[Loaded]

Let's not forget that guns aren't the only agenda of the "left wing, I grew up on MTV and Barney the purple dinasaur, kumbaya" nit wits.

They have attacked (and succeeded in some cases) --

1. The cigarette industry -- restaurants and bars that cannot have smoking in them.

2. Not allowing the game of "tag" allowed to be played on some playgrounds because it might make the one that is "it" feel hurt and worthless!

3. Pledge of Allegience removed from schools.

4. Prayer removed from school (unles you're a muslim, then it's ok).

5. No cell phone usage while driving!

6. Recognizing same sex (homos) marriage.

And countless other things in the name of destroying the American Culture and Constitution. And who is responsible for these actions? Million Moms, Hollywood, Liberals, Liberal media, today's schools, some politicians, etc.

People.... It's time we put an end to this and reclaim our country for what it was built upon. Lest America ends up like Mexifornia!!! Socialism / Liberalism spreads like a cancer. First California, then...?????

[Preacherman]

Loaded, not all of these things are bad...

1. Cigarettes - hey, I'm a smoker, but I have many friends and acquaintances who detest the smell of smoke, and I respect their right to a smoke-free environment. If I want to smoke when I'm with them, I excuse myself and go outside for a few minutes. I have no problem with that.

2. "Tag" - yeah, that one sucks...

3. Pledge of Allegiance - ditto. If our Congress sees fit to make it a national "standard", our schools should be adopting it. No argument here.

4. Prayer in schools - well, I'm a pastor, and I object to being "spiritually censored" in schools: but I also agree that others should not be forced to join in my prayer. I'd compromise here, and go for voluntary assemblies of like-minded folks to pray together, with others excused from participation.

5. No cell phone usage while driving - I largely agree with this (I've seen too many accidents and near-accidents), but would like to see exclusions allowing for hands-free kits.

6. Same sex marriage - well, to me, marriage is a religious union, not a civil one. If a religion doesn't approve of same-sex marriage (as mine doesn't), it's free to refuse to allow or recognize such marriages. If the state wants to offer non-religious "civil union" status to such unions, that's for the state to decide (or rather, for the people to decide, and the state to implement according to the peoples' wishes).

Any other ideas?

[telomerase]

>Prayer in schools - well, I'm a pastor, and I object to being "spiritually censored" in schools: but I also agree that others should not be forced to join in my prayer.

But you are forced to pay for the school, that teaches the eco-doom religion instead of yours. This is the basic issue; there is no way to have schools financed by income confiscation that does not tread on your religious beliefs.

I'm not a pastor, nor do I play one on TV. But I am appalled that so many pastors cave in to convenience and convince themselves that supporting the state religion is their job. (This isn't aimed at Preacherman, and certainly voluntary asssemblies make more sense than prohibition of all but the State's religion).

[Loaded]

5. No cell phone usage while driving - I largely agree with this (I've seen too many accidents and near-accidents), but would like to see exclusions allowing for hands-free kits.


Preacher - Not to beat up on you but, What's next from Big brother while driving? No radio tuning? No eating? No talking to rear passengers? No looking around at the scenery? No looking down at your gauges? The question is.... WHEN WILL IT STOP?????

I'm tired of "feel good" groups constantly wanting to protect me from me!!!

[another okie]

"I'm tired of "feel good" groups constantly wanting to protect me from me!!!"

Cell phone usage bans are to protect me from you, not you from yourself.

I have been run off the road several times by cell phone users, and seen them go through stop signs several more times. If banning eating and changing CDS is next, that's ok with me, too. The cell phone problem is about to get much worse as text messaging and interent access become more common, because those require much more attention than talking.

And for the pastor, hands free units have been shown to be no safer. The problem is lack of concentration on the main task, driving. Driving safely requires more concentration than most people seem willing to give it.

[GregoryTech]

1. The cigarette industry -- restaurants and bars that cannot have smoking in them.

I couldn't care less for the cigarette industry, and I do everything I can to avoid the smell of second hand smoke, but the government has no business telling a private property owners that they are not allowed to set their own rules on their own property as it pertains to an activity that is perfectly legal to do on your own front porch. If second hand smoke is truely dangerous (I am dubious), then EDUCATE people and allow them to make their own choices. If the true goal was health, then cigarettes would be outlawed. This is nothing more than a group of people who want to control other people by force of law. And it stinks. Way more than the disgusting smell of cigarette smoke.

[Loaded]

Okie --

When I pass you in my car I'll be sure to wave to you as I stuff another cheeseburger into my mouth, grab some fries, sip my drink, tune in another radio station, turn to talk to my passengers, answer my cell phone, look in my mirrors, shift gears, use my turn signal, check my on board navigation system, adjust my air conditioning, and get on with the act of being a responsible driver and getting to where I'm headed.

[GregoryTech]

I have been run off the road several times by cell phone users, and seen them go through stop signs several more times.

You're making the (incorrect) assumption that banning cell phones would turn these people into responsible drivers.

[Geech]

I don't know. I've heard that driving while talking on a cell phone is statistically more dangerous than driving drunk, but I don't have any links to articles or studies that back that up.

[Art Eatman]

Loaded, the problem is that the Socialist crowd regards the effort as a full time job. They work together on a daily basis. They go into lines of work which inherently further their aims: The media, government agencies, and staffs of elected officials.

Conservatives, generally, go vote and go home and then bitch.

Art

[Quartus]

5. No cell phone usage while driving - I largely agree with this (I've seen too many accidents and near-accidents), but would like to see exclusions allowing for hands-free kits.


Well, this is OT, and I was going to PM Preacherman on this. Then I read further and saw it being hammered, so here goes:


I'm in the business. I engineer cellphone networks. Got my start in '84, installing car phones. That's almost as far back as it gets, folks - the first commercial networks launched in '84. So I've been around this issue for a while.

I've gone from scorning the "cellphones make bad drivers" crowd as a bunch of chicken littles to realizing that they are partially right. There ARE a bunch of people out there who can't talk and drive. I'm sure those folks can't talk and walk very well, either, but that's small comfort when you're behind one of them on the road.

In The Beginning, car phones were very expensive and only people who had:

A: The money, and

B: The need,

bought thte things. Very few were for status in those early days. (Well, except for the Hollyweird crowd.) They were high end exces and salesmen, and frankly, they tended to be more capable, more intelligent than the avereage Joe.

Now every soccer mom and teeny bopper is running down the road with a phone screwed in their ear. Naturally, a good percentage of these folks are bad drivers/airheads to start with, and the phone does NOT imporove matters.

The study that was referred to was done in Toronto and it concluded that cellphone usage was EQUIVALENT to being drunk. (Not WORSE.) But it was a poorly conducted study that didn't control for peopel just being stupid, so we don't know how cellphone usage affects different people. But one very important point that the study DID show was that it is NOT the act of dialing or receiving the call that causes the problem - it is the converstation ITSELF. IWO, hands free devices don't help at all.

But passing laws requireing them DOES make for an easy, feel-good target for polkiticians.

So, yes, I do think there's a problem. But as ususal, passing a law is not the best way to solve it. I like what Huntington Beach, California, did. THey passed a law that said if you have an accident, and it is shown that you were distracted by WHATEVER (cell phone, CD player, kid in back seat) then you are AT FAULT and will be cited.

Hmmm. No prior restraint, just hold people accountable for bad results of their choice.

Yeah, I can live with that.


And I apologize for the sloppy typing - no timer to chell speck righ tnow!)

[2dogs]

Let's not forget that guns aren't the only agenda of the "left wing

They only have one agenda- limiting freedom by slowly eliminating individuality and the ability of citizens to act independently and responsibly.

Name me one thing they favor that does not fit that agenda?:cuss:

[MeekandMild]

You forget the worst thing. Moronic warning labels...I lay the blame for these on the lawyers and not the liberals per se.

Imagine you are knee deep in some domestic chore, perhaps regluing the broken PVC water line you broke because the moron you bought the house from had an unmarked spigot hidden in the weeds which you ran over with the lawnmower.

Your trifocals are fogged from the heat and you can barely see. You finish digging the hole, exposing the pipes, cut the pipes to length and wipe the mud off the new fittings and reach for that little can of glue.

DAMNED THING HAS NO DIRECTIONS JUST WHITE PRINT ON PURPLE BACKGROUND WARNING YOU THE FRIGGING STATE OF KALIFORNICA HAS FOUND THE STUFF TO CAUSE CANCER. So you turn over to the other side of the can looking for directions so you won't have to walk 100 yards to the house to fish out the outer childproof box from the garbage. What do you see? THE SAME FRIGGING WARNINGS IN SPANISH!!!
:banghead:

1. The cigarette industry -- restaurants and bars that cannot have smoking in them. You're wrong about this one. Cigarettes are more addicting than heroine and nicotine is more poisonous than cocaine and the antismoking sentiment cuts right across party lines.

You'd better thank the liberals and their namby pamby ways, because if conservative antismoking activists like me were in charge we'd put a bounty on tobacco dealers. :D

[telomerase]

>Cigarettes are more addicting than heroine and nicotine is more poisonous than cocaine

And everyone has known this for decades. What does that have to do with telling someone else what to do with their own bloodstream? Do you think General Washington would have let anti-smoking zealots tell him he couldn't grow tobacco?

I'm not saying I understand people that smoke, because I don't. But on their own property it's just not my business... we might also note that without the BATF and the DEA there would be safe alternative drugs available that would have the stimulus-blocking effect the nicotine addicts like.

[Quartus]

the antismoking sentiment cuts right across party lines.

Yep. This is an odd one for the liberals.

[saddlebum]

in most states eating, cell phone use, tuning the radio etc,etc while driving has been illegal for years its called failure to devote full attention to driving. saddlebum

[GregoryTech]

Cigarettes are more addicting than heroine and nicotine is more poisonous than cocaine

Then support a law to outlaw smoking, if you believe that will work. But until smoking is an illegal activity, the government has no right telling property owners whether they can allow it on their premises or not.

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me that it's reasonable for a city or state government to request or require food-service establishments to provide a smoke-free area. As to totally smokeless, that should remain the owner's decision.

If the owner of some store doesn't want anybody to smoke inside, fine with me. Governments shouldn't be telling a store owner that customers, employees or he cannot smoke inside the building.

Quartus' example of the Huntington Beach viewpoint strikes me at the appropriate path to take: A person is responsible for the consequences of his decisions and actions. This would apply not only to cell phone usage, but to issues of helmets and seat belts as well. You could include responsibility for theft of guns from unlocked cars or houses, too.

Art

[another okie]

"You're making the (incorrect) assumption that banning cell phones would turn these people into responsible drivers."

No, I'm not. People are not divided into two categories, responsible and irresponsible, which is what your comment assumes. We all exist on a scale that goes from totally unsafe to very safe, and where we are on the scale depends on our condition, and road conditions, the other drivers, and so on. Cell phones move everyone further toward the unsafe side of the scale.

[Panache]

Hello Okie

Owning a guitar doesn't make me a musician, no more than owning a gun makes me a shoot em up wanna be criminal.

Owning my cell phone and driving responsible and being able to talk on the phone at the same time is something I can do well. And for you to say EVERYONE moves further to the unsafe side of driving because they use a cell phone is ludicrous.

[dustind]

#3 and #4 should be up to the student, not the goverment or school.

#6 why should the goverment stop people from getting married??? Why should the goverment force people to do things, or not to do things when they are not hurting others?

I am with telomerase as far as smoking goes.

I am also against cell phone laws, except maybe an increased fine for acidents while distracted.

Smoking should be up to the individual or property owner.

[Standing Wolf]

“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
—Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[MeekandMild]

I notice some libbies jumped on my antismoking statements but nobody commented on warning labels. I thought for sure somebody would gripe about the 300 word warning stamped onto their new rifle. :rolleyes:

[dustind]

MeekandMild, those labels really annoy me too. My snowmobile had a sticker reminding me not to stick my head inside the track while the track was spinning. The manuals for every thing I own with an engine could be cut down to 60% of their length, if they did not have to remind people of every single obvious danger. Such dangers as gasoline being flammable, the vehicle not stopping without brakes, or that cruise control is not auto pilot. I also hate how the normal manuals do not tell you how to do anything more complex than set the clock, or fill the tank because manufactures fear liability.

[grampster]

Meek and Mild,

You didn't wait long enough for a reply. I was out in the $%&# yard trying to fix the *^&$% )%$#@ pipe I ran over with my mower and came in the house to wipe the sweat off my trifocals and get a glass of water to re hydrate myself from the cursing, stomping and pitching of the $$%^#^& can of glue into the #@$%%^ lake after which I had to go to the hardware store to buy another can of glue AND a piece of pvc. The directions to the glue were in english on the box the glue came in, which I found after I threw the glue in the lake and drove to the hardware store.
#%#$^@^%#$%$ (Sorry Preacherman.)

:scrutiny: grampster

PS what Blackhawk says (as usual)

[Quartus]

The labels are the lawyers fault, not the libs.

Read all about it. (http://www.mlaw.org/)

[JohnBT]

"...reclaim our country for what it was built upon..."

Religious intolerance, slavery and indentured servitude?

I'll pass.

John

[GinSlinger]

Regarding Smoking;

In my town we have a crusade against smoking in resteraunts led by the mother of a severly asthmetic (SP?) child. While this woman was able to obtain 2,000 signatures to ban smoking, the local bars/restaurants collected 3,700 (In a town of 26,000 when college is out and twice that when college is in--course most students aren't registered to vote here or anywhere). Did that end this? No, the mother threatened action under the Americans with Disabilities act.

Hmm, okay, so the city council is still debating this. However, the Social Security Admin considers addiction (alchohol, drugs, etc) a disability. If that is the case, shouldn't smokers be considered addicts, and therefore disabled? And if that is the case shouldn't establishments be FORCED to make provisions for smokers? Oh course not, but neither should a restaurant be forced to ban smoking. :fire:

On another note, the ban proposed for San Antone--a restauranter there has opened a non-smoking only rest and claims that business would be better for all restaurants if they all went non-smoking. That seems counter to business sense. If he is doing so well by being different, why would he want everyone else to be like him? :scrutiny:

Land grabs for finches, anti-smoking laws, etc. Other people telling property owners how to dispose of thier property--burns me up. I feel the juices rising right now.

GinSlinger

[JShirley]

6. I fail to see how allowing same-sex unions is depriving anyone of freedoms, unless said unions receive preferential treatment. (This is relevant how?)

5. Like another said, enforce sanctions only if abuse occurs.

4. I would prefer to see no school prayer as opposed to children being forced to sit through mandatory prayer.

3. I think the Pledge should stay. I do not see mention of it in the Constitution, however.

2. That's just stupid.

1. Should be up to the establishment, just as customers can always vote with their feet.

Loaded, I think most people here are in favor of more freedom, not less. Not allowing #6 is disallowing (IMO) a priviledge others have- and I don't see it hurting you. Why not? (Answer can only be phrased in a political vein.) #4 and #3 should be optional, unless you believe in forcing folks to do what you want them to- which would make you different from these "feel-good" elitists how?

John

[Gordon Fink]

Oh, for the love of God! Please show me the law that prohibits prayer in school.

Hint: it doesn’t exist.

When religious zealots say “prayer in school is outlawed,” what they really mean is that “my style of prayer is not mandated by law.” If you want teachers to force your kids to pray, then send them to a religious school!

~G. Fink, feeling better now

[Quartus]

Fink, if you are going to comment on an issue, you ought to have a clue about it first. There are numerous court ruilings that have banned prayer in schools. Have you ever heard of Madeline Murray O'Hare?

[MeekandMild]

Grampster. I feel you pain...:D

Quartus, I don't know about your state but in the Deep South 90+% of the plaintiff's lawyers are solid Democrats. I know one group of them who own a "hunting camp" where they smooze the politicians. Lodge comes complete with an air field, a bar, swimming pool, hot tubs, call girls, call boys, the works.


Fink. You know this SOS gets old after a while.

[brookstexas]

But these two, well....

4. Prayer removed from school (unles you're a muslim, then it's ok).

There is NOT ONE public school in America where a student cannot say a prayer.

6. Recognizing same sex (homos) marriage.

Yeah I also think it's really unfair for all Americans to enjoy the same legal rights and opportunities. Look what letting women and blacks vote started for instance.
:rolleyes:
BT

[brookstexas]

Call any public school in your area tomorrow. Say "Is it ok for my child to say a prayer between classes, at lunch, before or after school or at a religious club meeting (if they have one).
The answer is that will be fine, why? Because there is NO LAW prohibiting it!

[GinSlinger]

Frankie:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. Article 4 Sect 2

Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. Aticle 1 Section 9

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Article 1 Section 2

How's that for indentured sevritude and slavery? As far as religous intolerence...I'll leave that to others.

GinSlinger

[Nightfall]

1. If people want to poison themselves with cigarettes, they should be free to do so, as long as it isn't directly harming the health of anybody else. Just another example of the left wingers trying to engineer society into what a few perceive as a proper utopia.

2. That's BS. If a kid can't get away from getting tagged, he should feel like a loser. He is a loser. He lost. He should be taught to keep trying, and make himself better so he won't lose again.

3. The pledge should stay. If you don't believe in the "under God" part, don't say it. Simple enough. That's what I did when I was in school.

4. If kids, as a group or alone, want to pray for whatever reason, they should be able to. But nobody should be forced to join in a school wide prayer. Nor should there BE a school wide prayer. Organized prayer ran by the school = unconstitutional. Plain and simple.

5. Plenty of people can drive just fine with a cell phone. Those who are irresponsible enough to not pay attention to the road regardless of any in-car activities will not become responsible when the inanimate object is removed.

6. OMG! Allowing consenting adults to marry one another even if religion A or B doesn't approve! FREEDOM IS DYING! OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TRAMPLED! AHHHHH! :rolleyes: Just another example of the right wingers trying to engineer society into what a few perceive as a proper utopia.

Obviously you personally don't approve of homo or bisexuality. Fine and dandy, certainly your right to voice your displeasure. But forcing somebody with a different sexual orientation to live as sub-standard citizens by removing the same rights and abilities a heterosexual person has is the very core, the very essence of tyranny. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because you hold the opposite end of the political opinion than the left on same sex marriage that you're the good guy, or pro-liberty. You're not. You're just a different flavor tyrant than them.

[MeekandMild]

Allowing consenting adults to marry one another Pardon, but I think that redefining marriage to include various nontraditional genders et cetera is sort of like redefining shooting to include golf and bowling. Calling an apple an orange doesn't make it an apple.

[Marko Kloos]

If you want to know someone's political persuasion, ask them whether gay couples should be allowed to get marriage licenses.

If he says "Yes", he's a Liberal.

If he says "No", he's a Conservative.

If he says "Marriage License?!?", he's a Libertarian.

:D

Personally, I think the whole "gay marriage" debate misses the point. The state should have no business in deciding who can or cannot get married. The only necessary ingredients are a consenting couple, and a priest or other official of whatever religion the couple chose. Strictly speaking, the priest ought to be optional...two people are married when they say they are married.

Why should this be a federal matter? If the Baptists don't want to marry gays, it's their business alone. If the Methodists or Wiccans do marry gays, that's their business.

Funny how the same folks who invoke the superiority of "local law" when it comes to religious and gun issues are fully supportive of a federal law prohibiting gay marriage.

[Hangman]

Loaded, you contradict yourself:


3. Pledge of Allegience removed from schools.


6. Recognizing same sex (homos) marriage.


You want no nanny state? Then don't make kids recite a pledge they don't "get" every day thinking soem will "get" it some day. Pointless!

And what business is it of yours what homos do? Let em marry. They'll stop spreading AIDS.

[seeker_two]

Personally, I think the whole "gay marriage" debate misses the point. The state should have no business in deciding who can or cannot get married.

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way... :cool:

BTW, why do homosexuals want gay marriage legalized? They can partner up & have ceremonies like everyone else. So why the fuss about the law?... :scrutiny:









(I know the answer, but I want to see what everyone else says...)

[Marko Kloos]

FUnny "opinion" I read in The Onion a while back:

"First the military, now marriage. Why do gays want into our worst institutions?"

:D

[Quartus]

Call any public school in your area tomorrow. Say "Is it ok for my child to say a prayer between classes, at lunch, before or after school or at a religious club meeting (if they have one).
The answer is that will be fine, why? Because there is NO LAW prohibiting it!





You're right. No law. But plenty of court cases. Plenty of court ORDERS to that effect, backed up by men with guns who will take offenders to jail. Plenty of cases of children being told they cannot pray in front of a school or in class before hours or after hours or during hours. Plenty of kids told they can't wear a religious T-shirt or emblem. Plenty of kids SUSPENDED for doing so.


You're right. There are no laws against those things.


It's still happening.

[braindead0]

I just can't help, I must comment on the Cell phone issue. Driving while using a cell-phone is probably rather stupid for most people, now when they conduct studies that show 'cell phones are as bad as being drunk' they fail to account for the fact that the person using the cell phone while driving is probably a *bad driver* anyway.

I'm sure a lot of folks here remember the 70's, darned near everybody had a CB and was yacking away non-stop (as much as possible). Nobody tried to ban CB's...thankfully.

[Quartus]

Good analogy, braindead, except for one thing: We never had even CLOSE to 140 million CB users. That's the latest number on cellphone users in the U.S. And to think that, back in the late 70's, Ma Bell expected 50,000 users nationwide by the year 2000! Uh, missed it by THAT much! :D

Quartus, I don't know about your state but in the Deep South 90+% of the plaintiff's lawyers are solid Democrats.


Dunno the exact breakdown nationally - I suspect it's not quite THAT biased, but the Trial Lawyers Association is of of the Dems heaviest contributors.

That's not A Good Thing!

[Nightfall]

Pardon, but I think that redefining marriage to include various nontraditional genders et cetera is sort of like redefining shooting to include golf and bowling. Calling an apple an orange doesn't make it an apple.
How? A marriage between a same sex couple as opposed to opposite sex accomplishes the same thing, does it not? It creates a union of consenting adults. Is your issue with this not being able to start a family? Biologically speaking, they can't start a family with one another, but they can utilize any number of options to otherwise raise a child together. Plus plenty of marriages never result in children anyway. I wasn't aware that ‘will work to impregnate' was a marriage requirement. If a marriage revolves around children, why are barren couples allowed to marry?

Now as to there being a need for a license at all... well, that's another thread. :)

[Gordon Fink]

Quartus, I asked for a citation to statutes prohibiting prayer in the schools, but the best you could do was refer me to an urban legend and make some vague statements about court cases?

Yes, in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Abbington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett) ruled that organized prayer (i.e., prayer mandated by the state) in public schools is unconstitutional. This is as it should be, respecting the First Amendment.

So I’ll ask again. Which law prohibits students, staff, or faculty from praying at a public school during their own time?

~G. Fink

[Freedspeak]

BTW, why do homosexuals want gay marriage legalized? They can partner up & have ceremonies like everyone else. So why the fuss about the law?...

As I understand it , the reason is so their partner can have the benefits (job or other related) as the partner in a heterosexual relationship. There was an incident in Tampa where an officer was killed in the line of duty, and the "SO" was ineligable for any benifits that a traditional SO would have gotten.

[Quartus]

You got your answer, Fink, but you are obviously not interested in facts.

[Gordon Fink]

Which “facts” would those be? Quartus, if you can show me a law (or even a sufficiently broad court order) banning school prayer, I will retract my statement that such legal prohibitions don’t exist.

I researched the few “facts” you did give me, but all I came up with were references to the Supreme Court cases regarding the unconstitutionality of state-mandated prayer and to urban legends surrounding a petition to restrict religious broadcasting. The FCC hasn’t prohibited religious programming, and Congress hasn’t outlawed Christmas, so I fail to see the restriction of religious freedom—beyond the various remaining pro-Christian biases, of course.

~G. Fink