US calls for ban on in-car phone use ... even with Bluetooth

[james&olya 1,121]

American christians, in contrast, know christian teachings, say they believe in god, and then talk about shooting children in the Rio Grande

I am not so sure I agree that 'christians' actually are very well versed in the teachings contained in the gospels!

[james&olya 1,121]

I see no need to shoot kids in the river or or any other place. I'm a soften when it comes to children (with limits of course), period.

I hold the parents responsible.

So the 'christian' thing to do is just shoot their parents instead!

[slim 1,525]

Why not do that with all traffic violations? Until you kill somebody you get to drive drunk if you feel like it, drive 150mph, etc? Is the standard of 'I haven't killed anybody YET' good enough?

We do.

You don't get ticketed for speeding until you're speeding. You don't get a DUI until you've crashed or the cops pull you over for something else. Our laws are reactive. The same will apply for cell phones. Whether it's illegal or not, people will do it until they're caught. Why do people still not wear their seat belts?

If a cop tickets you for using your cell phone the burden of proof will be on the state to prove you were doing so. Either they'll have to show up to court with an eyewitness acccount, "I observed Mr. Public on his cell phone." Or, they'll have to provide phone records or some kind of proof to the court. This will become a long drawn out process and in the end, it'll cost the taxpayers more money because a government representative will have to administrate the program.

But, we'll buy it because the insurance industry will lobby for it, politicians will pass it, and the media will tell all of us we're safer because of it.

[james&olya 1,121]

Real conservatives do not seek answers and laws from the government to solve all of lifes issues, oh no, that's what liberals do.

Like laws outlawing a woman's right to choose, banning gays from legal marriage benefits, using substances like marijuana, etc.!

[james&olya 1,121]

We do.

You don't get ticketed for speeding until you're speeding. You don't get a DUI until you've crashed or the cops pull you over for something else. Our laws are reactive. The same will apply for cell phones. Whether it's illegal or not, people will do it until they're caught. Why do people still not wear their seat belts?

If a cop tickets you for using your cell phone the burden of proof will be on the state to prove you were doing so. Either they'll have to show up to court with an eyewitness acccount, "I observed Mr. Public on his cell phone." Or, they'll have to provide phone records or some kind of proof to the court. This will become a long drawn out process and in the end, it'll cost the taxpayers more money because a government representative will have to administrate the program.

But, we'll buy it because the insurance industry will lobby for it, politicians will pass it, and the media will tell all of us we're safer because of it.

You do know about that new invention called a digital camera? That 'burden' of proof might be easily met that way. It does become a problem when you propose outlawing hands free devices also!

[Leatherneck 693]

Interesting

I have concluded recently that talk of sociopaths is overdone because 'normal' people can and do behave like them

That's why a lot of soldiers returning home won't talk about the war - because they have done things when they were 'different people' being driven by forces outside of themselves

A lot of religious people act in ways that are inexplicably bad - in Africa they will burn people alive

We nonreligious people can be bad too - but we are not fueled by a holy command - just by the wish to drive home drunk etc. The imperative is not the same, and so its easier to be good because we haven't got some pastor driving us on by holy command

Shooting abortion doctors or politicians is always incited by someone else, even if the shooter is a lone wolf. That someone else is either a religious organization or a political organization which has morphed into a semi-religious organization with deep mantras and repetitions - eg the tea party

There is no doubt that the US Constitution has become as holy and as revered and as sacred as any religious object.

At that point it morphs from a really worthwhile statement of intent and guidance, to a weapon of extremists and an anchor to an outdated past and a barrier to progress

I really like the constitution, but when it turns into the equivalent of the saint's finger bones, I think it can get in the way of progress

The founding fathers were just men after all - not cosmic gods sent to give us the commandments for all time which is how a lot of Americans revere them. They put their pants on one leg at a time too.

I mention this because the whole 1776 thing even gets into conversations about cell phones

So people that seek to have elected public servants adhere to the Constitution are extremists? Your ignorance of the Constitution and it's purpose is profound (wink, wink) indeed. Here's a hint, the Constitution was to be a limit on what the federal government could do. The 10 amendment was to take care of the rest

Why are you here, why on earth did you immigrate to a country that is not as progressive as you'd like it to be?

There are 196 countries (exclude Taiwan if you take the politically sensitive view of the US State Dept.) so why didn't you immigrate to any number of countries where you could've gotten all of the progressive, over-reaching, nanny state, cradle-to-grave government you wanted?

Your disdain is not lacking for the U.S. Constitution or anyone/organization (like the Tea Party) that seeks to have the ideals contained within it adhered to.

[slim 1,525]

You do know about that new invention called a digital camera? That 'burden' of proof might be easily met that way. It does become a problem when you propose outlawing hands free devices also!

So you think we should pay for cameras, processing fees, people to look at the pictures, people to file the paperwork, etc., all so some people can't talk on their cell phones?

Seriously folks, is this really that big of a deal? How many of you have been injured because you were struck by a motorist on a cell phone?