Home  ›  News  ›

Obama Bans Federal Employees from Texting and Driving

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 51 replies

Free Country...???

cellgeek82

Oct 1, 2009, 11:26 PM
I done my time in the military and was once proud to say I did, and for my loved ones I still am, but for the lawmakers and our new "leader", the closet muslim, I can't say that anymore. I may be offending people as I speak but I don't care, I'm using free speech while I can before they take that away too.

I can see why people want to ban cell phone use in the car but this is supposed to be a free country. Some people don't need to using a cell phone behind the wheel and there are some that don't need to even touch the radio. But I also understand that if you're able to drive a car you should have enough common sense to know what is safe and when. Mommy isn't there to watch you all the time. But because some make the mistake by havin...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Oct 2, 2009, 12:35 AM
...people remember the ideals this Nation was founded upon. First, this guy isn't a closet Muslim...just as Liberal as one could possibly be. (Isn't that bad enough?) This thing where those on the right hammer at something which isn't true and even if it were is immaterial to the discussion is pointless. Let's stick to the facts here.

This is America. We don't punish people for crimes they might commit. We punish them for crimes they DO commit. We don't punish a person for speeding just because they have a car which is capable of exceeding the speed limit. We don't punish a person for lawfully owning a gun but not using it to commit any crime and we don't punish a person for operating a cell phone in a legal manner simply because...
(continues)
...
moemoe26

Oct 2, 2009, 2:54 AM
Majority of the accidents on the U.S. roads are from people talking, texting and E-mailing while driving. he is trying to make the roads safer.
This is still a free country and just because his dad was Muslim that doesn't mean he is. Man they say people in the military aren't the brightest and i see why......
...
OldPhone

Oct 2, 2009, 5:32 AM
I have not seen the statistics where the majority of accidents in the US are caused by people on their phones. I work part time at a police department and alcohol, excessive speed, and any distraction are the major causes of accidents that I have been to. As I have stated in other postings on this topic, the only difference between cell phone use and other distractions is that it can be proven that you were on the phone talking, or that you sent a text at a specific time that coincides with an accident.

Another previous post was dead-on in stating that in America we do not punish and convict people for crimes that could be committed, only those that are.

And for some of the accidents I have been to that may or were caused by cell pho...
(continues)
...
Disrespect

Oct 2, 2009, 8:00 AM
Ok so I'm not jumping on either side here too soon. But I do want to play devils advocate here for a second.

Now you say that we don't punish unless it has been committed? Incorrect!

We can't drive with a open alcohol container. we can't just walk around with a bomb attached to our chest and then argue that I didn't blow up anything so I shouldn't be jailed.

The law in many occasions do take preemptive actions. This is nothing new. Face it, its just when its something you agree with and something you don't agree with personally so don't try to say its not that I personally do or don't agree with ________ its just I'm going by the constitution. thats bullsh!t. You all pick and choose "Personally" what you feel is right and whats wron...
(continues)
...
crood

Oct 2, 2009, 8:05 AM
Making all vehicles single occupancy/driver only would also reduce distracted driving. Should we ban that.

I highly doubt the truck driver thing is constitutional. The federal government has no authority over traffic laws. That's why different states can have different speed limits. At best, they can withhold federal highway money from states that don't pass a law like this.
...
Azeron

Oct 2, 2009, 1:15 PM
That's what they will do. That is how they were able to strong arm the states into raising the drinking age to twenty-one and making mandatory seat belt laws.
...
ItsSprintnotwalk

Oct 3, 2009, 5:08 PM
IN THIS CASE THE FED GOV DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE TRUCK DRIVERS, BECOUSE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN THE CONSTATUTION.

BUT BUT IF THE TRUCK DRIVER IS ONLY DRIVING IN THE STATE NEVER LEAVING IT, THEN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT ALLPY SO, THE TENTH AMMENDMETN DOES AND SAYS STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL INSTATE COMMERCE.
...
OldPhone

Oct 2, 2009, 8:14 AM
Contrary to opinion we are not a democracy, but, a Democratic Republic.

It's not about the majority, it's about the representatives elected by those of legal age and status, and that take the time actually vote. Then each state has 2 senators and a designated amount of representatives in a two parliament system. This gives a high population state such as California equal status in the US Senate as a lower population state, such as Wyoming. However, California would have more input in the House of Representatives, based on their higher population.

However, this entire debate is not about a 'law' it is about a policy dictated down from the President of the United States to Federal employees.

Oh, and by the way, when using words l...
(continues)
...
CellStudent

Oct 2, 2009, 7:56 PM
Your devils advocate scenarios fail because the violations you claim are not illegal actually are illegal. As soon as a government body decrees that "brandishing an open weapon" is illegal, strapping a bomb to yourself is against the law. There is no need to wait for the higher law of "Do not murder" to be violated.

Same thing for the open flask. It has been declared illegal, so it's a criminal offense. Arresting someone for having an unopened bottle just because they might open it before exiting the car- that would be an infringement on personal liberties.

Preemptive laws exit because of the propensity for public harm to happen immediately after the preemptive action occurs- not 3 or 4 steps after the preemptive situation is expos...
(continues)
...
ItsSprintnotwalk

Oct 3, 2009, 5:06 PM
AGAIN I HAVE TO DISAGREE, THINGS ARE RIGHT OR WRONG BECOUSE OF RIGHT OR WRONG, TO ME ABORTION IS WRONG, LEGAL, BUT WORNG.. SO THE CONSTATUTION IS THE DOCUMENT TO GOTO IF WERE TO DECIDE A RIGHT OR WRONG WHEN IT COME SOT GOVERNMENT INTRUSION OR NON INTRUSION INTO THE AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE...

GOV IS HERE TO SERVE US, NOT US THE GOVERNEMNT.
...
ItsSprintnotwalk

Oct 3, 2009, 5:02 PM
ACTUALY MOST PEOPLE ARE KILLED ON AMERICAN ROADS BECOUSE OF DRINKING.... NOT TALKING.

and UNLKESS YOUR PREPARED TO DIE TO DEFEND THIS COUNTRY ... LAY OFF THE MEN AND WEMEN WHO ARE DEFENDING YOU...
...
xanadul14619

Oct 5, 2009, 11:43 AM
I think its very honorable that people join the military, but lets be brutally honest, fighting in afghanistan or iraq or anywhere else we have ever fought has never been about our countries saftey because when it is we just drop bombs till the country is forced to give in, we dont bother risking american lives, and when people do threaten us we move like snails, kinda sick of the premise that just because someones in the military I somehow owe them the right to breath because they are fighting for our safety, there is no amount of safety that is going to be provided for anyone unless your physically stopping someone from doing something to us directly, not in protecting oil in middle east etc etc....thank you all for serving, but its a job....
(continues)
...
Mektah

Oct 2, 2009, 7:33 AM
In case you have forgotten most laws are put in place to 'protect' people before something happens, to save lives. When you drive you have to wear a seat belt. Not because you have wrecked, but because it's possible that you might. Drunk driving, everyone who drinks and drives doesn't kill someone, but it's still against the law to do so. If you own a car and drive it, legally you need insurance and a license in the US. I'm sure there are plently of people who may never need insurance, but it required. The reason why cell phones have gotten so much attention is that, technology is being used increasingly more and the amount of accidents caused by cell phone use while driving is increasing more and more. Secondly, the government has ever...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Oct 2, 2009, 7:38 AM
I despise Bush many more times than Obama. The Bush administration used 9-1-1 as an excuse to trample over our rights all in the name of National Security. I didn't vote for Obama or McCain, but I DID vote as I have in every election since I was eighteen. For me this has nothing to do with Obama personally. I can't speak for others and when right wingers utter nonsense about him being a Muslim I am the first to dismiss such rubbish. Everything is not about Red or Blue for everyone.
...
Gorillanorth

Oct 4, 2009, 1:17 PM
You know I can honestly say that there is not one thing that I cant do that I was able to do before 9 11 can anyone else think of any?
...
SS EarlGoodman

Oct 2, 2009, 10:59 AM
Most of ther ranters here arent ranting about the govnt stopping its employees from useing cell phones, its the idea of banning truck drivers, the ones who are the least of our problems, from talking while driving. And if its so necessary to have us wear seatbelts to keep us safe why arent motorcyclists forced to wear helmets?
...
Versed

Oct 2, 2009, 1:21 PM
SS EarlGoodman said:
Most of ther ranters here arent ranting about the govnt stopping its employees from useing cell phones, its the idea of banning truck drivers, the ones who are the least of our problems, from talking while driving. And if its so necessary to have us wear seatbelts to keep us safe why arent motorcyclists forced to wear helmets?


Because they are forced to wear helmets.
...
SS EarlGoodman

Oct 2, 2009, 1:55 PM
Really, because in the state I live in it is only mandatory to wear a helmet for your first year.
...
Iknownothing

Oct 2, 2009, 8:21 PM
Oh ffs, the obama administration unto itself cannot force the truck drivers to do anything. It will take an act of congress. And congress has domain under interstate commerce laws. All other road and safety laws which would apply to you and me are left to the states. In the state where I live, bikers have to wear helmets.

Also in the state that I live in It is illegal to use a phone in a car wihtout an hands free device.
...
Versed

Oct 3, 2009, 4:36 PM
The President can make an executive order for policies concerning government workers, and companies who wish to do business under government contract. As far as everyone else, you're right he has no powers to do so. If ABC Corp. wants to do business with the government, and in so has to agree to this ban, then fine, if not, they don't have to do business.

Somehow I don't think its very good that someone driving a tractor trailer is texting and talking on his government phone driving 65mph plus down the interstate, please try to convince me I'm wrong. Well any phone for that matter, but, this is what the plan is.
...
Gorillanorth

Oct 4, 2009, 12:45 PM
Azeron said:
...people remember the ideals this Nation was founded upon. First, this guy isn't a closet Muslim...just as Liberal as one could possibly be. (Isn't that bad enough?) This thing where those on the right hammer at something which isn't true and even if it were is immaterial to the discussion is pointless. Let's stick to the facts here.

This is America. We don't punish people for crimes they might commit. We punish them for crimes they DO commit. We don't punish a person for speeding just because they have a car which is capable of exceeding the speed limit. We don't punish a person for lawfully owning a gun but not using it to commit any crime and we don't punish a person for operating a cell phone
...
(continues)
...
mrpmpfan

Oct 2, 2009, 5:48 AM
Your long winded acticle makes no sense, employers can stop you from doing anything they want. If they want you only to wear red socks then thats what you have to do, why? They pay you. So if any gov't employee has a problem with Obama's new law they can quit and get a different job.

Also you state people should be able to make their own decisions while driving, then why not allow drunk driving to? Or are some laws good and some our bad?
...
Azeron

Oct 2, 2009, 7:33 AM
Obama's executive order affecting Federal workers is just fine. If he encourages Congress to enact legislation affecting truck drivers who are not contracted to work for the Federal government that will not fly on a Constitutional level.
...
mrpmpfan

Oct 3, 2009, 4:43 AM
Why is there something in the Constitution about cellphones? Give me a solid reason why anyone needs to text while driving? Plus there are plenty of hand free options for talking on cellphone.
...
motodude69

Oct 2, 2009, 10:29 AM
mrpmpfan said:
Also you state people should be able to make their own decisions while driving, then why not allow drunk driving to?


Just my 2 cents here but, drinking and driving impaires your judgement/responsivness, as for talking on your cell phone distracts concentration. You can snap in and out of concentration, but you can not snap out of having impaired judgment due to being intoxicated.
...
mrpmpfan

Oct 3, 2009, 4:45 AM
But to blanket everyone as being "impared" at 0.08 is a little silly no? My brother can function his automobile just fine at 0.16 but thats illegal. So for you to blanket that everyone can text, or talk on cellphones and not be impared long enough to cause an accident is mute.
...
motodude69

Oct 3, 2009, 11:54 AM
I don't recall saying that everyone can talk or text and not be impaired long enough to cause an accident. In fact, I never stated anything in regards to everyone but was merely referring to my opinion on the differences between drinking and driving and cellular use.

Any particular person can be more impaired than others in all different situations. The idea for me to typecast everyone as a whole would undeniably be extremely idiotic and redundant.
...
gldnhrtrblfst

Oct 2, 2009, 10:02 AM
did anyone else stop reading and realize how much of a moron he was when he said "closet muslim"
...
SS EarlGoodman

Oct 2, 2009, 11:07 AM
No.
...
Azeron

Oct 2, 2009, 1:18 PM
I'm not calling the guy names, but I did take exception with it and addressed it first. Making an illogical statement such as that only distracts from the main theme of his post and at least one individual ridiculed his entire post because of that bit of nonsense.
...
Iknownothing

Oct 2, 2009, 8:43 PM
As if somehow being a muslim disqualifies you from being intelligent, thoughtful, qualified, or correct...

I did keep reading though, but it was kind of painful.
...
Radbard

Oct 2, 2009, 10:09 AM
..it pisses me off that this country takes away my freedom to drink and drive. 🙄
...
Radbard

Oct 2, 2009, 10:16 AM
Let me clarify, first the spelling error to the spelling nazi's it is while. Texting and driving is a threat to public safety and I understand the OP's position on how ppl just shouldn't be dumb to begin with. Well there are alot of dumb ppl out there. Texting has been shown to be more incapacitating for a driver than drinking and driving. BTW my first post may have been too harsh. I mean no disrespect to the OP.
...
SS EarlGoodman

Oct 2, 2009, 10:35 AM
Good for you, Its sad to see something you fought so hard for go to $h!t, at any rate thanks for serving this country, still #1 but its tripping up..
...
williamx

Oct 2, 2009, 11:29 AM
@cellgeek82,

so were you a buck private in the Army?

Your writing and scathing remarks toward President Obama seem to indicate I am right!
...
cellgeek82

Oct 2, 2009, 12:18 PM
I'm replying to most comments on this note:

I can be a little open about Obama because I don't serve the military anymore. I done my time now I'm out (and no, I wasn't a Private). Secondly, becareful how much you think the government will "take care" of Americans and their safety, yes they do some things I like but not everything. There are 2 sides of the coin. I've seen fellow soldiers draw food stamps, unemployment, and not recieve medical care even for PTSD. So should I trust the government after they send those, who some are my friends, to hell and back and then not give a darn how they succeed when they return! Like one guy on here said, its a bit hard to hug the government when one has worked so hard and it go to $hiT.

Most...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Oct 2, 2009, 1:25 PM
What does being Muslim have to do with being Liberal? Many Islamic regimes are the most restrictive and I would say highly conservative if not bordering on radical. Come on caning a woman for drinking alcohol is hardly what I would describe as Liberal. Of course, as individuals Muslims run the entire political spectrum just as people of all religious persuasions do. One has Liberal Christians and Conservative ones. It should be a non issue what his religious beliefs are and there is nothing in his background to suggest that he is a Muslim. I just feel it was an unnecessary distraction from the main point of your post, honestly.
...
Gorillanorth

Oct 4, 2009, 2:38 PM
I again ask what freedoms you have lost? I am genuinely asking? Please be specific also list what freedoms Obama has taken away from you? As far as the military I served also! That doesn't make my opinions on the government any more right or wrong. I'm really trying to understand your logic so just because people still do things that are illegal we should just not care and make it legal? Murders ILLEGAL but people still do it should me not care about that too? I have read some of your other posts and am amazed at some of the things you say?
...
Scotty_bing

Oct 2, 2009, 2:14 PM
Kudos, man. Hit the head on the nail, and don't worry about ranting in a phone forum about politics... because you are 100% right. I am glad there are those out there that see this happening.
...
captainplooky

Oct 2, 2009, 2:20 PM
Azeron said:
I just feel it was an unnecessary distraction from the main point of your post, honestly.


Unnecessary, but very revealing of the type of person he is.

I for one like it when people proudly wear their foolishness on their sleeve. It saves a lot of time in determining who and who is not trying to have a rational discussion. Also, in many cases, it can help to show who is and is not rational in the first place.

Regardless, as others have pointed out, it has been shown use of a phone while driving can be worse than driving intoxicated. Here's an article from.... well probably the only news source you trust cellgeek.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201586,00.html »


Th
...
(continues)
...
WiWavelength

Oct 2, 2009, 2:39 PM
cellgeek82 said:
I done my time in the military and was once proud to say I did, and for my loved ones I still am, but for the lawmakers and our new "leader", the closet muslim, I can't say that anymore.


"I done my time in the military...our new 'leader', the closet muslim [sic]..."

This sort of anti intellectual, war mongering, xenophobic colloquialism endemic in the military is precisely why I do *not* support our troops.

AJ
...
Scotty_bing

Oct 2, 2009, 2:42 PM
You don't support our troops because you are completely anti-American... nuff said.
...
captainplooky

Oct 2, 2009, 2:44 PM
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

- Samuel Johnson
...
Scotty_bing

Oct 2, 2009, 2:49 PM
Guess all those that fought for America (the Patriots) to be independent from England are all scoundrels...

You can thank scoundrels for your freedoms to even write your ridiculous rhetoric.

Moron.
...
captainplooky

Oct 2, 2009, 2:53 PM
Scotty_bing said:
Guess all those that fought for America (the Patriots) to be independent from England are all scoundrels...

You can thank scoundrels for your freedoms to even write your ridiculous rhetoric.

Moron.


Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit for you to completely misunderstand the implications of Samuel Johnson's statement by making such a response.

Thank you for inadvertently illustrating the caliber of people making such statements.
...
Scotty_bing

Oct 2, 2009, 4:05 PM
Pardon me... I completely misread that. I apologize for the previous comment.
...
WiWavelength

Oct 2, 2009, 2:49 PM
Scotty_bing said:
You don't support our troops because you are completely anti-American... nuff said.


Not quite. I am anti those Americans who are callow & simplistic, as exemplified by you, Scotty_bing.

AJ
...
looch_himself

Oct 2, 2009, 4:21 PM
I wanted to agree with you, AJ, and I do on most parts. You have to see that not all soldiers, current or former, follow cellgeek's mindset. I should know, I am one. I might be in the minority on that, but I refuse to believe I'm the only one.
...
Azeron

Oct 2, 2009, 4:23 PM
The problem with the "support our troops" argument is usually the President circumvents a war declaration by deploying the troops and then demands that Congress appropriate funds or challenges that they are not "supporting our troops". That political blackmail is shameful. Do it the right way Go to the Senate and get an official war declaration and THEN send troops. However, this IS America and one can support our troops without supporting unjust military action. Cheney's foray into Iraq being a prime example.
...
looch_himself

Oct 2, 2009, 4:24 PM
Azeron said:
this IS America and one can support our troops without supporting unjust military action. Cheney's foray into Iraq being a prime example.


Exactly. Well said.
...
Versed

Oct 3, 2009, 4:41 PM
looch_himself said:


Exactly. Well said.



Well you forgot, where's the WMD?
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.