More Liberal Lunacy

[Mr. P]

I believe there ae laws covering reckless driving. Another things libs foget about is to enforce the laws we have on the books

Of cousre, libs live for passing more meaningless laws and taking bows before the TV cameras on how they "care" and "solved" another crisis

True, is applying make-up covered in the current definition of 'reckless' driving?

You really should be allowed to do whatever you want while hurling 3000 plus lbs of metal down a public highway, it's your 'right', right? Wrong.

[red states rule]

True, is applying make-up covered in the current definition of 'reckless' driving?

You really should be allowed to do whatever you want while hurling 3000 plus lbs of metal down a public highway, it's your 'right', right? Wrong.

If you are in an accident, it would be called reckless driving. Of course, libs are not interested in the safety of the people - they want the money from fines the state will take in

Much like seat belt laws, they do not give a damn about protecting you. They do care about taking more of your money

[Mr. P]

If you are in an accident, it would be called reckless driving. Of course, libs are not interested in the safety of the people - they want the money from fines the state will take in

Much like seat belt laws, they do not give a damn about protecting you. They do care about taking more of your money

Do you wear a seat belt? Why or why not?

[red states rule]

Do you wear a seat belt? Why or why not?

I do not. I find it very uncomfortable. I have across my chest but not latched. The cops see the strap so they do not stop me

Of course the libs said the police would not stop you ONLY for not wearing a seat belt - now they do.

It is all about the money

[Mr. P]

I do not. I find it very uncomfortable. I have across my chest but not latched. The cops see the strap so they do not stop me

Of course the libs said the police would not stop you ONLY for not wearing a seat belt - now they do.

It is all about the money

Ya know a chest tube is way more uncomfortable than a seat belt. Ever had one?

[red states rule]

Ya know a chest tube is way more uncomfortable than a seat belt. Ever had one?

Yes, lets all be good little sheep and do whatever the government tells us. If you are one of the suckers in VT, you will not be able to drink your coffee or smoke IN YOUR CAR on the way to work

I say again, it is about the money. That is all libs care about with this insane law

[Mr. P]

Yes, lets all be good little sheep and do whatever the government tells us. If you are one of the suckers in VT, you will not be able to drink your coffee or smoke IN YOUR CAR on the way to work

I say again, it is about the money. That is all libs care about with this insane law

Ok it's all about money. How about this, no fines, but if you break a law your license is revoked. That's not about money.

[red states rule]

Ok it's all about money. How about this, no fines, but if you break a law your license is revoked. That's not about money.

So you have no problem with the government telling you you can't drink, smoke, or eat while you are driving in your own car

What is next? No talking to your passengers? No listening to the radio or CD player?

You give the libs an inch they will take 50 miles

[Mr. P]

So you have no problem with the government telling you you can't drink, smoke, or eat while you are driving in your own car

What is next? No talking to your passengers? No listening to the radio or CD player?

You give the libs an inch they will take 50 miles

I like my solution it keeps MORONS off the road. And won't cost a penny so the "it's all about money" crowd will not have a thing to bitch about.

[red states rule]

I like my solution it keeps MORONS off the road. And won't cost a penny so the "it's all about money" crowd will not have a thing to bitch about.

Name one time it was NOT about the money when government gets involved in controlling your life

We are talking about Vermont and looking at how these people run their state, under your rules NOBODY would be allowed to drive in the entire state

[Mr. P]

Name one time it was NOT about the money when government gets involved in controlling your life

We are talking about Vermont and looking at how these people run their state, under your rules NOBODY would be allowed to drive in the entire state

Not true and they aren't my rules just my solution to MORON whinners that think they can do whatever the hell they want on a public highway. They can't, but scream it's about money. So, take their license. Works for me. What these folks don't understand is they are a danger to themselves AND everyone around them.

[Missileman]

So what other controls would you recommend putting on society to protect it from itself? Sounds like you just love the idea of big daddy looking over your shoulder.

Actually, these would be laws protecting the rest of us from idiots who stupidly believe that driving doesn't require paying attention to what you're doing. Laws like these are required because of the morons who won't police themselves.

[jillian]

Funny, those "libs" in Texas are also considering a similar bill...

And why wouldn't we all want someone playing the flute while driving. Isn't it our G-d given right?

Vermont wants drivers' attention
Up to $600 fine for long list of distractions

February 9, 2007
BY JOHN CURRAN
BARRE, Vt. -- Put down the flute and keep your eyes on the road.
And forget about sipping that cup of coffee on the way to work, or smoking a cigarette on the way home. In some states, it could soon be illegal -- if it isn't already.

Emboldened by the passage of cell phone bans for drivers in some communities, states are turning their attention to other things that drive motorists to distraction.

Vermont lawmakers are considering a measure that would ban eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, ''interacting with pets or cargo,'' talking on a cell phone or using any other personal communication device while driving. The punishment: a fine of up to $600.

Similar bills are under consideration in Maryland and Texas, and Connecticut has passed one that generically bans any activity that could interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle.

For the sponsor of the Vermont bill, the motivation came from his own observations.

''What finally pushed me over the edge was when I was at a stop sign and somebody opposite me was trying to navigate around the corner with a cell phone to the ear in one hand and a cigarette in the other, and she wasn't doing very well,'' said Republican state Rep. Thomas F. Koch.

He said his wife recently saw a driver playing the flute, which led him to include the instrument ban in his bill.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/...iven09.article

[jillian]

Oh yeah.... and lest anyone is wondering.

Tom Koch is a republican.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/s...hc/story30.htm

[Gaffer]

It has nothing to do with safety, just as simply taking a license would not help matters, but would clear the roads as every driver would eventually be banned from driving. It IS a means of getting more money. Any law that imposes fines is a back door tax. Unfortunately you can't legislate common sense. But you can tax it thru fines.

I have been driving for over 40 years and all across the country. I smoke and drink coffee daily and never have had an accident because of not paying attention. The only accidents I have been involved in were not my fault. And no traffic tickets in that 40 years. Simply a matter of obeying the law and being aware of what your doing. While smoking or drinking.

Law are in place to protect the public. But there is a point where they are just to control and tax the public. Such laws as no smoking drinking or talking will slowly expand to everyone in the car and then to things outside the car and soon there will be government inspectors for each household. All designed with fines to fill the liberal coffers.

The government produces nothing so must justify its existance through control and pays for its self through taxes.