How do you feel....

phobicsquirrel

So in Oregon as of Jan 1st no more driving with a cell phone, you need a handsfree device. Now I know I hate seeing almost everyone driving talking on the damn thing or worse, texting but at the same time I know that I see people putting on make-up, talking, doing their hair, eating and shaving but they aren't put into law. So what's the deal? First it's the seatbelts, then it's child seat laws, then it's no drinking and driving, now it's no cell phones. Now while I agree that driving is something that is not a right, but where is the line drawn? Some part of me is wondering if it's a way to push up sales on accessories for cell phones or blu-tooth devices. I dunno, I'm not a huge fan of it but whatcha' gonna do...

badge54fd

phobicsquirrel:

So in Oregon as of Jan 1st no more driving with a cell phone, you need a handsfree device. Now I know I hate seeing almost everyone driving talking on the damn thing or worse, texting but at the same time I know that I see people putting on make-up, talking, doing their hair, eating and shaving but they aren't put into law. So what's the deal? First it's the seatbelts, then it's child seat laws, then it's no drinking and driving, now it's no cell phones. Now while I agree that driving is something that is not a right, but where is the line drawn? Some part of me is wondering if it's a way to push up sales on accessories for cell phones or blu-tooth devices. I dunno, I'm not a huge fan of it but whatcha' gonna do...

I hope the line is drawn before they ban smoking cigars in your car while driving.

cabinetmaker

"Now while I agree that driving is something that is not a right, but where is the line drawn?"

Somewhere after healthcare??

Snicker snicker...

alienmisprint

badge54fd:

phobicsquirrel:

So in Oregon as of Jan 1st no more driving with a cell phone, you need a handsfree device. Now I know I hate seeing almost everyone driving talking on the damn thing or worse, texting but at the same time I know that I see people putting on make-up, talking, doing their hair, eating and shaving but they aren't put into law. So what's the deal? First it's the seatbelts, then it's child seat laws, then it's no drinking and driving, now it's no cell phones. Now while I agree that driving is something that is not a right, but where is the line drawn? Some part of me is wondering if it's a way to push up sales on accessories for cell phones or blu-tooth devices. I dunno, I'm not a huge fan of it but whatcha' gonna do...

I hope the line is drawn before they ban smoking cigars in your car while driving.

Well, in Lousianna, it is illegal to smoke in a car with a minor.

dennisking

in central point oregon, it's illegal to smoke outside, period. city ordinance. pretty wild. i understand the reasoning behind the law, and if less people die, that's great. when more people die, our insurance costs go up. i personally think its BS but i do see the reasoning.

PuroFreak

dennisking:

in central point oregon, it's illegal to smoke outside, period. city ordinance. pretty wild. i understand the reasoning behind the law, and if less people die, that's great. when more people die, our insurance costs go up. i personally think its BS but i do see the reasoning.

I don't, because it is not the job of the government to baby sit us. The nanny state in this country grows more and more by the day. The Republicans do it with "security" in mind, and the Democrats do it with taxes and health care and social programs...

zoom6zoom

Even with a headset, you can be a bit distracted, but it's better... at least you have both hands to operate the vehicle. Personally I never make calls while driving and often won't answer them.

My mom told me she actually saw someone playing the flute while driving yesterday... yes, it takes two hands to play the flute.

ejenne87

New York was one the first, if not the first, state to outlaw talking on a cell phone whie driving. My father is officialy the first person in NY State to get a ticket for driving and talking on a cell phone. It happened the very first day the law was enacted, at about 6:30am while he was on his way in to work. Pretty funny from my position, now my family has it's claim to fame!

Garen B

We have the same law here in California but you still see people talking on the phone without a hands free device while driving. In my mind, the people that follow it are going to be a bit more alert while driving and the people that don't...Well someone has to be nominated for the Darwin Awards next year and it might as well be them.

Vulchor

I would make the arguement this is because of the amount of accidents cell phone use causes and therefore the economic burden on everyone due to the accident (injuries, claims, etc)----as the only reason the govt. cares about us is because the almighty dollar is invovled.

That being said, I hate the idea it is made a law because it does seem to infringe on you rights. Although again, having this right and using to plow into my car head on while talking to your girlfriends about how much a a d!ck your boyfriend has been and how bad your pu*sy hurts doesnt make he happy either----sorry, hatred of women coming out.

cabinetmaker

Any time the gov't gets involved regulating things (anything), the lines between personal freedom and "duty" to the insane laws on the books gets moved further and further away from freedom of choice. I do have a right to choose, but not to drive, or have healthcare, or any other insane bullsh!t.

kuzi16

cabinetmaker:

Any time the gov't gets involved regulating things (anything), the lines between personal freedom and "duty" to the insane laws on the books gets moved further and further away from freedom of choice. I do have a right to choose, but not to drive, or have healthcare, or any other insane bullsh!t.

interesting read on that....

Making Criminals out of All Americans

phobicsquirrel

cabinetmaker:

Any time the gov't gets involved regulating things (anything), the lines between personal freedom and "duty" to the insane laws on the books gets moved further and further away from freedom of choice. I do have a right to choose, but not to drive, or have healthcare, or any other insane bullsh!t.

I don't really believe that. If GOVT hadn't got involved in anything it would be a lot worse.

kuzi16

phobicsquirrel:

cabinetmaker:

Any time the gov't gets involved regulating things (anything), the lines between personal freedom and "duty" to the insane laws on the books gets moved further and further away from freedom of choice. I do have a right to choose, but not to drive, or have healthcare, or any other insane bullsh!t.

I don't really believe that. If GOVT hadn't got involved in anything it would be a lot worse.

no it wouldnt.
and even if that were the case, there is a damn good argument that it has gone too far.

BStayer

kuzi16:

phobicsquirrel:

cabinetmaker:

Any time the gov't gets involved regulating things (anything), the lines between personal freedom and "duty" to the insane laws on the books gets moved further and further away from freedom of choice. I do have a right to choose, but not to drive, or have healthcare, or any other insane bullsh!t.

I don't really believe that. If GOVT hadn't got involved in anything it would be a lot worse.

no it wouldnt.
and even if that were the case, there is a damn good argument that it has gone too far.

Agreed...why do people feel the need to have their hands held by the gov't at every turn? It's time we grew up and lived our own lives rather than relying on some group of disconnected power-hungry monsters. Love Ronald Reagan..."The ten most dangerous words in the English language are "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

kuzi16

i also dont understand why people have so much faith in government when they have failed on just about every level.

BStayer

kuzi16:

i also dont understand why people have so much faith in government when they have failed on just about every level.

I'm not trying to turn into a cliche Reagan machine here, but I can't resist..."Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem."

dennisking

there has to be a middle ground here though. all my money goes to BS social security and that money goes to pay for the guy who got disabled because the other guy driving and talking on his phone ran him over in a crosswalk disabling him. i don't like social security, i don't like losing freedom, but i don't like irresponsible people either. when people are stupid, we all pay and it sucks but it's true. in a year, this conversation will be over as we all have cars with bluetooth or bluetooth headsets anyway

phobicsquirrel

BStayer:

kuzi16:

i also dont understand why people have so much faith in government when they have failed on just about every level.

I'm not trying to turn into a cliche Reagan machine here, but I can't resist..."Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem."

so private companies are the light, oh yeah I see. Those tax cuts bush passed really made fat cats bring jobs. Small business is the way for sure. When companies start worrying about their company rather than apeasing share holders then hopefully govt will back off though they really haven't done much, just gave big companies a bunch of money which was used to what, oh buy more bad investments and pay bonus's. I'm interested to see what the new AIG info brings to light. And Kuzi, I don't understand why you are so against govt and pro private companies when the same private companies are a main component to this current economy. You also have to remember, the large companies and banks have their hands deep in government.

phobicsquirrel

dennisking:

there has to be a middle ground here though. all my money goes to BS social security and that money goes to pay for the guy who got disabled because the other guy driving and talking on his phone ran him over in a crosswalk disabling him. i don't like social security, i don't like losing freedom, but i don't like irresponsible people either. when people are stupid, we all pay and it sucks but it's true. in a year, this conversation will be over as we all have cars with bluetooth or bluetooth headsets anyway

I just read a cool thing Ford is doing with their coming cars, I think the '11 ford truck (not sure which) and '12 focus will include some really cool stuff. SS yeah, I hate paying for it too but you know, I deal with old people all the time, and now my parents are on it and I really don't mind as much anymore. My dad got screwed by the enron thing and his retirement all but went away since he had a lot invested in 401k. He's lucky though, he's been with his company for 27 years so he is getting more now then he was working and he is also getting retirement from an old job back in NY when he was younger plus SS. So my parents are finally getting something for as much crap they have been through. Though they are far from rich, though I wish they had more money to travel and see the world. SS does a good thing.

phobicsquirrel

BStayer:

kuzi16:

phobicsquirrel:

cabinetmaker:

Any time the gov't gets involved regulating things (anything), the lines between personal freedom and "duty" to the insane laws on the books gets moved further and further away from freedom of choice. I do have a right to choose, but not to drive, or have healthcare, or any other insane bullsh!t.

I don't really believe that. If GOVT hadn't got involved in anything it would be a lot worse.

no it wouldnt.
and even if that were the case, there is a damn good argument that it has gone too far.

Agreed...why do people feel the need to have their hands held by the gov't at every turn? It's time we grew up and lived our own lives rather than relying on some group of disconnected power-hungry monsters. Love Ronald Reagan..."The ten most dangerous words in the English language are "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Somehow I really doubt that you know much about the policies and deals and what his admin did. "privatizing" has worked out so well.

ejenne87

phobicsquirrel:

Somehow I really doubt that you know much about the policies and deals and what his admin did. "privatizing" has worked out so well.

I know I very rarely post anything on these discussions you all have, but I have to say something about this. I don't like this type of "argument". If you believe that someone does not know much about a subject you are saying, in fewer words, "I know more about this than you do." If this is the case and you are truly more knowledgable on that topic there are better ways to go about stating that you don't agree with someone. I am not attacking you at all squirrel, I just think that telling someone, "you don't know the truth" is not an effective way of communicating your opinion. You are not the only one to do this, squirrel, but I just saw it here and I wanted to respond to it. I appologize if I seem like I am trying to tell you how to argue/debate, I just have a small problem with the whole "I know you are wrong, but I don't have to prove it because you can't back up your side either!"

kuzi16

phobicsquirrel:

BStayer:

kuzi16:

phobicsquirrel:

cabinetmaker:

Any time the gov't gets involved regulating things (anything), the lines between personal freedom and "duty" to the insane laws on the books gets moved further and further away from freedom of choice. I do have a right to choose, but not to drive, or have healthcare, or any other insane bullsh!t.

I don't really believe that. If GOVT hadn't got involved in anything it would be a lot worse.

no it wouldnt.
and even if that were the case, there is a damn good argument that it has gone too far.

Agreed...why do people feel the need to have their hands held by the gov't at every turn? It's time we grew up and lived our own lives rather than relying on some group of disconnected power-hungry monsters. Love Ronald Reagan..."The ten most dangerous words in the English language are "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Somehow I really doubt that you know much about the policies and deals and what his admin did. "privatizing" has worked out so well.

whats interesting is that Reagan's administration marked the beginning of 25 years of relative prosperity. then, after many years of government intrusion (by both republicans and democrats), the economy has started to head south again.
im not saying it was all Reagan, but i am saying that it is a strange coincidence.


the soviet union, china, half of germany, cuba, and north korea have proven that making everything "public" was actually a wonderful idea. there is/was no poverty in any of those countries. every system works perfectly. nobody is oppressed in any way.


please provide proof or even evidence that it was privatization that has ruined this country.

"look around" isnt a a valid argument. when i look around i see government getting in the way of people trying to produce by taxing, mandating, regulating, and otherwise dominating them.

i can make a strong case that individuals owning things privately was what made this country great. i am also prepared to make an argument that the more government controls things, the less productive the people are, and therefor, the worse off the economy.

phobicsquirrel

I've done plenty to show that large private corporate interest has cause vast problems as has several other members and to be honest, dig into what has happens over just the last several years. I'm not saying that private business is bad and govt run control is only good, I'm just saying that when corporate control becomes, let's say too powerful and is actually influencing govt then there is a problem and that is what is going on right now. And actually look around is a good argument. Look at what AIG and the federal reserve has done. Laker did a good job on summing up what you do kuzi, both he and I (more he) has provided very well written posts on several occasions posting links and what not however you always seem to skip or not read, or whatever it is you do. Fact is, I could say that less govt control and let private corporations run this country and you might be for that, though if history has shown anything in the last 100 years that people that are very rich and have lots of control don't like to share and only keep themselves on top while making others under them just that, under them. You say that govt has no good working programs, well I've said it before but here we go, schools, post office, police, fire, roads, water systems, military, social security, medicare, medicaid, CIA, FBI, NSA, NASA... the list goes on. Yes they are far from perfect, but they work. Debating you or even trying to have a conversation with you is very difficult. Urby has tried in the past, I have, Laker has, it's just not practical at least on the forums. I'm not trying to single you out or attack you, You just have different view points as do a lot of people here. In fact several if not most seem to see things more or less your way. Which is fine.

phobicsquirrel

ejenne87:

phobicsquirrel:

Somehow I really doubt that you know much about the policies and deals and what his admin did. "privatizing" has worked out so well.

I know I very rarely post anything on these discussions you all have, but I have to say something about this. I don't like this type of "argument". If you believe that someone does not know much about a subject you are saying, in fewer words, "I know more about this than you do." If this is the case and you are truly more knowledgable on that topic there are better ways to go about stating that you don't agree with someone. I am not attacking you at all squirrel, I just think that telling someone, "you don't know the truth" is not an effective way of communicating your opinion. You are not the only one to do this, squirrel, but I just saw it here and I wanted to respond to it. I appologize if I seem like I am trying to tell you how to argue/debate, I just have a small problem with the whole "I know you are wrong, but I don't have to prove it because you can't back up your side either!"

I can back up my side, and I wasn't attacking anyone, just stating something. As an example, look at the wealth shifts in the US from the late 70's to now. I have done a lot of work studying govt and the reagan admin along with FDR and Lincoln were among the most. The shift in power to the upper 1% since Reagan is huge and it was done through govt. Again if I made it seem as though I was attacking anyone I wasn't.

phobicsquirrel

...and I would just like to say that this thread was about cell phones being banned while driving. Which I might add a coworker of mine got pulled over today for, and while not given a ticket was made to get out of his car, sit on the sidewalk while he was poured on with rain while the officer searched his car. I guess probable cause was because a cell phone was used while driving. Now I'm not lawyer but I thought a simple traffic stop wasn't really means to do this. Anyway he got the badge number of the cop and I believe is going to file a complaint. Sucks though, but at least there was no ticket.

ejenne87

phobicsquirrel:

ejenne87:

phobicsquirrel:

Somehow I really doubt that you know much about the policies and deals and what his admin did. "privatizing" has worked out so well.

I know I very rarely post anything on these discussions you all have, but I have to say something about this. I don't like this type of "argument". If you believe that someone does not know much about a subject you are saying, in fewer words, "I know more about this than you do." If this is the case and you are truly more knowledgable on that topic there are better ways to go about stating that you don't agree with someone. I am not attacking you at all squirrel, I just think that telling someone, "you don't know the truth" is not an effective way of communicating your opinion. You are not the only one to do this, squirrel, but I just saw it here and I wanted to respond to it. I appologize if I seem like I am trying to tell you how to argue/debate, I just have a small problem with the whole "I know you are wrong, but I don't have to prove it because you can't back up your side either!"

I can back up my side, and I wasn't attacking anyone, just stating something. As an example, look at the wealth shifts in the US from the late 70's to now. I have done a lot of work studying govt and the reagan admin along with FDR and Lincoln were among the most. The shift in power to the upper 1% since Reagan is huge and it was done through govt. Again if I made it seem as though I was attacking anyone I wasn't.

I didn't take it as an attack. Actualy the reason why i even brought it up was because I wanted to see some conflicting view points on the Reagan Admin... All I ever hear is how great Reagan was and I have not done enough reading to form an opinion yet. I was simply hoping that you could bring up some interesting facts that would spark my interest and I might actualy read a little about the amn and his Presidency..

kuzi16

phobicsquirrel:

I've done plenty to show that large private corporate interest has cause vast problems as has several other members and to be honest,

no, you have not. you just keep saying "look around"

phobicsquirrel:

dig into what has happens over just the last several years.

what? the government taking more and more rights away from people? the government regulating more and more?

phobicsquirrel:

I'm not saying that private business is bad and govt run control is only good, I'm just saying that when corporate control becomes, let's say too powerful and is actually influencing govt then there is a problem and that is what is going on right now.

NOW we are getting somewhere. this is the best thing i have heard you say in a while.

phobicsquirrel:

And actually look around is a good argument.

no, its not. when i look around i see a way different picture than you do.

phobicsquirrel:

Look at what AIG and the federal reserve has done.

....and the federal reserve....
the corrupt government is involved here. the buisness is too. if that business infringed on the rights of anyone then it should be punished. however, the government isnt doing that because it is not living up to its only stated job of protecting the rights of the individual.

phobicsquirrel:

Laker did a good job on summing up what you do kuzi, both he and I (more he) has provided very well written posts on several occasions posting links and what not however you always seem to skip or not read, or whatever it is you do.

ummm.. i always break them up concept by concept the way i am doing now.
i also do that to your links in argument form.

i skip nothing. i just see how you or others "feel" not facts.

phobicsquirrel:

Fact is, I could say that less govt control and let private corporations run this country and you might be for that,

no. im not for anybody controlling anybody. i am for individual rights and freedom for everyone.

phobicsquirrel:

though if history has shown anything in the last 100 years that people that are very rich and have lots of control don't like to share and only keep themselves on top while making others under them just that, under them.

they also like to pay people to provide them services
they also like to start companies that employ people.
yes, they do keep money for themselves. this is not a crime. if they earned that money in a way that does not violate rights who am I (or who is anybody) to say that they shouldnt be able to keep it?

phobicsquirrel:

You say that govt has no good working programs, well I've said it before but here we go,

oh im ready...

phobicsquirrel:

schools

Private schools have a better teacher to student ratio
private schools score better in reading and math than public schools
Private schools have a higher graduation rate than public schools

phobicsquirrel:

post office

Postal chief says post office running out of money
The Post office announced this week that it lost $3.8 billion in the most recent fiscal year
OBAMA: 'UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems

phobicsquirrel:

police

this one and the military i will agree with you on because this is what the government is supposed to do: protect our rights. however this isnt federal, this is local and falls under the 9th and 10th amendment.

phobicsquirrel:

fire

not federal

phobicsquirrel:

roads, water systems,

not federal again, but...
http://www.wwmt.com/articles/roads-1363526-mich-counties.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431135774170619.html
actually, the list of infrastructure problems is too long to post...

phobicsquirrel:

military

see the answer for police
only difference this is federal.

but what about the misuse of the military in unjust wars? hmmm....
lets not open that can of worms....

phobicsquirrel:

social security

Millions face shrinking Social Security payments
Congressman: 'Social Security could face default within two years'
Social Security spends $700,000 on Phoenix conference
Social Security audit finds dead people getting checks US Treasury chief says Social Security 'unsustainable'

phobicsquirrel:

medicare,

Medicare is still going broke, according to an annual report to trustees
Medicare's Problems May Prove Tougher Than Social Security's

phobicsquirrel:

medicaid

Medicaid Problems - Worse Than You Think
More Medicaid Means Less Quality Health Care

phobicsquirrel:

, CIA, FBI, NSA,

again, protecting rights, therefore part of what the government is SUPPOSED to do...
but misuse is still an issue with the corrupt government we have.

phobicsquirrel:

NASA

ah... NASA... the government agency best known for sending America's finest into space on shuttle that is built by the lowest bidder....
Virgin's space program will run in the black unlike NASA

phobicsquirrel:

the list goes on.

as would my list.

phobicsquirrel:

Yes they are far from perfect,

true

phobicsquirrel:

but they work.

that is Debatable.

phobicsquirrel:

Debating you or even trying to have a conversation with you is very difficult. Urby has tried in the past, I have, Laker has, it's just not practical at least on the forums. I'm not trying to single you out or attack you, You just have different view points as do a lot of people here. In fact several if not most seem to see things more or less your way. Which is fine.

i understand that. but at the same time, a forum is a good place. links can be made. facts can be found.

phobicsquirrel

See you have something to say about everything! Private programs don't work either kuzi, nothing will be perfect. Medicare is going broke only because of misuse of the program and the huge amount of gouging being done via private companies. I believe I posted an article about a woman and a wheelchair. I never once said the govt should replace the private sector, the govt can't make things, they can't really hire people but the large corporations that basically run this country, AIG, Citibank, Sachs, big oil, and others have so much money and so much lobbying pwr that they control a lot of govt. And I never said I was against private anything, only the amount of power and control that many of the large, very large companies. Show me as many fantastic "private" programs that would be better than what the govt offers? I can look at how you "think" about a single payer health system to see who you are. You sit here and say govt has no business in health care, yet you've never served in the military and I love the VA, you have never been to a free 2 day clinic where thousands of people swarm too just to get basic treatment, and you obviously have never had any issues with your insurance company. Another words, your Sh*t doesn't stink, and as long as your okay nothings wrong. The private health insurance has been around for decades and it's not getting better, so why shouldn't the govt step in. I do say look around, but I'm sure you don't deal with people everyday who tell you their stories and how they are affected, nor dig into issues. You've said it yourself, if a company can't pay someone's wage then they should shed the worker. Though is that before or after executive pay is increased and huge bonus's are sent out? The basic business ethic that I see everyday with small business's is, how can I keep them?, vs the corporate motto, who can we fire! There is a disconnect, a huge one.

kuzi16

phobicsquirrel:

Yes they are far from perfect,

true

phobicsquirrel:

but they work.

that is Debatable.



i was thinking about this and have a bit more to add.

up until recently, when a private company fails (and they do fail) it goes away and a new company that is more efficient will replace it if there is still some demand for the product or service that it provided.


when a government agency fails, the federal government pours more and more money into it forcing it to continue on while failing, running in the red, and wasting money. even failing companies have some degree of success, but that does not mean that the company itself is a success. the post office can still deliver a package or a letter, but it is hemorrhaging money. as any good business man knows, this is unsustainable. this waste of money comes out of our pockets as taxes.




interesting semi-related site

Hawk55

I agree, the government is not the problem...just think how much more of a problem there would be if there was no governmnet help or intervention. But the problem(s) have allowed there to be any number of excuses for trying to get them solved. Identify a problem and get enough of a following and you can move in any number of directions...the right or wrong direction depending on who you ask what is right...or wrong.