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

[rbell]

...I question your intelligence.

“When people are doing things that are detrimental to their own well being, then government should step in,” Kruger said.

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...

 

[Salty]

The ban would be when walking across the street - and I support the bill 100+%

Drivers have a hard enough time watching out for someone in the street as it is without the added problem of them talking on the phone or other electronic equipment.

From the LINK:
At E.A.T. restaurant on Madison Avenue they still haven’t gotten over the death of co-worker Jason King, killed last month when a truck hit him as he crossed the street while listening to his iPod.

Can you imagine how the driver felt after this - an more than likely, it may have NOT been the drivers fault.


Salty
NY Certified Driving Instructor

 

[annsni]

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!

 

[Crabtownboy]

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.

 

[mets65]

Taking freedom one law at a time.

 

[annsni]

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.

Soup..........

 

[pinoybaptist]

.....................................................Chances are if you are texting while walking, you will not get someone killed other than yourself. Natural consequences!

Or you might end up tripping into and faceplanting in a fountain....lol

 

[annsni]

Or you might end up tripping into and faceplanting in a fountain....lol

At least then you can sue!!

 

[pinoybaptist]

At least then you can sue!!

yup....I hope she wins !

 

[InTheLight]

The example in the article is poor one. Certainly valid examples can be given.

 

[Salty]

yup....I hope she wins !

Who is the "she" In the link article the individual was a male and died

The example in the article is poor one. Certainly valid examples can be given.

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

 

[annsni]

Who is the "she" In the link article the individual was a male and died

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.

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.

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.....

 

[InTheLight]

The example in the article is poor one. Certainly valid examples can be given.

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

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.

 

[Salty]

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, 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.

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.

 

[rbell]

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.

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?"

 

[Salty]

...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?"

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...

 

[annsni]

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...

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.

 

[targus]

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?

 

[glfredrick]

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!

 

[HankD]

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.

They were to be deported to the nearist French Restaurant (Cuisses de grenouille).

HankD