I Refuse To Be a Robot - Up Yours Blue Tooth Coppers!

Email Print posted by rev24 07/01/2008 02:27:28 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
This is complete B.S.  At midnight tonight in California sh*t coppers can pull me over for talking on my cell while driving – WTF?

I will not succumb to this Blue Tooth scam.  I refuse to go to Best Buy and buy a hands free device and become a robotic monkey.  How many times have you seen a cop pull over a person of color or young kid as an excuse for not wearing a seatbelt?  I sure have and I’m pissed!  Someone needs to do some research behind this stinking law.  F’n bull sh*t – catch me if you can coppers!!!!

P.S. Your BT enabled Mac sucks too!

< Dead Precedents | Faith Healing - Delusional and Dangerous >
 Display:
I Refuse To Be a Robot - Up Yours Blue Tooth Coppers! | 88 comments (88 topical, 0 hidden)
This guy (none / 0)
What you don't want to be like this guy?

by alphasigmookie on 07/01/2008 02:45:00 AM EST

easy solution (none / 1)
Tinted glass.

by KenTX on 07/01/2008 02:48:06 AM EST

excepting (none / 0)

you can't do that either. shucks.

by hazmat on 07/01/2008 03:09:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Um.. (none / 0)

No complete BS is when the jackass in front of me is so engaged in his conversation that he forgets he is driving a car ON A PUBLIC STREEI WITH OTHER PEOPLE BEHIND HIM, WAITING PATIENTLY FOR HIM TO SNAP BACK TO REALITY.

ahem..

 But don't worry, hands free won't do anything to make that disappear. It's the act of talking, not holding a phone, that is the problem.

Sigh... 

by Andrew Koenig on 07/01/2008 02:49:45 AM EST

I think your problem lies in LA (none / 0)
Why do they give you guys licenses?

by rev24 on 07/01/2008 02:52:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you also ready (none / 0)
to outlaw multi-passenger vehicles?

It really is holding the phone.  This has been studied fairly extensively.  It is your physical attention being divided.

by jarett on 07/01/2008 03:22:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Studies... (none / 0)

My studies prove the opposite. Just watch someone talking on the phone at work or home. Their eyes wander, their attention is distracted. You can walk into a room when someone is on the phone and while they can see you, you might not register in their minds. The problem is split attention.

I can change the channel on my radio without looking. It is automatic and I lose no attention. Same with eating. I reckon if I had a cell phone I could dial without taking my eyes off the road too.  But talking is cognitive and requires much more attention. You can't talk and drive at the same time with 100% success doing each. 

 

As Hagbard Celine wrote: Don't whistle while you're pissing. 

by Andrew Koenig on 07/01/2008 02:15:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
whoops (none / 0)

"Don't whistle while you're pissing. "

Guilty as charged.  I didn't mean to piss on your shoe though, honest. 

 

by bfaul on 07/01/2008 02:39:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're at a 10, bring it down to a 2 (none / 0)
Don't buy a BT headset, then.  Get a wired one, they're much cheaper.  But headsets are a REALLY good idea for the car.  I swear.

by jarett on 07/01/2008 03:23:46 AM EST

takes deep breath (none / 0)
but still can't shake it.  Whether it's blue tooth or wired options, you still either look like a smug jerkoff or someone with schizophrenia.  I hate it, I hate it, I hate it!  Sorry Jarett this has been one of my pet peeves for a long time.

by rev24 on 07/01/2008 12:48:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What's the problem? (none / 0)
I most of Europe talking on your cell not using a hands free device was punished a very long time ago. They will know also punish programming the GPS while driving. It has been established that multitasking while your driving lengthens reaction times the same as driving drunk

by JaimeH on 07/01/2008 07:03:54 AM EST

and why do I care about Europe? (none / 0)
Good for Euroland and their fuel efficient cars, but again how does this it apply to me.  Should we start installing talking cameras on the sidewalks to monitor our citizens because it's the craze in the UK?  BTW - they still haven't banned hand love in the car, have they? 

by rev24 on 07/01/2008 12:41:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are we talking solo or pairs hand love? (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 07/01/2008 12:47:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Paris hand love - Sign me up for her BFF (none / 0)
I'm sorry but when I read your subject line, I can't help but to anagramize "pairs" into Paris hand love so I guess that can go either way.  However, the day the man decides to tell me driving while having sex is illegal that's when I go ballistic.  Isn't that what cars were made for?  If you can't handle the risks, get off the damn road!  

P.S. Don't think I didn't make note of Abby's rant on Paris last Friday.  Another example of liberals using Paris as a whipping post for no good reason besides her being blonde, rich and hot.  I hate it when the right pulls the same crap though when I see the left do the same thing, I have to call as it is. 

by rev24 on 07/01/2008 02:29:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
because maybe... (none / 0)
... by implementing those rules Europe has less accidents, it's called looking aroung, seeing what works and adopting it, it's actually sound policy to learn from what other's are doing (you can either follow them, go the complete reverse or pick and choose)

UK is crazy, but the Repugs are loving what those Brits are doing with the cameras.

BTW UK tends to be way to the right of Continental Europe

by callisto on 07/01/2008 02:07:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Calm down, they're not out to get you... (none / 0)
...they're trying to improve safety

1. it needs to be hands free, there are other solutions besides bluetooth

2. studies have shown it's unsafe to drive and be on your cell phone

"Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year"
http://www.livescience.com/ technology/050201_cell_dang er.html

"1 In 20 Crashes Linked To Cell Phones"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stor ies/2002/12/02/tech/main531 320.shtml

3. also you might try not driving and calling at the same time, just an idea

you may see it as an infringement of your right to drive and call, but maybe, just maybe it's a strenghtening of other's people's right not to die, because some people weren't keeping their attention on the road

by callisto on 07/01/2008 07:47:47 AM EST

As a former police officer... (none / 0)
I can tell you without hesitation that the lawmakers and law enforcers could give a shit about traffic safety - As a cop I cared about one thing when it came to traffic stops -

How could I legally stop you and check you out to see if you're a doper...

Broken taillights, running stop signs, seat belts, no turn signals and now cell phones have become the avenue of the traffic stop. Did I really care as an officer if you didnt use a signal? Hell No, Im not anal like that. I wanted to know who you were, what you were doing and why you were there.

Now the laws are written under the guise of "safety", but really, with all these new laws, have accident rates been reduced? Even if they have, does the law really care about that? NO - they want into your stuff an your business...

Take it from me, I know, I used to do it for a living...

:)

by bobo1 on 07/01/2008 12:05:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I bet I know why this was so (none / 0)
When you busted a "doper" you got to sieze all of their stuff right?  All of that other shit didn't pay.  Am I right?

by bfaul on 07/01/2008 12:20:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You got it... (none / 0)
see, you're not so dumb like Ken says you are...

:)

by bobo1 on 07/01/2008 12:23:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Makes sense (none / 0)
In my community they ignore everything else, thefts, assaults, fraud, grifting, reckless driving, and pretty much everything else in favor of drug busts.

by bfaul on 07/01/2008 02:36:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
100% on the money bobo (none / 0)
It's not like agree with your former practices bobo, but a least come clean with the truth.  I wonder when a cop roughs up someone today, if he really cares about their " ;safety"? 

by rev24 on 07/01/2008 12:34:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you must understand... (none / 0)
I was but a foot soldier in the realm of law enforcement. The corruption and subsequent practices of law enforcement are mostly unspoken and stretch much higher in the chain of command... I personally didn't like "roughing" people up, mainly because it serves no profitable purpose and it only brings on lawsuits (profit for someone else). I wouldn't say that all law enforcement feels this way, obviously, but deep down, even the true believers in justice and safety know these facts to be true. Many officers genuinely care for their communities and their wellbeing, but they learn over time the trade offs to securing that safety - sometimes its not pretty, this great soceity of ours! Happy Bluetoothing to you!!! :)

by bobo1 on 07/01/2008 12:51:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
maybe in the US... (none / 0)
... but I can tell you that politicians do care about traffic safety in Europe, if only because it costs a lot in healthcare costs (universal healthcare you know) and has an economical cost (traffic jams...)

I do acknowledge that a bunch of cops are only in it for the power, but honestly none of them cares whether people die or not (maybe a Euro thing)

anyway if that's the state of the US, why would you even want to life there? or why are you not running for office trying to change this?

by callisto on 07/01/2008 02:14:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ultimate case against universal health care (none / 0)
Callisto you may want to be quiet about things like this:

"I can tell you that politicians do care about traffic safety in Europe, if only because it costs a lot in healthcare costs (universal healthcare you know) "

Sounds a lot like universal health care is a secret liberal ploy to give government much more interest and control over your personal life.  Who needs freedom anyway when you can have government mandated safety! 

by alphasigmookie on 07/01/2008 02:54:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
True (none / 0)
You wouldn't want the government to interfere with your right to die naturally from disease or injury.

by bfaul on 07/01/2008 03:50:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah but... (none / 0)
They sure as hell want the government to take away your right to get that disease from, say, getting fucked in the ass.

by ProfRich on 07/01/2008 04:54:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The coservative mind (none / 0)

"Sounds a lot like universal health care is a secret liberal ploy to give government much more interest and control over your personal life.  Who needs freedom anyway when you can have government mandated safety!"

Its amazing to me a conservative see a government conspiracy that has no motive other than "control over your personal life" but can't even fathom that the insurance companies and related interests are spitting out propaganda and lobbying in a conspiracy to make trillions of dollars in profit.

Of course these are people who blindly accept "they hate freedom" as a motive for terrorism.

Unbelievable.

by ProfRich on 07/01/2008 05:08:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Big brother is your friend? (none / 0)
Rich what boggles my mind is that democrats can so correctly lash out at any republican attempt to control people...anti gay marrage, warrantless wiretaps.  Yet they embrace many other ways of controlling people...cell phone laws, red light/speed cameras, gun control, universal health care which will be used to contol behavior like obesity, smoking, drinking etc.  The bottom line is that the government needs to stop thinking it knows what's best for people! 

The quote from Franklin zippy posted recently sums it up well:

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

by alphasigmookie on 07/01/2008 05:42:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay, but (none / 0)

 

would you still feel this way if someone chit-chatting on their cell phone ran a red light and put you into a wheel chair, or even worse, someone you dearly loved?  Do you have something against government issued drivers licenses, or do you think anyone who can put a vehicle in gear should automatically be allowed to drive?  I'm sure the answer is no.  It seems to me though that this is also government control as you're describing it.  Why should they decide who should be allowed to drive? 

More government control isn't something people go looking for.  The world is getting more crowded and there needs to be a civilized method for keeping them from stepping on each other's toes, or killing each other with negligence or plain stupidity.  It means giving up a little something sometimes, like smoking in restaurants, but is it really so terrible to have to wait till you walk outside to light up, or put a clip on your ear to chat on the cell phone while you drive?   

Don't get me wrong, there is a boundary of reason to find somewheres there but in the end it's an argument of fine points, isn't it?  

by bfaul on 07/01/2008 06:07:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right (none / 0)
We should just have no laws then.  That would be best.

by Spencer on 07/01/2008 06:21:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So... (none / 0)
... if i'd kill you, that wouldn't get me into trouble?

no threat, just a logical conclusion of your thought train

by callisto on 07/01/2008 07:32:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree with you. (none / 0)
I was being facetious.

by Spencer on 07/01/2008 07:42:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
sorry Spence (none / 0)
thought I was replying to a comment of smookie

by callisto on 07/01/2008 07:45:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Big Brother tends to go more extreme with Repugs (none / 0)
so in your mind traffic safety (liberal) is as bad as government tapping your phone (conservative)

??? seriously, you rail against any form of measures that make life workable for everyone in the public square, but you love being buttfucked by extreme invasions into your personal life

you oppose red lights?????? damn man, I hope you're smoking something, because this is just not realistic

also the countries with universal healthcare (the whole Western World -USA) don't regulate whether you can eat fat, smoke or drink, they'll tend to say you can't smoke somewhere where it hurts other people (like in office), but they don't outlaw it
seriously Europe doesn't smoke and drink?, fuck man, if you think that, you truely are living in a dreamworld

by callisto on 07/01/2008 07:31:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
red light cameras (none / 0)
in the recent budget bill the AZ governor (democrat) just signed there is a large program to expand photo traffic enforcement.  These are cameras place around the city and on the highways that automatically snap a picture of you and your licence plate and then a private company paid to build and operate the system sends you a ticket in the mail.  This is the type of creaping authoritarianism that is infecting BOTH political parties and someone has to put their foot down!  Every heard the saying about boiling a frog slowly?  Well i'm starting to feel a little warm! 

by alphasigmookie on 07/01/2008 08:42:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)

given the choices we have which I would rather choose. My license plate photographed at an intersection (which anyone can do) or my phone tapped without warrant. Which would I choose?

I agree but sometimes you have to bite the bullet and go with the lesser of two evils.

by z1p101 on 07/02/2008 02:22:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Both choices suck! (none / 0)
I tend to agree with you which is why i'll probably vote for Obama, but I hold no illusions that he will be significantly better than McCain on the liberty vs. security plane.  The republicans just focus more on protecting us from the boogie man while the democrats focus completely on protecting us from ourselves. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/02/2008 02:31:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The day you start paying BIG taxes, (none / 1)
will be the last time you ever vote Democrat in your life.

You think government taking your guns makes you angry?

by KenTX on 07/02/2008 12:19:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Like Warren Buffet? (none / 0)

Yeah, you're greedy and are incapable of understanding the relationship between a well-functioning government and your ability to make money.  We get it.

Its the part where you assert that everyone feels the way you do that is stupid.

And even if that were true, shouldn't every election come down to the poor and middle class voting Dem and rich voting Pub?

I could live with that.  Could you?

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 12:36:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Warren Buffet is an old guy with guilt. (none / 0)
I'm not.

That fukker could have easily contributed as much of his wealth to the government as he wanted to. He chose to talk about it, rather than pony up.

Rich people don't pay income taxes, because they don't receive a paycheck. They live off trust funds (which aren't taxed) and capital gains (which are taxed at a lower rate when they sell stock).

The only person in this room paying the top income tax rate is me. (Oh yeah, and I'm the only guy who played college ball also. That was for zippy.) If you were paying big taxes, you would be voting Republican, guaranfuckinteed!

When I started thinking of the hundreds of thousands of dollars I have paid in taxes, and that the money was redistributed to poor people, so they could be encouraged to go out and procreate more poor people, so that my taxes can be raised even higher, it makes me "energized". It makes me post in liberal blogs. Knowwhutahmean, Vern?

by KenTX on 07/02/2008 01:03:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok, but how about this? (none / 0)

How do you feel thinking about all your precious money being dumped into contractor pockets for providing nothing?  Lets be serious, the waste in Iraq alone that has gone to contractors makes all the welfare payments of the last decade look like chicken feed.

The problem with you trying to take your little anthill of moral high ground is you laugh when Republicans just flat out steal our money  so it makes it kind of hard for us to feel you when you cry like a little bitch about some poor kid getting to eat with a fraction of a cent of your income which is apparently derived from your daddy's business.

As for the tax structure?  You want to cut the top income tax rate and raise cap gains and inheritance?  I am right there with you, Ken.  Let's cut payroll taxes while we are at it.

Oh, and how much extra money have you sent in for your precious little war?  Or for those no-bid, no oversight contracts you feel so strongly about?

As for Buffet.  I bet he has given more to charities that generally do the things that his political views support than you have made in your entire grubby little lifetime.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

How about you?  You sending Haliburton checks to back up your beliefs there?  Tithing to Blackwater?  Didn't think so.

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 01:45:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
reality check for a feeble mind (none / 0)
The only thing government spends money on that I agree with is killing al Qaeda. Virtually everything else is a waste. Creating an exponential welfare pyramid is a waste. Creating an expensive health care system to take care of people who will never wipe their own ass again is a waste.

by KenTX on 07/02/2008 03:17:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So how much have you sent to Haliburton? (none / 0)

Blackwater?

The Department of Defense?

Where are your principles.

Don't you drive around a lot?  Who the hell do you think pays for those roads?  Who enforces safety standards in the car you drive?  Who subsidized the internet you use so much?  Who provides the infrastructure that made your daddy's business you parasite off of so succesful?

Damn, could you know less about the government?

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 03:52:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
what about (none / 0)
The people giving their lives to fight Bush's stupid war?  That's even worse than being taxed!!

by desertpear on 07/02/2008 02:51:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And this is a new invention to you? (none / 0)
wow, that was new when I was... well let's say a lot younger

as long as they make sure that they only take pics when you are speeding I have no problem with them

the problem there is, with so many things in the US, that they outsource it to a private company, don't know the details, but if that companies gets paid by the number of infringements, that's where you'll have the abuse, because they have the insentive to maximalize their profits

by callisto on 07/02/2008 07:25:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Got me (none / 0)

The only example you listed I care much about is health care and that is because people are going broke and/or dying over it.

The rest, I don't get too juiced up about so can't help you.

How is it you can't acknowledge that putting a profit otive behind something automatically creates a massive incentive to lie, cheat, steal and abuse us and the system.

I know you hard core capitalists love to talk about the gap between the theory of communism and the reality.  You know Enron?  That is the difference between the theory of capitalism and the reality. 

On health care if my options are getting financially raped to get provided shitty service and then getting my service irrevocably denied when I need it most or having the government pressure me to lose weight well...

You know what I always say about talking about the choices we have and not the ideals.  This is one of those issues. 

by ProfRich on 07/01/2008 09:24:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Health Care (none / 0)
If you want to have a debate about health care we can discuss that in a new thread.  I think we both agree that the system is not functioning well as it is currently structured.  My only point was that a completely government controlled system would open the door for increased government intrusion into personal choices.  With private health insurance you may be forced to pay more for your choices but at least you won't be arrested for them. 

P.S. I love how "profit" is such a dirty word for many of you guys...

by alphasigmookie on 07/02/2008 12:06:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
dammit mookie (none / 0)
Don't be ashamed of being a free market libertarian. Anyone who receives government funded health care should receive an Army cot and two aspirin. And after they reach the point of never again being able to wipe their own ass, they don't even get that!

by KenTX on 07/02/2008 12:23:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What experience do you have? (none / 0)
as on so many other occasions: you don't know what you are talking about, have you ever been threated in a government system somewhere in Europe for instance?

probably not, so again you don't have the knowledge, except for Repug talking points, to talk about this

by callisto on 07/02/2008 07:49:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree with you Mookie... (none / 0)
I think this is another half of the slippery slope argument that comes with Liberal theology.

Universal Health care would open the floodgates to personal information and freedoms. Now, I would like affordable (read it Free) health care, but I know that getting that opens us up to the government intrusions.

You and I sound like we have a lot in common!

:)

by bobo1 on 07/02/2008 01:46:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So then...? (none / 0)

If y'all are terrified of governmental power if they take over health care y'all must have gone ballistic when the Pubs pushed through Telecom immunity, huh?

I mean the government can now spy on you (and apparently is!) at will with no warrant or paperwork of any kind and the telecoms can and will comply with no fear of reprisal.
Kind of a civil libertarian nightmare. Right mookie?

Right bobo?

The Bush administration is the great libertarian fear made manifest, near as I can tell.

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 02:00:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich... (none / 0)
What you fail to acknowledge or realize is that this government, long before GWB came to power, was already monitoring us and getting away with it at will. This telecom immunity is just an example of someone getting sloppy and letting some of the cat out of the bag...

You dont think that they can monitor us at any time, and do so if they feel the need to? if you dont, then you're not as smart as you portray yourself to be...

Not to say that they really care if you look at porn or if I hate Liberals, but the capability has always been there and has been used regularly - duh...

Yes, it irritates me. Yes, I try to live "off the grid" (except when I chat here with you nice folks). I dont have anything to hide, and if they were interested in me, so be it - Im as ready as I'll ever be when the shit hits the fan - are you?

thanks...

:)

by bobo1 on 07/02/2008 02:06:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Repugs made it worse, no? (none / 0)
"I try to live off the grid"

no comment necessary, but I sure as hell never want you to be dissing 9/11 conspiracists

by callisto on 07/02/2008 07:57:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey there, Ken, Jr. (none / 0)

This doesn't address the point at all.

Why are you sooooo concerned about nationalizing health care but expressed no problem with the FISA related spying.

You're explanation is it was happening before?  So what the hell is the problem with nationalized health care?  It will cause a problem that is already happening anyway AND you will get free health care?  Where do I sign up!

As usual, your argument makes no sense.

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 09:49:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Right (none / 0)
"y'all must have gone ballistic when the Pubs pushed through Telecom immunity, huh?"

exactly!  The patriot act pisses me off too and don't get me started on "real id".  I am an equal oportunity hater of big brother government.&nb sp;  

by alphasigmookie on 07/02/2008 02:19:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good for you! (none / 0)

Have you been posting about how mad you are at Bush for FISA and Telecom immunity?  Hard to keep track.

I am pretty sure bobo forgot his libertarianism when the Pubs were actually shitting on our rights and has only rediscovered it when the Dems have proposed something that some day might infringe upon his rights.

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 09:50:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
contrarian (none / 0)
I posted on it a while back, probably not lately.  If i'm going to take the time to post its usually going to be on a subject or an opinion that is not a widely held one.  There is no point wasting my time reposting the same thing someone else said or everyone agrees with.  For example I don't bother posting about peak oil on the oil drum and I don't bother talking about the heller decision on my gun message board (they think i'm a raving liberal by the way).  Lets face it this place would get quite boring if everyone agreed like 90% of you guys do on 90% of the issues. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/02/2008 11:56:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I can accept that (none / 0)

I do the same thing.

I generally try to post when I (a) disagree, (b) can add some extra info or (c) can make a feeble attempt to make people laugh.

It is nice to know the egregious abuse of governmental power is a problem for our libertarian friends.

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 12:03:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
egregious abuse of governmental power? (none / 0)
Oh, you mean like the Fairness Doctrine that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party is trying to bring back after more than 20 years after it was put out to pasture!

by KenTX on 07/02/2008 12:14:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Curioser and curioser (none / 0)

Yeah, because illegal unsupervised wiretapping and e-mail reading by the gov't, unmonitored spending of our tax dollars to contractors in a boondoggle war, ignoring habeus corpus, absolutely and unconditionally rejecting the right of the other branches of government to exercise oversight over the executive through either Supreme Court decisions or Congressional subpeonas, declaring the Vice President to be a "fourth branch" of government and illegaly destroying all White House communication (and those are just the things they freely admit to!) are about the equivalent of making vague references to a new and altered Fairness Doctrine. 

I get your point.

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 12:42:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It was all the Democrats' fault. (none / 0)
Problem: Inflating the Iranian Threat
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on Iran.

Problem: Surge Failure
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on withdrawal timetables.

Problem: Iraq Reconstruction in Shambles
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on Iraq Funding.

Problem: Government Tapping Our Phones
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on FISA.

Problem: Kids Without Health Insurance
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on SCHIP.

Problem: White House Enables Torture
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on torture.

Problem: Government Reading Our Mail, Checking Our Banks
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on government surveillance. 

Problem: Government Tapping Our Phones
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on wiretapping.

Problem: Defense Department Enables Torture
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on torture.

Problem: Politicized the Office of U.S. Attorneys
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on U.S. Attorneys.

Problem: Staggering National Debt
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on tax cuts.

Problem: Bankruptcies
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on economic stimulus.

Problem: Poverty
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on spending.

Problem: A Vice Presidency Above the Law
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on Cheney.

Problem: Government Reading Our Mail, Checking Our Banks
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on domestic spying.

Problem: Guantanamo Bay
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on Gitmo.

Problem: Habeas Corpus Denied
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on judicial appointments.

Problem: Politicized Scientists
The problem was caused by Democrats, because they caved on sex education.

by KenTX on 07/02/2008 12:49:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This just in! (none / 0)

All crime is cause by the police.

You see responsibility does not lie with the perpetrator of an action, but with anyone who fails to prevent it.

This must be what the GOP means by personal responsibility.  They propose legislation that ranges from idiotic to downright evil and if the Dems can't muster the votes to stop it the Dems are responsible.

So if someone, say, rapes Ken's daughter and Ken doesn't stop it Ken is guilty of rape.  The guy you and I would foolishly call a "rapist"?  He is a goddamned national hero.  I mean he couldn't have rape the girl if we would have just stopped him, now could he?

This is Republican logic at its finest.

Ken's post are just getting stupider and stupider.

To be fair, this is clearly from some right wing hack site.  First, its a non-sequiter  and second, I think we all know Ken didn't research all those links.  And if he did, then they will just prove us right.

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 01:29:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
When Democrats for for it, (none / 0)
It means they are responsible. They are guilty. They are culpable. Do you get it Rich? Everyone else gets it! It only takes 40 fucking Senate votes to block legislation. But Democrats have assisted and cooperated with every goddam bill you're complaining about. Are you a fucking retard, or what?

by KenTX on 07/02/2008 03:09:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Two problems for FuKtard (none / 0)

First, in your logic only those that voted for the measure can be responsible, right?  Seems like we need to look at this on a case by case person by person basis.

For example, the Republicans caved on the GI Bill.  But McCain didn't vote for it therefore he is not responsible for it but the "Republicans", in your analysis are.  Interestingly because Bush is a congenital liar, he specifically cited McCain as being a key supporter of the measure.  Even though McCain was opposed to it.  And, with Ted Kennedy, was the ONLY senator not to vote on it.

Second, even those Dems that are responsible for that shit, you have to concur they are less responsible than the  Republicans.  Here is how that works.

The Republicans conceived the legislation, wrote the legislation, introduced the legislation, campaigned for it, held press conferences, went on talk shows,  twisted arms, brokered deals, applied pressure and voted for it.

The Dems?  Some of them voted for it.

Now as I explain all the time.  We have two choices here.  Not the Democrat vs. the ideal candidate descended from heaven.

Looking at your list, their is no way a reasonable human being could vote Republican.

Thanks for being my sock puppet, Ken.

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 03:50:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Democrats are responsible. (none / 0)
There are only two possible explanations for why George Bush has easily defeated Democrats on every single issue since January 2001.

1. George Bush is absolutely correct and Democrat lawmakers know it.

2. Democrats lawmakers are absolutely unfit to lead the nation.

Here’s a handy way to keep track of Democrat complicity in the actions of the Bush Administration. All you need to do it take one of the following links, and plug it into one of the actions George Bush has taken that you don’t like.

While you're playing, sing this song.

“Democrats cave”: 29,000 hits

"Democrats defeated": 11,000 hits

“Dems cave”: 10,000 hits

“Democrats surrender”: 7,000 hits

“Democrats roll over:” 3,000 hits

“Democrats capitulate:” 5,000 hits

“Dems surrender”: 700 hits

"Democrat Losers": 1,000 hits

by KenTX on 07/03/2008 03:41:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Theology? (none / 0)
please, don't use your words on our issues

btw theos means god in ancient greek

again from a lifetime experience in a universal system: I have never had anything but free choice of doctors, hospitals, treatments, ...

also the government doesn't have the right to see my doctors records and they are not in some huge database somewhere

you can make the system however you want


by callisto on 07/02/2008 07:54:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The use of "Theology" (none / 0)
Callisto, I use the word Theology on purpose. Liberalism, much like what we would call Neoconservatism, hasd taken on the embodiment of a religion. Many of our fellow posters here take many issues and their beliefs as mandates from whatever they believe "God" to be. Both extreme aspects of the political spectrum have divulged into what many would consider religious territory. That's why I use the word "theology" when referencing Liberal thought. Thanks... ;)

by bobo1 on 07/03/2008 11:15:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, right bobo (none / 1)

Cause when you as a progressive why they think the way they do they respond, "Because the great Obama says it is the way."

They never give a reason or a logical thought process or empirical evidence or anything.

Whatever bobo.

YOU are the one who responds to any challenge to your baseless assertions with "That's what I believe, you can't argue with me!".  That sounds like religion.

by ProfRich on 07/03/2008 01:05:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Get yourself out of the bubble... (none / 0)
... or stop talking about things you obviously have no knowledge about (except rightwing talking points)

1. there are as many forms of universal healthcare as there are countries who have it, you can make it however you want

2. "completely government controlled system", realize that in a a universal healthcare system, the government doesn't actually run the hospitals or doctors :)

3. "With private health insurance you may be forced to pay more for your choices but at least you won't be arrested for them"

-how many stories have we seen now of how those private insurers dictate which hospital and doctors you may go to, even which treatment those doctors can offer you. From my own experience that has never happened to me in a government system.

-In which twilight world are you living with "being arrested for choosing", seriously, you really think that's reality? The worst that can happen in a government system is, that they won't cover you on certain procedures, and still those prices are lower than in the private system.

4. the problem isn't profit, it's how you make it and on which activities, war profiteering is one of the things that comes to mind

by callisto on 07/02/2008 07:46:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich you can't consede any of their false claims (none / 0)
speaking out of a lifetime of experience here:

I'm a fat bastard like Cenk and I can testify that never has my government run universal healthcare system pressured me to loose weight, also I've always been able to choose whichever hospital, doctor, dentist, ... I wanted

by callisto on 07/02/2008 07:33:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What? (none / 0)
does that even make sense in your brain or is this one of those FOX rationales???

only in a rightwingnut kinda brain would you equate traffic safety and universal healthcare to a way to control people's personal life

also "government mandated safety" really, think this through: of course it's the governments task to mandate safety rules, hopefully they'll ask experts what the best policy is, but of course, do you even understand how societies work?

who else is going to mandate that your Big Mac needs to be safe to eat????

it's this asenine remarks, that make people worldwide go: dumb Americans. Even fascists in the European Parliament wouldn't dare to make such idiotic remarks.

by callisto on 07/01/2008 07:22:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What in insane generalisation is that? (none / 0)
we're back to me disagreeing with bobo, finally, began to get weird :)

"I can tell you without hesitation that the lawmakers and law enforcers could give a shit about traffic safety"

I'm sure that some don't care, but to proclaim that this applies to most, let alone all, is just insane.

Really, you think people in power don't care about traffic safety, what if they had an accident in the family, what if they have kids, ... scratch that: crossing the street will make people care!

being a human being makes me care that people don't end up under a car

by callisto on 07/01/2008 02:35:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are missing the larger point... (none / 0)
I would not presume to say that no one cares about the safety of our fellow man both here in the US and abroad - I'm not even that callous. What I am saying is that inserted into traffic laws and their enforcement is an unwritten but very clearly understood "give and take" as it were concerning personal liberties and freedoms. In order for me to ostensibly "make you more safe", I as a police officer CAN also get into your business and snoop around. Please leave no doubt in your mind that the authors of these laws know full well the deeper meaning and implications associated with giving enforcement types (government) such power. Just look at Europe as an example of this - the amount of intelligence gathered by these means is astonishing. You can hardly go anywhere in the UK without having a camera on you in addition to the police powers... The cell phone thing there in California is just the latest incarnation of this trend of government invading personal liberties - next thing you know, they'll be tapping phones without warrants and checking your computer records and.... Oops... :)

by bobo1 on 07/01/2008 03:14:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
just reaction to your absolute way of phrasing (none / 0)
so it would be better to say that lefties who want less accidents and rightwingers who want to get more in your business, will both support the law, but for different reasons

look all I can say is that in Europe you won't get pulled over easily, maybe at the border crossing or on Saturday nights (checking that you haven't drunken too much) and even then in some countries you can have a certain amount of wheed for instance

ALSO the UK is Britain, continental Europe is Europe, they make that distinction themselves, you can't compare the two
like they say: the most conservative Frenchman is still more liberal than the most liberal Englishman
the UK is in a lot of ways a proxy for the US and hence more rightwing than the rest of Europe

by callisto on 07/01/2008 07:43:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This backs up Ken's statement, in a way (none / 0)

"A man pulled over by Beverly Hills police Wednesday afternoon for violating the "hands-free" cellphone law led authorities on a wild chase in a reported stolen van, striking cars along Wilshire Boulevard before driving the wrong way onto the 405 Freeway."

 

LA Times 7.2.08 

by Andrew Koenig on 07/03/2008 03:04:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I even wrote a blog on the subject. (none / 0)
Here it is.

by KenTX on 07/03/2008 03:19:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Did you know... (none / 0)

that the bluetooth headsets can emit sound in ultra high frequencies that can't be detected consciously but can be heard subliminally?  They keep piping in the same monotonous message:  Ron Paul revolution!  Ron Paul revolution!

Your revulsion may be an unconscious resistance to the message Rev.  

by bfaul on 07/01/2008 10:34:18 AM EST

bt inside my head (none / 0)
Call me whacky but I try to limit my cell phone usage to a minimum for health reasons, let alone have some external powered device constantly churning in my ear.  If Blue Tooth signals can travel through walls, can they travel through hearts and minds?

Next time I see someone chatting away on their robotic attachment in a restaurant, I think  it's time to pull a Larry David, pull off the shoe and go to work - classic Curb episode. 

by rev24 on 07/02/2008 02:17:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Get this (none / 0)

I don't even have a cell phone.

Hate the things.  I don't care if you have one I just don't want one.  I like being alone.  I talk to people plenty throughout the course of the day.

by ProfRich on 07/02/2008 02:47:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ditto (none / 0)

by Spencer on 07/02/2008 03:09:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
California just doesn't want me on their roads. (none / 0)
Well, in Florida you can drive and talk on your phone, until the guy in the car next to you carrying his gun to work gets pissed at your driving skillz.

In florida today, you can take your gun to work, you have to take motorcycle safely classes to get a motorcycle endorsement, and all court costs went up significantly (evictions (were $80, now $250), speeding tickets, divorces). Thank goodness you can bring your gun to work now,..couple that with the law from a couple years ago of being able to use deadly force anywhere you feel threatened... Screw the west, come to Florida.

by jazzchic on 07/01/2008 03:14:27 PM EST

Floirda (none / 0)

You can bring your gun to work but can't have testicles hanging from your trailer hitch?

If the testicles make me feel threatened, can I shoot you legally?

by ProfRich on 07/01/2008 04:59:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It is quite simple really.. (none / 0)
Sex is bad.
Violence is good.

by jazzchic on 07/01/2008 08:48:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
just curious but... (none / 0)
what does that make having violent sex in a car while talking on a cell phone?

...and is it any better if it is hands-free?  (The call, not the sex...)

by eallgaier on 07/01/2008 10:49:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
lol (none / 0)
I saw some of those truck "packages" yesterday on my way to Seattle.  I always think the guy driving must have an awfully small penis!!!

by desertpear on 07/02/2008 02:57:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hey jazz (none / 0)
we need to get wasted together and merge the west and the east - call it del meets biggie and let's make diggie (guns a'blazing, pirates biting heads off heads, trucker honks horn).

by rev24 on 07/04/2008 05:02:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Could be worse...UK now banning HATS!!!!! (none / 0)
Are you fucking kidding me!  All you guys who think the Europeans know everything try wearing a hat in a pub these days!  Not because its rude but because when you wear a hat big brother can't see your face well enough!  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/uknews/2085192/Hats-ba nned-from-Yorkshire-pubs-ov er-CCTV-fears.html

Anyone want to defend this move? 

by alphasigmookie on 07/02/2008 02:44:26 PM EST

As said before (none / 0)
UK does NOT represent Europe, they're to the right of almost anyone on the continent

Continental Europeans tend to consider them to be half-Americans, it's like saying Alabama represents all of the USA :)

by callisto on 07/02/2008 03:31:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I Refuse To Be a Robot - Up Yours Blue Tooth Coppers! | 88 comments (88 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: