I consider drunk driving accidents to be intentional along with lethal
accidents cause by dumb asses texting or yacking on a cell phone. I
absolutely refuse to use my cellphone while driving at high speeds.
the only time I ever use my cell while driving is at low speed while
someone talks me to their address in a neighborhood where speeds are
25mph but I always keep an eye out for children who might be playing
in or near the street. I hit a puppy that ran out in front of my car
one time years before there were cellphones and that distressed me
The very notion that drunk driving accidents are unintentional shows a great
level of delusion
NO ONE forced the drunk to ingest alcohol
The drunk did that ON HIS OWN VOLITION
NO ONE forced the drunk to get behind the wheel
The Drink did that ON HIS OWN VOLITION
It is NO DIFFERENT from the criminal picking up a gun, knife, baseball bat,
or whatever before committing a violent act
The criminal did that ON HIS OWN VOLITION
But then we are talking about harry.
On May 1, 8:41 pm, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky-
Using a handheld cell phone in your car is illegal in the UK, has been
I expect Americans think this law impinges on their "freedoms".
I ran over a bird once many years ago.
It sounded exactly like stamping on a thin wooden box.
I can still hear that sound to this day. :-(
There are laws all over different states and cities throughout the
country but no federal law that I can remember. I believe my home
state of Alabamastan passed a "No Texting While Driving" law and
some of the cities have a no cellphone use while driving ordinances
and police will stop motorists for it. Perhaps a "You Die If You Do
Something Stupid And Harm Someone Else" law. I've always thought that
summery executions for drunk driving would go a long way toward putting
a stop to drunk driving. ^_^
On Thu, 02 May 2013 07:07:57 -0500, The Daring Dufas
A federal law would be absurd (is the FBI going to come after you?)
and probably unconstitutional. Every state has laws against
"distracted driving". Laws against TWI, and such, are just more
busywork by the busybody legislators.
You've obviously defeated your own argument. There was
a huge and similar outrage over the Newtown and similar incidents.
In the case of Newtown, you even had Obama
getting directly involved, saying we need to do more to
prevent it, and dispatching Joe Biden to come up with
more laws to try to prevent the problem. In the case of
Boston, Obama has pretty much said that nothing needs
to be done. He won't even call it Muslim terrorism. NY
and CT both passed more gun control legislation in a
knee jerk reaction. So, I think you have the reactions all wrong.
Also, if you look at the broad picture of deaths from
guns or other causes of murder, they are 99% small
incidents, with most only involving a single victim.
Because someone gets shot in Chicago, they don't have
to shut the whole city down because someone is
running around with a car full of bombs and who knows
what else. Bombs that killed 3 and injured hundreds of
people. And left unchecked, the next terrorism attack
could kill 5,000. Apparently some people learned nothing
Oh, and I understand the Boston Globe has run a story
showing that the Tsarneav family received over $100,000,
in welfare. And that's not counting the scholarship and
other freebies they've sucked up. And they were driving
a Mercedes. Now we're paying for
a whole team of the best lawyers to defend junior,
the millions the trial will cost, the hundreds of millions
of increased police cost, overtime, lost business revenue,
etc that this fine family has cost us. And then the piece
of crap mother, who's an alleged thief with a warrant out
on her too, has the nerve to blame the USA.... I hope
they find out she is ass hole deep to a six foot elephant
into this herself.
Folks drop by the site to leave really useless
You don't understand and see the difference between
unintended collateral damage that occurs in war and
deliberate acts of terrorism that specifcally target
innocent civilians? The USA takes every step possible
to AVOID civilian casualties. For example, instead of
using a drone to target a specific house that a terrorist
is in, we could have used conventional dumb bombs
and taken out a few blocks. Or we could send ground
troops into Pakistan to kill a terrorist and wind up with
more casualties on both sides. On top of that, most of
those "innocents" are not really innocent. Unless you
believe the civilians harboring Al-Qaeda in their house
don't know what they are doing.
Yeah, the world isn't perfect and sometimes truly innocents get killed
when a bomb goes totally off course and hits
the house next door. But what would
you do if you knew there were a couple of senior
Al-Qaeda terrorists slepping in a house in village
I got angry about
Again, you don't understand the difference between a
herbicide intended to defoliate trees and nerve gas
that specifically targets and kills people within seconds?
The comparisons you make amaze me.
And as for the overall issue, that of showing pictures,
the pictures of collateral war damage in Afghanistan
are quickly put out by Al-Jazeera and other anti-US
media for all to see.
Tosh. If you launch a missile at a house, everyone in it will be
killed. Targets and non targets.
Those are just feeble excuses for actions that are completely
You will pay for this/are already paying. As at Boston.
The bombers were targeting ALL Americans, so by your logic they are/
were completely justifed.
In their eyes, you are all as bad.
You voted in the government that despatches drones so you all bear a
share of the responsibilty.
No shit Sherlock. That's what happens in war. We do our
best to limit collateral damage. Hence we take out the house,
not the entire city. Speaking of taking out cities, what exactly
did your Britts do in WWII with places like Berlin and Dresden?
What are you doing right now in Afghanistan?
Yes, because they've been brainwashed by radical
Islam and are no longer rational. What's your excuse?
If it's just the US that's responsible, how is it that Islamic
have blown up innocent civilians in dozens
of countries. From Somalia to Indonesia. From the UK to Spain.
From Kenya to India.
Oho. And how many Iraqis did you kill in your illegal invasion
"justified" by non existent WMDs?
This is what really let the genie out of the bottle.
Re Dresden/Berin the USAF was also involved.
So we felt quite entitled to bomb any city in Germany at the time.
Saddam kept Iran busy by making them believe he had WMDs
saddam was a bad ruthless killer. just what the mid east needed to
saddam was like control rods in a nuclear reactor, they hurt efficency
but prevent explosions
harry, you've presumably been to school too, yet you've
demonstrated to the satisfaction of virtually everyone here
that you're still the village idiot on almost every topic. So,
what difference would it make where you went?
As for the facts I've outlined, they have been reported
by every major news organization. Try reading a real
paper instead of the Commie Pinko Socialst Daily.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.