Show of Hands

Agreed.

No question about that!

Yeah. If Tlaney was a democrat,.,.......

...Hell would freeze over!

Idk about that, but that reminded me of something. Let me see if I can find it

Here it is. If nothing else, it's a decent laugh www.bradworthy.com/user/nonIEbrowser/200004/Science%20jokes.html

Haha Matt and TLaney!

When we don't discuss religion or politics, were fine.

So what about Obamacare... Jk

Matt, it's hilarious! Of course, I would have calculated the volume of Hell based on the death rate of liberal Democrats.




:-b

Slowly shakes head at political humor

No, and political you should get a Skype. You're missing out and I have something I want to talk to you about it private

I don't have a skype account. Nor do I have the time to mess with that at the moment.

...but if you wish to tell me sometime please do whenever.

But you have the time to get on here? But that's beside the fact. I'm sick of getting called to wrecks because of people on their cell phones. I'm not obstructing your first amendment rights, if you have something to say, pull over and do it!!

It has to do with an idea, you're missing out on not getting a Skype btw. I'm not putting it out for everyone to see, do I'll have to ask someone else on Skype

1. Yes because I have time to get on here because I can come and go as I wish. A Skype a account takes sometime to fix-up.
2. Thank you for your service as a fireman, and I would support banning texting and driving. However, banning the use of a...

..phone while driving seems extreme. What if it is like a GPS giving directions to a location? What if you are. Phoning the police? What if you are talking to your sick grandparent as you are going to check on her?

Pull over and deal with those things, is that really worth risking your life over. You don't realize what an impact something that little has. BAM you wreck into a car while on your phone and kill the driver of the other car who did nothing wrong

It happens ALL THE TIME. You are distracted and if you wreck while on a phone and they can prove you were on it, you get wreck less driving (in PA at least). Doesn't that show you something??

That mostly happens with texting. An emergency cannot wait if you are in a hurry. If a bad guy is chasing me, I think I am going to pull over and call 9-1-1! Lol

You are wrong, it happens with calling just as much. Trust me, I see these things first hand. Questioning the constitutionality of this bill is just a political move and I back it up with you saying texting should be limited, but not calling. What's

The difference?

Many states prohibit texting while driving which is smart, and yes the use of phone could prove to be reckless driving which is smart. However, I do not support the ban of the use of phones because what about your phone as a GPS system?

When texting you are looking down. Calling you are LOOKING at the road!

But how is calling limiting your free speech more than texting? That's what I'm showing you that's wrong with your argument and are you not looking down to answer or dial the numbers into the phone?? It's a distraction and I bet if you were the one

I will study the constitutionality of this more, since Laney added this amendment. However, I see this bill at the moment as Zmann was describing. What's next? Will it be illegal to eat and drive? Texting I can see, but yet again the use of any...

Cellular device is extreme....

Who had to unwrap the cars from around all the trees people hit while TALKING on the phone, I bet this wouldn't even in question to you. Your argument of saying calling is not dangerous is straight up wrong

It is undoubtably true that you can talk and look-ahead while driving. I have done it too many times. You press two buttons usually to call the person you wish to call. I usually call at a stop sign.

All I ask is for consistency! If talking on the phone is illegal, please make eating while driving illegal. You have to look down to unwrap your cheeseburger.

To address your earlier point about the constitutionality, I thought it was without Laney's amendment. While I do not support the current amendment, it does seem to be constitutional.

It's funny that you bring up consistency because you being JUST as inconsistent saying texting should be illegal and calling shouldn't. Plus when you talk on the phone you are more focused on what to say and listening to the person than what you

Should be- driving the car and keeping you, the cars around you, and the people in your car safe

Ok, I respect you not playing the "political" game (pun pun) with the whole constitutional question

It is quite simple! Your eyes are on the road. While texting your, eyes are NOT on the road. It is that simple. Can you use a phone call in the case of liability? Sure, but a few people using a device improperly should not destroy the rights of many.

P.S. I could have made a pretty good case for the constitutionality of your first bill.... Laney's amendment made it harder because it loosens the regulations.

I am starting to feel like a libertarian.... Geez!

No, your eyes leave the road picking up the phone as well, and if it's so much safer because of your eyes being on the road, why do so many people wreck while talking on the phone. Not texting, driving. Do you have a answer?

Since guns can kill people we should ban the use of guns, right? It is the same principle. Guns can cause harm, and phones can distract the driver to cause harm. At the end of the day, you must not ban either. You must influence personal responsibility.

Would you agree there is a big difference in the amount of time your eyes are on the road for driving and texting?

Would you agree there is a big difference in the amount of time your eyes are on the road for driving and texting?

I must get to finishing my homework! Great discussion!

That was a pretty good discussion, good luck with the homework

Thanks! If this discussion could only be a model for people. We debated without one personal insult!

I agree, we kept it respectful and everything and didn't resort to personal attacks.

Tlaney1 Amendment - not be prohibited, and second, this would cover airplanes, subway trains, school buses, tour buses, and other forms of multi-passenger public conveyances.