Um...he WAS jaywalking

If the board disappeared from view for an hour, it is just because we changed our provider of domain name services. Look for the all-new eye95.com, coming soon. This board will become a subfeature of that site.

We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls!

We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Um...he WAS jaywalking; and that CAUSED the accident
Topic Started: Feb 26 2009, 01:18 PM (166 Views)
Post #1 Feb 26 2009, 01:18 PM	eye95
Hero ticketed for jaywalking. But, he WAS jaywalking. He helped the old ladies jaywalk, almost got them hit, had to save them from being hit, and got hit himself. The headline gives the impression that he jaywalked to save the ladies. No, he jaywalked, putting the ladies in danger. He deserves the ticket. More importantly though, this situation illustrates a growing attitude in our culture--one in which people believe that if they have a good enough reason, they may violate any rule without consequence. Some examples from recent happenings illustrate this attitude: DC is being given a voting representative in the House of Representatives, even though The Constitution clearly limits such representation to states only. The good enough reason? DC is not represented in Congress, and just isn't (stomps foot) fair! Then, change the rules! (BTW, DC is overrepresented in presidential elections.) Hillary Clinton is now Secretary of State, despite a clear constitutional prohibition against members of Congress becoming members of the cabinet after having voted in a raise for that cabinet post. The good enough reason? Mrs. Clinton is somehow perceived to be the only qualified enough candidate for the job. And, besides, they "unvoted" the raise (despite the fact that that does not mean that disqualifying vote didn't somehow still take place.) President Obama should have simply looked elsewhere for a legal nominee. And, a lawsuit should have been filed to block Mrs. Clinton from taking the post. Timothy Geithner knowingly did not pay taxes he owed, yet he was placed in charge of the department responsible for collecting taxes. There is no rule that he cannot be Treasury Secretary, but clearly a blind eye was turned to his rule-breaking. The reason? Because he was the only person who could get America out of its economic troubles (despite the argument by many that his actions gravely worsened the situation). People have not been paying their mortgages, yet are being saved from the consequences of not following the rules. Why? For the so-called "good of the economy." It is about time that people are held responsible for the choices they make. It is the primary motivator, for all but the altruistic, to do the right thing. Mr. Moffett, let me pass on some sage advice from my dad. As he was often wont to say, "Pay the two dollars!"	Administrator Posts: 2,647 Group: Editor-in-Chief Member #1 Joined: December 11, 2005



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · General, in the News · Next Topic »