1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

If you vote for an official who feels this way...

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by rbell, Jan 26, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...I question your intelligence.

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/25/ny-sen-wants-ban-on-chatting-while-crossing-street/

    OK...support this claim above? I'll say it now: You lack the intelligence to vote. Do us all a favor and sit out. You and your voting will endanger our republic.

    Senator Karl Kruger (bet you can't GUESS the party), a New York lawmaker, wants to ban walking and talking on phones. The quote above shows his monumental stupidity, and his aversion to all things related to individual liberty.

    -Eating chips? That's bad for you. There ought to be a law.
    -Getting 5 hours of sleep per night? That's bad for you. There ought to be a law.
    -Didn't send your mom a birthday card? That's bad for you. There ought to be a law.

    When does it stop? At what point do we say, "Hey, you fascist...quit stealing freedoms!"

    This guy ought to be sent to China, with insults to their leadership tattooed to his forehead. THEN he might get the idea of "Freedom."

    Although, the mental midget that he is, I doubt it...
     
    #1 rbell, Jan 26, 2011
  2. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
    #2 Salty, Jan 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2011
  3. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    That is absolutely asinine. Seriously? How about talking to a friend while walking? There have been people killed because of that. So outlaw that too.

    There gets to be a point where we legislate too much. Yes, ban texting while driving because you will get someone killed. Chances are if you are texting while walking, you will not get someone killed other than yourself. Natural consequences! ;)
     
    #3 annsni, Jan 26, 2011
  4. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I do not remember the state or town, but years ago I read an article on stupid laws. Anyway, this community passed an ordnance making it illegal for frogs to croak after ten at night. The article did not say what the punishment was for the frog that violated the ordnance.
     
    #4 Crabtownboy, Jan 26, 2011
  5. mets65

    mets65 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Taking freedom one law at a time.
     
    #5 mets65, Jan 26, 2011
  6. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Soup..........
     
    #6 annsni, Jan 26, 2011
  7. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,136
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Or you might end up tripping into and faceplanting in a fountain....lol
     
    #7 pinoybaptist, Jan 26, 2011
  8. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    At least then you can sue!! ;)
     
    #8 annsni, Jan 26, 2011
  9. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,136
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    yup....I hope she wins !
     
    #9 pinoybaptist, Jan 26, 2011
  10. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The example in the article is poor one. Certainly valid examples can be given.
     
    #10 InTheLight, Jan 26, 2011
  11. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Who is the "she" In the link article the individual was a male and died


    Ok, give me a link for a better example. But I think this is a very good example

    The bottom line is not who has the right of way (in NY, no one has the right of way), the plan is to avoid a collision - at all reasonable costs.

    Salty
    DI
     
    #11 Salty, Jan 26, 2011
  12. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    No, he was talking about the lady who was walking in the mall and fell in the fountain. She's suing the mall and the security department.


    In NYC, that would mean pedestrian bridges. But then again, I remember there was a thing on the news about people getting injured by texting and walking into poles. So.....
     
    #12 annsni, Jan 26, 2011
  13. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The thread title was "If you vote for a person who feels this way, I question your intelligence".

    And then the quote was given by the lawmaker:
    “When people are doing things that are detrimental to their own well being, then government should step in,” Kruger said.

    So, yes, I can think of some things people do that the government should step in and stop.

    Pouring used car oil down storm sewers.

    Using asbestos insulation in buildings.

    Having lead in paint.

    Any number of examples involving health and safety inspections of food, water, restaurants, etc. (Could have made a list with dozens of entries.)

    Any number of workplace safety regulations (wearing of safety glasses, double kill switches, wearing protection against chemicals, etc.)

    Do I really need to go on? I could be here all night. Obviously I don't think there should be a law prohibiting walking and talking on the phone, but really, there is a legitimate role for government to protect people from being idiots. So, I guess my intelligence is being called into question because I think infants should be secured in a safety seat while being transported in a vehicle? OK, so be it.
     
    #13 InTheLight, Jan 26, 2011
  14. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    First, thanks for the clarification. (sometime I rush a bit and miss the full meaning)

    I am not opposed to the law for infants being in a car seat. However, I think the penalty (at least in NY) is a bit high, including points on your license.

    I do not completely agree with Kruger's statement. One of my basic beliefs is that governments job is to protect you from others.
    Thus, I would agree with he law prohibiting those walking in the street from talking on the phone.
     
    #14 Salty, Jan 26, 2011
  15. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you're missing the point.

    The lawmaker, IMHO, was saying that government SHOULD step in. Not "there's a role."

    In the first post, I gave examples of the "food police." How far are we taking this?

    Do I question the intelligence of government's role in public health and safety? Not necessarily. Do I question the intelligence of someone who thinks this law is good? I disagree...but no.

    But when a government official feels the need to be our full-time nanny...it's time to start questioning, "Who would vote for this buffoon? Does this guy get freedom?"
     
    #15 rbell, Jan 27, 2011
  16. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would- as long as its just for crossing the street. The purpose is to protect me from the stupidity of others. Now, if the law said I cannot talk on the phone while I am waiting in line at the Welfare Office, well thats another story... than we are talking about a nanny law...
     
    #16 Salty, Jan 27, 2011
  17. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Salty - Have you ever been in NY City? It's all walking. There are streets everywhere and you basically have to sit down in order to avoid crossing a street. This means that those people who are walking from place to place (which is really the best way to get around) can't even make a phone call. The city is a different creature than most all other places.
     
    #17 annsni, Jan 27, 2011
  18. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am having trouble with the logic here.

    There are already traffic laws and laws concerning street crossing.

    If a person is walking across a street - and has the right of way based on the traffic light - would not the fault of hitting that pedestrian be with the driver?

    Regardless of whether the pedestrian was talking on a cell phone or not?
     
    #18 targus, Jan 27, 2011
  19. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    I find it interesting that the party that presents itself as the "party of the people" are working SO hard to remove the rights of the people they claim to represent.

    In other nations under socialistic-type rule, I see that those "in" the party get to see special benefits compared to those who remain outside or apart from the party. We're running headlong to that scenario here in America, but why?

    Which party supports unionizing (a Marxist-type organization at its core)?
    Which party is removing the power of people to make choices (while claiming to be the party of choice)?
    Which party is legislating land use away from private ownership and private usage?
    Which party is against states rights unless the states tow the mark set by federal legislation?
    Which party is working to nationalize health care (about 1/3 of our entire national gross domestic product)?
    Which party is pushing politically correct speech?

    Need I go on?

    Why any American would vote for a party that presses these very un-American issues is beyond me, but we get what we vote for, just like Germany got what they voted for when they decided to elect a person who would lead them to a new Reich. Elections have consequences!
     
    #19 glfredrick, Jan 27, 2011
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They were to be deported to the nearist French Restaurant (Cuisses de grenouille).

    HankD
     
    #20 HankD, Jan 27, 2011
Page 1 of 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...