I think your law is all that would be required then. As i said it's a very sensible way to go about it. And then everyone is responsible for themselfs and the way they drive a vehicle. There would be no need for any other laws if this one is in place. It's all inclusive and it covers all stupid actions whether specifically spelled out ahead of time or not.
Well there you go. I like that law. All encompassing and it covers all stupid acts. I like it alot. It makes much more sense than singling out just one stupid thing at a time.
Yes dcj.. i'm aware of that. Also aware the original poster is in america. And since i'm an american i will speak to the american portion of the laws. You can speak to the rest.
No disagreement on that point at all. Even talking on a hands free phone in the car while driving has been proven to cause drivers to become distracted to the point of causing accidents. Brushing your hair or tuning in the radio station has been the cause of accidents. There are a million things that can distract a person from the task of paying attention to the road. Can we make them all illegal?
Yes.. logic of anarchy might be a good description. So would the logic of totalatarianism... and just like you i am only pointing out the absurdity of the laws. Not saying i agree with them. As if you haven't been able to read my earlier posts. I'm not in favor of driving while texting. So this has nothing to do with my rights.. i would never drive while talking on the cell phone or texting. I don't do either now. It's about the rights of everyone else in america. It's about taking away our constitutional rights in order to protect us from ourselfs.
Simple logic. We ban all kinds of products that are unsafe to use. We ban car seats that are unsafe. We can ban cell phones too. Or for that matter we can ban the cars that allow stupid people to drive. Make it a law that all cars must have stupidity censors in them. All others are illegal.
Grow up yourself. Just because you have no common sense dosen't mean you have the right to determine who can post their opinions on here. Godsgift of what? Stupidity?
You got that right.. they couldn't care less what rights they take away from all of us in the name of protecting the few. As i said before.. we can't legislate stupidity. Stupid people will always exist.
I don't care what they want to call it. It's a good thing to have. The special interests have been buying the politicians for a long time now. This is only different in that instead of buying the politicians behind closed doors they will be able to run ads right out in the public eye on the issues instead of about the politicians who may or may not be already boughten by many different corporations and special interest groups. So that's a good thing. Transparency!! And if we the people don't like a corporations stance on a certain issue.. well we don't have to be customers of that corporation. We also will be getting a voice out of this. One that we don't have now. So yes it's a good decision. And the more i see politicians crying about it.. the more convinced i am that it's the right decision. This joke they call democracy hasn't been a democracy ever since they started with the two party system. It's not even close to being a real democracy. Not when they can hold up a vote on a bill untill they are already pre determined a certain outcome, and are guaranteed the outcome by blackmail and bribery of the people who would be casting those votes. The entire political system is so corrupt it's pathetic. So they can't possibly destroy our democracy any further with this decision. They have no where to go but up.
It means the scammers will have a better idea of which photos draw the most attention and then they will know which ones to steal to use on their fake ads. Means nothing else. It's just a tool for finding out what other people find attractive. And then it's a tool for the scammers to use. Other than that.. it has absolutely no reasonable use on any dating site. Yet you will find that at every single dating site with the scammers. And right now it is flooded with scammers in this one.
I hope you're not all taking my responses the wrong way. I'm in agreement that no one should be texting while driving, or talking on a cell phone. I know i wouldn't.. and i never did. That's because i'm not stupid. My issue however is with the punishments. And the attempt at regulating peoples freedoms in the name of safety for the public good. It just dosen't work. And i know someone will say what freedom. Start with freedom of speech. It would and could be used as a defense in this situation. It's still unconstitutional to restrict a persons freedom of speech.
Now, i just saw a news show on canadian tv here earlier tonite. And they have it where it is illegal to talk on a cellphone that isn't hands free. Their law isn't working and they are charging $155 ticket for first offence... continued offences they will take away a persons drivers liscense. And in this same show they did a piece on how many people are driving around with no liscenses. Tens of thousands in each of the proviences they mentioned. It would add up to hundreds of thousands nationwide. Reason being.. they have to drive to get to work. Now how is taking away a persons job going to be good for anyone? Is having unliscened and uninsured people driving around gonna be better? Or if it should come to it.. is it worth the cost of imprisioning hundreds of thousands of people for talking on their cell phones? Think about it for a second.
It's that letting the punishment fit the crime part i was talking about. Is it better to destroy the economy in order to head off a possible future accident or is it better to take away a persons cell phone and order them to a drivers safety class? I think so. Why does it always have to be about money for the government? That doesn't stop the people who are too stupid to catch on the first time, or second time, or even third time. If they can afford the fines they don't care, they are taking the risk of getting caught in order to keep connected to their friends while they drive.
And also in this news report.. they gave results of a study. Guess what people.. even the hands free devices cause accidents. It's not the holding of the device that is causing people to be distracted. It's the act of talking and taking your mind off of the road that is. So should we just outlaw talking while driving too?
Ok... let me attempt this part now. You want inovative? How bout we take that nearly 3 TRILLION dollars cash that the non profit hospitals have secreted away in the offshore accounts and use that to pay each and every american man woman and child ten thousand dollars each to use towards past present or future healthcare costs. Let them set up thier own healthcare savings accounts at their own banks where they can contribute to that instead of paying some upteen thousands of dollars into a ponzi scheme? Let them collect interest on it and invest it in the stock market if they want too. And only tax the money if it's withdrawn for a use other than medical bills. Sounds like a winner to me. That would sure go a long ways towards paying for all those who don't have the means to pay for indigent care. Now if they want to shop around for insurance with that ten grand.. fine.. let em. It's their money to spend on their healthcare costs.
And there is absolutely no reason why supposed non profits need 3 trillion dollars in bank accounts in the cayman islands and the bahamas. Answer me this.. if they have 3 trillion dollars in CASH.. above and beyond operating budgets, all other tangible assets, equipment, buildings, etc... what would that normally be called? Normally it's called PROFITS!! Simpy by hiding it dosen't mean it isn't a profit. And if they are a for profit business.. then they can give back all the trillions of dollars they've been getting in tax breaks as tax exempt corporations. Either way.. pay for the care that they are making all that money off of.
No matter how you want to divie it up.. that 3 trillion would go a long ways towards paying off the medicare and medicaid patients bills. It would go a long ways towards insuring the preexisting condition people who can't get insurance now... and it would go a long ways towards covering the healthcare costs of the unemployed and the illegal aliens. Just face it.. it would go alot farther than us spending another trillion dollars on a failed system. Get rid of the fraud in the hospital board rooms.. and then you won't need the government to do anything.
Sumo.. those relationships can and do work well for a number of reasons. One being that you have a whole lot of life experiences you can share with her that she hasn't even dreamed of yet. The other being the physical aspect of it. You're still vibrant enough to satisfy her in every way any younger man is.. and she's more likely to be in her prime as far as her physical beauty will ever be. But, and this is a big But.. it all depends on how she feels about it. That should be one of the first things you 2 talk about. Alot of people are pressured by what society may think of it and don't get past that.
Anyways... it's not impossible. But, you have to talk it out with her and find out her feelings as soon as you can.
It does actually seem like the whole thing is a scam dosen't it Kat. I mean what in the world is that whole rating system on photos for anyways? If not to let the scammers know which pictures draw the most attention? There are some things like that which make absolutely no sense at all if they weren't intending to use it to gather information on someone for some illegal use.
But, then some legitimate people to slip into the system and find each other even if the rest of it is all a scam. I guess i'll keep on trying. Either way it's fun messing with the scammers heads and wasting their time. Eveyone's got to have a hobby, i guess mine is hunting down scammers.
I had to vote yes on the poll. I know of at least one. So that means any. As for your follow up statements.. yep there are men who give women respect too... and even some who aren't looking for Barbie. Personally.. i think barbie is a little stuck up.
Not that it matters.. but you didn't say single or married men. I meant single.
Hope you don't think my ideas aren't innovative. I'm assuming you're refering to the massive increase in the same old insurance systems we already have without any real changes being made other than requiring them to cover pre-existing conditions. Just covering more people with insurance dosen't change any of the problems. Cept costing us all another trillion. They could make private non profit insurance companies now even without the healthcare swindle bill they want. That would create competion. Nothing at all stopping them from doing that. Won't even need to vote. And they could just change the medicare and medicaid into a public non profit company. Just get politicians right out of the entitlement business altogether.
If they'd just take the waste and fraud out of the system we have now there would be no need for anyone to have to have any insurance unless they wanted it. It would make the prices affordable. Allow all the insurance companies to compete for anyones business anywhere in the country. And as i said.. they need the employers completely out of it since they have no purpose being the middleman anyways.
Loverboy.. don't get discouraged. There are a whole lot of scammers coming out of the woodwork right now. I'm getting about 5 or 6 a day. They're easy enough to spot. Anytime a woman asks you to go to yahoo instant messanger in the very first message.. it's a fake. When they come out and call you baby and say they love your smile when you're not smiling in your profile pic, and say they're in love with you without ever talking with you its a fake. There are a thousand ways to spot the fakes. You just have to weed thru them to find the real ones. And there are real ones in here.
Totally bass ackwards there EM.. you are taking away the freedoms of those who do obey common sense by forcing laws on everyone just because some may not be smart enough to do what is right. So yes you are taking away a persons freedom.
I got no problem with considering a car a deadly weapon. Used by the proper people it's totally harmless to you and i and everyone else. Used by stupid people it can cause death and destruction. But we can't legislate stupidity! I will completely agree with you on the punishment that should be imposed if anyone does cause death. Like i said. Let the punishment fit the crime. Let's hope no one in your family is ever killed by anyone for any reason. And lets hope that they can be free to use their own common sense without being forced to use someone elses.
I don't have the time or inclination to go and find it for you. What do you call it when it is mandatory for someone to purchase insurance or face a fine? That's what i call forcing. Coercerion, extortion.. whatever you choose. And tell me there is no provision in the current bill that says it's mandatory to have insurance and i'll forget all about that part.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with empowering poor people to have access to affordable healthcare or even providing it for free. I got no problem with that at all. I could set it up so that we could all have much more affordable healthcare. Just get rid of the Controlled substances act... stop requiring prescriptions for medications... and end that nonsense about malpractice insurance too. There is absolutely no need for any person to pay into a ponzi scheme if there is affordable healthcare. No need to order anyone to purchase insurance that they DO NOT Want!! I am perfectly fine paying cash for what i need, as i need it. There are millions of others who don't want to be forced to give up their hard earned money too. I can budget my expenses just fine without having to buy insurance. And if anyone else wants to buy into those ponzi schemes.. just let them choose on their own which companies they want. Open it up so that companies can compete across state lines and medications can be purchased without a doctors note. Online or by mail if the drugs are inspected and approved by the FDA. I don't need a doctor to tell me what medication i need. I am perfectly capable of finding that out on my own. I am perfectly capable of looking it up online if i don't know. And if i do need to go to a doctor.. i will. I don't need government running anything. I don't need them ordering doctors to put everyones records on digital media to be stored in some database somewhere either. Course that part could be utilized quite well if it were tied in with the pharmacy records they currently keep on everyone at every drugstore.
My point if there is one.. that current law addresses nothing that is wrong with the system now. It's only making a bad system worse by throwing away trillions of dollars which my children will have to pay back, your children will have to pay back too.
Ok.. let's say we could make it a crime to be stupid while driving? What should the penalties be?
I'm not one in favor of making laws that infringe on our freedom. So this is a tough call for me. I agree that there are too many stupid people out there driving who can't seem to put down the cellphones long enough to get from point A to point B and that they are endangering and killing others by being so stupid. But, I'm concerned about how the punishment will be if they do make it a crime. If it's anything like usual.. it will be monetary. Government will take the opportunity to take excessive amounts of money from people just like they always do with no regard to the actual crime. No bearing whatsoever.. no steps to prevent future offences, and it's got nothing to do with making the punishment fit the crime. I would suggest first offence they take away the cell phones and give a warning. Second offence they are ordered to take a class to learn how to not be stupid again. Third and any offence in which they've actually caused an accident. Then confiscation of the vehicle.. just like they do for every other crime and/or Jail time.
I never read the book.. nor saw the movie (they did make it a movie i hope) but your research for your essay looks interesting. I'd like to see what you end up with. Good luck on it.
Sorry i couldn't vote in your poll. Didn't see an answer that would suit me. I just clicked on your poll because of the title.. and much like the current bill being debated in congress it was misnamed. That thing has nothing to do with healhcare.. it should of been named "mandatory forcing of people to buy something they never wanted and may never use bill from private companies or go to jail and pay fines for not doing so and we'll steal all your money either way bill"
I'm glad you're so enthusiastic about government forcing people to buy insurance though. Even though that has absolutely nothing to do with reforming the healtcare system we currently have. Forcing people into something that dosen't work and just multiplying the failures and waste of a corrupt system isn't something i'd be very happy about.
I'll be glad when it's finally defeated.. but then again you know politicians.. they'll just do it again and again and again untill they can get their yes vote.
Sorry i just had to ask. What are you talking about? There is absolutely no difference chemically between indoor grown and outdoor grown. And outdoor grown would require that it have the right amount of darkness in order to bud. Without buds it's useless. And in northern climates like mine.. there is just not a long enough growing season for the plants to bud on their own outdoors. The only way to grow it would be indoors or with some sort of shading system where a person could provide a minimum of 12 hours of complete darkness per day for at least 8 weeks.
And just FYI the laws on medicinal use all require that it be grown indoors and under lock and key away from any access by minors. Your solution would make criminals out of everyone who has a medical condition that grows their own now wouldn't it?
Yeah on that being sold in pubs thing. I think by pubs you mean the coffee shop sort of set up like they have in amsterdam. Those i'm not actually in favor of. The reason being is because just like the flaws with having bars that sell liquor.. a person would then have to leave the establishment to get home or whereever else they would go to. And that means driving. Now i know most people don't know that all the studies done thus far on cannabis have proven that drivers under the influence of cannabis are actually better drivers than those who aren't, so just in order to releive the public's fears that our roads would be filled with drug crazed zombies it would be best to not even set it up that way in the first place.
Which takes me to the answer 4 response. We already have a system to regulate distribution.. they are called drug stores. I'm not at all in favor of making it a required prescription for it either, but there used to be a system back before computers where a person could go into a drug store and buy codiene products. Then they would have to show an ID and the drug stores were only allowed to sell one bottle of cough medicine that had codiene in it to a customer. And of course they had to be of legal age too. That would work so much better as a system of distribution and a way of regulating and tracking a persons usage of it now with the computer age. All the drug stores in this country track all of a persons prescription drug purchases now anyways. Simple enough to add a non prescription one on the same system. That's what i would advocate. Then the person could use the cannabis in any situation where they were at a location where they weren't required to drive to get home afterwards. Cause driving while impaired will still be a crime, that would most likely never change. Although it's not fair that a person can legally be impaired by much more dangerous drugs such as ambien or prescription drugs. It would be fair that it would no longer be a crime to transport it in a vehicle.
And yeah they just criminalized smoking tobacco here in my state too... in any building other than your own home. That will be the new revenue stream they'll need to replace all the money they are going to lose from not being able to seize everyones homes and bank accounts for cannabis use. They actually tried to criminalize tobacco back when bill clinton was in office but the surgeon general couldn't get enough support to get it passed back then. Well now they can, seems with all this fear mongering about terrorists they can take away any freedom they want and no one will complain about it.
I'm not gonna get down on you for your opinion SMFY. Just put yourself into their shoes and tell me what you would do if you were starving and dying of thirst and the food and water were just feet away from you and not being given to anyone? Of course they are rioting and looting. They are fighting for their lives and their childrens lives.
Now, i'm an old rescue guy.. i used to do that sort of stuff for the american red cross decades ago. Back when disaters were handled by people who knew how to help people. This fiasco they are having now is just vastly worsened by the lack of organization on the part of the US. I voulenteered to send a 40 man rescue crew in there 2 hours after the quake and they told me to stay away. All they wanted was money. I had a plane sitting on the runway with a C-120 cargo plane ready to be loaded. And all the machinery i would need just a half a block away. This is the reason you're getting the rioting and looting. Because our leaders are so inept at handling anything. Much less a disaster. And since they are the ones with the guns.. who am i to argue with the way they are handling it? It's just a complete disaster on top of a disaster compounded by politics and yes the government of haiti was corrupt too. It was getting better though.. and by the time one 1/100th of that billion trickles it's way down to help them rebuild they will have a slightly better standard of living there. After all you can't get it any worse even as inept as our response is. Anything is better than eating dirt cookies just to have something to fill your stomach. And they had that standard of living before the quake. 80% of the people in Port au Prince were making less than a dollar a day before. At least being paid $100 a day to pick up dead bodies will make some people have more than they've ever had in their lives.
AmericanGardener Forum Posts (64)
RE: Should it be against the law to text and drive?
I think your law is all that would be required then. As i said it's a very sensible way to go about it. And then everyone is responsible for themselfs and the way they drive a vehicle. There would be no need for any other laws if this one is in place. It's all inclusive and it covers all stupid actions whether specifically spelled out ahead of time or not.