rehmwa

Your post is typical nonsense from the right. Emoticons and no letters? WHy bother? Really, just skim on by. because the post speaks to the irony and the humor of the exchange - without any diarherria posting or volumes of attachments from moveon, or foxnews or anything else you start your own site and you can personally decide who posts what I know pithy isn't in your vocab... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I suspect my answer doesn't much matter as long as you get some kind of response to interpret as you will. And this is going into a "depends on how each individual defines the grey area" direction which is predictable, but less entertaining. But your post does bring to mind Homer Simpson "driving" Ned's RV..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

nonsense - he is less prejudiced to being bought than others of less desirable ilk ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

We had a long thread about the quasi-christ, semi-christ, demi-christ and anti-christ way back when we were all humorously cynical and not arguing so much. Missing the good ol' days of speakers corner ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

...do you want that?... Possibly. But we'd need to erase all borders first. The problem would be the establishment of a real, democratic governing body, not the kind that advocates Rollerball. "Rollerball" Who says that the 'one world gov' will be democratic? I like borders, it's let's me brag abouts how well traveled and sophistimicated I be. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

nonsense - the point is they all fall into the same category and specifically addressing only one of the items is just nuts and yes, I want the cop to react to bad driving rather than intrude, pre-emptively, on individuals that are doing just fine the only really funny irony is that it's likely when you guys are driving home from your celebration of this "law" someone will likely get rear ended by a woman putting on makeup...... She will likely have driven erratically past a cop who was too busy ticketing some guy on suspicion of having a cell phone in his pocket, even though he was driving fine, to notice she we straddling the center line edit: then of course, we'll go over this whole thing again when we have the discussion about outlawing makeup - which will be sexist, therefore unconstitutional - as well as damaging to the cosmetic industry lobbyists ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

back from lunch just saw a woman go straight on left turn only lane - she cut in front of any potential through drivers (this time none, but I've seen it before at this intersection). she was on a cell phone with this law, she could have been pulled over for this - without it, too bad there aren't laws already in place for not following the traffic rules (like lane restrictions). OH, wait a minute. It's about enforcement against stupid driving. More, redundant rules won't help unless the cops are parked there. At this intersection, i've seen that same dumb move made many times - sometimes the driver wasn't even talking on a phone!!!! I'd like them stopped too. What do I restrict on them? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

1 - suspect many on all sides would be afraid of this 2 - seems the UN is dominated by middle east countries and the "Big5" (is it still 5? or 6?) do you want that? many are very disaffected with our national government - would moving to an even bigger government really make it all better? even fractionally? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

he mention alcohol as an analogy how do you plan to enforce the cell phone thing? one answer - via alcohol enformcement logic, is to require it in the trunk Do you want cops to pull you over because they see a cell phone in your car? Or do you think it's justified that they pull you over when you drive crappy. Then does it matter whether or not you had a phone is your ear or a bottle in your hand or forgot to wear your glasses? the "right thing" is to not drive crappy. I don't care what EXCUSE you have for it I don't know how to respond to that one - so we arrest people that "show no sign of problems" recommend you wrap up in bubble wrap and live in a cave - you'll be safe from all the stupid people ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

So is this "Dem Donor" a large multinational that bought a lot of advertising "speech" for the Obama campaign? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

What's this: "UN and the New World Order and all it stands for "? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Are you saying that due process of law does not apply to non-citizens? I'm saying the Bill of Rights applies to rights that citizens have that cannot be overcome by the government. non-citizens are not part of that contract ask a lawyer your question, it's not something I'm up to speed on. I would say 'no' it's not a right to be protected under the B.O.R., but it's likely a good idea for other reasons. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

So this isn't about freedom of speech, but rather about mass political advertising and how that may have a bias effect on POWER. assumptions - people really give a crap and respond to advertising (yeah, many are fickle that way, many also don't give a crap about what's in the media any more and make up our own minds, many are pawns and will join movements - real or contrived by corps in this way) seems a good assumption - but without directly political advertising, there is still corporate/indirect advertising, leveraging unions and clubs which you seem to exclude from this argument as different category, etc - so there are work arounds for the multi nats - that politicians can be bought via contributions that's a case basis, but a good assumption too. Though, I don't trust pols to make policy on their bribes either - their self-interest motivation is so crooked and so fickle - that I can see any one of them completely dumping even their biggest contributor for their own advancement - that multinats will gain more influence if they can hammer the advertising using their vast resources I'm less sold on this, they already have a huge influence on gov and politics, doubt this will increase what's a pretty engorged situation what else? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

5 was so glib, I just rolled past it - but nicely said (best of all of them really) 22 started off emotionally, so I usually just pass over the posts that bash someone or start off with profanity - but it made the point really well. 28 - sorry I was in skimming mode and just missed it The last one had it in a single sentence I caught as I was about to blow it off too as just another angry post/pissing contest contribution - diamond in the rough so to speak however - this slant is interesting, it will conflict with consistency on many here concerning miranda rights and voting rights which many on either side of this particular argument vehemently argue those points in the other direction....it'll be more interesting to see who's is really consistent vs the others for those that take this point as a decent argument. Much more interesting than the subject topic - certainly one can argue right vs wrong on this specific case, but the neat thing about speech, is that it's pretty robust and corps/clubs/orgs having or not having equivalent speech as individuals won't really hurt or help much in the long run. But it will make interesting political hay for politicians maybe. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Your post is typical nonsense from the right. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I absolutely believe the US government cannot limit free speech for US citizens and organizations/corporations/clubs of US citizens Organizations/Corporations/Clubs that represent non-citizens, even fractionally, cannot exercise free speech solely on the behalf of US citizens due to their member content Edit: Our biggest and best form of Speech, is voting. If a non-citizen illegally gets a vote counted for Candidate A - it is DIRECTLY disenfranchising every single citizen that voted for Candidate B, C, D, etc I think this can be an analogy (diluted, but still applicable) to general speech ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

this is first decent argument I've heard from this side of the coin the Bill of Rights governs the rights of the citizens, and a corporation that represents multinational rights give speech (what an abused term) by proxy to non-citizens - thus diluting the speech of citizens - which takes from our rights as citizens - in essence, a policy that limits our right to speech much like we are not obligated to give miranda rights, gun ownership rights, voting, etc to non-citizens, speech also applies I have think on this angle thanks ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

so you want to have a law that requires one puts their phone in the trunk? it's real simple - if the car is drifting, going in and out of the lane, making unsafe accelerations and decelerations, etc - pull them over. And it doesn't matter if the cause (excuse) is phone, liquor, old age, young age, sickness, texting, or nothing but just being a crappy driver. it makes a hell of lot more sense than looking in the window and spotting a 'forbidden' item even if the driver is under complete control. Edit: I don't care WHY ryoder almost got hit when he was on his bicycle - I just care that he almost got hit and I don't want it to happen again. Ban phones, and the next time he might get hit by someone putting on makeup, or yelling at their kids, or a realtor digging through a box of crap in the front seat, etc etc etc - the realtor example is one I see more often than anything - we should ban realtors...... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

So you agree that's wrong for either party to arbitrarily ban things on subjective issues. So far so good. the alternative response to this note is that it looks like you just want both parties to commit an equal number injustices to the people - but that's silly ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

absolutely - ban "behavior" - not objects. glad you understand that criminals are to blame for breaking laws, not inanimate objects ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Don't they pull the car over for poor/suspicious driving - as the reason for the pullover. The drunk part is found out afterwards. Or do cops just "know" a driver is drunk even when he's driving 'normal' and gets to pull him over? Public intox as a totally different law broken could then be something they would then assess after the pull over for the other reason. I suspect we could retool the laws to cover that and still remain consistent with society's need to punish the drunk driver. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

so - our choice, we can have 20 different laws - or we can have one law based on the actual behavior of drivers that cops can see from a distance. Rather than looking in through our windows, how about the cops just pull people over for bad driving. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

nonsense - type one - if they have a personal bias, they choose not to do it for themselves and let others fend for themselves. They'd like the choice of others to match theirs, but they won't use the law to force it, rather they set expectations and let others choose. They understand right and wrong are not hard fast answers and that different people need to be accepted for being different in their beliefs. They'll go after someone based on their actions, but not on a 'feeling' that someday they'll commit those actions anyway. type two - personal bias, they'll cheat on it personally on occasion BTW, because they are 'special, even smarter than the others that they feel qualified to make decisions for others" but in public will rant and rave about the right vs wrong of the issue, they will be outraged when others do it too. They will force others to comply with them using legislation on little things that annoy them and overload the system with crap laws. They think people are too weak to handle subjective stuff on an individual basis - they assume people are guilty before they even demonstrate the guilty behavior. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

why do you hate poor people that can't afford hands-free? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Seems that being able to eat is why we all learn stuff. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants