I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Checking on people's records of books borrowed from public libraries???

You don't consider that an attack on freedom? Not everybody can afford to buy books. It looks like one law for the rich and another one for the rest of us. You can buy your copy of Das Kapital in cash and not run the risk of being put on a list of undesirables.

Bush enacted the legislation, it matters not who first thought it up, but who decided to use it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Checking on people's records of books borrowed from public libraries???

izzythepush wrote:

You don't consider that an attack on freedom?

Yes; I don 't. Its not censorship.

izzythepush wrote:

Not everybody can afford to buy books.

I take it for an attack upon the privacy of Moslem terrorist cheapskates.

izzythepush wrote:

It looks like one law for the rich and another one for the rest of us.
You can buy your copy of Das Kapital in cash and not run the risk of being put on a list of undesirables.

Cheapskates of the world, unite! U have nothing to lose but your privacy.

izzythepush wrote:

Bush enacted the legislation, it matters not who first thought it up, but who decided to use it.

So, according to your vu,
Clinton was not complicit??
From that, I dissent. I blame them both.

( Note that Clinton "decided to use it." He was just waiting for a good excuse. )

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

A cheapskate is someone who chooses not to spend their wealth, not someone who has no wealth in the first place.

Americans who happen to be Moslems, should have exactly the same rights, and freedoms, as everyone else.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
Bush enacted the legislation, it matters not who first thought it up, but who decided to use it.
So, according to your vu,
Clinton was not complicit??
From that, I dissent. I blame them both.

( Note that Clinton "decided to use it." He was just waiting for a good excuse. )

Why don't you try using the same logic that you apply to firearms to legislation? If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then Clinton who thought up the legislation (gun) isn't guilty, it's Bush that used the legislation to kill freedom.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

WHAT freedom did W kill ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The freedom to go snoop free to the library for starters.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Essential liberty. Are you trying to claim that drunk driving is an essential liberty?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Essential liberty. Are you trying to claim that drunk driving is an essential liberty?

The freedom to be presume innocent unless proven otherwise just to start with.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Essential liberty. Are you trying to claim that drunk driving is an essential liberty?

The freedom to be presume innocent unless proven otherwise just to start with.

The freedom to live our lives without constant survaliance is another....

The freedom to live without a machine police force to enforce the rulers rules is another.....

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Apparently you also have the liberty to live in a fantasy world.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Apparently you also have the liberty to live in a fantasy world.

Sure....my expectation that America deliver on its promise made at founding is really out there in 2012.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Too bad you can't go back in time to that paradise-on-earth when the Constitution was ratified in 1787.

When there was no injustice, and all things were perfect.

Things have certainly gone to crap since then, with the Federal government interfering in things like water safety, food safety, drug safety, interstate highways, electrification, women's sufferage, emancipation, women's rights, civil rights....

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

dave will wanna go, too...

things were so much better back then.

except for no electricity. or personal transportation that didn't require regular feeding and leave a poop trail...

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

The freedom to be presume innocent unless proven otherwise just to start with.

That's true if one is arrested or charged with the crime of DUI. And evidence of such impairment is obtained by law enforvement and is necessary in order to convict.

But you have no "freedom" to drive drunk.

And your comments make little sense in the context of discussing the use of ignition interlock devices in the cases of those who have already been found guilty of DUI--which is how they are currently used. For those people, the ignition interlock allows them greater "freedom"--particularly the freedom to continue driving legally during a period when their license would otherwise be suspended. It demonstrates that the DUI driver is refraining from drinking and driving during an essentially probationary period, which helps to assure public safety, and it replaces other possible sanctions and sentence conditions which might be harsher and more of a heart-ship for the person who has committed a DUI.

I find your quoting the Founding Fathers about liberty rather absurd in the context of this discussion, since those men very much believed in the necessity of laws to promote the general welfare, and drunk driving laws certainly fall into that category. So, as usual, you are engaging in mindless, quite repetitive, babbling that has no rational connection to the topic, and seems mainly designed to disrupt discussion.

Someone who has violated DUI laws, and gotten themselves arrested, has already put aspects of their own liberty in jeopardy by not abiding by the laws governing the conditions under which driving is permissible. Driving is a privilege not a right, and when that privilege is abused there are consequences--and the DUI driver has subjected him/herself to those consequences. The way to avoid those consequences is to not drink and drive.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

FYI, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Were it a right, you would not have to pass a driving exam, or pass a vision test, in order to legally operate a motor vehicle.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Too bad you can't go back in time to that paradise-on-earth when the Constitution was ratified in 1787.

When there was no injustice, and all things were perfect.

Well the founding fathers was not using cell phone to track peoples millions of times a year without warrants.

Not to mentions not having less then one in ten getting a jury trial and punishing those who demand such a trial by overcharging them.

Rape was real rape not that she had been drinking and regret the sex afterward so the poor dear could not grant valid consent so it rape.

An no one was planning on putting interlock devices on their horses either. Very Happy

Oh there were not ten or more lobbyists for special interests for ever congressman.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

FYI, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Were it a right, you would not have to pass a driving exam, or pass a vision test, in order to legally operate a motor vehicle.

So long as 95% of Americans have no practical way to from point a to point b other than privately owned vehicle driving is more a right than a privilege.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The freedom to live without a machine police force to enforce the rulers rules is another.....

Sorry, the police force will enforce all traffic laws--including DUI laws--and it is rather absurd that you imagine you should be free from such enforcement.

Whenever you start whining about "the government", you sound more like a young adolescent railing against parental authority than an adult with a more mature and rational comprehension of the need for laws, and, in the case of traffic laws, it is really quite easy to comprehend the need in terms of public safety.

You really don't deal with reality very well. You apparently don't even know of effective ways to contact your elected state representitives, or how to participate in registering your opinion when proposed legislation is up for discussion, so you actually remove yourself from the real process of government prefering instead to whine on internet threads about "the state" ignoring you. The state you live in has made changes to their DUI laws very recently, and you could have become involved with those issues and contributed to the public dialogue when it was taking place, but you seem to have made no effort to do that. If you don't try to participate in government, it will move along without you. Right now, you live with the traffic laws the majority of your fellow citizens in the state of Washington want to have--and they want those traffic laws enforced. That's something you'll just have to learn to live with.

Quote:

So long as 95% of Americans have no practical way to from point a to point b other than privately owner vehicle driving is more a right than a privilege.

No, it is a privilege--and maintaining that privilege involves compliance with traffic laws. If drivers do not comply, licenses to drive can be suspended or revoked.

You really can't deal with reality.

1 Reply

@firefly,

I will never learn to live with injustice and abuse. I will resist to my very last breath.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I will never learn to live with injustice and abuse. I will resist to my very last breath.

You're not a champion of justice, you're a rather paranoid fool who constantly thinks he is being victimized and abused.

Go ahead and "resist"--if you think it will get you anywhere. But go do it in real life instead of by rather pointless, constant whining on the internet about how you are being "abused". You have the same one vote as everyone else--use it.

And I fail to see how you are being abused by laws to deter drinking and driving.

1 Reply

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know