[Switiespils]

Where was the outrage when they started putting cameras on every corner in NY?!

Where was the outrage when everyone needed to be x-rayed at the airport?!

Where was the outrage when they passed the Patriot Act?!

Where was the outrage when Republicans wanted to play nanny by banishing gays from the righteous wholesome Americans?


Oh, let me guess...

THAT'S DIFFERENT!

You folks that voted for those Republicans CREATED this America. Enjoy it! You brought this kind of crap into my life, I'm glad some of this is going to bite back on those that voted for more restrictions on Americans by voting Republican!

They created today's American political climate. Now it's your turn to adjust and accept it. Welcome to your America that you wanted!

[DoctorDeryOne]

Where was the outrage when they started putting cameras on every corner in NY?!

You are allowed to film people on public property as it is. I can do it in another state, too. Where was the outrage when everyone needed to be x-rayed at the airport?! If it was forced by the government, then yes. However, if it was an airport decision, then no, because the airport is owned by the airport. A private organization can X-ray you if you want to use their services if you agree to it. If no, just don't use the airport. Where was the outrage when they passed the Patriot Act?! Certainly. At least, I argue against it when it is mentioned. Where was the outrage when Republicans wanted to play nanny by banishing gays from the righteous wholesome Americans? I don't see how that is a nanny-state piece of legislation, and bashing gays is legal just like bashing republicans is legal.
Oh, let me guess...

THAT'S DIFFERENT!

[Switiespils]

You are allowed to film people on public property as it is. I can do it in another state, too.If it was forced by the government, then yes. However, if it was an airport decision, then no, because the airport is owned by the airport. A private organization can X-ray you if you want to use their services if you agree to it. If no, just don't use the airport.Certainly. At least, I argue against it when it is mentioned.I don't see how that is a nanny-state piece of legislation, and bashing gays is legal just like bashing republicans is legal.

Slon, I made a valid point by contrast. You got only technicalities that I'm pretty much addressing.

Those are excuses, not valid reasons. The only thing about this is that when Republicans do this - it's for America! When Democrats behave the same - it suddenly becomes shameful.

This is the usual hypocritical stance by Republicans. The arguments are not based on consistent philosophy, but rather if this lawmaker bears a R or a D. That's the only deciding factor.

[DoctorDeryOne]

Slon, I made a valid point by contrast. You got only technicalities that I'm pretty much addressing.

Those are excuses, not valid reasons. The only thing about this is that when Republicans do this - it's for America! When Democrats behave the same - it suddenly becomes shameful.

This is the usual hypocritical stance by Republicans. The arguments are not based on consistent philosophy, but rather if this lawmaker bears a R or a D. That's the only deciding factor.

None of the things you mentioned are examples of nanny-state legislation. Cameras on public property was always legal, so it has nothing to do with passing laws. X-rays at airports have nothing to do with protecting people from themselves (AKA nanny state). The Patriot Act also does not protect people from themselves. And bashing gays has nothing to do with protecting people from themselves, either.

[Switiespils]

None of the things you mentioned are examples of nanny-state legislation. Cameras on public property was always legal, so it has nothing to do with passing laws. X-rays at airports have nothing to do with protecting people from themselves (AKA nanny state). The Patriot Act also does not protect people from themselves. And bashing gays has nothing to do with protecting people from themselves, either.

Nevermind Slon. It doesn't compute for you.

You're kinda proving my point. Anyhow, I'll let the people that do understand to use your posts as example of my argument.

[AdobebePhoto]

It is not protection from the I-pod, but rather from self stupid....
Some people are just not too bright and thus we need the nanny government to look after them.

[Haremporblape]

nanny state or police state?
These are the sorts of laws that are passed under the guise (or maybe the genuine intention) of taking care of people but are easily enforced selectively.
I have a friend with a mohawk and torn up clothes who I watched get stopped for jaywalking; there was no car for miles, but the argument is that he COULD have tripped, been unable to get up, and not been visible to oncoming traffic.
Meanwhile, I wear nicer clothes and jaywalk in front of police whenever I need to get to the other side of the street and I don't feel like I'm endangering myself or greatly inconveniencing traffic, and I don't get a ticket.
More useless laws just further empower the people allowed to carry guns and decide who does and doesn't look safe.

[Switiespils]

nanny state or police state?

Exactly! I agree.

[DoctorDeryOne]

Nevermind Slon. It doesn't compute for you.

You're kinda proving my point. Anyhow, I'll let the people that do understand to use your posts as example of my argument.

It doesn't compute for me because it's totally irrelevant. Why do you feel that someone who supports the Patriot Act should oppose this legislation?

[Switiespils]

It doesn't compute for me because it's totally irrelevant. Why do you feel that someone who supports the Patriot Act should oppose this legislation?

Some others understood. I've moved on.

[RG3rGWcA]

How can you tell if someone is blithely crossing the street?

Yes, I think police state is a more accurate description.

[AdobebePhoto]

Voting for the Republicans did not do this...(what ever it might be) to this country,, the Democats have had more power for longer,,, but even they did not do it... it is the Political machine that is running it.. to get to total control of each and every one of us in the name of SAFTEY........... you the person on the street can not think for your self so we the government will do it for you..

[RG3rGWcA]

Well, New York has a Republican mayor. And the Republicans have been taking away our freedoms in the name of security lately....

[AdobebePhoto]

The removal of freedoms has been going on for 10s of years...

What party was in power when the law came down that says that one can not mail a firearm?

What party was in power when laws where passed on how much a farmer can have in the way of chemicals for the farm?

[JNancy46]

They got that many police officers to stand in the corner and watch people cross the street?

I think the idea is about being wise. The conception of wise can be debated until doomsday and we'll still have stupid people.

Have you nearly had a car accident because the idiot driving in front of you was on his cell phone?
Kruger's issue is a little like this from a different perspective but you just can't police other peoples thoughts.

[Switiespils]

They got that many police officers to stand in the corner and watch people cross the street?

I think the idea is about being wise. The conception of wise can be debated until doomsday and we'll still have stupid people.

Have you nearly had a car accident because the idiot driving in front of you was on his cell phone?
Kruger's issue is a little like this from a different perspective but you just can't police other peoples thoughts.

In regards to vehicles, I understand that driving is a privilege and not a right.

[AdobebePhoto]

And is it not in the driving book that one has to read and pass to get a licenes that says no desecrations while driving? and that one is to have both hands on the wheel?

[Switiespils]

And is it not in the driving book that one has to read and pass to get a licenes that says no desecrations while driving? and that one is to have both hands on the wheel?

I agree. A car is not a toy nor a right that Americans can abuse. If you can't follow the rules of the road and operate heavy machinery properly, you don't deserve to drive and should have that privilege taken from them.

If they make a law about cell phone use by a driver - I'm all for it.

This wouldn't be a reflection of Police State, but personal responsibility with heavy machinery that can kill that should be taken away if one can't abide by the rules or operate a dangerous vehicle with care.

Putting on make-up while driving should earn you a ticket. Eating while driving. Talking on phone while driving.

Those things doesn't really tell the story of a responsible driver.

[AdobebePhoto]

But the law is already there..... one is not to be doing any thing that takes the eyes off the road or the hands off the wheel... why do we need more? Why not inforce the laws that we already have?

Are we not tought that when crossing the street to look both ways? oh,,, I know some might not be, but then it would be a good way to weed out the gen pool...........

[Switiespils]

But the law is already there..... one is not to be doing any thing that takes the eyes off the road or the hands off the wheel... why do we need more? Why not inforce the laws that we already have?

Are we not tought that when crossing the street to look both ways? oh,,, I know some might not be, but then it would be a good way to weed out the gen pool...........

Enforcing laws is good. One way would be taking eye witness reports on accidents. If found that one caused an accident because they were on the cell phone, then it should carry punitive consequences.