Arlington bans texting and driving today.

[dville_gt]

/end thread

[mstng86]

I know the thread is over, but...

what he said!

/end thread

The thread really isn't complete until we see a graphic video of someone texting and getting in a wreck or running someone over.

Until then

\continue thread

[Cooter]

The Geofster is an idiot.

Arlington sucks.

CJ ruled this thread.

/end thread

I know the thread is over, but...

what he said!

/end thread

[dville_gt]

The Geofster is an idiot.

Arlington sucks.

CJ ruled this thread.

/end thread

[CJ]

Hardly!

I'm done arguing with you as we're just going around in circles and accomplishing nothing, other than pointing fingers and missing/ignoring points. But if you could list out some other "
feel good" legislation that has passed, I would tell you whether I am for or against it.

And I hardly think it's fair to compare the city of Arlington to the country of England.

If you feel like what you proposed was not a liberal argument, then you just demonstrated with the "hardly" comment that you are in fact confused about your political stance. Would you like me to demonstrate why legislating for what you perceive as a persons best interest is liberal? Or do you really think that's something you should pursue? I think you should use your best judgement and leave that one alone, and realize what you're proposing. Don't give up now Geof, you're just starting to get pigeon holed! This is how I know I'm reaching you, you have no arguments. Read the last paragraph of my post.

The country of England is the end result of over regulation. It is the final example of what this kind of legislation creates. You can't possibly think they just voted away all of their rights on a single vote? It was the culmination of tens of thousands of little 'feel better' votes. Guns kill, banned. Knives kill, banned. Stun guns hurt, banned. etc. etc. etc.. all feel good legislation - end result? No longer legal to defend yourself. It seems like you expect there to have been some vote that came up saying "Do you want to inability to defend yourself?" and people voted for it. This is the point I'm making - Liberty suffers the death of a thousand cuts. And each time you allow laws to be regulated, you stack on. What I am explaining (as obviously it seems) is a very complicated thing that many people don't understand. And it's a huge liability for our country, because politicians and government will take advantage of this, they always have throughout time.

[Geor!]

Geof, the argument you just made - in it's entirety - is a vehemently liberal argument. Just in case you're confused about your political stance. Are the liberties of all worth the life of one? Yes, our country is founded on that principal. The constitution sets forth the right to bear arms. Thousands of people die because of peoples poor decisions with guns each year. Should we ban them Geof? A hell of a lot more people get killed from guns than texting each year? How about knives? These are the same thing - people irresponsibly using a tool (such as a phone) cause the harm of death of themselves, or others. The point I am making, and the point that a society expressing true liberty would reinforce is the irresponsible party bears the responsibility of their actions, not the community as a whole. Your argument is ignorant. You ignore the liberties of all, for the pursuit of the possibility you might save one life. Your argument is you will sacrifice the "tiniest" fraction of your liberty to save ones life. The problem is, you're set forth on this path to vote for what makes you feel good inside. And you're susceptible to this type of legislation, and you and many others will continually vote into this scam and eventually all of these regulations add up. You argue "oh it's only a small thing" well if you never stop voting for it, you vote a hundred of these thing into effect, and then it's too late. It's been proven throughout history what happens with over-regulation.

The idea of Liberty is a very complex and difficult thing that takes a great deal of responsibility and sacrifice to not only achieve, but to maintain. There is a reason many of our forefathers died for it, because it's a really fucking hard thing to get. And it's very easy for people to take it away, or give it away out of convenience.

Hardly!

I'm done arguing with you as we're just going around in circles and accomplishing nothing, other than pointing fingers and missing/ignoring points. But if you could list out some other "
feel good" legislation that has passed, I would tell you whether I am for or against it.

And I hardly think it's fair to compare the city of Arlington to the country of England.

[DON SVO]

That's true, they are very slender. But, it makes me feel like I'm holding a squirt gun.

I have smaller hands, feels great for me.

[td4087]

I see everyone doing it. I understand everyone is upset because the government is stripping people from their right to do things but people shouldn't be texting and driving.

You said it best. People (including women) can't drive for shit. You throw texting into the loop and it makes everything 100 times worse. But I am sure everyone on here is a Mario Andretti and can text, drive, jerk off, and count the 100s in their lap all at the same time.

You guys act like you can't survive without texting. Everyone acts as if the world is ending and everyday their rights are being taken away. The fact is, the world is evolving, we didn't have texting 20 years ago for it to be a problem. New rules comes new laws.

I am willing to bet that everyone in here one time or another has sped passed someone and said get off your phone or pay attention to the road. That right there shows you are for this law, you just don't like it because you don't like being told what to do.

I am sure they can implement this into every state, city and town, and you know what, it isn't going to affect me. So I can care less..

This !

[CJ]

It wasn't a childish insult. Besides, I'm not sure how you can be insulted when you've said exactly that for the past two pages. You don't want the police to be proactive in possibly saving someone's life because it would infringe on your liberties. Shared sacrifice, right? You'll sacrifice another's life for your liberties. I'll sacrifice the tiniest fraction of my liberty for another's life. And how trivial is this, anyway? It's not as if big government is coming after your guns, or telling you how many kids you may have, or coming to take you away (haha!) to a FEMA camp. They are saying don't text and drive. But, then again, England didn't do it overnight.

Texting while driving is enforceable, too, if done properly. If you're weaving all over the place and a cop sees you doing something on your phone for a bit, wouldn't he be justified in pulling you over?

I'm sorry if possibly saving lives isn't considered a good, solid point to you, CJ. I have proposed no good, solid points to you, because you're as set in your belief as I am in mine. Therefore, is really even a need in arguing about this anymore? Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go meet with a Mr. Jintao at the Arlington convention center. He is hosting an interesting seminar about how to rule everyone though traffic citations.

Geof, the argument you just made - in it's entirety - is a vehemently liberal argument. Just in case you're confused about your political stance. Are the liberties of all worth the life of one? Yes, our country is founded on that principal. The constitution sets forth the right to bear arms. Thousands of people die because of peoples poor decisions with guns each year. Should we ban them Geof? A hell of a lot more people get killed from guns than texting each year? How about knives? These are the same thing - people irresponsibly using a tool (such as a phone) cause the harm of death of themselves, or others. The point I am making, and the point that a society expressing true liberty would reinforce is the irresponsible party bears the responsibility of their actions, not the community as a whole. Your argument is ignorant. You ignore the liberties of all, for the pursuit of the possibility you might save one life. Your argument is you will sacrifice the "tiniest" fraction of your liberty to save ones life. The problem is, you're set forth on this path to vote for what makes you feel good inside. And you're susceptible to this type of legislation, and you and many others will continually vote into this scam and eventually all of these regulations add up. You argue "oh it's only a small thing" well if you never stop voting for it, you vote a hundred of these thing into effect, and then it's too late. It's been proven throughout history what happens with over-regulation.

The idea of Liberty is a very complex and difficult thing that takes a great deal of responsibility and sacrifice to not only achieve, but to maintain. There is a reason many of our forefathers died for it, because it's a really fucking hard thing to get. And it's very easy for people to take it away, or give it away out of convenience.

I absolutely will never vote for a law that empowers the government (municipal in this case) to scrutinize what I'm doing inside my own vehicle. The idea of banning people from texting and driving is completely sound, and I agree with it - hell I scream about people doing it all the damn time. But, I have to use my better judgement and not empower the government to have the ability to look inside my vehicle, and write me a ticket NOT based on how I am driving my vehicle, but by what THEY perceive I am doing INSIDE my vehicle. I could be looking at my navigation app on my phone (which I do all the time for business), I could be changing a song, etc.. for a few seconds on a given week I am driving and glancing at my phone, as everyone in here does. Now, because of this law you want in place, I am liable for being ticketed for this - not having anything to do with how I'm driving or operating my vehicle.

[Geor!]

"Don't bring racism into this."

lol! I was trying to add a bit of light humor into a discussion that we seem to be taking all too seriously. And besides, everyone loves stereotypes!

[Geor!]

You're reasoning is maybe it will do something, maybe it won't. You can see from the majority of posts in this thread - it's seems to be a consensus this is not going to be enforceable. You're are theorizing that it might do something. I am presenting factual evidence, and reasoning that what it will do without question is impose further regulation on our lives, and now our personal property (our cars interior) is under police scrutiny. I am not willing to throw my liberties out the window on a theory that it might do something.


All of these are enforceable, poor point.



Geof, if you haven't noticed, you're the one trying to enforce your utopia on the population with additional regulations to make you feel better. Regulations that will absolutely do jack shit to curb texting while driving, and now give the police the legal means to scrutinize what you are doing in your own vehicle. You have really proposed no good solid points in these arguments, the truth is you just want to vote for it because it makes you feel better, actual results have no place in your "utopia."



You're correct, you misunderstood me.

It wasn't a childish insult. Besides, I'm not sure how you can be insulted when you've said exactly that for the past two pages. You don't want the police to be proactive in possibly saving someone's life because it would infringe on your liberties. Shared sacrifice, right? You'll sacrifice another's life for your liberties. I'll sacrifice the tiniest fraction of my liberty for another's life. And how trivial is this, anyway? It's not as if big government is coming after your guns, or telling you how many kids you may have, or coming to take you away (haha!) to a FEMA camp. They are saying don't text and drive. But, then again, England didn't do it overnight.

Texting while driving is enforceable, too, if done properly. If you're weaving all over the place and a cop sees you doing something on your phone for a bit, wouldn't he be justified in pulling you over?

I'm sorry if possibly saving lives isn't considered a good, solid point to you, CJ. I have proposed no good, solid points to you, because you're as set in your belief as I am in mine. Therefore, is really even a need in arguing about this anymore? Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go meet with a Mr. Jintao at the Arlington convention center. He is hosting an interesting seminar about how to rule everyone though traffic citations.

[SS Junk]

They should just ban all phones in a vehicle. People will be pissed off and seems like a money building scam... er i mean safety plan.

After the stupid shit I've seen dumbfucks do while texting or simply just on the phone, I'm all for a ban.

[CJ]

They should just ban all phones in a vehicle. People will be pissed off and seems like a money building scam... er i mean safety plan.

It's all about generating money. Arlington needs more money to fund their belligerent spending. Same reason I got a court date for a 6 year old ticket in the mail a few days ago. Gotta scrape that cash up from every place.

You want to make some extra money? You toss up a bill that makes people like Geof feel better and vote for it. Bam, more revenue, just like that.

Guess how social security came into law? A temporary fund for old disparaged seniors that lost all their money in the depression. Now? Permanent fund that is the single largest social program expense our economy has. Why did people vote for it? Made them feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[GSXRK5]

They should just ban all phones in a vehicle. People will be pissed off and seems like a money building scam... er i mean safety plan.

[CJ]

The Kahr is plenty slender

That's true, they are very slender. But, it makes me feel like I'm holding a squirt gun.