BF2S Forums US Senator thinks iPods can kill you

Bubbalo wrote:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

People are becoming WAY too over-protective now-a-days. (And too liberal.)

Except that liberalism opposes protective governments.....................

What a load.
Liberalism espouses that the government can protect you from anything.

Pubic wrote:

What a git!  Hes keeping the stupid gene alive!

Its a conspiracy by extremist christians!  They are trying to disprove the theory of evolution by actively stopping it from working!

.....slack jawed sheep "dippin" yockle

Donald O' Brien wrote:

While I think his approach is going overboard, I do kind of see his point.  On my campus, I'm sick of having dumb girls (mostly from the East Coast) with their trendy iPods walk blindly across the street, forcing me to swerve or hit the brakes.  The worst part is that they carry on with their stupid sheep lives and don't even realize that they almost got put out of their misery.

Floor it!

Also, this guy must die. My MP3 player is what keeps me sane, I am not turning it off for some stupid politician.
And, frankly, I walk into MORE things when I don't have the music to focus on and have to concentrate on not hurting people for annoying voices and stupid ignorant petty little mouthings.

Milk.org wrote:

Bit-Tech wrote:

Senator Carl Krueger wants to ban iPods on the streets of New York because he believes that they're the cause of an increasing number of fatal accidents in the city.

The Senator is planning to introduce a law in New York that would prohibit the use of handheld devices, including iPods, BlackBerrys, portable video game consoles and mobile phones, in order to reduce the number of fatalities.

"This electronic gadgetry is reaching the point where it's becoming not only endemic but it's creating an atmosphere where we have a major public safety crisis at hand," claimed Krueger.

If Krueger's proposed bill is passed, every person carrying an active iPod or other handheld device on the city's streets would be a criminal. Offenders would be given a $100 USD (~£50) fine and a criminal court summons.

"You can't be fully aware of your surroundings if you're fiddling with a BlackBerry, dialing a phone number, playing Super Mario Brothers on a Game Boy, or listening to music on an iPod," said Krueger.

Not only will this cause an uproar among music fans, it will also affect the BlackBerry addicts on Wall Street who use their various handheld devices for business purposes. Any uproar is unlikely to affect Kruger's stance though.

Source

With that logic why not ban the big illuminated advertisements in Times Square? Are there not bigger problems that Senator Carl Krueger could be addressing? What's with the US & the UK for that matter trying to smother us? Are we slowly becoming nanny states? Discuss.

YEA RIGHT!!!

Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2007-02-08 21:09:20)

Turquoise wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

will its obivious




democrats think we are 4 year olds, that can't wipe our ass

...and republicans think we are heathens and perverts that shouldn't smoke pot or watch lesbian porn.

Both parties are responsible for the slowly approaching nanny state.  As long as they have your attention and money, you will be slaves to them.

If that's true, I'd vote Democrat.  I'd much rather have lesbian porn than an iPod.  (my ipod's broken AGAIN)

lowing wrote:

No surprise here, bubbalo is fully supporting the govt. legislating even more of our lives

And where did I say that, dipshit?

Bubbalo wrote:

Liberalism leans towards Communism/Anarchy, Conservatism leans towards Capitalism/Totalitarianism.

You mean communism and socialism for liberalism, and feudalism/facism for consevatism. I was just studying Marx and the whole liberal vesus consevative thing in my history class.

SEREMAKER wrote:

will its obivious




democrats think we are 4 year olds, that can't wipe our ass

actually, you have it backwards, democrats are 4 year olds who cant wipe their asses. +1 to you!

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo support = liberal
liberal = socialist
socialist = communist 
liberalism/socialism/communism =BIG GOVT.
BIG GOVT. = GOVT. control over our lives.
Bubbalo support = BIG GOVT. controling our lives.

See, how it I can bring it all around full circle?? Now by all means try and convince anyone that liberals do not support big govt.

How about the fact that Marxist Communism actually argues against any government..........................

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

You mean communism and socialism for liberalism, and feudalism/facism for consevatism.

Yes and no.  Communism and Socialism are both economic theories, and as such can both be used for the first half.  The second half was government form.  Further, fuedalism and fascism are both totalitarian forms of government, and as such were covered.  With hindsight, I should have said Socialism/Anarchy for Liberals since Communism is a form of Socialism.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

And where did I say that, dipshit?

Bubbalo support = liberal
liberal = socialist
socialist = communist 
liberalism/socialism/communism =BIG GOVT.
BIG GOVT. = GOVT. control over our lives.
Bubbalo support = BIG GOVT. controling our lives.

See, how it I can bring it all around full circle?? Now by all means try and convince anyone that liberals do not support big govt.

Lowing = Conservative
Conservative = Fascist
Fascist = Nazi
Lowing = Nazi

OR

Lowing's logic = fail. Just because tables and bogs are both brown and have 4 legs doesn't mean tables are dogs.

Also, I would like to see where a liberal was for big government.

In any case:

wiki wrote:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed

Because limiting govt. power means making it bigger.

Gee Spark, and all ya had to do was keep reading

"Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights."

This is also answers bubbalo and UON I think

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo support = liberal
liberal = socialist
socialist = communist 
liberalism/socialism/communism =BIG GOVT.
BIG GOVT. = GOVT. control over our lives.
Bubbalo support = BIG GOVT. controling our lives.

See, how it I can bring it all around full circle?? Now by all means try and convince anyone that liberals do not support big govt.

How about the fact that Marxist Communism actually argues against any government..........................

Does it? who gives a shit? What does that have to do with liberals of today wanting to take from those that work and achieve and GIVE it those that DON'T?

Bubbalo wrote:

Liberals such as whom?

Besides which, you're the one calling me a Liberal, which means you need to show I have those views.

well ok........ http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=43117

is your self appointment to the liberal team enough, or are you really gunna make research your posts?

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=55964&p=2 ......."you right wingers"? as opposed to your "left wing" views there bubbalo?



http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=48301&p=3

Hell, even here you are not only a liberal, but a lot of people think you are a crazy liberal to boot.

Last edited by lowing (2007-02-09 23:21:04)

Bubbalo wrote:

Which ignores my question as to which Liberals want to "take from those that work and achieve and GIVE it those that DON'T".

The problem is that I was talking about me as a Liberal in terms of my definition of a Liberal, which is obviously hugely different to your definition.

Hmmmmmm, I don't think I am off the mark here bubbalo.

You believe in socialism/communism. I beleive in capitalism

You want the rich to give to the poor, I want the able bodied poor to go out and earn their own living. Just a few differences.

the liberal agenda is more social programs funded by the rich. C'mon, who do you think is going to fund these programs? The poor?

Last edited by lowing (2007-02-09 23:59:44)