Cell Phone Laws and Texting Laws are another example of us trying to legislate A Cause rather than The Effect (which is usually already legislated).

Does it matter why a driver is, say, not maintaining lane integrity or speeding or blowing through a stop sign? Is it any worse because he is texting rather than arguing with his spouse who is sitting in the passenger seat or wrapped up in business with his boss on his Bluetooth or eating a cheeseburger and fries while sipping a coke or whatever? Those are just a few of an almost infinite set of causes of dangerous driving.

If we concentrated more on the effect of his actions...not maintaining lane integrity or breaking the speed limit or blowing through a stop sign or whatever...and having more actual punishment for them, I think it would be easier to enforce and more effective in the long run.

Do we want cops concentrating on whether someone is on the phone and then giving them a $75 ticket if they catch them or would we rather the cops be more focused on drivers doing actual reckless driving and helping ensure that they lose there license for a period of time? I would pick the latter. However, revenue crunched states are probably more interested in the former.

 

To get to Stu's viewpoint, It is dangerous to try to enforce human behavior regulations. Too much regulation takes away free will and the ability to be human. Yes we want alert drivers so we should enforce DWI laws, and we can check truckers log books for hours driven but how can we enforce the mom driving home over tired from work after being up late the night before with a sick youngin, or the dad who is driving home tired after working overtime at the office trying to make the sales needed to keep his job. Technology gave us the problem of text messaging and speaking on the cell phone but technolgy gets cheaper over time and in time you will not need those items to communicate in a car for safer and cheap alternatives will be common place. I for one do not want computers scanning stop light cameras for drivers talking on phones, talking to their girlfriend sitting next to them and God forbid not having two hands on the wheel for one may be on holding her hand, PG version, you get the point. Roads are dangerous,want them to be safer but too many laws and restrictions may be more dangerous.

 

Diving a car is a regulated privilege, as it should be. But I think that rules that make sense in California, for example, might not be necessary in Wyoming. It's pretty much all up to the individual states, isn't it? And certainly if the people of a state decide that texting while driving or putting on makeup or shaving, or reading the paper, or watching ESPN on your cell phone is okay with them then it's okay with me. I see it as potentially improving the gene pool.