Honestly we need to have volume limits on earbuds or ban them in cross walks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do libs really want to regulate EVERYTHING? Seriously? This is about personal responsibility. You walk in front of a moving car because you are immersed in your music, you probably will get hit.

Don't do it and you won't.

This isn't rocket science and we don't need to regulate it.

Not this lib. All for Darwin on this one.

Please, PLEASE influence others. We need more common sense in this world!

[Anonymous]

If only she had had a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If only she had had a gun.

Car is big enough. No need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do libs really want to regulate EVERYTHING? Seriously? This is about personal responsibility. You walk in front of a moving car because you are immersed in your music, you probably will get hit.

Don't do it and you won't.

This isn't rocket science and we don't need to regulate it.

Not this lib. All for Darwin on this one.

Please, PLEASE influence others. We need more common sense in this world!

There are lots of us "libs" who feel this way, believe it or not. The deciding factor for me is whether or not the regulation pertains to a matter of public safety or the overall public good that is out of the hands of the individual. So for example, regulating vehicle or power plant emissions is appropriate because those emissions impact public health negatively and individuals have no power to choose whether or not to breathe unhealthy air. But individuals do have a choice whether or not to read their cell phone or blast their music while walking across a city street. The devices themselves are not a danger, per se. If you make stupid choices, you pay the price. That's just how the world works. However, there have to be some common sense limits on that type of thinking.

For example, I and many of my "lib" friends are totally against the mortgage modifications on principle. But, we try to balance our principles with what is best for the markets and for communities. We all agreed that we grudgingly supported them in certain instances but ONLY if common sense regulations were enacted in the lending market to prevent the kind of disaster we've seen over the past several years. I think we can all agree - regardless of politics - that allowing entire communities to fall into foreclosure is not a good thing for the market in the long run, right? Bottom line - I bet if more "libs" and "right-wingers" actually talked to each other we'd discover that we actually agree on a lot of the same issues - our disagreements come down to which policy solutions we try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about just letting Darwin's theory cull the herd?

Because if you strike a pedestrian, it sucks for you.

If someone is wearing earbuds and crosses against the light, stepping in front of your car, I do believe the law plants firmly on your side

good luck arguing that in court. Unless you have witnesses or there are cameras, how do you prove they had the "don't walk' sign?

Not to mention, in D.C., if a bike hits you while you're driving a car, it's automatically your fault (no matter the circumstances). I can't imagine, given that, they'd side with a driver in a pedestrian incident.

And my guess, even if they did, you'd probably still have issues getting car insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do libs really want to regulate EVERYTHING? Seriously? This is about personal responsibility. You walk in front of a moving car because you are immersed in your music, you probably will get hit.

Don't do it and you won't.

This isn't rocket science and we don't need to regulate it.

Not this lib. All for Darwin on this one.

Please, PLEASE influence others. We need more common sense in this world!

There are lots of us "libs" who feel this way, believe it or not. The deciding factor for me is whether or not the regulation pertains to a matter of public safety or the overall public good that is out of the hands of the individual. So for example, regulating vehicle or power plant emissions is appropriate because those emissions impact public health negatively and individuals have no power to choose whether or not to breathe unhealthy air. But individuals do have a choice whether or not to read their cell phone or blast their music while walking across a city street. The devices themselves are not a danger, per se. If you make stupid choices, you pay the price. That's just how the world works. However, there have to be some common sense limits on that type of thinking.

For example, I and many of my "lib" friends are totally against the mortgage modifications on principle. But, we try to balance our principles with what is best for the markets and for communities. We all agreed that we grudgingly supported them in certain instances but ONLY if common sense regulations were enacted in the lending market to prevent the kind of disaster we've seen over the past several years. I think we can all agree - regardless of politics - that allowing entire communities to fall into foreclosure is not a good thing for the market in the long run, right? Bottom line - I bet if more "libs" and "right-wingers" actually talked to each other we'd discover that we actually agree on a lot of the same issues - our disagreements come down to which policy solutions we try.

Conservatives never would have let these people get access to the mortgages in the first place. Conservatives also want to see some hard science on those things that supposedly poison the environment before enacting legislation. And we want that legislation to be constitutional.