Hands free adapters can be had super cheap these days...
Posted on 06/14/2012 10:18:00 AM PDT by pawpawrick
Lemme guess... He was being followed by a nice little old couple, retired teachers from Florida, who alerted police out of concern for safety on the roads.
See post #53 above.
Proper as in “compared to being arrested” proper.
Hell, I still get steamed every time I put on my stupid seat belt. If I’m not going far, I just hold the seat belt over my lap in my left hand.
If it were up to me, it would still be legal to hold and drink a beer while driving.
I detest cell phones. I wish it were legal to equip a car with a cell phone jammer that would jam all phones within 250 feet or so.
We could do it “for the children”. :)
“Do not advocate for big brother to force your viewing your fellow man.”
WHAT? You wouldn’t want to clarify that remark, would you ? Maybe translate to English?
I found your comment informative, because I didn’t know that Chris had ever discussed his bias. I just knew him to be a flaming liberal who could be surprisingly incisive against liberals, quite capable of leaving them sputtering and never bailing them out.
Equally tough on pubbies, at least they are used to a rough interview and the good ones hold their own with Chris, showing up prepared for the battle.
Thanks for the info.
I found your comment informative, because I didn’t know that Chris had ever discussed his bias. I just knew him to be a flaming liberal who would be surprisingly incisive against liberals, quite capable of leaving them sputtering and never bailing them out.
Equally tough on pubbies, at least they are used to a rough interview and the good ones hold their own with Chris, showing up prepared for the battle.
Thanks for the info.
Sure. (Jerk Face)
What we need are more people like you who excuse people who endanger our lives by distractions like driving and talking on the phone, Driving Drunk and such actions.
As for myself, I know WHY some laws are made and that is to protect “US” from people who are inconsiderate when it come to safety and endanger us in the process.
YOU go right ahead and shoot your mouth off about to much law but there is a reason (some) laws exist and should be enforced and this was a prime example.
He was endangering others on the road by his inconsideration and ego mania which lets him put his needs ahead of the safety of the general public.
Again - Let me call you a “Jerk Wad” for you can’t see the trees for the forest because your are blinded by such bias - all you can see are the monkeys in the trees.
Just wait till you are hit by someone driving while talking on the phone and then see what you have to say about the matter.
I don't know how many time I have had to swerve, slam on my brakes or otherwise avoid people who are obviously more intent on their telephone conversation than on their driving. I know of two 18 year old boys in Longmont Colorado who both lost their legs because a girl and her friend were talking on their phones (both) instead of paying attention to the road or they would not have run into the car parked at the side of the road where the two guys were standing and trying to get the tire our of the trunk. They lost their legs and received concussions and other injuries. Yes there is a reason for such laws in lue of reasonable behavior that we should expect from people when driving and performing other functions where they can be distracted by other technologies such as telephones. If you HAVE to talk, let another person in the car use the phone and let the driver pay attention to the phone. If there is no other person in the car, pull over and make the call in a place where you don't endanger others.
You heard it from the infantile sophists here: it’s a matter of liberty!
(They say, while they put on their mandated seatbelts and look into the federally regulated rearview mirrors!)
Because you haven't seen someone killed or maimed because some idiot was more interested in distracted driving, makes it ok.
You would obviously think differently if one of those people were to cause an accident and you or others were injured or even killed.
Shooting a gun in public should be permitted then - according to you - because it is an issue of "Liberty".
Fools find foolish reasons to justify their actions.
Even our forfathers realized that laws were required to protect ourselves from foolish, inconsiderate people. That is why such laws are made - to protect the rest of us from the fools among us.
BS I could be hit by someone changing a CD, yapping with somebody in the front seat, doing their makeup, you name it. This is just another nanny-state law that is not needed.
Where and how did I suggest or imply that? Reading comprehension remedial courses?
Autocomplete screwed it up:
Do not advocate for Big Brother to force your views on your fellow man.
OK Mr. Pooperhead.
The price of liberty is risk. Simple.
Yes you could.
Would that make you feel better, just knowing that someone died because of your inattention (regardless of what you were doing?)
Enjoy your life and may you never be responsible for someone’s death or injury because you are so self centered and don’t concern yourself with the safety not only of yourself but others in your vicinity.
You are doing it wrong.
Outlaw driving. Swimming. Boating. Airplanes. Electricity. Natural gas.
We can reduce risk to zero if we sit in padded rooms under direct supervision by State licensed sheeple supervisors.
Hands free adapters can be had super cheap these days...
The rules are not just for the little people, Chris.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.