The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

ChocolateMilk wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Capster says:

I text and drive so what?

What a completely irresponsible viewpoint.

well so do i, but i have a keyboard on my phone. I type with one hand while i steer with the other and i dont take my eyes off the road, until i check to see if i type everything correctly. It takes the same amount of time as changing CDs or getting a cigerette.

I'm just tired of VA trying to screw her citizens out of their hard earned money because she is going bankrupt.

Your attention is still not totally on the road, which increases risk. Justify all you want, but it's dangerous and stupid.

Deadskins wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I think research institutions like and their subjects get immunity. You see studies now and then that cite how cocaine affects performance in X field. . .

Need to start a research institution, and study the effects of illegal activity on my daily life.

Hahaha. I just imagined you with mini-tape recorder. "Note to self. . ."

ChocolateMilk wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Capster says:

I text and drive so what?

What a completely irresponsible viewpoint.

well so do i, but i have a keyboard on my phone. I type with one hand while i steer with the other and i dont take my eyes off the road, until i check to see if i type everything correctly. It takes the same amount of time as changing CDs or getting a cigerette.

I'm just tired of VA trying to screw her citizens out of their hard earned money because she is going bankrupt.

If you live in Fredericksburg like your "location" says you do, cops down there will pull you over for anything and everything. I know. I used to live down around there.

CT: How is that an irresponsible view point? Not all drivers are created equal and not all can multitask very well. Yes, the main focus while in a car is to drive it, but there are other things that we all do while driving (changing cd's, smoke, attend to a child, eat, stare at the girl who is next to your car flashing you out her window). Some people can drive and deal with distractions and others just can't drive at all.

Countertrey wrote:You have clearly missed the point, oh great "conservative" hamo.
Fine. Make laws. Ban texting while driving... I actually back such a law in my state. I support seat belt laws on the state level... and oppose federal intrusions into that, as well.

Unfortunately, once again, we are looking at the Federal Government overstepping it's Constitutional authority, as defined very clearly by the Tenth Amendment.

The Federal Government has no authority to extort the states into creating these laws... This is another example of Liberals usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution. That is the problem, AND the point. Every time the Feds do something like this to "protect us" they steal a little freedom... that they don't have the right to.

The Federal Government has been overstepping its authority for some time now. What else is new?

The point is this law was made for a reason. The reasons I listed in my first response. So no you missed the point bro. Why do you think laws are made?
Oh great arbiter of all "Conservative" knowledge!

CT: How is that an irresponsible view point? Not all drivers are created equal and not all can multitask very well. Yes, the main focus while in a car is to drive it, but there are other things that we all do while driving (changing cd's, smoke, attend to a child, eat, stare at the girl who is next to your car flashing you out her window). Some people can drive and deal with distractions and others just can't drive at all.

Pure BS. As I said earlier... hope you discover how dangerous this is before you kill someone else. Does 28 times more likely to crash than driving with a BAL of 0.08 mean anything to you?

"Naw... doesn't apply to me... I'm invulnerable, plus, I kin multitask! I have a dual processor in my brain that allows me to see the road, steer, control the speed, monitor traffic, look up my BFF's cell, read her inane diatribe about the stupid chick that cut her off in traffic because she was "F'n texting while driving" compose a response, enter text, add a photo of the chick in the car next to me who was mooning my azz, and hit send, all at the same time."



There is NOTHING so important to communicate by texting that you can't pull over to do it. I guarantee you that virtually everyone here has had to check up or move out of the way of some idiot who couldn't wait to say "ye BFF CU in a few"

Yeah... important crap!

The Federal Government has been overstepping its authority for some time now. What else is new?

You're ok with that?
Shame.

The point is this law was made for a reason. The reasons I listed in my first response. So no you missed the point bro. Why do you think laws are made?

No. The POINT is, the Federal Government has no business dictating this law to the states. Had you bothered to read, you would know that I am in favor of such a law, in MY state. That doesn't mean that I should have the right to dictate that to other states. Nor should the federal government.

Countertrey wrote:The Federal Government has no authority to extort the states into creating these laws... This is another example of Liberals usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution. That is the problem, AND the point. Every time the Feds do something like this to "protect us" they steal a little freedom... that they don't have the right to.

I know it's easy to point the finger at "Liberals" as the cause of additional government regulation, but I feel a need to point out that the biggest expansion of Federal power and of the Federal Government happened under the reign of a "Conservative"...perhaps a better statement would be:

This is another example of the Federal Government usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution.

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Federal Government has no authority to extort the states into creating these laws... This is another example of Liberals usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution. That is the problem, AND the point. Every time the Feds do something like this to "protect us" they steal a little freedom... that they don't have the right to.

I know it's easy to point the finger at "Liberals" as the cause of additional government regulation, but I feel a need to point out that the biggest expansion of Federal power and of the Federal Government happened under the reign of a "Conservative"...perhaps a better statement would be:

This is another example of the Federal Government usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution.

George W Bush was NO conservative, and was a major disappointment to those who voted for him. I was disgusted with the massive and irresponsible growth of government under his watch. Were he conservative, our problem with illegal immigration would have been resolved, the Federal deficit would have been non-existent at the end of his term, and there would be a few more banks that are no longer in business.

Countertrey wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Federal Government has no authority to extort the states into creating these laws... This is another example of Liberals usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution. That is the problem, AND the point. Every time the Feds do something like this to "protect us" they steal a little freedom... that they don't have the right to.

I know it's easy to point the finger at "Liberals" as the cause of additional government regulation, but I feel a need to point out that the biggest expansion of Federal power and of the Federal Government happened under the reign of a "Conservative"...perhaps a better statement would be:

This is another example of the Federal Government usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution.

George W Bush was NO conservative, and was a major disappointment to those who voted for him. I was disgusted with the massive and irresponsible growth of government under his watch. Were he conservative, our problem with illegal immigration would have been resolved, the Federal deficit would have been non-existent at the end of his term, and there would be a few more banks that are no longer in business.

Reagan did many of the same things, and he is seen as a conservative god.

Countertrey wrote:

The Federal Government has been overstepping its authority for some time now. What else is new?

You're ok with that?
Shame.

The point is this law was made for a reason. The reasons I listed in my first response. So no you missed the point bro. Why do you think laws are made?

No. The POINT is, the Federal Government has no business dictating this law to the states. Had you bothered to read, you would know that I am in favor of such a law, in MY state. That doesn't mean that I should have the right to dictate that to other states. Nor should the federal government.

In this case the law makes sense. It is ridiculous for drivers to text while behind the wheel. When a law is made and it makes sense I am fine with it. So I say again in this case it makes sense.

Deadskins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Federal Government has no authority to extort the states into creating these laws... This is another example of Liberals usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution. That is the problem, AND the point. Every time the Feds do something like this to "protect us" they steal a little freedom... that they don't have the right to.

I know it's easy to point the finger at "Liberals" as the cause of additional government regulation, but I feel a need to point out that the biggest expansion of Federal power and of the Federal Government happened under the reign of a "Conservative"...perhaps a better statement would be:

This is another example of the Federal Government usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution.

George W Bush was NO conservative, and was a major disappointment to those who voted for him. I was disgusted with the massive and irresponsible growth of government under his watch. Were he conservative, our problem with illegal immigration would have been resolved, the Federal deficit would have been non-existent at the end of his term, and there would be a few more banks that are no longer in business.

Reagan did many of the same things, and he is seen as a conservative god.

You are wrong.

Reagan came into office with the country in a deficit. Reagan eliminated the deficit. He also implemented an Amnesty for immigration in his time. We did not go to War under Reagan's watch either. He also used Diplomacy rather then guns and tanks. Helped bring down the Berlin Wall. Bush and Reagan are worlds apart as far as what they accomplished. Reagan was a great President.

Deadskins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Federal Government has no authority to extort the states into creating these laws... This is another example of Liberals usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution. That is the problem, AND the point. Every time the Feds do something like this to "protect us" they steal a little freedom... that they don't have the right to.

I know it's easy to point the finger at "Liberals" as the cause of additional government regulation, but I feel a need to point out that the biggest expansion of Federal power and of the Federal Government happened under the reign of a "Conservative"...perhaps a better statement would be:

This is another example of the Federal Government usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution.

George W Bush was NO conservative, and was a major disappointment to those who voted for him. I was disgusted with the massive and irresponsible growth of government under his watch. Were he conservative, our problem with illegal immigration would have been resolved, the Federal deficit would have been non-existent at the end of his term, and there would be a few more banks that are no longer in business.

Reagan did many of the same things, and he is seen as a conservative god.

Please... expound...

HEROHAMO wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Federal Government has no authority to extort the states into creating these laws... This is another example of Liberals usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution. That is the problem, AND the point. Every time the Feds do something like this to "protect us" they steal a little freedom... that they don't have the right to.

I know it's easy to point the finger at "Liberals" as the cause of additional government regulation, but I feel a need to point out that the biggest expansion of Federal power and of the Federal Government happened under the reign of a "Conservative"...perhaps a better statement would be:

This is another example of the Federal Government usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution.

George W Bush was NO conservative, and was a major disappointment to those who voted for him. I was disgusted with the massive and irresponsible growth of government under his watch. Were he conservative, our problem with illegal immigration would have been resolved, the Federal deficit would have been non-existent at the end of his term, and there would be a few more banks that are no longer in business.

Reagan did many of the same things, and he is seen as a conservative god.

You are wrong.

Reagan came into office with the country in a deficit. Reagan eliminated the deficit. He also implemented an Amnesty for immigration in his time. We did not go to War under Reagan's watch either. He also used Diplomacy rather then guns and tanks. Helped bring down the Berlin Wall. Bush and Reagan are worlds apart as far as what they accomplished. Reagan was a great President.

Before Bush, the biggest increase in the national deficit was under Reagan. And we were involved in multiple wars during his years, just not many (other than Grenada) that involved American troops. But don't kid yourself, we were heavily involved in Central American and Middle Eastern politics on the side of brutal dictators and drug kingpins during his Presidency. And the Diplomacy you speak of was an unprecidented buildup in defense spending which the Soviet Union could not match, and eventually bankrupted them. He did have good PR, though, which is why you remember him as a "great President." But all the same principles were in the Bush I and Bush II administrations, so how you think they were "worlds apart" is beyond me.

Deadskins wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Federal Government has no authority to extort the states into creating these laws... This is another example of Liberals usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution. That is the problem, AND the point. Every time the Feds do something like this to "protect us" they steal a little freedom... that they don't have the right to.

I know it's easy to point the finger at "Liberals" as the cause of additional government regulation, but I feel a need to point out that the biggest expansion of Federal power and of the Federal Government happened under the reign of a "Conservative"...perhaps a better statement would be:

This is another example of the Federal Government usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution.

George W Bush was NO conservative, and was a major disappointment to those who voted for him. I was disgusted with the massive and irresponsible growth of government under his watch. Were he conservative, our problem with illegal immigration would have been resolved, the Federal deficit would have been non-existent at the end of his term, and there would be a few more banks that are no longer in business.

Reagan did many of the same things, and he is seen as a conservative god.

You are wrong.

Reagan came into office with the country in a deficit. Reagan eliminated the deficit. He also implemented an Amnesty for immigration in his time. We did not go to War under Reagan's watch either. He also used Diplomacy rather then guns and tanks. Helped bring down the Berlin Wall. Bush and Reagan are worlds apart as far as what they accomplished. Reagan was a great President.

Before Bush, the biggest increase in the national deficit was under Reagan. And we were involved in multiple wars during his years, just not many (other than Grenada) that involved American troops. But don't kid yourself, we were heavily involved in Central American and Middle Eastern politics on the side of brutal dictators and drug kingpins during his Presidency. And the Diplomacy you speak of was an unprecidented buildup in defense spending which the Soviet Union could not match, and eventually bankrupted them. He did have good PR, though, which is why you remember him as a "great President." But all the same principles were in the Bush I and Bush II administrations, so how you think they were "worlds apart" is beyond me.

Ok this is the bottom line.

When Reagan left office. The country was in good shape. At the end of a Presidents term. Was our country in better shape? I believe he left our Country in very good shape. Do you remember Jimmy Carter? What did he manage to do in his presidency. He handed off problems to Reagan. Reagan handed off a good situation to the next. Oh and every president has to make some tough choices. Reagan is no exception.

How about that texting while driving?

VetSkinsFan wrote:How about that texting while driving?

I'm agin' it.

Countertrey wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Federal Government has no authority to extort the states into creating these laws... This is another example of Liberals usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution. That is the problem, AND the point. Every time the Feds do something like this to "protect us" they steal a little freedom... that they don't have the right to.

I know it's easy to point the finger at "Liberals" as the cause of additional government regulation, but I feel a need to point out that the biggest expansion of Federal power and of the Federal Government happened under the reign of a "Conservative"...perhaps a better statement would be:

This is another example of the Federal Government usurping State and individual rights and authority that is delineated by the Constitution.

George W Bush was NO conservative, and was a major disappointment to those who voted for him. I was disgusted with the massive and irresponsible growth of government under his watch. Were he conservative, our problem with illegal immigration would have been resolved, the Federal deficit would have been non-existent at the end of his term, and there would be a few more banks that are no longer in business.

I think it's less conservative/liberal, and more a function of one party controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches. Clinton actually managed a budget surplus in some years...and I think that's mainly because he had a virtually hostile Congress to deal with, and the two sides gridlocked each other.

I personally feel our government works best in gridlock...that way, neither side can really push their agenda.

I thought of this thread yesterday night when I was visiting a friend in Baltimore. We had lost power at my place so I couldn't print out a map, but I knew in general how to get there. (He lives about 6 blocks from M&T Stadium and Camden Yards.)

When I got to 295 I gave him a call and he guided me the rest of the way in — including after I missed a turn and was in the wrong neighborhood. (Amazingly, in my distraction with using the phone, I didn't hit four old women or crash into any storefronts! ) I was very glad in that moment that such insidious activities are not yet illegal here in MD.

I personally feel our government works best in gridlock...that way, neither side can really push their agenda.

I think that is a good point. If a wrong descision is made or a bad bill per say then who's to stop the party?

Irn-Bru wrote:I thought of this thread yesterday night when I was visiting a friend in Baltimore. We had lost power at my place so I couldn't print out a map, but I knew in general how to get there. (He lives about 6 blocks from M&T Stadium and Camden Yards.)

When I got to 295 I gave him a call and he guided me the rest of the way in — including after I missed a turn and was in the wrong neighborhood. (Amazingly, in my distraction with using the phone, I didn't hit four old women or crash into any storefronts! ) I was very glad in that moment that such insidious activities are not yet illegal here in MD.

I am happy it all worked out for you Irn.

Countertrey wrote:

CT: How is that an irresponsible view point? Not all drivers are created equal and not all can multitask very well. Yes, the main focus while in a car is to drive it, but there are other things that we all do while driving (changing cd's, smoke, attend to a child, eat, stare at the girl who is next to your car flashing you out her window). Some people can drive and deal with distractions and others just can't drive at all.

Pure BS. As I said earlier... hope you discover how dangerous this is before you kill someone else. Does 28 times more likely to crash than driving with a BAL of 0.08 mean anything to you?

"Naw... doesn't apply to me... I'm invulnerable, plus, I kin multitask! I have a dual processor in my brain that allows me to see the road, steer, control the speed, monitor traffic, look up my BFF's cell, read her inane diatribe about the stupid chick that cut her off in traffic because she was "F'n texting while driving" compose a response, enter text, add a photo of the chick in the car next to me who was mooning my azz, and hit send, all at the same time."



There is NOTHING so important to communicate by texting that you can't pull over to do it. I guarantee you that virtually everyone here has had to check up or move out of the way of some idiot who couldn't wait to say "ye BFF CU in a few"

Yeah... important crap!

No, it actually doesn't mean anything to me, because all studies have flaws. I like how you go to extremes to make your point. I guess we all should sit up straight, look straight ahead, cover and check going through an intersection, use a turn signal even if no one is on the road, do the speed limit, not listen to music, and have both hands on the steering wheel. I bet you do all of that Hell, lets revoke the drivers license of anyone over 60, because they are old and senile and have are 30 times more likely to hit the gas instead of the brake when trying to slow down.

As stated earlier... hope you figure it out before you have to deal with regret.

My dad fell asleep at the wheel some years back coming home from work. Among other things, he fractured two vertabre in his neck. Two lower and he would have been completely paralyzed. I know what happens when people don't pay full attention at the wheel. There's nothing like seeing your dad on a gurney and all you see is hair matted with blood and bone. I guess until some people experience unnecessary tragedy, the denial of "it'll never happen to me," ensues.

It's not about denying that it could never happen to me. It's the fact that I know the risks, just like driving when sleepy, but choose to take the chance anyway. It just doesn't apply to texting; it can be applied to all aspects of life. You can't just point out one instance and say "I hope you find out before its too late." I am also not saying that I text all the time when I drive or wait until I come to a stop light. Choosing to ignore all of the other variables involved while the chance of an accident while driving is naive at best. I recognize certain things that I do, while driving, as not being best practice, but I am not going to sit here and deny the fact that I don't do it. I do, however, help cut down on the "28 times more likely" by picking when I text while driving.

Phew! Great to know that you ONLY text when there arent kids darting out into the street.

That's a relief.