Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I never did accuse you of that... I just asked a general "How did WE survive before cell phones?"
And I also hadn't read the entire thread yet, so apologies for missing your earlier response. But while I don't necessarily support a "scrambler" to automatically disable phones, I do think people rely on them way too much these days - no matter how old or young you are. I had a colleague argue against our policy of no cell phones on the public desk (I'm a reference librarian), because she has a young child and "what if there's an emergency??" Well, whoever is caring for him can call the main number and ask for you. It's not rocket science. I know that's different from car use, but just using it as an example.
Plus I think when there's an accident or emergency, it makes no difference to inform someone immediately unless they can do something about it. If you're being followed or witness an accident, then yes, it's good to have your phone available... I've called in those situations myself, and the swift response could be life saving. So yeah, I see both sides to this argument.
I have never heard ONE person that thinks lobbying in general is a good thing or that it should be a legal thing to do. It makes me wonder if the will of the people is really the priority, I dont think it has been for many years.
Lobbying is pretty important. While we all hear about are the negative things, the positives far outweigh the negatives and are seldom talked about anywhere other than a university classroom.
Lobbying is the way for politicians to hear and understand things from subject matter experts, and take action on issues of concern. Without that, politicians generally have zero clue what needs to be done. A politician is not going to know technical issues involved with legislation, or even if the legislation is needed. How in the hell are they going to know if some certain chemical is dangerous? Or that a new radar for air traffic control will improve safety? They do not know any of this without lobbyist.
Lobbying is pretty important. While we all hear about are the negative things, the positives far outweigh the negatives and are seldom talked about anywhere other than a university classroom.
Lobbying is the way for politicians to hear and understand things from subject matter experts, and take action on issues of concern. Without that, politicians generally have zero clue what needs to be done. A politician is not going to know technical issues involved with legislation, or even if the legislation is needed. How in the hell are they going to know if some certain chemical is dangerous? Or that a new radar for air traffic control will improve safety? They do not know any of this without lobbyist.
Well, I commend your optimism and confidence in the System. In a perfect world, that is how it would work.
Unfortunately, we live in the real world. In the real world, whether a certain chemical is dangerous or not depends mostly on who profits from it, and by how much. That, in turn, decides how much money the lobbyists for that industry have to spend, which in turn decides the legislator's vote.
Money, not reality, is what drives lobbyists, their motives, and ultimately the corrupt lawmaker's vote.
The use of cell phones in cars unless they are parked .
Fully agree! and since the majority of abusers are young and shallow, at least one weekend of confinement to a "structured setting" (not necessarily jail time) needs to be imposed upon the first offense.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-06-2018 at 12:54 PM..
Church tax exemption
Any church that generates more than $10,000/month or owns property worth more than $1 million should pay taxes.
Church tax exemption has to be the biggest scam in this country
You confuse revenue with profit, likely blinded by your hostility to religious faith.
No company is taxed on revenue. They are taxed on the profit they make. Anybody who has spent more than twenty minutes on a church finance committee knows how much money goes through the place. And, trust me, it ain't lining the pockets of our clergy either. For every megachurch you see on the news, there are 10,000 more that are shoestring operations, barely taking in enough to keep the lights on.
And, given the services they provide to the community in terms of outreach to the poor, the homeless, and a host of others, the benefits churches provide far outweigh any tax revenue. In my church alone, we have everything from GED education to a homeless family shelter operated in tandem with twelve other churches to summertime rural day camps in impoverished parts of the state to meals for shut-ins to emotional counseling. All run on volunteer labor, none of which could operate at all if dependent on government dollars.
I mean, you can make the same argument about your local symphony orchestra, the Sierra Club, the Red Cross and a million other charities across the country. Why not them as well? Oh, that's right. They're not churches, so you want to single them out.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 11-06-2018 at 12:39 PM..
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,597,197 times
Reputation: 5696
Speech with clearly abusive intent built into it. I see nothing socially, culturally, or intellectually redeeming about abusive speech. It certainly isn't necessary for public discussions about politics, economics, science, philosophy, and any endeavor of even moderate-level IQ - let alone high IQ. If that's not possible, then society should at least harshly stigmatized that kind of speech.
I would also extend anti-harassment laws to high schools or else make age 18 the legal age to hold employment outside non-family settings.
Employability assumes a certain basic capacity to refrain from bad behavior from other people. That means (1) knowing at least the basics of what is inappropriate behavior, and (2) ability to resist temptations to act badly toward others. If you're able to do both things in a workplace, then you can just as easily do these things outside workplace settings - including school ones. So if the law allows 15 or 16 year olds to earn income from work in out-of-family businesses, then that implies they also can apply those same standards outside a workplace setting - including school ones. Therefore, I see no reason to extend workplace anti-harassment laws to at least secondary education.
Speech with clearly abusive intent built into it. I see nothing socially, culturally, or intellectually redeeming about abusive speech. It certainly isn't necessary for public discussions about politics, economics, science, philosophy, and any endeavor of even moderate-level IQ - let alone high IQ. If that's not possible, then society should at least harshly stigmatized that kind of speech.
I would also extend anti-harassment laws to high schools or else make age 18 the legal age to hold employment outside non-family settings.
Employability assumes a certain basic capacity to refrain from bad behavior from other people. That means (1) knowing at least the basics of what is inappropriate behavior, and (2) ability to resist temptations to act badly toward others. If you're able to do both things in a workplace, then you can just as easily do these things outside workplace settings - including school ones. So if the law allows 15 or 16 year olds to earn income from work in out-of-family businesses, then that implies they also can apply those same standards outside a workplace setting - including school ones. Therefore, I see no reason to extend workplace anti-harassment laws to at least secondary education.
While I agree that such speech is wrong, I also think it's wrong to legally sanction it.
The problem with that is that not only do you criminalize thought, but the standards of what is offensive and abusive become incredibly elastic and dependent on the opinion and the psyche of the offended. So, ultimately, you have 325,000,000 potential standards in this country of what is lawful and what is not.
I am happy to see so many people stating Eminent Domain.
This encompasses not only the assumption of private land for public use, but public repurposing of private land for another private use (highest and best use).
I assume there are just as many developers complaining that stubborn homeowners are impeding their profitable projects by occupying what is now prime real estate, but eliminating the ability to claim eminent domain would be a powerful check against a less regulated freer market (backed by supportive local government) pushing owners of single family detached homes farther from city center.
My ears are not really receptive to those in Urban Planning harping about the importance of contiguous high density development.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that's different from car use, but just using it as an example.
