Posted on 09/18/2007 9:39:52 AM PDT by Philistone
I'm sorry that your child was killed by a drunk driver, but that doesn't give you the right to pull my car over at random and search me or it.
I'm sorry that your father died of lung cancer at the age of 60, but that doesn't give you the right to tell me I can't smoke in my own house or car.
I'm sorry that your best friend died of a heart-attack after eating nothing but Big Macs all his life, but that doesn't give you the right to tell me that I can't eat fats if I want to.
I'm sorry that you were raised to be squeamish at the sight of blood, but that does not give you the right to force me to eat only vegetables or wear only plant fibers.
I'm sorry that you can't afford health insurance, but that does not give you the right to force me to provide it for you.
I'm sorry that over 150 years ago people with the same color skin as me enslaved people with the same color skin as you, but that doesn't give you the right take the hard-earned efforts of my labor for yourself.
I'm sorry that your homeland is corrupt and your culture has no work ethic, but that doesn't give you the right to come here illegally and burden our schools and emergency rooms with your presence.
I'm sorry that your parents chose to come here illegally, but that doesn't give you the right to force me to fund your college education.
I'm sorry that you find it fashionable to ride your bike to work, but that doesn't give you the right to take away my car.
I'm sorry that your lack of intelligence and attention through high school and college left you fit only for a job as a public school teacher, but that doesn't give you the right to inflict your anger and ideology on my child.
I'm sorry that you are mentally and physically unfit to serve in our nation's Armed Forces, but that does not give you the right to disparage those who are fit and do serve.
I'm sorry that your parents and teachers continually told you that you are unique and special, but you are not.
I'm sorry that the jocks stuffed you in your locker in high school, but that doesn't give you the right to equate my President with Hitler.
I'm sorry that you failed Trigonometry, but that doesn't give you the right to equate Sociology with Engineering
I'm sorry that you are not as attractive as other women, but that does not give you the right to impose your feminist idiocracy on me, my company or my family.
I'm sorry that your nervous system is so exquisitely sensitive that you can be hurt by minute variations in air pressure caused by sound waves, but that doesn't give you the right to determine what I can and can not say.
I'm sorry that your enormous ego coupled with a complete lack of self-esteem, lack of any sense of self-worth and ignorance about how the real world works has led you to becoming a Liberal, but... Well, no buts. I'm not really sorry.
Remember: Anyone who tells you "it's for the children" believes that YOU are a child.
I’m not either. I’d rather we execute drunk drivers after the third offense...but too many pols drive drunk apparently.
Is it you routinely drive drunk that has you so upset with my viewpoint?
I’ve never run into a drunk driving online community before now.....(chuckle)
You do have constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Courts say otherwise, so its both the judicial system and me thats wrong in your opinion.
I was hoping you’d see this one. ;)
‘hah hah, that’s pretty funny.’
thanks, I thought so. The question becomes if there is an accident, is it homeowner insurance, or vehicle?
‘Stop insulting my liberties ‘
When they can post, I’ll consider that. Til then, I want drunk drivers off the road my any means possible.
I have a highball or three almost every evening. In my home.
Why do people have to go to a bar, get loaded routinely and then drive?
‘Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong.’
Tell it to the court system, and every state that issues drivers license. They all seem to support my viewpoint, not yours.
As I noted above, this is the first time I’ve ever run into a online pro drunk driving community.
Very odd.
‘That’s it and all... That you would trash it when it suited your wants speaks volumes about you... and not one syllable of it any good. And driving would be covered under the Ninth Amendment...’
I’m okay with it ‘speaking volumes about me’.
You see, I won’t hide behind obscure, ridiculous assertions when it comes to drunk drivers....and again, I’ve never run into a ‘pro drunk driving lobby’ online before.
This is a new experience in short.
‘Well, it’s rather obvious to me you’ve had a family member or loved one killed by a DD. But that taints your idea of freedom. Yes, I do agree they should be taken off the road, but that’s not what he was talking about.’
Yep, it does ‘taint me’. The people I know of personally that have been killed by Drunk Drivers lost all their freedom....funny how the ‘constitutionalists’ on this thread haven’t mentioned THEIR RIGHTS, eh?
And thats where this ‘fighting for the Constitution!’ (Gee, where have we heard that as an excuse for bad behavior...) falls apart on the rocky shore of reality.
You seem to be the one with the problem.
Not one post on this thread is “pro drunk driving”.
They are are non gestapo,non nanny state posts, unlike yours.
(chuckle)
No big deal, that laughable assertion just lets me know I’m dealing with a amature.
Unfortunately, they are in the minority.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
All government teachers fall into two groups:
1) The smart government teachers are Marxists.
2) The dumb government teachers ( most) are Useful Idiots. ( I call them Useful Dimwits)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Did they teach Armchair Psychology 101 in your College of Education? Surely you would never do this to innocent, naive, and vulnerable students. ( sarc off)
‘Not one post on this thread is “pro drunk driving”.’
Sure doesn’t read that way between the lines. I’ve never seen so many well thought out excuses for drunks driving in my life to date.
And btw, I have no use for anyone misusing terms like ‘Gestapo’. Thats always a red flag in these forums denoting hysteria in my experience...or a simple ignorance of what the Gestapo actually did, which is so over the top using it to describe a debate about traffic laws it defies the rational mind.
Lighten up, you insult the millions killed by those monsters by the misuse of the term.
By saying there is no right, this immediately becomes, by default, a permission and privilege granted by the law making body. You are coming from the perception you have assumed from repeated repetitions by public officials that "driving is a privilege".
Nothing can be farther from the truth. It is just what they say.
Emotionalism is a poor basis for public policy.
It's also the basis for the nanny state.
Uh, I'm not going to defend Bush for much of anything these days, but it wasn't his father that brought us the insane war on drugs we're saddled with. I believe the phrase was coined during Nixon's term, but it could easily be older.
In a truly free nation, there CAN BE NO GUARANTEES -at least not 100%. There will always be a certain amount of risk. Life with 100% chance of no risk is not freedom. Those ‘spot checks’ NEVER get drunk drivers, but instead make money for the state by issuing tickets for other things. Example: Here in my area, they had a checkpoint set up recently-lasted all weekend, Friday through Sunday.
ONE person was nailed for dui. However-oner 300 citations were issued, from expired licenses to a light burned out, to a loud muffler, etc;etc. THAT’S what they’re really for-a ‘revenue enhancer’. Had all those same cops been out patrolling the streets like they were originally intended to, how many drunks do you think they could’ve caught, just by seeing them weave? Wouldn’t have been as profitable, though. Cops, like the government they serve, don’t give a shit about your ‘health’ or safety. These days, all they exist for is to make bucks for the state/locality/town. I’m through arguing about it with Badeye, because he, like the other anti-drunk driver on FR-that calls himself QUIX-he’s incapable of conducting a reasonable discussion on it, but instead immediately turns to wiseass comments and insults. It wouldn’t surprise me if it WAS Quix operating under an alias, their styles are so similar. NO ONE here is ‘pro drunk driving’, and that’s an idiotic comment intended to stifle differences of opinion.
If you look into the history of drivers licences, you'll find they were initially a commercial license for truckers. The theory was that while your average citizen has a right to drive in his private capacity, this isn't extended to those using the public roads for commerce (truckers). Unions supported this, as it was a early way of restricting the job markets. Eventually, though with that camel's nose under the tent, the government kept expanding the definition of who needed to be 'licensed' and also worked hard on the propaganda mills to convince people the common law right to travel, which was a cherished right of englishmen for centuries prior didn't actually exist.
Today, it's not really an issue I'll argue because the propaganda has worked so well, that it's just not worth it. People think they have to ask permission of the government to use the public roads. They are secure in their shackles and won't be released from them.
Emotionalism is a poor basis for public policy.
It’s also the basis for the nanny state.
Truest statement on this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.