taterhill Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Doggy seatbelts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Doggy seatbelts? 375508[/snapback] Dog owners ought to care enough to make their pets safe, but we already have enough freakin' laws to deal with. Please stop! PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 on the advice of an 11-year-old constituent. Are you really a constituent if you can't vote? From the dictionary: constituent: one who authorizes another to act as agent If you can't vote, you can't authorize another to act as an agent, and therefore this kid isn't a constituent. So stop considering the stupid law. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 My dog bakc home loves to have her head out the window...its called air...and shes smart enough to know not to jump out of a moving vehicle at 45mph... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Are you really a constituent if you can't vote? From the dictionary: constituent: one who authorizes another to act as agent If you can't vote, you can't authorize another to act as an agent, and therefore this kid isn't a constituent. So stop considering the stupid law. CW 375527[/snapback] ...but their parents are constituents. Act nice to the kiddies and the parents like you. Parents like you, they may vote for you. Being nice to one kid could get you two votes. Now, couple that with the dog lovers vote. Show that you care about dogs and their safety, and you could swing their vote in your favor. People like seeing a family man/woman as their representative. You also score more brownie points if you have pets. It is all about appearances. See where I am going with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 See where I am going with this? 375535[/snapback] I see where you're going with it, and I realize why the politician is bringing this up, but the kid still isn't a constituent like the article says he is. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 ...but their parents are constituents. Act nice to the kiddies and the parents like you. Parents like you, they may vote for you. Being nice to one kid could get you two votes. Now, couple that with the dog lovers vote. Show that you care about dogs and their safety, and you could swing their vote in your favor. People like seeing a family man/woman as their representative. You also score more brownie points if you have pets. It is all about appearances. See where I am going with this? 375535[/snapback] I think, also, that a bunch of kids are getting a pretty good first-hand lesson on how laws are enacted. Can't speak for everyone, but at the age of 11 I had to figure it out by singing a song from The Electric Company, and even then it took me another year to figure out that elected officials weren't cartoon characters...followed by 20 years later when I realize that most of them ARE, in fact, cartoon characters. Maybe Stevenson knew what he wanted to do all along from a schmoozing standpoint, but the fact is, this is a pretty cool idea in terms of educating kids about government operations. One of them may grow up to be a Governor, Senator, Supreme Court Justice. Or if they're really lucky, they can grow up to be some who spends a good portion of their life battling the proliferation of WMDs. Stop seeing the law as worthless and start seeing it for what it is to the 11-year-old and his classmates. A really cool opportunity. (That didn't come out right. I didn't mean to imply you had a problem with the law, Ken. I mean in general.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I see where you're going with it, and I realize why the politician is bringing this up, but the kid still isn't a constituent like the article says he is. CW 375543[/snapback] Believe or not this post made me feel a little better. I did not read the link, but thought that someone was calling the dogs constituents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 there ought to be a law contest. that says it all right there. what was last years winner? ban nose rings in public?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I see where you're going with it, and I realize why the politician is bringing this up, but the kid still isn't a constituent like the article says he is. CW 375543[/snapback] A journalist not having their facts correct? Never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I think, also, that a bunch of kids are getting a pretty good first-hand lesson on how laws are enacted. Can't speak for everyone, but at the age of 11 I had to figure it out by singing a song from The Electric Company, and even then it took me another year to figure out that elected officials weren't cartoon characters...followed by 20 years later when I realize that most of them ARE, in fact, cartoon characters. Maybe Stevenson knew what he wanted to do all along from a schmoozing standpoint, but the fact is, this is a pretty cool idea in terms of educating kids about government operations. One of them may grow up to be a Governor, Senator, Supreme Court Justice. Or if they're really lucky, they can grow up to be some who spends a good portion of their life battling the proliferation of WMDs. Stop seeing the law as worthless and start seeing it for what it is to the 11-year-old and his classmates. A really cool opportunity. (That didn't come out right. I didn't mean to imply you had a problem with the law, Ken. I mean in general.) 375545[/snapback] It is a good way to educate the kids on laws are made. It is also a good way to show them that there are WAY too many laws on the books and that it is very easy for a politician to slowly strip away your individual freedoms and to infringe on your way of life with over-regulation. Take away from it what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I don't think it should be mandatory. I did strap in one dog my family owned whenever I took her anywhere though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I don't think it should be mandatory. I did strap in one dog my family owned whenever I took her anywhere though. 376054[/snapback] Yeah, but tying your ex-girlfriend's weirdo mom's obnoxiously loud puntable to the bumper just before speeding off isn't exactly in the spirit of the proposed law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brihs2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Doesn't our roadkill post show that it may be better to have big fences along the sides of every road to help save more animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts