Texting while driving: Should it be a crime? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Texting while driving: Should it be a crime?

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 57 (view)

Texting while driving: Should it be a crime? Posted: 11/23/2009 3:40:48 AM
Anything that could result in someone dying is normally a bad idea. Getting behind the wheel of a 2,500 lb vehicle alone can result in someone dying, so is that a bad idea? Can I assume that your only mode of transportation is a bicycle? With that said, yes, I do agree that texting while driving should be illegal. Fortunately, it is in states that require hands-free cell phone use only. I do have Vlingo in my Blackberry, which is voice recognition text software. I can speak into my phone and it will write the text for me. But even this isn't truly "hands-free". I still have to press the side key of my phone when I speak (sort of like a walkie-talkie). So I only use this on long trips, and sparingly. I use it a lot if I am a passenger in a car since typing while riding makes me car sick.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 85 (view)

couple arrested for not tipping.,, Posted: 11/23/2009 3:27:08 AM
First off, "mandatory gratuity" is a blatant oxymoron. But in the restaurant's defense, this is a common practice at many restaurants, especially with groups. And I have never been to a restaurant that practiced this that didn't have a disclaimer on their menu stating that the charge would be applied automatically. And by ordering from this menu, it is understood that the patron is accepting this practice and is a willing participant in the mandatory fee that will be charged. The fact is, anyone who is not willing to pay a tip for potentially bad service shouldn't eat at these establishments that practice mandatory tipping. Receiving bad service is a risk everyone takes when going to eat at a restaurant. If you don't like taking that risk, then sit your happy ass at home and complain about the service there.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 51 (view)

Is this a Hate Crime ? Posted: 11/23/2009 3:16:42 AM
Of course this is a hate crime. And no, I do not believe that a crime is a crime. The circumstances behind a violent crime should be taken into consideration when sentencing. For instance, a man who comes home to find his wife cheating on him and ends up shooting his wife and her lover in a so called "crime of passion" is probably going to get off with less jail time than a premeditated murder, and rightfully should. This is exactly why their are different degrees of murder. If not, everyone convicted of murder would be sentenced in the same manner.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 18 (view)

Going alione Posted: 11/23/2009 2:56:28 AM
As long as you are enjoying yourself and not breaking the law, then why should you care about what others think?

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 28 (view)

Horible New Fasion Trend Posted: 11/15/2009 11:20:21 AM
^^^^^^ scream & holler while swinging the nylon filled pecans at the cats. They just hate it & run like heck! LOL I have a feeling that the screaming and hollering with a little arm flailing will probably work just as well. But I could be wrong. I could just imaging the conversation between two cats when they see you coming... Cat 1: Ah, jeez. Here comes that crazy screaming lady again. Cat 2: Yeah, when is she going to learn that running around yelling like that isn't the slightest bit scary? Cat 1: Wait a minute... What's that she's twirling in the air? Cat 2: Holly SHYTE! It's pantyhose with a few pecans stuffed in them! LET'S GET OUT OF HERE!!!

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 349 (view)

Fort Hood shooting - What are the questions? What are the answers? Posted: 11/15/2009 4:50:39 AM
The right wing is only happy with due process when it helps their agenda. They forget that we can't pick and choose who to give due process to. Either it works for all of us or it works for none of us. I would agree with all of this except for the "right wing" part, because the fact is, both wings are just a guilty as the other. Instead of casting the blame, why can't our society learn to be accountable for their own actions?

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 13 (view)

Glenn Beck attacks the 1st Amendment and loses. . . Posted: 11/15/2009 4:40:16 AM
Like most other morons in America, Glenn Beck has a tendency to cry first amendment only when it's convenient for him. He is only getting a taste of his own medicine. The fact is, there is no true freedom of speech. Your rights end where mine begin, and vice-versa. This entire fiasco only goes to further support his opposition's claim that his integrity is flawed.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 36 (view)

11 yo girl gives birth...on her wedding day! Posted: 11/15/2009 4:33:31 AM
If "God" didn't want young women to have babies, he would have made them hit puberty the day they turned 18.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 22 (view)

Horible New Fasion Trend Posted: 11/15/2009 4:30:59 AM
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." Oscar Wilde

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 21 (view)

Horible New Fasion Trend Posted: 11/15/2009 4:29:54 AM
Got news for you buddy--women wear hose for a couple of reasons: 1. To keep our legs warm 2. For those of us with less than perfect legs, it helps make our legs look sleeker and less flabby. Why not just wear slacks?

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 21 (view)

Religion Posted: 11/15/2009 4:23:37 AM
A person can be a Jew without fallowing the Jewish religion. A Jew is a person of Jewish faith, AND/OR a descendant of Jerusalem. This means that as long as you are a descendant of Jerusalem, you do not have to believe in the Jewish faith to be considered a Jew. It is natural to fear what we don't understand. But just because it's natural doesn't make it right. Education is the first step to acceptance.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 19 (view)

Religion Posted: 11/15/2009 4:16:26 AM
Spiritualism brings people together by promoting harmony from within and then pointing out that everyone is the same. Religion drives people apart by constantly pointing out their differences. Most wars are based on religion. I challenge you to name even one based on spiritualism. No...I'm not religious, nor will I ever be.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 41 (view)

smell me Posted: 11/14/2009 6:45:15 PM
I wonder if people who wear pheromones masturbate more? I mean, it would make since if the pheromones actually do what they say that do and unwittingly effect people's libido. Why would it not affect the wearer just as much as anyone else?

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 97 (view)

Next Election and Obama Posted: 11/12/2009 4:38:52 AM
Sorry, I cannot read ALL of HCR AND pass all my classes in a timely fashion. I don't have the time for it. Likewise, I was UNABLE to read the stimulus package bill for obvious reasons. Just as I said. Our representatives are a direct representation of our voting population. How many politicians have you heard say "I haven't had time to read it all". Probably quite a few. If it's perfectly fine for people like you to make a decision on a bill you have not read, they why isn't it OK for a politician to make a decision on a bill he or she has not read? Only then can that politician be truly representing the people. Yesterday I heard a speech given for veterans day. In that speech, it was said that civilians should honor their vets by being good citizens and voting. Personally (as a vet) I would prefer if people didn't suggest things like this. It isn't a person's civil duty to vote. It is a person's civil duty to be an informed voter. If you do not want to make the time to inform yourself, then I would rather you not vote at all. You are only diluting the votes of the small percentage of voters out there who actually do their homework. The voters who decide to go to school AND read the Healthcare bill. Also, every poll I saw favored NOT passing the HCR bill, yet it passed in the house. Go figure. Yes, and I would expect a great number of these Representatives who voted against their people's wishes to be re-elected because once again, people will sheepishly vote based on party lines instead of the real issue. This only further solidifies my point. Also consider this. Could it be that the politicians are not voting in line with their people because they know their people don't know what they are talking about? When 99.9% of the population admits to not having read the bill, then why should they listen to us as to whether or not it should be passed? I was told last week by a co-worker when I brought up this point that voters aren't doing their part by reading these important bills that because he's not a lawyer, he wouldn't be able to understand it and that was why he got his information from the news. So I asked him "Why? Do you really think that the news anchors will understand the bill any more than you? Are they lawyers now?" He just smiled, lowered his head in shame, and continued drinking his coffee. We can make excuses and assumptions all day long. But it IS our duty as Americans to either at least TRY to read and understand these bills, or else leave the voting up to those informed voters who have. A population of uninformed voters will only produce a population of uninformed politicians!

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 51 (view)

Best tv shows always cancelled Posted: 11/12/2009 4:09:48 AM
Of course Turner wants us entertained, because that is exactly HOW he makes money. Television is entertainment and little else, after all. My point is that MONEY is his primary concern, and if he could figure out an easier way to make that same money without having to entertain you, he would. He only cares about entertaining people from the monetary standpoint. He doesn't do it just because he like entertaining people. If you still don't understand what I'm trying to say, then perhaps you need to be hit on the head with a tack hammer.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 40 (view)

Best tv shows always cancelled Posted: 11/10/2009 4:36:40 PM
To understand why a show might get canceled, one must first understand one thing. Television programming exists for one reason only. Advertisement!!! The actual television program is only a ploy to get you to watch commercials. Do you think Ted Turner actually gives a damn whether or not you are entertained as long as he's making money? Hell no!!! I used to be a field rep for the Nielsen TV Ratings for a few years. I learned a lot about the purpose and the workings of the ratings industry. For those of you who are not familiar with the Nielsen Ratings, they are the statistic research company who determines the size of a programs audiance. But they not only provide numbers of audience size, but also demographic statistics of the audience members. Now that you know who Neilsen is, I will attempt to explain their significance and how their information is used. Their are two sides to the television industry. First are the advertisers and second is the networks. Let's look at the advertising side first. I will use Bose as an example of an advertiser. It is their goal (as it is the goal of any advertiser) to run as few commercials as possible while capturing the attention of the maximum number of their target demographic as possible. The idea is to keep the advertising cost low and since they have to purchase each commercial slot separately, they have to choose wisely when and where they put their commercials. Now lets say Bose's target demographic is white males between the ages of 25 and 35. Bose will then purchase Nielsen's data in an attempt to determine the programs that are most watched by these white males between 25 and 35. Once this is determined, then they will know where to advertise. On the flip side of the television industry we have the networks. It is the networks job to make money. How do they make money? Selling advertising slots. How much do they sell these slots for? That's the real question. The value of a commercial slot depends on how many advertisers want the slot. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. The number of advertisers who want to slot depends on how many people of their target demographic are watching at the time of the slot. This is where the two sides of the television industry battle it out. They both use Neilsen's data to determine which advertisement slots are the most valuable and the negotiations begin. So in the end, the reason almost any show is canceled is lack of commercial air time value...which is a direct reflection of the lack of the program's ratings. With that said, there are a number of reasons a good program can have poor ratings. 1. Too much competition. If there is another, better established program on a different network at the same time, with the same demographic audience, the lesser show can be kicked to the curb. 2. Wrong demographics. There have been numerous programs that have been canceled no necessarily because no one was watching, but perhaps because the wrong people were watching. If Spike tried to air reruns of Sex In The City, they might actually get quite a large number of viewers. Unfortunately, the demographics of the viewers more than likely wouldn't be of much interest to Spike's advertisers like Old Spice, Red Bull, and Captain Morgan's, therefore the value of the slot would start to plummet. 3. Excessive production costs. Program "A" and "B" may actually get the exact same ratings and receive the exact same amount of money from advertisers, but if program "A" costs twice as much to film as program "B", it can be canceled due to the simple fact that the network might not be making enough money, or may even be losing money. Special effects and cast salaries are large factors in production costs. I hope this helps explain why some of your favorite programs can be canceled when it seems they wouldn't be. Of course, not all cancellations are based on ratings, but most of them are.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 91 (view)

Next Election and Obama Posted: 11/10/2009 3:36:47 PM
How does everyone think Obama's going to fare in the next election? It far too early to make any estimations. What does everyone think his slogan is going to be if he runs for re-election? Informed voters don't care about slogans. With all of the information about the NWO and how both parties are working together to destroy America I wonder what party affiliation the American people are going to vote in for the next election. People are sheep. The overwhelming majority of the population will still vote along the same party lines they have always voted...Domocrat or Republican. I think it's very ironic that people are blaming our government for the "destruction of America" instead of blaming themselves. Politicians are a far more accurate representation of the American population than the American population would like to admit. Voters complain that most of the members of congress do not vote based on the issues at hand, but instead they vote based on how their party tells them to vote. But the vast majority of these voters who are complaining about this are doing the exact same thing by voting for politicians based on party affilitation rather the issues. Voters complain that their representatives aren't reading bills thoroughly before voting for or against them. Yet the vast majority of these voters have also not taken the chance to read the bills in order to educate themselves. Over-all, I find that the people who complain about our politicians the most are the ones who get involved the least. I make a point to ask people who I hear complaining about our government "When was the last time you wrote to your representitive". The overwhelming majority of the people I ask admit that they have never written their representitives. So I then ask them "How can a representitive be expected to know what his people want if his people don't tell him what they want?" And it is about this time that people start to look at me like I have 10 heads.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 27 (view)

P.P.& Rapists Posted: 11/10/2009 3:19:28 PM
I'm against the death penalty...period. Not because I don't think some people out there deserve to die, but because it's a huge waste of tax dollars to keep someone on death row for 30 years.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 33 (view)

smell me Posted: 11/7/2009 4:55:37 PM
Honestly, for those people out there who say pheromones DO work, I think they need to take into consideration that a person's level of expectation when it comes to picking up women can greatly effect their chances of actually picking up the women. It's called the Pygmalion effect, and it revolves around the very basic principle that one's expectations (whether high or low, negative or positive) can greatly effect the outcome of something. The Pygmalion effect is taught quite often in leadership classes. It makes the leaders aware of the potentially detrimental by-product of having a low expectation of a subordinate. The leader can subconsciously set his worker up to fail. The could also be true with the dating scene. If a person goes to their local hang-out expecting to NOT pick up a woman, he will subconsciously do things that might actually hinder his chances at picking up a woman. But when that some person goes to the hang-out with higher expectations (induced by the presence of the pheromones) he may actually give off a more positive vibe subconsciously that will in turn increase his chances. Just a thought.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 11 (view)

smell me Posted: 10/30/2009 3:50:36 AM
(Now that I'm writing this it makes me sad to think that I have stooped to this level in order to attract a decent looking female lol) Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that the women the pheromones attract will be decent looking? Is there some ingredient that repels ugly women, or were you duped by the hot chicks in the add? Besides, the human body already extracts pheromones.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 29 (view)

Novels that are dramatically different from the films Posted: 10/30/2009 3:43:57 AM
FRIG!!!!!!!!! I had had a COMPLETELY different character in my head, and she pretty much RUINED the book until he got killed. lol Perhaps you read a different "Jurassic Park" novel than I did, but in the Michael Chichton book, he didn't die.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 5 (view)

are people giving too much attitude on theyre profiles turning people off from sending messages? Posted: 10/28/2009 3:59:02 AM
Yeah, I know what you mean. I hate negative profiles almost as much as I hate reading posts from people who are too lazy or too ignorant to use spell check. But that's just me.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 39 (view)

Mother relinquishes all rights to her son because she can't afford his healthcare Posted: 10/26/2009 4:12:51 AM
I think a more impressive sacrifice would be a Mother taking care of her Child...no matter what her reasoning in the end she abandoned her child.She hasn't even lost the Coverage yet..she should have at least waited til that happened guess she couldn't get rid of him soon enough.... You're obviously too intellectually shallow to grasp the situation. I don't blame you. It's just the way you are. I hope you never have to suffer like this woman has, although it would probably do you some good.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 38 (view)

Mother relinquishes all rights to her son because she can't afford his healthcare Posted: 10/26/2009 4:07:21 AM
I hate to admit it, but the vast majority of people out there are completely ignorant as to intended purpose of medical insurance, and threads like this prove it. Ask anyone you meet this simple question and see what they say: "What is the purpose of medical insurance?" The most common response I hear when I ask this question is "to keep people healthy". WRONG. It's the responsibility of the care-givers and hospitals to keep you healthy. So what is the role of health insurance? Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of health insurance in the same as any other insurance plan. It is not there to keep us healthy, but to maintain our financial stability whenever we DO get sick. It is so that we don't have to go broke paying out of pocket. So does it really make sense that people go broke trying to pay for the very insurance that is supposed to keep them financially stable? Hell no! Does it make sense that half of the people who files bankruptcy in the past 3 years did so because of health care costs when they DID have health insurance. Not at all. The point is, health insurance isn't doing its job. It is not keeping people financially stable. In fact, it's doing just the opposite. It's crippling our economy. It's putting people out on the streets. And as we see here, it's even taking children away from their parents. Republicans love to preach that family is the foundation of our society. So why don't they practice what they preach so that these families can stay together?

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 17 (view)

Novels that are dramatically different from the films Posted: 10/25/2009 4:05:43 PM
There are some aspects of a story that I think are quite understandable and acceptable when made into a movie. Perhaps they prevent the movie from being 3 hours long, or maybe the book is outdated and the movies technology needs to be updated a bit. I can certainly understand stuff like this. But what I don't understand are the little changes that don't make any since whatsoever, like in Michael Crichton's "The Lost World". In the book, Ian had a daughter with a black friend. But in the movie, his daughter was black. What's up with that? It's a very small change, but I think that's what annoys me the most. There seems to be no apparent reason for it.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 23 (view)

Sixth Sense Posted: 10/25/2009 8:19:25 AM
How does one consider sixth sense "new age"? I would venture to say that in the modern or "new" age, there are far fewer people getting in touch with any king of sixth sence. It has officially been replaced by the internet with most people. Forms of devination such as palm reading, dream interpretation, and throwing bones have all but completely vanished due to modern sciences. No, I would consider pretty much any form of sixth sense to be "old age".

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 33 (view)

ufo looking balloon takes off with boy Posted: 10/18/2009 7:17:45 AM
The entire situation was a media dream come true. Even if the boy had been found 20 minutes after the balloon took flight, the media wouldn't have tried not to report on it until after the balloon landed. So many people were glued to their televisions as if somehow their undivided attention would help the situation. It reminded me of the movie "The Truman Show", and it was completely pathetic.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 10 (view)

Who Really is in Charge of Russia? Posted: 10/18/2009 7:07:39 AM
Putin definitely wears the pants in his country. But of course Obama can't answer that way. I think he was smart not to answer. I think it's little things like this that is going to eventually earn him that Nobel Peace Prize. <div class="quote">We have been the greatest nation in the world according to God's will. Someone will have to explain this one to me. <div class="quote">Much of the rest of the world hates us and is jealous, and would be willing to stop at nothing to annihilate us. I have been to 16 countries, from Panama to Romania to Liberia to France. And there is one thing I have noticed in almost every country I have visited. The civilians don't hate Americans. Americans seem to have this idea that other people hate us. I spent 3 months in France in 2005, and after I got back I can't count how many people asked me "Don't they hate us over there?" I think is idea is partially driven by paranoia, and partially driven by the media and political parties trying to scare us into voting for them. But whatever the reason, a large portion of Americans are completely ignorant of how outside countries feel about us and can therefore not understand why getting rid of a lot of nukes would benefit us. I do agree that we cannot get rid of all of them. But 1,500 is more than enough. <div class="quote">I don't know who's in charge, but I do believe that it is a mistake for the US to decrease any protections for it's citizens. If it comes to nuclear war, no amount of nukes will save our people. Not 50. Not 50,000. That's just the nature of nuclear war.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 52 (view)

Guns a right but healthcare a privelage? Posted: 10/13/2009 3:17:55 AM
Lots of Europe has started moving back towards private practice as socialized health-care didn't work out so hot. Actually most European countries never completely got rid of privatized health care completely. It is true that there are benefits to privatized health care...if you can afford it. But what about all of the people who can't afford it? Should there not be an alternative? Should a person be denied a chance to live a healthy life just because they are unsuccessful?

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 51 (view)

California: The First Failed State? Posted: 10/13/2009 3:13:26 AM
i think california.....and to a lesser extent...chicago......show what happens if liberal politics and policies go unchecked for a long time........maybe i'm wrong.....but then again......... Interesting point. Especially since two thrirds of California's governors in the past 30 years have been republican, and they have a republican Governor now.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 45 (view)

Why do big cities have the best looking girls? Posted: 10/13/2009 3:05:40 AM
It's simple. Modeling agencies are in big cities. How many times have you heard atractive women say "I'm going to move to Tupelo, Mississippi some day to get into modeling and hit the big time!" It just doesn't happen like that.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 42 (view)

Conservative Bible Project...reforming that socialist Jesus. Posted: 10/10/2009 4:31:43 AM
That's the difference between welfare and charity. Welfare is taken from one person by force and given to another (Via a tax on people which if not paid is punishable under law) . Charity is the act of one person giving to another person because he/she thinks its the right thing to do and wants to help. If you think that's the difference between welfare and charity, then you need to get an education. The fact is, once you pay taxes, they money is no longer yours. And if you remember correctly, Jesus wasn't against taxes, but corrupt tax collectors. He never said that people shouldn't have to pay taxes. So with that said, Jesus has nothing against you being taxes fairly by your government. No once the government has taxed you, that money is no longer yours at all. That money is no more yours than the money that millions of people each week are "required" to give to their churches. I say required because the Bible states that one should give 10% of their income to the church, and many churches hold their members to this still today. So if you give 10% to a church and that church uses it to give to a needy person, is that steeling like you say it is with the government?

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 41 (view)

Conservative Bible Project...reforming that socialist Jesus. Posted: 10/10/2009 4:22:47 AM
Why is this so disconcerting to the Liberals....most of you just interpret the Bible any way you want or don't believe in it at all. Actually, pretty much everyone interprets the Bible any way they want, regardless of whether or not they are liberal of conservative. That's the nature of the beast when you have a book that is so vague and constantly contradicts itself. Anyone who reads the book MUST interpret what it says for the simple fact that it is not written in "plain English". Of course you can go out and buy a modern version that has been interpreted for you. But then again, is it really that much difference between interpreting it yourself and letting someone else interpreting it for you? Either way, interpretation is involved.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 16 (view)

Conservative Bible Project...reforming that socialist Jesus. Posted: 10/6/2009 4:41:47 AM
I find the bible to be a very conservative book just the way it is. Whether it's the King James or any other I have read. I suppose anyone can interpret anything, anyway they choose, but it seems as though the words of the bible come across to me about as conservative as any book I've ever read. You will have to explain to us what your idea of "conservative" is. Most of Jesus' teachings fall more in line with modern day liberal ideals. For example: Love thy enemy If struck, turn the other cheek Live and let live The modern day "conservative" movement that I know of says "If they do something we don't like, BLOW THEM TO KINGDOM COME!" Jesus taught us peace and love Conservatives teach war and intolerance Jesus taught us to love the less fortunate Conservatives teach us greed (welfare is the devil) Jesus taught us that one must give up all earthly possessions to get into heaven Conservatives (like TV Evangelists) teach us that the more money you have, the closer to God you must be. NO!!! The bible isn't a very conservative book at all. At least not by modern day conservative standards. That's why it sickens me when people refer to the GOP as the more moral and Christian party. Obviously we have a butt-load of Christians out there who have never even read the Christian Bible.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 23 (view)

Am I just being mean??? Posted: 10/6/2009 4:27:45 AM
At 41-years-old, I would have assumed you saw at least one of two Christmas specials in your life. But perhaps not, so allow me to share a common theme that they pretty much all share. IT'S BETTER TO GIVE THAN TO RECEIVE!!! Stop looking for the bad in everything. It's the thought that counts. Think about this. It's possible that whoever you gave the PJ's, socks, and bath towel to, didn't really like that gift either, but they were nice enough to pretend they liked it before throwing it in the trash after they got home.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 4 (view)

Cell phone insurance: What am I paying for... Posted: 10/6/2009 4:18:24 AM
I have owned a cell phone of some sort since 1999 and I have never paid for insurance on a phone that covered water damage or any other kind of neglectful damage. The reason is because, during the early days of cell phone insurance, whenever someone no longer liked their phone, it was a common practice to drown the cell phone with water until it no longer worked, let it dry out, then take it bake to the store. The idea being that the phone doesn't look abused in any way, so you can blame it on a faulty device. Well, this happened so much in such a small period of time that the cell phone manufacturers started putting small decals inside the phones that would change colors whenever they got wet. This is still practiced today. And if you take your cell phone in to be repaired or replaced and they look at the decal, then your insurance WILL NOT cover the phone. It's no different from any other kind of insurance really. Ask the people who lost homes to hurricane Katrina. Many of them never saw a dime on insurance money even though they had insurance. Take our current health care for instance. Very few health care plans today cover mental health issues. I had to pay out of pocket just to be properly diagnosed with ADD by a psychologist. All insurance plans have clauses and exceptions that allow them not to pay out. they call it loss prevention.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 57 (view)

How does one define what is a recent photo? Posted: 10/6/2009 4:05:02 AM
That's just it...one CANNOT define "recent". It's a non-definitive word by nature. Its meaning is subject to individual perception and the relative time line to the situation at hand. What one person may consider recent, another person may not. For instance... I would consider a six month old photo taken of a 65-year-old person to be a relatively "recent" photo compared to a photo taken six months ago of a 15-month-old baby. It's a relative word.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 21 (view)

just an idea about affordable healthcare Posted: 10/5/2009 3:23:06 AM
I have seen people cringe at the idea that Obama's health care plan may cost as much as 2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. What these same people don't realize is that the average American today pays nearly $13,000 per years on health care. If you multiply that by the 300 million Americans we have, you come up with $3.9 trillion dollars that Americans are currently spending yearly on health care. If our government can find away to do it for $200 Billion per year, then I would have to say that it would be worth it to pay our government to do it as long as we receive the same coverage.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 20 (view)

Prosecuting Authors of torture memos Posted: 10/5/2009 3:10:05 AM
No, No, No........sorry but you coombya singing hand holding Liberals really have no concept of how to deal with fanatics even though you have so much in common with them....... That made me laugh. Retarded people can be so funny.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 44 (view)

Are unions at work good anymore? Posted: 10/5/2009 3:06:00 AM
Other than paying all members at a job equally, is there a better way to get ahead ? Actually, paying all members at a job equally is rarely a good idea in my opinion, unless all of the members at that job are equally qualified, which is very rare to find. People sould be rewarded based on qualifications and effectiveness at their job. There is no reason why a slacker should ever get the same yearly raise as a hard worker in the same job position. But that is just what happens in a union. It is the lazy workers who bennefit the most from a union. And that's just not fair to the hard workers.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 142 (view)

We should ALL admire George Bush Posted: 10/5/2009 2:56:53 AM
Does it seem to others that he seems to be in hiding? Has retreated with his tail between his legs kind of thing? I haven't heard a word about him or seen anything in the press about him since the innauguration. Then you must have not watched the news much after the innauguration. Obama had a series of luch meetings with Bush within a couple of weeks after the innauguration and even admitted that he gained intight as to the "real" reason why Bush attacked Iraq after 9-11. But all in all, I don't thick it is so much that Bush is in hiding, but that no one is asking for his opinion. Even Bill Clinton has made consulting visits to the White House in the past few months. But Obama's campaign promise to instill "change" cannot be taken seriously if he is following advice from our last president. So it's best that he just keep Bush at a distance.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 8 (view)

Best scam EVER! Posted: 9/30/2009 3:02:21 PM
OP... can you post the URL to the source story? It sounds a little too fantastical to be real... Oh, but if he has a "source" then it must be real? I think your logic skills may need some honing.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 129 (view)

We should ALL admire George Bush Posted: 9/30/2009 2:56:49 PM
Why do you think Health Care is Obama's Main Focus right now? Truth be told, we have no clue what the "main focus" of any President is. We only know that Obama's health care plan is the main focus of the MEDIA right now. Just because FOX NEWS reports on this issue more than any other political issue right now doesn't mean it's the most important issue there is. And if you think it is, then perhaps you need to stop letting others think for you.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 118 (view)

Taxing junk food!!! Posted: 9/28/2009 3:27:26 PM
Exactly, the problem is that Liberals suffer from delusions of moral superiority...their is no logic or reason in their thinking, there is only them being right and everyone else, well, their just wrong..... Once again we have a misunderstanding of what a "liberal" is. I would just like to point out that EVERY political group has the exact same tendency to think that they are right and that all other groups are wrong. That's exactly why the ARE multiple groups. If the republican party was so easy to admit that others were right, then they wouldn't be so different in their opinions, now would they?

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 121 (view)

We should ALL admire George Bush Posted: 9/28/2009 2:30:46 AM
Everyone hates Bush, but actually he is a role model to everyone. It shows that anyone can become president and become successful regardless of skills, but with the right persuasive and speech skills. I truly admire Bush, it is indeed a miracle that he stayed in office for 8 years. Obama elected president, big deal, it had to happen someday, but Bush it truly a miracle. Don't you agree? I agree with everything the OP except one part. Bush didn't have any speech skills.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 109 (view)

Taxing junk food!!! Posted: 9/28/2009 2:27:54 AM
That is not the point, the point is they are singling out a group of people with a tax. That is against our rights as American citizens. This is completely wrong. As I pointed out earlier, EVERY tax outside of general sales tax singles out a group of people if you want to break it down like that. Property tax singles out property owners. Non property owners do not have to pay it. Automobile tax (car tags) singles out automobile owners. Inner city people who use public transportation or ride bicycles do not pay this. Capital gains tax singles out those who sale non-inventory assets for profit. Fuel tax not only singles out people who buy fuel, but doubly singles out those who guy diesel, as I have pointed out. When you buy a marriage license, this is nothing more than a tax, and it too only applies to people getting married. Those who never get married or decide to have a "civil union" do not pay this. Pretty much any tax you can think of follows this same formula. So if you are still claiming that this tax is a violation of our rights as Americans, why is it you have not been screaming about this before now. It's really no different from other taxes.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 104 (view)

Taxing junk food!!! Posted: 9/27/2009 4:29:44 PM
So let me just ask, do the congressmen represent the people or corporations. Out of those two, which is "better" represented. What happens to those congressional wallets if the tax is imposed? What happens to the peoples wallets if the tax is imposed? If you feel that your representative is not voting with the greater good of "the people" in mind, then "the people" have to ability to vote that representative out of office. A representative cannot be in office unless he or she was voted in by the people. This is how representation works whether you like it or not. Our colonists who fought against taxation without representation did so because while the tax on goods being sent to America was continuously rising, they were not allowed to have any representatives in their nation's Parliament. Not even a corrupt representative who's pockets were lined by corporations. They have no form of representation whatsoever. I'm not saying that our representatives can't be bought by corporations. I'm not saying that every time I vote for someone, they win the election. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule where 51% of the people take away the rights of the remaining 49%. Ben Franklin even admitted this. I'm not saying that it is flawless. But at least you have a choice, and at least you are given a chance to make a difference. Yes. You do have representation for the taxes that you pay even if you think you do not. If you are against the junk food tax, then by all means, write your congress members. I urge everyone to do that same, regardless of whether I agree with their opinions or not, because that's what democracy is all about. And as I said earlier. If you think that your congress members are voting based on corporate buy-offs instead of voting in line with the majority of their constituents, then raise awareness and get them voted out. You have this ability and option. Not only is it perfectly legal, but it is necessary to have a well run government. If there is one thing I have noticed over the years about citizens in our country it is that the people who complain the most about the government are the ones who are the least active in political decisions. And there is a very logical explanation for this. It's because those people who ARE the most politically active are generally the ones who are more apt to get what they want...BECAUSE they are more politically active! So if you find that you are often disappointed in the decisions our government is making. Ask yourself what YOU can do to help the situation. We wonder why our government has gone down hill so much in the last few generations. I think it's largely due to the fact that government used to be "for the people, by the people", but lately it has been "for the people, by themselves". They need better participation from the masses.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 102 (view)

Taxing junk food!!! Posted: 9/27/2009 4:07:56 PM
What about the other points in my posts, other than the fuel. Are you saying that I am wrong just because they do the same thing to gas? What makes what they do to gas right? How is it Taxation with Representation? How is it taxation WITH representation? Allow me to explain this in the most basic way that I know how. A tax cannot be imposed either on a federal, state, or local level without being voted upon. The people who vote for or against these taxes are known as representatives, and you (just like every other tax paying citizen in America) have representatives in office at each level (Federal, state, and local) whom you, and the rest of the people in your particular voting district elect. This is called representation. Representation that you DO HAVE. And it is these very same representatives that were voted in by the people who then vote to implement, abolish, raise, or lower taxes. That is called "Taxation WITH Representation". If you still do not understand this concept, then I feel very sorry for you sir, and there is nothing more I can can do to help you understand. There is a book by Gary Wasserman called "The Basics of American Politics". Perhaps you should read it. It explains a lot of things like this in better detail. So you are saying that, in the end, we pay the same amount in taxes. Some right away, some due to emission regulations. Hm, sounds like they kept it pretty even after all! Wrong. That's not what I'm saying at all. Gasoline is a more refined fuel than Diesel, and thus burns cleaner, thus creating cleaner emissions. So our government decided since of the two fuels, diesel posed a greater burden (per gallon) on our environment, that it would be fair to have the people using the dirtier fuel to pay a higher tax. It's the exact same concept with the junk food tax. They figure that junk food poses a greater burden on our overpriced health care system, and therefore should be taxed more than healthier foods. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with either situation. All I am saying is that the two scenarios are almost identical and that this isn't the first time similar items have been taxed differently depending on their differing potential effects on a society or its recourses.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 100 (view)

Taxing junk food!!! Posted: 9/27/2009 3:36:59 PM
What is hard to understand. They are talking about making people pay more for junk food vs regular food. That's no different than taxing diesel more than gasoline. Since you obviously like the fuel analogy, let's stick with it. In the first quarter of 2009, the Federal tax on one gallon of gasoline was 18.4 cents, while it was 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel. Are these not both fuels for the automobiles that we drive? Can we not usually buy both of these fuels at the same locations? But they are taxed differently. One of the reasons for this is because diesels do not have the emission control standards that gasoline engines have. The added tax is supposed to help offset the added pollution cost that these engines create. Now really, how is that much different than this proposed food tax? And please remember, it was YOU who brought up the fuel analogy. All I am doing is trying to clarify that it what is being proposed with junk food is has already been done to fuel. I think taxing junk food is as good an idea as taxing tobacco. The only thing missing now is a tax on alcohol. I'm not sure where you live, but I'm already paying tax on alcohol. Just like the proposition to tax "junk food" higher than "non junk food", alcoholic beverages are already taxed higher than non-alcoholic beverages. So once again, my point stands that this type of thing has been happening for year on end. So I don't see why people have finally decided to take offense to it. Oh wait. I know why. Because FOX NEWS told us to you that you should be mad. AT THE PUMP does anyone pay more per gallon for gas (in taxes), depending on what they choose to drive? Yes they do. If you choose to drive a diesel, you will pay more taxes per gallon than if you decide to drive a gasonine powered automobile. So your analogy sucks. Unless of course you are attempting to prove my point. Education goes a long way. Ahh yes the eternal quest for proof. You can find proof for just about any theory under the sun. Proof for almost any sane or inane veiw point. Which you did not do, and I did. I think you completely missed her point. She was trying to say that "proof", just like "fact", is for the most part, a matter of perspective. If you try hard enough, you can find supporting evidence for even the most ridiculous claims. Statistics and polls are easily skewed, and while they are often misleading, they can also be very convincing. Just take our news networks for instance. CNN and FOX have a tendency to produce completely different results for the exact same polls.

RSwindol

Joined: 8/25/2005

Msg: 88 (view)

Taxing junk food!!! Posted: 9/26/2009 10:01:36 AM
Does an SUV owner have to pay more PER GALLON at the pump for gas because of taxes? Will a junk food eater have to pay more PER CALORIE for food, because of taxes? Now I think you are just TRYING to sound retarded. Sorry. I cannot even bring myself to dignify this nonsense with even a half-hearted response. but in some cases it is blatantly obvious that the government is just looking for another way to make a buck. First off. Government doesn't "make money". It is basically a non profit organization. It's not some privatized industry that is only in business to make money. All government Employees have a set Salary. They don't get bonuses based on how much money they make or save. They don't get commission based on how many taxes they impose. And when there is a surplus in funds, it doesn't benefit any government employee any more than it benefits us as Americans. Taxes are a necessary evil. Paying taxes is pretty much the ONLY duty to be a citizen on this free land that you claim to love so much. So if our country is so great, why do you refuse to make such a small sacrifice? Why is our population so selfish? Where does this sense of entitlement come from that we think everything should just be given to us on a silver platter? The next time you feel like complaining about paying taxes, think instead about those people out there who live in countries where more than half of their salaries go to their government and where a citizen is forced to serve in the armed forces just to be able to consider himself a member of that third world country. Think about all the people out there who have to sacrifice so much more than you just to live in a dictatorship. And then ask yourself if it's really worth complaining about? No wonder so many foreigners hate Americans. We don't know how good we have it. We rape every resource imaginable and complain when there's nothing left. We look down on other countries for "taking our jobs" but we fail to realize that we are dependent on those countries because we are too damn lazy and self important to do those jobs ourselves. Why is it that the people who HAVE the most are also the people who COMPLAIN the most?

Show ALL Forums