Posted on 03/15/2012 8:26:19 AM PDT by Ollies girl
Congressman Allen West announced his support and co-sponsorship of the Safe Teen and Novice Uniform Protection, or STANDUP Act, at a teen driving event at Jupiter High School on Tuesday, as reported in BPR’s March 14 article “Allen West hits a Porsche while simulating texting and driving.”
The act, if passed, would ban teens from driving while texting, restrict driving with other teens and impose other limitations on young drivers. With 50 members of Congress, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and Allstate Insurance Co., among others, signed on, the bill seems to be “in good hands.”
But the conservative congressman, normally a prime target for left-wing criticism, is being blasted from his base on this one.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
maybe but you’re new and yet you find the time to post a negative thread on here about a raising star in FL and who the left wants to take down.
We’ve had many who register, fit in and start to put down certain republicans i the way you have.
Not saying you are but I hope you can see where some of us might see how this can come across.
Ollies girl where are you BTW?
exactly
another poster said this is a year old and why bring this up again?
Then it is posted by a noob, maybe with good intentions , maybe not but it seems a waste to post this when it is old and I’,m certain folks who just sign up can find more positive threads about our rising stars
texting and driving is dangerous to others, the amount of time I have seen young college girls trying to drive and text while nearly causing accidents is shocking and yes it pisses me off to see it knowing these idiots can seriously kill innocent people and all because they can’t call up on speaker they have to send that text
The 10th Amend. and Division of Power have been replaced by the “Golden Rule”:
“He who has the gold, controls the rules”
I’m not new and I appreciate this post. I’m a conservative first and a Republican second.
Ollies welcome to FR.
sorted then I was asking a question the post is a year old, why raise it.
All she had to do was to answer.
I agree, talking always helps.
luxuriate in the purity of your own irrelevancy and unworkability then. But don’t you dare cross a damned state border, or you will be in violation of your own pure demands.
“...there are many more things besides texting that can cause a driver to be distracted.”
How ‘bout those roadside memorials where the chances are better now than ever that the person died as a result of somebody’s distracted driving?
I’d be for banning roadside memorials since they’re meant to get the attention of drivers. Wouldn’t it be terribly ironic if you or someone you know and love were to die in traffic as a result of having been distracted by one of those roadside memorials?
Personally I like West, but this isn’t the first piece posted here calling him out for straying off the Conservative path. I see your point though on this being a first post. There was a time a while back when one started out posting stuff about rabbit husbandry or the new design of Chrysler’s hubcaps to get started here before digging into more controversial issues like this.
maybe I’m ready for that influx of trolls we get on election year or if a big issues is happeneing.
I remember the occupy lot starting out and a poster signed up, a woman who kept posting about the occupy lot.
For weeks I was onto her as something did not sit right, . She never posted anything negative about the occupy but it wasn;t positive and something didn’t sit well with me.
Anyway about two months later after a few attacks by freepers calling me to stop calling her a troll, guess what , she was a troll a full blown ANSWER anti war layabout paid troll who was busted.
Anyway here’s to Romney , FOX and the establishment getting defeated.
raises glass, well if I had one as it is five o clock somewhere.
What are you talking about? When I cross state borders, I am responsible to comply with the laws of that state. I have no problem with that, as long as those laws don’t violate the U.S. Constitution.
If a state has a law or laws that that I find abhorrent, I can always avoid visiting that state.
I have 3 questions for you.
1) What gives the Federal government get the authority to tell states who it should give drivers licenses to, and what restrictions to put on them?
2) Why is Federal regulation of state drivers licenses necessary?
3) Does it make sense for a state like North Dakota or Kansas, with low population density and roads that are not very crowded to have the exact same requirments as a state like New Jersey or New York, dictated to them by the Federal government?
Even within NY State, different counties have different age and other restrictions for teenage drivers, as driving conditions are very different in say, Warren county, as compared to in Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island) or New York (Manhattan) counties.
Being able to understand an issue involves knowing the right questions to ask, and you clearly do not and therefore did not. But I’ll address your three questions anyway:
1: Can I assume you think driving is a right with no restrictions. I assume that means you do not understand that the right to drive in any way shape or form takes away my rights to share the same roads with common sense.
2: Huh? This is a narrow provision and you are broadening it way way out.
3. Again, we are talking about a narrow provision and you are broadening it way out of proportion.
You clearly just wanted an ideologically pure fight today and you picked a stupid issue upon which to have your fight and now you’re in a corner and the paint is not dry yet.
I know. I will never do it again.
I know. I will never do it again.
Please do give up texting while driving. It’s so dangerous! Here in GA, it’s illegal
Congratulations and kudos to you for doing the right thing. Perhaps you can convince your friends to do the same!
I have made it clear that I support restrictions on driving (including a ban on texting while driving), at the state level. Ny poinit is that the Federal government has no business getting involved in this.
...and my point is, that practically speaking, transportation cannot really be a state issue only. I wish it could. But it can’t due to the nature of transportation. You misapprehend the very nature of what the discussion is about. Certainly shipping and aviation are ludicrous to consider state issues. Are you really going to subdivide modes of transportation?
There are a very few things that are by nature a federal issue. I submit this is one of those very few things.
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.