Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Evanston outlaws all ham and cb radios
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
radioguy
Apr 23, 2012, 4:02:07 PM4/23/12
to
On Apr 23, 3:51 pm, radioguy <radioguy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Evanston officials are considering a ban on all cellphone use by
> drivers — EVEN WITH A HANDS FREE UNIT — that, if passed, would be
> among the TOUGHRST RESTRICTIONS ANYWHERE IN THE NATION, according to
> safety experts.
>
> A city committee this week recommended passage of an ordinance that
> would outlaw the use of ALL PORTABLE AND ON BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
> DEVICES WHILE DRIVING. .... EXPERTS say that several studies of
> cellphone use on the road have CONCLUDED THAT DISTRACTION COMES FROM
> HAVING A PHONE CONVERSATION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A DRIVER'S HANDS
> ARE INVOLVED.
>
> "HANDS-FREE IS NOT RISK-FREE," said DAVID TEATER, senior director of
> transportation strategic initiatives at the NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL."
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Evanston officials are considering a ban on all cellphone use by
> drivers — EVEN WITH A HANDS FREE UNIT — that, if passed, would be
> among the TOUGHRST RESTRICTIONS ANYWHERE IN THE NATION, according to
> safety experts.
>
> A city committee this week recommended passage of an ordinance that
> would outlaw the use of ALL PORTABLE AND ON BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
> DEVICES WHILE DRIVING. .... EXPERTS say that several studies of
> cellphone use on the road have CONCLUDED THAT DISTRACTION COMES FROM
> HAVING A PHONE CONVERSATION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A DRIVER'S HANDS
> ARE INVOLVED.
>
> "HANDS-FREE IS NOT RISK-FREE," said DAVID TEATER, senior director of
> transportation strategic initiatives at the NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL."
radioguy
Apr 23, 2012, 4:03:45 PM4/23/12
to
> making it completely illegal to drive any car which is legal in my
> state in Nevada.
this also makes it illegal to drive the only cars which are now legal
in Nevada in my state.
>
> state in Nevada.
this also makes it illegal to drive the only cars which are now legal
in Nevada in my state.
>
Keith
Apr 23, 2012, 6:53:26 PM4/23/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:51:35 -0700 (PDT), radioguy <radio...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> The city of Evanston has completely outlawed the use of ALL ham radios
> and ALL CB radios, even hands-free at the request of the federal
> "National Safety Council"
>
> Also, Nevada has passed new laws requiring only self-driving cars be
> used, while in my state, the laws say self-driving cars are completely
> illegal.
> other cars from other states as legal if the car was originally
> manufactured and sold that way and lell completely legal in the state
> where the car is registered???????????????
> among the toughest restrictions anywhere in the nation, according to
> devices while driving. .... Experts say that several studies of
> cellphone use on the road have concluded that distraction comes from
> having a phone conversation, regardless of whether a driver's hands
> are involved.
>
> "Hands-free is not risk-free," said David Teater, senior director of
> transportation strategic initiatives at the National Safety Council."
Either you live in a alternate universe or your reading comprehension
skills need to vastly improve.
--
Best Regards, Keith
|-----------------------------------------|
| http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/ |
|-----------------------------------------|
wrote:
>
> The city of Evanston has completely outlawed the use of ALL ham radios
> and ALL CB radios, even hands-free at the request of the federal
> "National Safety Council"
>
> Also, Nevada has passed new laws requiring only self-driving cars be
> used, while in my state, the laws say self-driving cars are completely
> illegal.
>
> making it completely illegal to drive any car which is legal in my
> state in Nevada.
>
> whatever happened to the federal law requiring states to recognise
> making it completely illegal to drive any car which is legal in my
> state in Nevada.
>
> other cars from other states as legal if the car was originally
> manufactured and sold that way and lell completely legal in the state
> where the car is registered???????????????
>
> "Evanston officials are considering a ban on all cellphone use by
> drivers — even with a hands-free unit — that, if passed, would be
> "Evanston officials are considering a ban on all cellphone use by
> among the toughest restrictions anywhere in the nation, according to
> safety experts.
>
> A city committee this week recommended passage of an ordinance that
> would outlaw the use of all portable and on-board communications
>
> A city committee this week recommended passage of an ordinance that
> devices while driving. .... Experts say that several studies of
> cellphone use on the road have concluded that distraction comes from
> having a phone conversation, regardless of whether a driver's hands
> are involved.
>
> "Hands-free is not risk-free," said David Teater, senior director of
> transportation strategic initiatives at the National Safety Council."
Either you live in a alternate universe or your reading comprehension
skills need to vastly improve.
--
Best Regards, Keith
|-----------------------------------------|
| http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/ |
|-----------------------------------------|
dave
Apr 23, 2012, 7:11:57 PM4/23/12
to
On 04/23/2012 12:51 PM, radioguy wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> The city of Evanston has completely outlawed the use of ALL ham radios
> and ALL CB radios, even hands-free at the request of the federal
> "National Safety Council"
>
> Also, Nevada has passed new laws requiring only self-driving cars be
> used, while in my state, the laws say self-driving cars are completely
> illegal.
>
> making it completely illegal to drive any car which is legal in my
> state in Nevada.
>
> whatever happened to the federal law requiring states to recognise
> other cars from other states as legal if the car was originally
> manufactured and sold that way and lell completely legal in the state
> where the car is registered???????????????
>
> "Evanston officials are considering a ban on all cellphone use by
> drivers — even with a hands-free unit — that, if passed, would be
> among the toughest restrictions anywhere in the nation, according to
> safety experts.
>
> A city committee this week recommended passage of an ordinance that
> would outlaw the use of all portable and on-board communications
> devices while driving. .... Experts say that several studies of
> cellphone use on the road have concluded that distraction comes from
> having a phone conversation, regardless of whether a driver's hands
> are involved.
>
> "Hands-free is not risk-free," said David Teater, senior director of
> transportation strategic initiatives at the National Safety Council."
Vote with your feet.
> The city of Evanston has completely outlawed the use of ALL ham radios
> and ALL CB radios, even hands-free at the request of the federal
> "National Safety Council"
>
> Also, Nevada has passed new laws requiring only self-driving cars be
> used, while in my state, the laws say self-driving cars are completely
> illegal.
>
> making it completely illegal to drive any car which is legal in my
> state in Nevada.
>
> whatever happened to the federal law requiring states to recognise
> other cars from other states as legal if the car was originally
> manufactured and sold that way and lell completely legal in the state
> where the car is registered???????????????
>
> "Evanston officials are considering a ban on all cellphone use by
> drivers — even with a hands-free unit — that, if passed, would be
> among the toughest restrictions anywhere in the nation, according to
> safety experts.
>
> A city committee this week recommended passage of an ordinance that
> would outlaw the use of all portable and on-board communications
> devices while driving. .... Experts say that several studies of
> cellphone use on the road have concluded that distraction comes from
> having a phone conversation, regardless of whether a driver's hands
> are involved.
>
> "Hands-free is not risk-free," said David Teater, senior director of
> transportation strategic initiatives at the National Safety Council."
Bill Graham
Apr 23, 2012, 9:37:22 PM4/23/12
to
which they held against the top of their steering wheels while driving. When
their cars drifted off the road, they would correct to bring themselves back
into the center of their lanes. But how could the police know after a crash
whether it was caused by the guy reading a book or not? Probably they
couldn't. So the statistics on such a thing are highly suspect. Whenever I
see statistics, I always ask myself, "How would I determine such a thing?"
And, If I couldn't figure out the answer to that. I reason that there
probably isn't any answer, and they are just blowing smoke......
Brenda Ann
Apr 23, 2012, 9:53:56 PM4/23/12
to
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
news:Mtudnc_nDLlIngvS...@giganews.com...
Long before cell phones, I saw people driving while reading pocket books,
which they held against the top of their steering wheels while driving. When
their cars drifted off the road, they would correct to bring themselves back
into the center of their lanes. But how could the police know after a crash
whether it was caused by the guy reading a book or not? Probably they
couldn't. So the statistics on such a thing are highly suspect. Whenever I
see statistics, I always ask myself, "How would I determine such a thing?"
And, If I couldn't figure out the answer to that. I reason that there
probably isn't any answer, and they are just blowing smoke......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With cell phones, it's pretty easy to determine if they were in use when the
accident happened, since there are records of time/location
(cell)/duration/etc. that the police can access within minutes.
That being said, it would still be conjecture as to whether the person being
on the phone was directly involved in the accident (barring eyewitnesses
seeing the driver texting, etc.)
Bill Graham
Apr 23, 2012, 10:25:39 PM4/23/12
to
while I am driving, I pick it up and say, "Hang on a minute". then I pull
over to the side of the road and continue the conversation after I am
stopped. I can't see how this could result in an accident, unless it is
impossible for me to pull over, in which case the person calling me would
just have to wait. I see no purpose in texting anyone at any time. Speaking
is faster and doesn't require the use of your eyes. There is no way to
insure that other people on the road with you are driving safely. There
aren't enough policemen to have one in every car. So, it is just one of
those million hazards that you have to put up with in life that may kill
you. If you can't handle it, then you should move into a padded cell
somewhere and give up living altogether.
Brenda Ann
Apr 24, 2012, 12:19:12 AM4/24/12
to
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> With cell phones, it's pretty easy to determine if they were in use
> when the accident happened, since there are records of time/location
> (cell)/duration/etc. that the police can access within minutes.
>
> That being said, it would still be conjecture as to whether the
> person being on the phone was directly involved in the accident
> (barring eyewitnesses seeing the driver texting, etc.)
Yes. I don't text. I don't even know how to text. When my cell phone rings
while I am driving, I pick it up and say, "Hang on a minute". then I pull
over to the side of the road and continue the conversation after I am
stopped. I can't see how this could result in an accident, unless it is
impossible for me to pull over, in which case the person calling me would
just have to wait. I see no purpose in texting anyone at any time. Speaking
is faster and doesn't require the use of your eyes. There is no way to
insure that other people on the road with you are driving safely. There
aren't enough policemen to have one in every car. So, it is just one of
those million hazards that you have to put up with in life that may kill
you. If you can't handle it, then you should move into a padded cell
somewhere and give up living altogether.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> With cell phones, it's pretty easy to determine if they were in use
> when the accident happened, since there are records of time/location
> (cell)/duration/etc. that the police can access within minutes.
>
> That being said, it would still be conjecture as to whether the
> person being on the phone was directly involved in the accident
> (barring eyewitnesses seeing the driver texting, etc.)
Yes. I don't text. I don't even know how to text. When my cell phone rings
while I am driving, I pick it up and say, "Hang on a minute". then I pull
over to the side of the road and continue the conversation after I am
stopped. I can't see how this could result in an accident, unless it is
impossible for me to pull over, in which case the person calling me would
just have to wait. I see no purpose in texting anyone at any time. Speaking
is faster and doesn't require the use of your eyes. There is no way to
insure that other people on the road with you are driving safely. There
aren't enough policemen to have one in every car. So, it is just one of
those million hazards that you have to put up with in life that may kill
you. If you can't handle it, then you should move into a padded cell
somewhere and give up living altogether.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's all part of the nanny state. And you can't blame liberals for all of
it, conservatives have come up with more than enough of this silly crap as
well.
The way I see it, if talking on a hands-free phone or a CB, ham radio, etc.,
is a hazardous distraction, then would not talking to a passenger, listening
to the radio, or humming your favorite tune also be JUST as dangerous? Are
we ready to have a one-person-per-car rule, with no radios/tape players/CD
players/mp3 players, ad inf.?
I remember when I was a kid, we were FREE to ride our
bicycles/scooters/skates/skateboards without some government entity telling
us we had to wear a helmet, knee pads, elbow pads and a sweaty vinyl
reflective vest (even in the bright summer sunlight!).
And some are making a big deal of Romney carrying Seamus in a cartop
carrier.. I seem to remember that there have been, for some time (not sure
about NOW), cartop carriers specifically made for pets, complete with food
and water dispensers. And damn... is that any more dangerous for your pet
than (or even AS dangerous), say, letting them ride in the back of your
pickup (still done in rural areas all the time)? Or, for that matter,
letting them ride in your car with a window open?
Point being, I'm so tired of having our "servants" tell us how we must live.
Allow people the freedom to make their own choices and their own mistakes.
Yeah, WARN them of the possible consequences of a given action, but don't
force them to go to ludicrous extremes just to be able to do anything.
(falls off her soapbox)
DEFCON 88
Apr 24, 2012, 2:02:43 AM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 12:19 am, "Brenda Ann" <newsgro...@fullspectrumradio.org>
wrote:
[...]
>
> (falls off her soapbox)
>
Uhoh, now the government will ban soapboxes!
wrote:
[...]
>
> (falls off her soapbox)
>
Uhoh, now the government will ban soapboxes!
Bill Graham
Apr 24, 2012, 4:00:24 AM4/24/12
to
Republicans or Democrats. I agree that it isn't the governments business how
I go about protecting/not protecting myself. Its my head, and using our
socialized medical system as an excuse to force me to protect it is wrong.
However, when it comes to forcing me to protect my dogs and children, that's
a different matter. Until they are 18, I think its OK for the government to
make laws that protect them from harm. After all, both you and I know that
there are some people who should never have children....Or pets, for that
matter.
RHF
Apr 24, 2012, 5:29:15 AM4/24/12
to
Regulate them,
{Helmets Required}
License them,
{Eco-Friendly 'Sustainable' Materials}
...and... -drum-roll-please-
TAX THEM !
{Require Every US Citizen Buy One and
Pay Taxes on It -or- Give-Up Their Right
to Freedom Speech} [[Obama-Speak]]
Hey the Obama-Regime could make them
"Soap-Boxes" a One-Time-Use item and
Require a Mandatory 'Recycling Fee' at
the Point of Sale along with all the
other -rotfl- 'Free Speech' Taxes.
* The Soap-Box Minute Tax
* The Soap-Box Word Tax
O.B.A.M.A. = One-Big-Absolute-Mistake-America-!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/acc56c9e09776f19
-and-that's-the-way-i-see-it- ~RHF
.
.
NW9T
Apr 24, 2012, 10:27:07 AM4/24/12
to
>Experts say that several studies of
> cellphone use on the road have concluded that distraction comes from
> having a phone conversation, regardless of whether a driver's hands
> are involved.
There is no difference between having a hands-free phone conversation and simply talking with someone else in the car with you. The next law will be either you can't have passengers in the car with you, or if a cop sees you open your lips while driving down the road you'll go to jail. What country do we live in again?
> cellphone use on the road have concluded that distraction comes from
> having a phone conversation, regardless of whether a driver's hands
> are involved.
Greegor
Apr 24, 2012, 12:36:16 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 23, 11:19 pm, "Brenda Ann"
[...]
of this idiocy.
Don't forget how much Police, Fire, Ambulance,
Taxi, City Bus and package delivery services
depend on being able to talk while driving!
It's incredible to me that we were warned long ago
that for a government to try to be all things
to all people, to try to be a PARENT over all
citizens and to try to eliminate all hazards
quickly becomes a nightmare.
Franz Kafka and George Orwell's warnings have
not been heeded and the horrors they depicted
seem OPTIMISTIC as things progress to levels
even worse than what they warned about.
The USA used to berate the USSR for the abuses
that STATEISM represent, but our government
has become even worse than what we once berated.
Uneducated boobs posing as "social workers" are
attempting "social engineering" in various ways.
They won't be happy until we live in a world of nerf foam.
Already, more kids have allergies not because they
are exposed to pollen, cat hair, dog fur, etc.
but because they were NOT exposed to many of
those things as kids when they would have
developed an ability to cope.
Immunizations are a double edge sword like that as well.
If you are immunized against whatever disease,
you are not protected against as many variants
as you would be if you actually got the disease.
Kids were vaccinated against Polio long after
Polio was gone and vaccination deaths outweighed
the risk of the disease. NOW Polio is a threat
again because of heavier international travel.
I'm not against vaccinations but the "back end"
problems need to be considered more carefully
and contamination hazards need to be addressed
more seriously, and without legal immunity or
actuarial tables car companies made so famous
when Pintos were killing people.
(Ford decided the insurance risk and death payouts
were smarter than recalling the fire trap car.)
I'm not arguing against seat belts, but lots of
people overlook that seat belts actually do kill
people too. It's a matter of actuarial tables.
Statistically you are better off to use them
than not, but writing off the down side is a lie.
If you found out that your Mom died because
the seat belt killed her, you won't like
being told that it's an anomoly or having the
risk/benefit ratios explained to you.
As a kid I wore helmets for snowmobiling and
mini bike riding. I've often wondered if the
WEIGHT of these helmets don't actually cause
some extra problems.
Then again, when I was a teen I actually
brought a shotgun into the local high school.
( Firearms safety classes )
And trap shooting ( clay pidgeons at a gun range )
was a unit in school psysical education classes.
I think we are being regulated to death
by STATEISM guided by fake "social workers"
with a "Chicken Little" mindset.
Government as PARENT over all of us.
I thought that making cell phones and
ham radios "hands free" was good enough.
Video and cameras catching people reading
or texting while driving
(like the bus driver a few months ago)
seemed like a good solution.
Going after hands free really does compare
to having a converstion with passengers.
Some people just can't walk and
chew gum at the same time.
We must all be dumbed down to the
most incapable common denominator.
That is the government way.
[...]
> The way I see it, if talking on a hands-free phone
> or a CB, ham radio, etc., is a hazardous distraction,
> then would not talking to a passenger,
THAT argument is the one that cuts to the core
> or a CB, ham radio, etc., is a hazardous distraction,
> then would not talking to a passenger,
of this idiocy.
Don't forget how much Police, Fire, Ambulance,
Taxi, City Bus and package delivery services
depend on being able to talk while driving!
It's incredible to me that we were warned long ago
that for a government to try to be all things
to all people, to try to be a PARENT over all
citizens and to try to eliminate all hazards
quickly becomes a nightmare.
Franz Kafka and George Orwell's warnings have
not been heeded and the horrors they depicted
seem OPTIMISTIC as things progress to levels
even worse than what they warned about.
The USA used to berate the USSR for the abuses
that STATEISM represent, but our government
has become even worse than what we once berated.
Uneducated boobs posing as "social workers" are
attempting "social engineering" in various ways.
They won't be happy until we live in a world of nerf foam.
Already, more kids have allergies not because they
are exposed to pollen, cat hair, dog fur, etc.
but because they were NOT exposed to many of
those things as kids when they would have
developed an ability to cope.
Immunizations are a double edge sword like that as well.
If you are immunized against whatever disease,
you are not protected against as many variants
as you would be if you actually got the disease.
Kids were vaccinated against Polio long after
Polio was gone and vaccination deaths outweighed
the risk of the disease. NOW Polio is a threat
again because of heavier international travel.
I'm not against vaccinations but the "back end"
problems need to be considered more carefully
and contamination hazards need to be addressed
more seriously, and without legal immunity or
actuarial tables car companies made so famous
when Pintos were killing people.
(Ford decided the insurance risk and death payouts
were smarter than recalling the fire trap car.)
I'm not arguing against seat belts, but lots of
people overlook that seat belts actually do kill
people too. It's a matter of actuarial tables.
Statistically you are better off to use them
than not, but writing off the down side is a lie.
If you found out that your Mom died because
the seat belt killed her, you won't like
being told that it's an anomoly or having the
risk/benefit ratios explained to you.
As a kid I wore helmets for snowmobiling and
mini bike riding. I've often wondered if the
WEIGHT of these helmets don't actually cause
some extra problems.
Then again, when I was a teen I actually
brought a shotgun into the local high school.
( Firearms safety classes )
And trap shooting ( clay pidgeons at a gun range )
was a unit in school psysical education classes.
I think we are being regulated to death
by STATEISM guided by fake "social workers"
with a "Chicken Little" mindset.
Government as PARENT over all of us.
I thought that making cell phones and
ham radios "hands free" was good enough.
Video and cameras catching people reading
or texting while driving
(like the bus driver a few months ago)
seemed like a good solution.
Going after hands free really does compare
to having a converstion with passengers.
Some people just can't walk and
chew gum at the same time.
We must all be dumbed down to the
most incapable common denominator.
That is the government way.
anon
Apr 24, 2012, 2:46:55 PM4/24/12
to
"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:0b8f215e-63aa-4076...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 23, 11:02 pm, DEFCON 88 <DEFC0...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 12:19 am, "Brenda Ann" <newsgro...@fullspectrumradio.org>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > (falls off her soapbox)
>
> Uhoh, now the government will ban soapboxes!
Nah...
Regulate them,
{Helmets Required}
License them,
{Eco-Friendly 'Sustainable' Materials}
...and... -drum-roll-please-
TAX THEM !
{Require Every US Citizen Buy One and
Pay Taxes on It -or- Give-Up Their Right
to Freedom Speech} [[Obama-Speak]]
Hey the Obama-Regime could make them
"Soap-Boxes" a One-Time-Use item and
Require a Mandatory 'Recycling Fee' at
the Point of Sale along with all the
other -rotfl- 'Free Speech' Taxes.
* The Soap-Box Minute Tax
* The Soap-Box Word Tax
Radioguy is a troll who is prone to exaggeration or even outright lies. I'll
> On Apr 24, 12:19 am, "Brenda Ann" <newsgro...@fullspectrumradio.org>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > (falls off her soapbox)
>
> Uhoh, now the government will ban soapboxes!
Nah...
Regulate them,
{Helmets Required}
License them,
{Eco-Friendly 'Sustainable' Materials}
...and... -drum-roll-please-
TAX THEM !
{Require Every US Citizen Buy One and
Pay Taxes on It -or- Give-Up Their Right
to Freedom Speech} [[Obama-Speak]]
Hey the Obama-Regime could make them
"Soap-Boxes" a One-Time-Use item and
Require a Mandatory 'Recycling Fee' at
the Point of Sale along with all the
other -rotfl- 'Free Speech' Taxes.
* The Soap-Box Minute Tax
* The Soap-Box Word Tax
bet not a one of you looked at the laws in Evanston, did you?
anon
Apr 24, 2012, 3:10:31 PM4/24/12
to
"anon" <anon@anon> wrote in message news:5j3hvv....@news.alt.net...
are NO provisions for or CB or Amateur radios mentioned.
And yet another web site mentioned that this politician wants to also ban
the use of "other, portable electricic devices" while driving. Nowhere is
ANY mention made of Amateur or CB (hard to tell the difference these days)
radio.
"Nearly two years after an alderman successfully pushed for an ordinance
making it illegal to use a hand-held cell phone while driving, she is now
seeking a total ban.
Speaking during the aldermanic comment portion of the Evanston City Council
meeting, Alderman Jane Grover, 7th Ward, said Monday she plans to press for
a total ban on cell phone use while driving in Evanston, going beyond last
year's move which allowed hands-free use of a phone while driving.
Grover said she plans to present the issue for discussion at the Feb. 6 City
Council Human Services meeting.
She said her ordinance would ban any use of the cell phone while driving
within city limits.
"In a city where we have four or five miles anywhere you want to go, it
doesn't make sense your business is so urgent on the phone it can't wait
until you get to that destination," she said.
Evanston City Council members approved an ordinance, effective March 15,
2010, that requires hands-free device use in an effort to curtail distracted
driving.
Under the city ordinance, violators face a $50 fine, with an added $200
penalty if the violation occurs at the time of a traffic accident."
Bill Graham
Apr 24, 2012, 7:12:03 PM4/24/12
to
Greegor wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:19 pm, "Brenda Ann"
> [...]
>> The way I see it, if talking on a hands-free phone
>> or a CB, ham radio, etc., is a hazardous distraction,
>> then would not talking to a passenger,
>
> THAT argument is the one that cuts to the core
> of this idiocy.
>
> Don't forget how much Police, Fire, Ambulance,
> Taxi, City Bus and package delivery services
> depend on being able to talk while driving!
Non Libertarians never think of things like that when they make laws. They
> On Apr 23, 11:19 pm, "Brenda Ann"
> [...]
>> The way I see it, if talking on a hands-free phone
>> or a CB, ham radio, etc., is a hazardous distraction,
>> then would not talking to a passenger,
>
> THAT argument is the one that cuts to the core
> of this idiocy.
>
> Don't forget how much Police, Fire, Ambulance,
> Taxi, City Bus and package delivery services
> depend on being able to talk while driving!
think that they are the only ones who exist, and if a law doesn't bother
them, then it shouldn't bother anybody, and therefore, it must be a good
thing. So new laws will continue to be put on the books, as long as each one
only interferes with the lives of a minority of the people, until we are all
cowering in a padded cell somewhere, unable to move without breaking some
law or other...
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
dave
Apr 25, 2012, 10:06:30 AM4/25/12
to
On 04/24/2012 01:00 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
>
> Well, I mostly agree. I blame it on the liberals, whether they are
> Republicans or Democrats. I agree that it isn't the governments business
> how I go about protecting/not protecting myself. Its my head, and using
> our socialized medical system as an excuse to force me to protect it is
> wrong. However, when it comes to forcing me to protect my dogs and
> children, that's a different matter. Until they are 18, I think its OK
> for the government to make laws that protect them from harm. After all,
> both you and I know that there are some people who should never have
> children....Or pets, for that matter.
The point of the law is not to protect you. It is to protect me from you.
>
> Well, I mostly agree. I blame it on the liberals, whether they are
> Republicans or Democrats. I agree that it isn't the governments business
> how I go about protecting/not protecting myself. Its my head, and using
> our socialized medical system as an excuse to force me to protect it is
> wrong. However, when it comes to forcing me to protect my dogs and
> children, that's a different matter. Until they are 18, I think its OK
> for the government to make laws that protect them from harm. After all,
> both you and I know that there are some people who should never have
> children....Or pets, for that matter.
Burr
Apr 25, 2012, 11:58:28 AM4/25/12
to
Dave, I thought you rtired from the IRS???
--
Burr
Pray for Obama, Psalm 109:8
I'm a member of The Tea Party, I VOTE
--
Burr
Pray for Obama, Psalm 109:8
I'm a member of The Tea Party, I VOTE
"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:0b8f215e-63aa-4076...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...
news:0b8f215e-63aa-4076...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...
Dudley Dooright
Apr 25, 2012, 6:47:17 PM4/25/12
to
"radioguy" <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb5a3b7f-4055-45e4...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
X-No-Archive: Yes
On Apr 24, 3:10 pm, "anon" <anon@anon> wrote:
> "anon" <anon@anon> wrote in messagenews:5j3hvv....@news.alt.net...
> > Radioguy is a troll who is prone to exaggeration or even outright lies.
> > I'll bet not a one of you looked at the laws in Evanston, did you?
>
> Below is a proposed cell phone law for the city of Evanston. NOTE that
> there
> are NO provisions for or CB or Amateur radios mentioned.
> And yet another web site mentioned that this politician wants to also ban
> the use of "other, portable electricic devices" while driving. Nowhere is
> ANY mention made of Amateur or CB (hard to tell the difference these days)
> radio.
>
from the very same article:
> > I'll bet not a one of you looked at the laws in Evanston, did you?
>
> Below is a proposed cell phone law for the city of Evanston. NOTE that
> there
> are NO provisions for or CB or Amateur radios mentioned.
> And yet another web site mentioned that this politician wants to also ban
> the use of "other, portable electricic devices" while driving. Nowhere is
> ANY mention made of Amateur or CB (hard to tell the difference these days)
> radio.
>
Show me where it specifically addresses Amateur Radio or CB radios.
Show me where it specifically addresses Amateur Radio or CB radios.
Show me where it specifically addresses Amateur Radio or CB radios.
Show me where it specifically addresses Amateur Radio or CB radios.
Show me where it specifically addresses Amateur Radio or CB radios.
Show me where it specifically addresses Amateur Radio or CB radios.
Show me where it specifically addresses Amateur Radio or CB radios.
Show me where it specifically addresses Amateur Radio or CB radios.
You can't. You are a troll.
Bill Graham
Apr 26, 2012, 2:50:12 AM4/26/12
to
deserve to be protected from idiots who would harm them.
RHF
Apr 26, 2012, 6:53:16 AM4/26/12
to
- It is to protect me from you.
Nah Dave,
The 'law' might ?protect? you after the fact.
More to the "Point" :
The Point of the Gun is NOT to Protect You.
It {The Gun} IS to Protect Me from You.
-now-that's-instant-law-and-good-social-order-
Kindly Obey the Law {Good Citizen}
-or-else-
{Criminal} Damn Well Fear Me [.]
and that's how 'i' see it ~ RHF
.
.
dave
Apr 26, 2012, 7:23:27 PM4/26/12
to
RHF
Apr 27, 2012, 5:26:10 AM4/27/12
to
- We're talking about a no mobile use law, not guns.
Dave Dave Dave, you talking on anything
while you are mobile {driving} is more
dangerous than a loaded gun; especially
if'n you 'be' suffering from the after
effects of M4* Mania.
* "M4" : Mucho Medical-Marijuana Madness
Now getting back to the topic of 'Radio'
-as-heard-on-the-radio-today-
Michael Savage [KTSE-AM 650 kHz] got into
a rant about the Toxic {Poisonous} effects
of Marijuana Smoke and it's overall relative
harmfulness to one's personal Health compared
[~4-to-1] to the standard Tobacco Cigarette.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217110328.htm
-and-
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20071214/study-shows-toxins-in-marijuana-smoke
Marijuana Dangers Revealed...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm
-and-
http://gwired.gwu.edu/cms2/index.gw/Site_ID/5157/Page_ID/13628
Michael Savage : KTSE-AM 650 kHz
http://www.kste.com/pages/michaelsavage.html
http://www.kste.com/pages/programschedule.html
http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/
http://tunein.com/radio/The-Savage-Nation-p20626/
yes - as heard on the radio ~ RHF
.
.
dave
Apr 27, 2012, 10:05:07 AM4/27/12
to
On 04/27/2012 02:26 AM, RHF wrote:
> Michael Savage [KTSE-AM 650 kHz] got into
> a rant about the Toxic {Poisonous} effects
> of Marijuana Smoke and it's overall relative
> harmfulness to one's personal Health compared
> [~4-to-1] to the standard Tobacco Cigarette.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217110328.htm
> -and-
> http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20071214/study-shows-toxins-in-marijuana-smoke
>
> Marijuana Dangers Revealed...
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm
> -and-
> http://gwired.gwu.edu/cms2/index.gw/Site_ID/5157/Page_ID/13628
>
> Michael Savage : KTSE-AM 650 kHz
> http://www.kste.com/pages/michaelsavage.html
> http://www.kste.com/pages/programschedule.html
> http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/
> http://tunein.com/radio/The-Savage-Nation-p20626/
>
> yes - as heard on the radio ~ RHF
> .
> .
I catch the Savage Weiner on KERN Radio 1180. I'll see your toxic gasses
> Michael Savage [KTSE-AM 650 kHz] got into
> a rant about the Toxic {Poisonous} effects
> of Marijuana Smoke and it's overall relative
> harmfulness to one's personal Health compared
> [~4-to-1] to the standard Tobacco Cigarette.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217110328.htm
> -and-
> http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20071214/study-shows-toxins-in-marijuana-smoke
>
> Marijuana Dangers Revealed...
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm
> -and-
> http://gwired.gwu.edu/cms2/index.gw/Site_ID/5157/Page_ID/13628
>
> Michael Savage : KTSE-AM 650 kHz
> http://www.kste.com/pages/michaelsavage.html
> http://www.kste.com/pages/programschedule.html
> http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/
> http://tunein.com/radio/The-Savage-Nation-p20626/
>
> yes - as heard on the radio ~ RHF
> .
> .
and raise you one therapeutic anomaly: Pot Cures Cancer
http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study
http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-IE&q=marijuana+cures+cancer
RHF
Apr 27, 2012, 4:19:29 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 7:05 am, dave <d...@dave.dave> wrote:
> On 04/27/2012 02:26 AM, RHF wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Michael Savage [KTSE-AM 650 kHz] got into
> > a rant about the Toxic {Poisonous} effects
> > of Marijuana Smoke and it's overall relative
> > harmfulness to one's personal Health compared
> > [~4-to-1] to the standard Tobacco Cigarette.
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217110328.htm
> > -and-
> >http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20071214/study-shows-toxi...
> On 04/27/2012 02:26 AM, RHF wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Michael Savage [KTSE-AM 650 kHz] got into
> > a rant about the Toxic {Poisonous} effects
> > of Marijuana Smoke and it's overall relative
> > harmfulness to one's personal Health compared
> > [~4-to-1] to the standard Tobacco Cigarette.
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217110328.htm
> > -and-
>
> > Marijuana Dangers Revealed...
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm
> > -and-
> >http://gwired.gwu.edu/cms2/index.gw/Site_ID/5157/Page_ID/13628
>
> > Michael Savage : KTSE-AM 650 kHz
> >http://www.kste.com/pages/michaelsavage.html
> >http://www.kste.com/pages/programschedule.html
> >http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/
> >http://tunein.com/radio/The-Savage-Nation-p20626/
>
> > yes - as heard on the radio ~ RHF
> > .
> > .
>
> I catch the Savage Weiner on KERN Radio 1180. I'll see your toxic gasses
> and raise you one therapeutic anomaly: Pot Cures Cancer
>
> http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard...http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-IE&q=marijuana+cures+cancer
> > Marijuana Dangers Revealed...
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm
> > -and-
> >http://gwired.gwu.edu/cms2/index.gw/Site_ID/5157/Page_ID/13628
>
> > Michael Savage : KTSE-AM 650 kHz
> >http://www.kste.com/pages/michaelsavage.html
> >http://www.kste.com/pages/programschedule.html
> >http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/
> >http://tunein.com/radio/The-Savage-Nation-p20626/
>
> > yes - as heard on the radio ~ RHF
> > .
> > .
>
> I catch the Savage Weiner on KERN Radio 1180. I'll see your toxic gasses
> and raise you one therapeutic anomaly: Pot Cures Cancer
>
OK ...so... M4 Mania Dave,
*S*M*O*K*I*N*G* 'Pot' [Marijuana] Cures Cancer
pardom me while 'i' -r-o-t-f-l- ~ RHF
.
.
dave
Apr 28, 2012, 7:50:20 AM4/28/12
to
affect the immune system'
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/patient
Joe from Kokomo
Apr 28, 2012, 8:53:40 AM4/28/12
to
On 4/28/2012 7:50 AM, dave wrote:
> 'Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory and
> to affect the immune system'
> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/patient
No fair just quoting the "laboratory" results. In the real world, the
DELIVERY system is everything.
The human lung is made to process AIR, not smoke...and it has been
proven conclusively time and again that smoking (of any substance)
CAUSES cancer...and emphysema...and cardiovascular problems...and a host
of other ills.
So, nice self-serving rationalization, but no cigar.
dave
Apr 28, 2012, 8:59:36 AM4/28/12
to
cigar but perhaps a blunt?
"People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for
developing lung cancer, new research suggests.
While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers
in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.
Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than
22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than
infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.
The findings surprised the study’s researchers, who expected to see an
increase in cancer among people who smoked marijuana regularly in their
youth.
“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens
in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of
UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find
any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana
smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.
Tashkin presented the findings today at The American Thoracic Society’s
102nd International Conference, held in San Diego.Boomers Reaching
Cancer Age"
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer
RHF
Apr 28, 2012, 7:36:49 PM4/28/12
to
> > OK ...so... M4 Mania Dave,
>
> > *S*M*O*K*I*N*G* 'Pot' [Marijuana] Cures Cancer
>
> > pardom me while 'i' -r-o-t-f-l- ~ RHF
>
> 'Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory and to
> affect the immune system'http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/patient
Hello Earth-to-Dave,
>
> > *S*M*O*K*I*N*G* 'Pot' [Marijuana] Cures Cancer
>
> > pardom me while 'i' -r-o-t-f-l- ~ RHF
>
> 'Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory and to
> affect the immune system'http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/patient
Your Organic 'Living' Body is not an inorganic
{not-a-live} borosilicate glass test tube.
-study- Cancer Cells Die in Pure MEK
-so- Dave Care to Bathe in a Tub of MEK ?
-or- Drink a Pint of MEK Dave ?
one dose wonder what medical-marijuana
has done did to your mind ~ RHF
.
dave
Apr 30, 2012, 9:26:15 AM4/30/12
to
0 new messages