UnionMom

One of the dish TV companies is hiring in the area. No experience needed ... paid training ... company truck ... I'll see if I can find the info again. ETA: Here are the details: Satellite TV Installer / Technician The Satellite TV Installer / Technician spearheads the installation, as well as assists with testing and repairing equipment that receives communication satellite signals for residential customers by performing the following duties: * Uses problem-solving and technical skills to install satellite dishes and related equipment * Evaluates job site to a

And what about the third guy that they let in?

And what if they were just reading a text? Still distracted but no proof from the phone company that they were doing anything. And with the laws and expectations of privacy we have, there would have to be an accident to justify going after records from the phone company. And even that may not fly for the voters.

exactly "No, your honor, I wasn't texting. I was just looking at the time."

car ... land for the homestead ... some investment properties ... an annuity or two to provide "guaranteed" annual income ...

I got what you said and there's no need to be an a$$ about any of it. I refuse to expect millions, or billions of dollars being wasted to prove what is obvious to most anyone with a pulse as a mandatory step in determining levels of the same issue. But isn't it one of the beautiful parts of our nation that you and I can continue to disagree?

And you really believe that texting is more dangerous than reading the morning paper or writing notes? Same thing. Where's the law for that? It's ridiculous. As a whole, drivers in the United States place just about everything but driving as a priority while driving. It's all dangerous and it all contributes to accidents. Driving should be the only focus while driving. Laws specific to some distractions when they are already covered is unnecessary.

I thought I was clear earlier about requiring more than just the act being needed to incur an offense. (Crossing the line, running a light, causing a wreck, etc.) And the IIHS has made it very clear over the years that a large number of wrecks are caused by distracted drivers. Have the tested the exact distraction level of all possible distractions? No. And as pointed out, there is already a law that covers this. It is nothing more than a feel good PR trip.

If they aren't behind O'Charley's, check behind Home Depot.

I'm saying that each distraction need not have its own law ... I'm saying that there need only be a penalty if the act results in a distraction that causes harm to others. And your "taking a drink" argument has nothing to do with DUI. That's the open container law. DUI has specific guidelines stated for officers ... criteria that must be met to justify the stop and the charge. There is no reason why a distracted driver statute couldn't have the similar criteria and cover all distractions. There is simply no reason to have so many laws covering the same basic issue. Distracted driving is

I think the sarcasm tags were needed.

So excited that you had to say it twice?

Darn it ... I can't get over there today. French onion soup and cheesecake bar sound soooooo good.

Or sushi. It's not easy using chopsticks while driving. Plus, you have to mix the wasabi in the soy for dipping. Very sad, indeed.

If your distraction causes a wreck, it was clearly a distraction. If it causes you to cross into another lane, it was clearly a distraction. If it causes you to make a left turn from the right lane, well ... that's a whole other issue. A police officer already has to articulate driving behavior for a DUI stop ... no real difference. Driving well below the speed limit ... swerving ... other clear driving behavior can clearly be established to support it. And how is a driver swerving due to texting any different from a driver swerving because they dropped their cigarette or their

So following that theory we should have different laws for murder by gun vs. murder by knife or poison ... or we should have different DUI laws for those drunk on liquor vs. those drunk on beer or wine. Distracted drivers are distracted drivers.

Buy printer ink and paper much? For the number of coupons that I regularly use, it would be more expensive for me to print all of my own coupons. Not to mention the uses that we have for the rest of the paper we get with the coupons.

Can't speak for Lisa but we use the paper in the rabbit cage ... for craft projects at home ... donate to school ... and if we actually end up with any more left after that, recycle. And getting the coupons in the paper is cheaper than printing them and takes less time.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a law ... I'm saying there should be just one. Other states have a "failure to maintain full time and attention" and actually, Georgia already has a law that these fall under. And I mentioned the breastfeeding thing because there was a story not all that long ago about a woman who was breastfeeding her infant while driving. Further evidence that the difference between genius and stupidity is that stupidity has no limits.

We do not need new laws for every new distraction that comes up for drivers. It's ridiculous. Across the board ... pay attention to your driving, not the other stuff. Get into a wreck because you are texting, talking, eating, applying make-up, breast feeding, changing a CD, or whatever ... one charge. Period. There is just no need for so many different laws covering the same basic issue.

They sell a lot of papers ... if they are in a good spot and can be there regularly. And they make 40%. I would think you'd do best to get in with somebody who is already doing it and work out a deal to have them get the papers for you. (You have to go get the papers and it's not really close.) You're certainly not getting rich off of it but it's income.

Bullock Manor

Yes, it is.

Prestige will never see another dollar from our family.

Nope, nobody's talking about it at all. link link link link