Nearly two-thirds (64%) of adults support a National Transportation Safety Board recommendation for a nationwide ban on the use of cell phones and text messaging devices while driving, a new IBOPE Zogby poll finds.
The IBOPE Zogby interactive poll of 2,099 U.S. adults conducted Dec. 22-27 finds that 41% of respondents strongly agree with the NTSB recommendation, compared to just 22% who say they strongly disagree.
Women (49%) are more likely than men (31%) to say they strongly agree with a nationwide ban on cell phones and text devices while driving. More than half of adults age 65+ (58%) say they strongly support such a ban, while those age 18-29 and 30-49 (34% each) are least likely to voice strong support.
Democrats (59%) are far more likely than Independents (33%) and Republicans (27%) to strongly agree with a nationwide ban.
A sampling of IBOPE Zogby International’s online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender and education to more accurately reflect the population. The margin of error is +/- 2.1 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. The MOE calculation is for sampling error only.
Source: IBOPE Zogby
MacDailyNews Take: Siri.
Someone get some iPhone 4S units over to the NTSB, get them up-to-date (for a change) and show them why we and millions of others haven’t even glanced at our iPhone 4S units to text, email, add calendar appointments, or for many other uses while driving (or not) since October 14, 2011.
Ban the lesser cellphones of the world outright, who cares, but Apple Siri-powered devices should be exempted. Plus, there is absolutely no way to enforce a ban of iPhone 4S Siri use while driving (not that enforceability has ever stopped some of the more legislative among us from banging out “laws”). You can write it down and sign it with a flourish, but you’ll never be able to prohibit drivers from simply talking.
Bottom line: Apple wins again and, since the release of iPhone 4S with Siri, is very likely saving lives each and every day.
Related article:
Forgetting about (or oblivious to) iPhone 4S’s Siri, NTSB advises U.S. States to ban all driver use of mobile phones – December 13, 2011
Who is coming the my Obama reelection party because all those republicans running are jokes
Nobody. Everyone will be at my party.
Why don’t you throw a party for pigs that fly, you’ll have a better chance of that actually happening.
So you support destroying the middle class, no tax for billionaires and denying basic rights for women. Who do you prefer as president? The guy who tied his dog to the roof of his car or the guy that let his children play with a dead baby?
Nice try commie. Couldn’t be more opposite. How’s your buddy Jon Corzine doing??? Liberals want to destroy everyone, make life horrible for everyone. Conservatives want people to be rewarded for their achievements. Bottom line, losers are democrats, winners are conservative. F off you disgusting liberals.
Overly emotional post, unable to formulate a logical argument and hasn’t cited any sources: red herring, hasty generalization, poisoning the well, circumstantial ad hominem, personal attack, division, false dilemma… could right a book about fallacies from this one post.
Should we pity them? That’s what most of these people are. Emotional, uneducated knuckle-draggers who live in, and are manipulated by, fear.
Pathetic post. Ori speaks the truth and it drives you liberal lunatics nuts to be called out on it. You are never, ever truthful about your real agenda. Liberals always lie about what they are up to. They know they are in the minority big time so they have to lie. Unfortunately, somehow they have control of the main stream media so it makes it look like they have more numbers than they actually do. Santorum in 2012!!!!!!!! Bye bye commie scum.
The Little Red Hen called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, ‘If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?’
‘Not I,’ said the cow.
‘Not I,’ said the duck.
‘Not I,’ said the pig.
‘Not I,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
‘Who will help me reap my wheat?’ asked the little red hen.
‘Not I,’ said the duck..
‘Out of my classification,’ said the pig.
‘I’d lose my seniority,’ said the cow.
‘I’d lose my unemployment compensation,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ s aid the little red hen, and so she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread.
‘Who will help me bake the bread?’ asked the little red hen.
‘That would be overtime for me,’ said the cow.
‘I’d lose my welfare benefits,’ said the duck.
‘I’m a dropout and never learned how,’ said the pig.
‘If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, ‘No, I shall eat all five loaves.’
‘Excess profits!’ cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
‘Capitalist leech!’ screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
‘I demand equal rights!’ yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted ‘Unfair!’ picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen,
‘You mustnot be so greedy.’
‘But I earned the bread,’ said the little red hen.
‘Exactly,’ said Barack the farmer. ‘That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.’
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, ‘I am grateful, for now I truly understand.’
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the ‘party’ and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. ‘Fairness’ had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared…so long as there was free bread that ‘the rich’ were paying for.
EPILOGUE
Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
Hillary got $8 million for hers.
That’s $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn’t remember anything.
IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?
You make no sense.
I am for smaller federal government and more personal responsibility. I’d rather have my tax dollars go to the states where they can be deployed more effectively by people closer to the issues.
I think ALL people should be taught how to fish, not given a few fish crackers per day until their miserable gov’t subsidized existences mercifully come to an end.
Okay wise guy. I’ll vote for anyone who INCLUDES gettiing rid of all government regulations over who gets married and who can get an abortion. It seems like all GOPers want fewer government regs, less government, etc, EXCEPT when it comes to regulating a woman’s right to choose for herself and everyone’s right to get married.
janice
You have forgotten the prime directive with NeoCons:
Hate The Baby- Love The Fetus.
That fetus must be born because it is soooo precious & then it should be condemned to a life of poverty, malnourishment, violence, substandard housing, poor education and preditory credit.
But of course he/she if FREE.
Isn’t that special…
I don’t like fish, Why should I be forced to learn to fish.
FYI- Progressives do not hate free markets- we just do not like crony capitalism, rigged markets or the mere appearance of freedom. Most of us also wish Obamanation would switch parties.
You’re not a ‘progressive’, that’s just a nice word adopted by liberals to sound more warm. You’re a liberal. If you support the current democratic direction, you’re borderline socialist, like our current president. Use the right words – they mean something.
@Pirate
‘Progressive’ is a synonym of ‘liberal’.
You walk on public sidewalks, roads, have a police and fire department, probably support the US military, have gone to a public library, maybe attended public school… you’re a borderline socialist too! Yay!
Easier to implement when some money-before-everything wanker hasn’t poisoned the ocean and killed all the fish in the first place.
Literally and metaphorically.
you honestly think you have a chance of a Republican president with that clown car collection of ignorant bigots? Good luck.
With the economy on an upswing, backed by a surprisingly strong manufacturing sector, the Republicans won’t stand a chance. We’ve gone from millions of jobs lost during the final years of the Bush administration to millions of new private sector jobs created after 11 straight months of growth under President Obama.
“Upswing?” Lay off the meth, dude.
It’s time for you to start watching the real economic indicators, instead of Fox News.
It. Doesn’t. Matter.
Perception is everything.
People won’t see the economy turn until after the election because a Republican victory will free business from the Obama malaise of uncertainty and trigger a hiring binge and subsequent meaningful recovery.
Watch and learn.
Perception is indeed everything, and economic trends, including a steady decline in the unemployment rate, will help form those perceptions.
Our friends in the media will make sure to instill a good dose of optimism across the nation over the next year. They’re already on the job, which is part of the reason why the President has seen a recent uptick in approval. The doom and gloom necessary for Fat Cat Romney to win the election is gradually dissipating.
I have been avoiding the political exchanges in this forum, but I had to jump in after seeing F10T12’s “Perception is everything” in bold. That’s the problem, you see. The GOP strategy starting with the Bush campaign in 1999 has been to control perception because the reality did not match the rhetoric. Perception is everything…that ought to be your motto, F10T12. It fits so well, particularly when your perception is so narrow and clouded.
A negative public perception is certainly what the GOP has been striving to develop with its obstructionist legislative strategies. The GOP even admits that its sole objective is to beat Obama in 2012, and does not even appear to recognize the damage that this strategy is doing to the country. The GOP is certainly responsible for a great deal of the “malaise of uncertainty” in this country.
The GOP nightmare in 2008? An economic crash that started a several months too early!
The GOP nightmare in 2012? An economic recovery that started several months too early!
If this was a Hollywood movie, it could not have been scripted any better. I plan to have a great time making fun of you in November!
Perception is everything? What a convenient world you live in where the only thing that could be right is your perception of things. So… the Earth is flat?
Dogmatic garbage founded only by the weak minded who can’t possible expand their perception and analysis of the world around them.
If a Democratic president is bad for the economy, and a Republican president is good for the economy, please explain the last 20 years.
My company let go 700 employees in the last 180 days (myself included), and you tell me things are better.
Time you let go of your crack pipe.
I’m truly sorry to hear that. I hope you land a new job soon.
On topic, though: Just how would one expect a GOP prez to create jobs? Trickle-down economics has had 30 years and has just shown that it’s an experimental failure. Giveing huge tax breaks to the top 1% has done absolutely nothing to stimulate jobs here in the US. Nothing. Yet all the GOP can do is add more taxes on to the already overburdened middle and lower classes so they can buy chateaux in France and yachts in Jamaica. Just how many BMWs and Mercedes do the Koch bros. need, anyway?
That is unfortunate for you and your co-workers. But that happens even in good economic times. If you truly believe that your life will improve with the promises of Romney or Gingrich or whoever, then it’s your vote. But things are not going to magically get better even if a Republican becomes President. Take a look at the last forty-four years, and you will realize the truth in that statement. From Nixon in 1968 through Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama in 2012. We expect too much from the President and the rest of Government when we want quick, easy, and painless fixes to complex and difficult issues that have been growing for decades.
My optimism is a side effect of my patriotism. Unlike you, I don’t root for good times only when a Republican is in the White House.
Your ilk is shamelessly praying for another recession because you have no confidence that Fat Cat Romney can sneak into DC without the help of terrible economic conditions. His own party doesn’t like him, his own base (if he has one) has no optimism in regards to his policies. The only thing he has going for him is that he’s “not Obama.”
Your party is making a terrible mistake in nominating a man who doesn’t make them hope for a better future all on his own. Who doesn’t inspire the same conservative base that’s necessary to carry him over the finish line. After Obama vanquishes the latest RINO who was deemed to “win over Independents,” maybe you will have learned your lesson for 2016.
You can’t have “good times” when you are inciting class warfare, freezing business activity with overbearing uncertainty, and threatening to tax and spend the country into oblivion.
I pity you, but I pity those around you even more. It must be such a burden to know everything with supreme certainty. Omniscience in the absence of omnipotence – that’s quite a curse.
You’re great at repeating GOP talking points and using their Heritage Foundation-created buzzwords. It’s a good thing too, because without them your head would whistle in a stiff wind. Someone throws a little critical thought your way and you melt like the Wicked Witch of the West when she got doused with water.
Remove the “tax and” from that post and you have the perfect description of the Bush Jr. Presidency.
If there actually was a war between the classes, do you think the poor would win? Stop with this “Oh, these poor rich people!” BS.
I’ll be there, where I will play this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdNYhmohCzk
This is the stupidest survey ever released. I see far more women talking on their mobile phones (with no hands free device) than men.
There’s no way a nationwide ban on mobile phone use while driving will ever take effect, or at least be enforced. Plus, this is within a state’s authority to regulate, not the federal government’s purview.
Wait until the word gets out that insurance companies are 1) denying coverage when it can be proven that a covered driver was using a phone while was driving, and 2) no-fault laws are changed to allow for the finding of fault when it can be proven that a driver was using a phone when they caused the accident.
BTW, concerning men vs. women, I see an awful lot of contractor types, all men, on the phone while driving. (Contractor types meaning construction or other trade company names on the side of their vehicle.)
Can you cite to any actual cases of insurers denying coverage in these circumstances? I doubt this has actually happened.
Hey, I’m a contractor type. I use built in Bluetooth in my truck, answer & hang up via buttons on my steering wheel and only initiate calls via Siri. Before Siri I only answered.
I have to agree. Until they outlaw women putting their makeup on or people playing with their radio’s, this is a bunch of BS.
Hey, I hate that people do this and it’s crazy stupid but even I can’t get my wife to stop putting her makeup on, eating or drinking coffee, and fiddling with the radio, all while driving to work in the morning.
Where the laws for that?
It is relatively obvious, democrats want to run your life from cradle to grave and everything and anything it. Most republicans don.t.. About as simple as that…
Hmmm…..nice generalizations there, Mate. Maybe you didn’t get the memo that Republicans want to determine who can’t marry whom, what health care a woman may not receive, etc.
Now. You got the memo. Care to revise your statement?
You can have a civil union with anybody you want.
Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.
BTW: McCain-Palin had the same position as Obama-Biden on “gay marriage.”
Nope. Separate but equal doesn’t work in this country. With more and more states granting marriage and not something watered down and unequal, you’ll see equality for all in your own lifetime. Isn’t it wonderful we live in a country where civil rights are for everyone, not just reserved for those who have to now enjoyed special rights? Yes, it is.
Since when is perversion a civil right; most should be satisfied they’re no longer legally prosecuted for what most religions have properly condemned as being unnatural, and be content with that.
Ever heard of separation of church and state? Religious “law” has nothing to do with the laws of the US, where equality is guaranteed for all. Despite people like you.
“Separation of church and state” Ergo, “no longer legally prosecuted”; and correspondingly why the State should have no say on the issue of marriage.
joebloggs,
Like I said, “civil union.” Not marriage.
@first2010: Civil union is not marriage. Even if civil union was the same as marriage (which it is not), separate but equal is not the law of this country. Like most republicans, it appears you need to brush up on the constitution, history, and the law.
@none: Since marriage is a LEGAL contract, it is the church that should have no say in marriage. It should be purely regulated by the State – which is the body that makes the law.
“Ever heard of separation of church and state?”
Yes, it is a term made up by the left to circumvent morality.
It is not in the Constitution.
It was never ‘coined’ buy the Founding Fathers.
It was dreamt up to bastardize the meaning of a comment by Thomas Jefferson concerning government getting in religion on the State level.
No one on the Right that I know of wants a Theocracy.
That’s why we cherish the Constitution.
Get over it.
It was very clear what Jefferson meant, considering he explained it over and over again both verbally and in writing. And he meant that organized religion should have no bearing on state matters and vice versa. The “but it doesn’t say that in the Constitution” line/whine is a poor and pathetic attempt at revisionist history from a bunch of people who obviously flunked 11th grade (or took it in a Texas high school).
Once marriage became a legal institution it became a state matter. Churches have every right to disallow gays and lesbians from getting married inside them, but they have zero right to dictate who gets married outside them. Also, I have the right to ridicule them mercilessly for being outdated, bigoted jokes.
@TowerTone: You poor ignorant fool. Here’s some quotes from your beloved founding fathers – who were dead set AGAINST religion
“As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” – John Adams (Treaty of Tripoli 1797)
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it” – John Adams (letter)
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit” – Thomas Paine (Volume 4: Age of Reasoning)
“Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true.” – Thomas Paine (Volume 1 section 11: Age of Reasoning)
joe
You need to throw away that fork and get a shovel so you can dig a little deeper.
The Treaty of Tripoli statement was made to offset the argument that we attacked them on a religious basis since they were a Muslim state and was made to clarify that we were NOT fighting a religious war.
The letter from Adams to Jefferson was to discus the disagreements between religions. Heres is Jefferson’s reply
“If, by religion, we are to understand Sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, ‘that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’
But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism, and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, ‘something not fit to be named, even indeed a Hell.”
BTW, here is a pull from another of Adam’s letters dated June 28, 1813
“The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite . . . . And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.
My point is, you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about and I treated you lightly, but you persisted, because you also have no clue who you are dealing with.
If you want some real perspective about the truth of what happened, opinions be damned, try reading some facts. Don’t just go to some site set up with snippets that purport atheism was alive and kickin’ in Philadelphia circa 1776.
Here is a start
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding
You might be surprised at how evenhanded his discussion is, but first you would have to WANT to know the truth.
Also, you can know the truth and still disagree with religion. I have no problem with that. There is a LOT I disagree with in religion, but at least I am open to what REALLY happened.
I am offended that you claim gay people are perverts by definition. It is a deeply bigoted thing to believe and your are a hateful person for saying it.
Religion does not own “marriage.” A couple can get married at the courthouse without the clergy. From a secular standpoint and, indeed, from a Government standpoint, marriage is purely a legal partnership – shared liabilities and the works. You and your ilk like to mess with terminology and sound bites to belittle opposing views. But your petty tactics will not work on those who think for themselves.
If two guys or two girls want to get married it’s none of your business. Get out of their home and let them get on with their lives.
You’re all for “small government” until it contradicts something you want to legislate. How very GOP.
Since when is murdering your own baby called “health care?” Oh, yeah, the day the undecided idiots of America elected Obama because Katie Couric and Tina Fey told them to.
Thank you for proving my point. GOP ideology wants to control, control, control—regardless of what US Americans believe. Thanks for playing; here’s your Rice-A-Roni.
You lie. Unsurprisingly.
Majority of U.S. Citizens Say Abortion Is Morally Wrong
Gallup’s 2011 Values and Beliefs survey, conducted May 5-8, 2011, finds that 51%, believe abortion is “morally wrong,” while 39% say it is “morally acceptable.” (source: Gallup, May 2011)
Those of us who know right from wrong don’t want to fund murder with our tax dollars or by any other means, thanks.
Huh???? Your logic takes “strained” to new levels. And why the “you lie” comment? Jeph said nothing that you’ve disproved – let alone that he lied.
joebloggs,
“Regardless of what US Americans believe.” I proved otherwise. With a source, no less.
@First 2010: Jeph didn’t say “all” Americans or even “most” Americans. Many Americans do believe what Jeph stated. So your logic is once again strained beyond breaking point.
The issue of abortion is extremely complex, very emotional, and very circumstance specific. There are several circumstances where all but the most fanatical right wingers would agree it’s the best thing – for example if the mother is so ill that without treatment there is no way she would live long enough to for the fetus to be viable, but with an abortion she may survive.
joe,
Those who resort to semantics have already lost.
Is war morally acceptable? If you think for a few seconds and get below the surface, the question gets more complicated.
http://right-thinking.com/2011/06/03/the-moral-question/
@First2010: I don’t think you know what “semantics” means. Certainly it has no relevant meaning in your post.
And the majority of Americans are for gay marriage
When you, Superior Being, are prepared to adopt and care for every unwanted child regardless of race, gender, appearance, or health…then I might consider ceding you the responsibility to make that decision for me. Until then, you have no right to attempt to assert your viewpoint on the rest of us.
Since when is murdering your own baby called “health care?”
Since Kare Santorum murdered baby Gabriel in order to save her own life.
Apparently their new ringleader Rick Santorum (Google “Santorum” for more info on him if you’re unfamiliar) wants to ban condoms and the birth control pill, too.
But yeah, Republicans don’t want to control your life…
Heh…..right you are, Bud.
“New ringleader?”
More like flavor of the week.
Santorum doesn’t have the resources to beat Romney.
I can wish for a true conservative forever, but if my choice ends up being Romney or Obama, guess who gets my vote?
Romney will be nominated because, even with the media aligned against him, he’ll obliterate Obama.
Fat Cat Romney will be nominated because the conservative base can’t align behind a single candidate and take him down. He’s skating in on 25% support because the rest is split between 3 or 4 candidates. The Republican party can’t stand him.
No shit, Sherlock.
How can it be no shit when you’re feeding us bullshit like “Romney will be nominated because, even with the media aligned against him, he’ll obliterate Obama.” That is NOT the reason he’ll be nominated. The Republican party has no confidence that he can present enough of a contrast in order to beat the president. They have no confidence in candidate Romney, so it’s the total opposite of what you said.
R2,
Romney will appeal to the relative handful of “undecided” ignoramuses who decide every U.S. presidential election. The “swing” voters. Those who vote for personalities or teleprompter skills or whatever stupidity they come up with. Coin flip, maybe.
They will vote against Obama because he sold them something he did not deliver, not even close. He golfed. 90+ times already. While they lost their jobs, houses, and marriages.
Is the average American better off than they were four years ago? No they are not. Romney will drive that point home and he will be elected. iCal me.
Isn’t that the same thing you guys said about John McCain? How’d that work out? LMAO
R2,
I’ll remind you that McCain-Palin were leading Obama-Biden until the “financial meltdown,” even with the mainstream media demagoguing Palin up the wazoo. Had it happened a few weeks later, we’d have President McCain and unemployment below 7% by now.
BTW: It’s too bad that one of W’s decision points wasn’t demolishing the Clinton administration’s policy that caused the horrific housing crisis and the subsequent economic fallout that we continue to languish under to this day. Likely Bush was averse to being labeled a “racist” by knee-jerk Libs and those who make their profit by keeping their own people slaves to government subsistence living (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.)
In 1994 the Clinton administration declared war on an enemy — the so-called “racist lender” — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history:
http://news.investors.com/Article/589858/201110310805/Housing-Crisis-Obama-Clinton-Subprime.htm
McCain led for a brief period right after the Republican National Convention, a normal bounce that would’ve collapsed with or without Lehman Brothers.
I frequently see you righties citing that as the reason for McCain’s loss. “He had Obama right where he wanted him before the collapse!” But tell me, why couldn’t McCain capitalize on the collapse the way any other candidate could? It wasn’t like America blamed him for the economic situation. McCain could’ve used it as an opportunity to both shore up his base and instill confidence in moderates and Independents that problems like this wouldn’t arise on his watch. Instead what did he do? He bungled the effort. He ran around like a trapped animal, suspending his campaign and rushing back to DC to help pass TARP, all the while making Obama look like the only candidate with a brain. He was an unprincipled RINO and there’s nobody to blame but your party for nominating him.
Lehman wasn’t a magical weapon that propelled Obama into the White House. Had he been an undisciplined fool like McCain, it could’ve hurt him just as badly.
that brand of republican is very happy to talk about “freedom” and then try to tell everyone how to live their life based on rules other men from 2000 years ago said were passed on to them by an invisible man up in the sky. They also are the same ones who say there isn’t any proof to support global warming, evolution, etc
Btw, I am a republican only because I think they are the better of two bad choices. I figure that if I’m registered as a republican I at least have the power to vote to nominate a moderate
The main problems many conservatives (not all) have with abortion is not with the act itself as decided upon by an adult woman. It’s the governmental involvement, which are two-fold: 1. Federal subsidies to pay for it and to support organizations that actually promote it, and 2. Laws that enable minor children to engage in the procedure without the knowledge of their parents. Abortion a “health care” is not an issue. Some of us think that more deliberative thought on this particular procedure should be given than that of having a wart removed. Gay marriage is simply a misnomer. Marriage is word with meaning: the union of a man and a woman. I don’t care if two men or two women join in a union, simply create a new word instead of redefining an existing one that has a clear meaning. I don’t particularly want another box on every form I have to fill out that asks both am I married, and if so to a man or a woman. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Please, there are legitimate reasons reasons to resist the redefinition of the word Marriage other the homophobia that is typically inferred.
And we have a winner!!!
@spark: There may be legitimate reasons to resist the redefinition of the word marriage. But there are also legitimate reasons to redefine it. Including the concept of equality, which is enshrined in the US Constitution. Just because society has used a word one way for a period of time doesn’t mean it was the right way. At one point being racist was ok. Now it’s not. It’s the same with discrimination against gays. It’s not ok, and it’s not legal. Sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s not as though the change is actually going to hurt anyone – which the status quo is doing. Las Vegas and married politicians having affairs does far more to harm marriage than allowing gay people to marry would do.
Don’t worry. Forms just tend to say: Are you married? No extra tick box.
The assumption is made that you’re married to a human, of course.
I don’t get why supposedly religious people care what the government does. Christians are supposed to follow the Christ… who clearly said his kingdom was not part of this world.
Politics, like nationalism diviede the human family. Basically, unless you’re politically neutral, you can’t claim to be following God anyhow.
Support organisations don’t “promote” abortion. They ensure that the woman with the unwanted pregnancy has all the information she needs in order to make an informed decision about her own future.
And the meaning of the word “marriage” has changed multiple times throughout the centuries, and doesn’t even mean the same thing across the modern world. Marriage equality is just another step in a never ending cycle of renewal that humanity is constantly going through. If it were just about a word why are organisations such as NOM so active in their campaigns against protections for gay people in other areas of life. They and their membership simply think gay people should live in the shadows because they (the NOM members) can’t get over obsessing on the sex side of things. The whole reason why marriage equality is so important to gay couples is because long-term monogamous relationships and family are just as important to us as they are to het couples. Why have two parallel legal definitions when one will suffice? Why can’t the churches rename what they do to “holy matrimony” if they want to feel special? If it’s all just about words surely that’s fine yes?
The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a goat, a man and a tree, a woman and her vibrator, or a man and a man or woman and a woman. Call it something else. Or Gaymarriage if you want. We don’t care but it’s not the meaning of the word marriage. Maybe you can change the meaning of winner to loser. That’s what you liberals love to be about, losing-losers.
Kendra, your argument is infantile at best. No-one with more than two brain cells think that marriage should be between anything other than two human beings. A few decades ago, people like you thought that blacks were sub-human, and brought out phony science to “prove” it. Then blacks weren’t allowed to marry whites. Now you’re turning your vitriol, hatred, and desire for control to another minority in society. It’s so strange that conservatives who are supposed to stand for less government want more regulation.
And oddly still, you speak of laws passed by Democrats.
Hmmm…..
TowerTone – you’re against racial equality?? Speaks volumes about you.
Where did you pull that idea from, and did you wash it first?
Speaks volumes about your ability to deduce facts.
You try to associate marriage as defined by thousands of years of practice to segregation laws passed by Democrats and then claim I am a racist. Wow.
The only definition of marriage in the Bible, which are always used by the Conservative Right as the backbone for their argument, is between a man and as many wives and concubines as he can afford to support. If you actually read the verses in the New Testament which they then quote they don’t define marriage at all. Instead Christ uses the example of a man/woman marriage in order to condemn divorce.
Given that condemnation one has to wonder why divorce isn’t the thing that states are introducing constitutional amendments in order to ban.
Well I guess Romney could support that definition…
In Australia we’d say a drover’s dog could beat Obama. Unfortunately the Republicans can’t even find the right dog.
Think of how many western governments have fallen because of the recession. The fact that Obama is even in with a chance is a testament to the good job he has done, despite the best efforts of the party of “no” wanting this country to follow Europe down the same disastrous path.
“Good job he has done?”
You need to lay off the meth as well.
This country would be in a much better position if the party of NO hadn’t tried to block Obama at every move. When the leader of the GOP in the senate says his top priority is making sure Obama is not re-elected, he is using his political power to put his own party politics ahead of the good of his country. That is treason. And yes, considering the horrendous mess Obama inherited, he has done a reasonable job. Almost every non-partisan economist in the western world says that cutting government spending and not raising taxes in a recession in order to balance the budget is economic suicide. And it’s proven by the fact that Europe is in a worse state that the US and its recession is getting deeper, while the US is starting to recover. And yes, I can cite sources too.
And oddly, yet again, the Democrats were wanting to lose in Iraq when Bush was President.
Isn’t that treason?
Hmmm….
TowerTone – no dems were wanting to lose in Iraq. They just wanted out. And no, that wasn’t treason. How old are you? Been to high school yet?
Treason was taking loyal US (and British) servicemen into a war on false pretences when the only true motivation was profit for those ordering the troops in. What nine figure amount did Cheney make on those share options again?
joe, you’re just spewing right wind talking points and changing the subject as needed to avoid facts. Thank God the Republicans said ‘no’. They were swept into power in 2010 for that reason. Americans wanted Obama in check. His healthcare bill is a disaster, and he drivin our country down the tubes. Hell, today he reduced our military.
Clearly, the nation is very divided over direction. Obama has not united us, although he promised to do so.
Oh?? You want to cut government spending but increase military spending?? Please explain that.
As for Obama uniting the country – you’re right, he hasn’t. No-one could right now. Dems and Republicans in congress couldn’t agree what day it is right now. But this country has avoided the renewed recession in Europe precisely because Obama pumped money into the economy, which Europe didn’t do (at least, as much). Almost all non-partisan economists agree that the tack taken by Europe and advanced by Republicans is a recipe for economic disaster. Really. Do a little research on it.
Obama hemorrhaging Independents
Currently, 81% of Democrats, 42% of independents, and 10% of Republicans approve of Obama. By comparison, last January, Obama’s approval rating was 83% among Democrats, 47% among independents, and 13% among Republicans. (source: Gallup, January 5, 2012)
Obama cannot win reelection with these numbers, no matter how many times dead people vote for him in Chicago.
And, regardless of whatever idiocy the Dems/Libs dream up next, I’ll continue using my iPhone 4S and Siri wherever I damn well please, thank you very much.
on a percentage basis he went down over twice as much among republicans (23.1% to 10.6%(. considering inaccuracies in polls a ten percent reduction among independents i don’t think most people would describe this as hemorrhaging.
It’s not so certain when you consider that Obama will be running against an actual candidate. Of course people do not want to vote for Obama. But do they want to vote for Romney or Gingrich or whatever guy they end up picking? Doubtful.
George W. Bush won re-election with a 48% approval in 2004. And the unemployment rate was what, 5.6%? I’d say he’s in pretty good shape. He can bump those Independent numbers up a few percentage points between now and election day and he’s in there.
It helps that the Republican base will be depressed since they’ll have to hold their noses and vote for Fat Cat Romney.
You need to look at an electoral map before you make an even bigger fool of yourself, if that’s even possible.
It ain’t gonna happen. One-termer.
Obama will ghost write a book. He’ll cash in as America’s first black president. He’ll golf. A lot. And poorly, too (his swing is atrocious). They’ll give him another peace prize or three. He’ll open a library. Blah, blah, blah. Maybe he’ll even drink himself to death like Clinton’s doing. He’ll certainly smoke his beloved cigarettes. Probably die of a heart attack on the course. His legacy: Even worse than Carter.
Whatever we think of Obama, what will matter in November is who the Republicans run against him. So far, I’m not impressed. But they still have months to wedge their feet further into their mouth.
And I’m registered as a Republican.
cue the usual suspects shouting and frothing off topic
Not surprising. This is stupid. I could see banning all non-Hands Free calling but banning all calls is ridiculous. I don’t think people realize this is ALL calls, hands-free or not.
Pretty soon the Democrats will want to ban cup holders in cars on the premise that drinking & driving causes accidents. Socialists will want to ban everything, they’re the Taliban of USA.
That’s a pretty stupid comment, BLN.
This says more about the perspective of each party on government’s role in society. If they asked whether cell phones should be used for voice or texting while driving, I suspect democrats, independents, and republicans would have a similar distribution of responses.
except Rick Santorum, who believes we should all be texting while driving.
As with most things liberals “support”
They will “support” it (publicly) to death but privately they are the worst offenders. Just like with Charity and taxes. They want higher taxes…they just don’t want to pay them, they say Republicans are “heatless” but who gives the most to charity?
“A liberal is someone who will cut off your leg so they can feel good about giving you a crutch” – Joe Brown.
Republicans give far more to charity than Liberal cheapskates
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so. – Nicholas D. Kristof, The New York Times
My guess is that Republicans give more to church-based charities that desire to limit a woman’s right to choose, ban gay marriage and other attempts to force their view of mortality on the rest of society.
Nearly 30% of the Republican party supports a ban. This is one of the most bipartisan ideas being polled today.
And who says it’s those damned Liberals who are responsible for these results? For all we know, the 40% of Democrats who don’t approve of the idea might heavily consist of the Liberals you so despise.
This is one of the dumbest proposals I have seen is a long time. I completely understand banning normal texting and the requirement for hands free calling. But, trying to ban the use of cellphones all together is completely unenforceable. If talking on a hands free system is too distracting to drive are they also planing to ban radios and passengers. Also almost every new head unit includes phone syncing/bluetooth.
I totally agree with you, Damian. Having kids in the backseat would have to be banned too, in case they start screaming and distract you. Ban manual texting, and make hands free calling (including voice dialing) a requirement of using a phone. But that’s it.
Well, technically, you should have kids in the hospital.
Conceive in the back seat, maybe…as long as you aren’t using a cell phone.
There’s no reason to “ban” anything new; reckless driving is typically already unlawful. If you can’t drive and chew gum at the same time you shouldn’t; but none should presume they know what’s best for others in all situations. Truth be known, most haven’t the sense to be trusted driving or voting; if all such were correspondingly prohibited, we’d likely have both less laws and safer drivers.
This has got to be only addressing non-hands free right? Oh yeah I forgot The NTSB is a government agency it is a prerequisite that it makes no sense. While we’re at it why don’t we ban talking to passengers as well. Why must we all play political parties against each other… Every damn politician and lobbyist are corrupt, heck it’s the lobbyist job, all they need is a corrupt politician. Oh and by the way, why in heck are we all not registered Independents? can’t we all just make up our own minds about every issue individually? It is the entire political machine that will never allow a legitimate third party, that’s why both bash any attempt at individual thought. Did any of the other former registered Independents notice that they are no registered as un-enrolled. Just another way our government tries to make us feel like outcasts… Don’t think it’s not on purpose… who wants to be un-enrolled?
Just because I’m paranoid, doesn’t mean their not out to get me. 🙂
Not sure why this wouldn’t be obvious to anyone. Today’s democratic party is nothing more than a bunch of Socialist, and what socialist doesn’t think the people are stupid and should be told what they can and cannot do.
Your guilty conscience may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king.
Not to mention force you to believe in invisible, all powerful friends, intrude on your sex life, deny you access to medical care, start wars whenever they want to divert your attention from how badly they’re running the country, allow corporations to financially control the world, allow corporations to vote, and allow everyone to walk around with loaded sub-machine guns – in case you need to protect yourself.
I’m confused….why are you talking about President Obama that way?
Let’s see you deny any of that!!!
(He believes in God, he is against gay marriage, his Obamacare has already caused ME consternation in my medical care {no, really}, jumped in on Libya, was bought by GM, Solyndra, and GE, and allowed guns to be shipped to Mexico just to make him look good)
My, you outdid yourself there!!!!!
TowerTone – you’re confused because you’re simple. Obama is allowed to be religious, just as anyone is. But dems don’t’ force religion down your throat the way republicans do. Because of Obama care, millions of previously uninsured Americans now have medical insurance. Non-paritisan (and bipartisan) economists agree that the average cost to individuals of health care will go down as a result of the new law. Solyndra equals 0.5 percent of the total investment in green energy – not even a blip on the radar. And are you really comparing the defective reasoning and cost of the Iraq war with LIbya – where Europe paid most of the cost? As for Fast and Furious – do you really think Obama personally organized that? In any event, it was a program started under Bush. Son, you got some learnin’ to do.
Thanks, Pop.
You make silly generalizations about Conservatives, I give examples, you wipe them off and explain I am simple.
Show me an example of religion being forced down the publics throat. If you mean Christmas decorations, you are useless.
One million new people insured? For that cost? BULLSHIT!!!
It could have been done much more effectively with insurance.
Break down that cost per person. Happy?
Health care cost will not go down under Obamacare.
Fast and Furious was not started under Bush, that was a different program with a different outcome. Fast and Furious was loosely based on that and then went amuck.
And, yes, I believe Eric Holder knew about it.
And it wasn’t the cost of the wars, it was the direction of our action I commented on. You claimed Bush started a war to divert attention, when in fact Congress voted overwhelmingly for it, then the left, led by Uncle Teddy, immediately started to undermine it for political points.
Solyndra was an example of his business slush funds. They KNEW it was going to fail and still funded it. GE and GM both buy votes, as you accused the right of doing.
BTW, I am 50, so I assume you are pushing 70, old man?
The thing that really, really needs to be dealt with is the jive-ass doper chillin’ in his pimped-up ride and blasting overamped hip-hop bass riffs through the teeth and eye-sockets of every other driver trapped in traffic while ardently wishing for an EMP cannon.
Democrats want to institute an unconstitutional nanny state law?
Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED!!!
@ MDN: so what about iPhone 3G users?
i think most people agree that some governments occasionally over-reach and attempt to over-protect stupid people from themselves. That’s why the gene pool is so polluted. But the roadway is a different matter. apparently there are a lot of kids who’ve not yet learned the hard way how a little mistake on the road can change/end/destroy many people’s lives forever. Road safety isn’t something the NTSB banters about casually. their data is pretty solid — the hard part is drawing a line that is reasonable. What this poll seems to reveal is that Republicans are the least reasonable people — and yes, Democrats also reveal a failing grade too.
while it is unfortunate that the reckless behaviour of driver’s can’t be culled from society by natural selection, every first-world nation on the planet has decided that the rule of law is the next best thing to ensure the best outcome for the biggest number of people. And if that means banning handheld devices from idiots on the road, then so be it. There are a lot of things i can imagine myself doing “safely” that i am oh-so-certain lesser humans can’t do. that doesn’t mean i’m going to have a hissy fit that a law preventing it is put in place to protect everyone. Ban all undocked handheld electronics in automobiles now!
Next issue?
Completely agree with the Dems on this one! Huge problem! People die every day because of distracted drivers! Cell phone calls while driving are NOT necessary unless emergency! Women and teens are the most addicted! No-brainer IMO!
MDN should always do what they feel is right, but when I read this headline I realized why my site visits have been decreasing over the last few months: far too many politically-incendiary stories with the obligatory D vs. R bullish*t in the comments thread.
The sheer hatred in some of these comments is palpable.
.
Republican voters: Democrats are liberal pansies that hate success.
Democrat voters: Republican are warmongers who love the rich.
.
And this is on a site where we are united by a common love of all things Apple!
Yeah, but most of the posters here are American, where everyone has to support a “team” at the expense of any sense of compromise or reason. What else do you expect?
Banning this sort of behaviors is thew ONLY way NOT to be potentially murdering people!
If it’s okay to take from the “rich” and “spread the wealth” in the interest of fairness, what about good looking people?
People perceived to be handsome or beautiful make more money than average or ugly people.
Should we mar their looks in order to make it “fair” for the average or the downright ugly? Or, perhaps, should the government offer the plain and ugly free plastic surgery (not that that’ll help as it often looks worse and can’t compete with natural good looks, but government rarely if ever provides adequate fixes, so don’t let ineffectiveness color your answer).
If these questions don’t blatantly highlight what’s wrong with the Dems/Libs, the Occupiers and Obama himself, then you must be a Dem/Lib, an Occupier and/or Obama himself.
The U.S. Army’s soldier’s training manual (TM2000-25) defines a “Democracy” as:
“A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting of any, for direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic—negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”
Having read the posts above, it would appear Democracy is alive and well in the U.S.
I was rear-ended by a M$ employee on the 520 bridge in Seattle who was txt’ing on her cell phone, which totaled my car. Fortunately, she was a blue-badge employee and her insurance covered everything.