On Car seat law at odds with safety advice
Posted on September 15 at 12:05 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
michellemt640, I know many women who smoked through their whole pregnancies and had babies with no problems. Thank you for bringing up yet one more example of the fear-mongering that permeates our society.
MOC0428, I don't espouse these techniques, clearly a lego box and/or "the baby crusher position" are not good methods of child restraint. I do believe that car seats and their ilk are by and large good things, and far safer that the alternatives. However, this does not meant they should be mandated by law. Micromanaging is not usually necessary, and creates more problems that it solves. Laws and technologies change, but reality doesn't.
On Car seat law at odds with safety advice
Posted on September 15 at 10:52 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Shouldn't this be up to the parents? I used a lego box as a booster seat when I was a kid, my wife's mom carried her on her lap in the front seat when my wife was a baby. We both turned out fine. Sitting in the front seat is only dangerous to a child if the vehicle has a passenger side airbag, and if one is wearing their seatbelt, airbags are redundant, serve no purpose, and should be disconnected as soon as soon as one purchases a vehicle. Hyperlegislation of day to day childrearing is not good for anyone and goes against everything our country stands for.
On Hixson: Make people think twice before they drink and drive
Posted on September 9 at 12:42 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
On Hixson: Make people think twice before they drink and drive
Posted on September 9 at 11:37 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
brwe, you contend there is a problem, but in reality, there is none. There are isolated rare incidences of drunk driving causing injury, but in fact, the vast majority of DUI's are cited as part of a routine traffic stop where there has been no accident or injury. Rapists, armed robbers, and arsonists hurt people and property. By and large "drunk drivers," do not.
On Hixson: Make people think twice before they drink and drive
Posted on September 9 at 9:40 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
beeferer, now who's calling the kettle black? You also post the same thing in every article, and in every article, someone points out that your information on the foreign DUI Death Squads is nothing but pure fabrication. I truly am sorry to hear about your friends, but, I have to ask where the people you associate with spend their time, so as to be so affected by such a isolated and infrequent problem?
On Hixson: Make people think twice before they drink and drive
Posted on September 9 at 9:33 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
beeferer, I wouldn't last long as a politician. But okay, you caught me, I did use a different phrase to express the same concept. Sorry. The wording is different, but the sentiment is the same. We paid for the roads, and the government has no cause to deprive of us the use of a resource we paid for.
On Hixson: Make people think twice before they drink and drive
Posted on September 9 at 9:11 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
brwe, you want to destroy people's lives as punishment for blowing a 0.081, and having done NOTHING to hurt anyone? What is wrong with you?? Maybe we should execute people for not shoveling their sidewalk, or give life sentences for those who run stops signs. It amazes me how so many people buy into these lies, when the central issue of drunk driving is revenue collection, nothing more, nothing less. Except for statistically insignificant extreme circumstances, drunk driving is a non-issue that seldom results in a fender bender, let alone an injury or death.
On Hixson: Make people think twice before they drink and drive
Posted on September 9 at 8:55 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The police have too much power, and the drunk driving laws are too strict as it is. Killing people, hurting people, and damaging property with your car are all currently illegal, and should be dealt with swiftly. It should make no difference if one is drunk, tired, angry, sad, hyper or just a crappy driver. There is no reason to have additional punitive action for a state of mind that does not intrinsically cause harm. Driving is not a privilege, it is a right. We pay user fees to use the roads, and once we have proven that we have a sufficient knowledge base to operate a vehicle, the state has no right to prevent us from utilizing those roads.
On Action promised on drunken-driving laws
Posted on August 28 at 11:35 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
"Driving drunk is not perceived as a serious offense..." because Driving drunk is not a serious offense nor should it be. Driving drunk is not wrong. However, hurting people is wrong. Enforce the current laws on the books against hurting and/or killing people with your vehicle.
Driving may be a privilege, but it is a privilege we all pay for through taxes and user fees. These are our roads, and so long as we follow the traffic rules and don't cause damage to life, limb or property, the state has no cause to prevent any tax-paying citizen from utilizing said roads.
Intoxication is a state of mind, not an action unto itself and as such DUI laws as a whole are dangerously close to the policing of thoughts.
These laws do nothing to improve safety and are just one more excuse to give the police more undeserved power, and for the state to steal your hard earned money.
Page 1 of 7 | Next
On Democrats promise to tackle drunken driving, jobs
Posted on September 15 at 3:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Matt, by your own numbers, 98 percent of the time, a supposedly "drunk" driver doesn't even do anything bad enough to get pulled over, let alone hurt anyone. Sounds like a real big danger to me.