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.
Emotionalism is a poor basis for public policy.
It’s also the basis for the nanny state.
Lack of emotion is far more frightening that ‘emotionalism’. Primarily because its the hallmark of sociopaths.
Ironic, the use of ‘nanny’ in this context....a nanny is a poor replacement for a dead father, wouldn’t you agree?
And he’s dead because somebody got drunk, and drove - into his living room.
Damn right its ‘emotional’.
You keep repeating the anecdote about some fellow who was killed by a drunk driver like it excuses your support of nanny-statism. People die every day from a number of things. That doesn't mean that we need to ban guns, knives, swimming pools, or 5-gallon paint buckets.
The law should be based on reason rather than emotion. Your emotionalism on this subject blinds you to the fact that MADD and other neo-prohibitionists are using this emotionalism to make bad policy that adversely effects us all. You are perfectly free to not drink and drive. What is unfortunate is that your emotionalism has been used to create arbitrary, and sometimes non-sensical law on the subject. There was an article here on FR a few days ago about a fellow that was arrested for DUI because he was asleep in a car in a parking lot and he'd left the car on to keep from freezing to death.
Here we have a guy who was intoxicated, realized his impairment, and pulled off the road so that he wouldn't endanger others, yet because of the lunacy surrounding this issue, he was penalized by the state for exercizing good judgement. He'd have been much better off had he simply driven home drunk, because chances are, he'd have made it just fine.
I'm sick to death of the nanny state and those who support it.
“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”
And you’re a twit.
Actually, I keep asking posters like yourself what you would do to address the problem.
Its telling how active this thread was up until that question was asked. Suddenly, all the internet ‘constitutional scholars’ have gone silent - with a couple of appreciated exceptions.
you can drop the ridiculous assertion about my supporting a ‘nanny state’. I’ll attribute this absurd claim to a lack of knowledge about my views across the spectrum on any other issue....and say you have nothing to support such a misleading claim based on anything I’ve written in this forum over the course of the past seven years.
Charge those who are endangering others. There are laws against reckless endangerment.
‘Charge those who are endangering others. There are laws against reckless endangerment.’
The statistics from when that was ‘all’ that was done show it to be ineffective.
Any other idea? I’m serious asking this.
Several people (including myself) have answered your query but you have ignored their answers.
I never drink, FYI. I hate alcohol. It’s 1 of the most overrated things, ever. You get out of control and it doesn’t taste good, either.
But, as much as I’d personally see it banned, period, I know that’s not right, and not every person who likes some alcohol is a drunkard (I don’t use PC terms like “alcoholic” - I like old-fashioned pointed terminology).
The statistics from when that was ‘all’ that was done show it to be ineffective.
Any other idea? I’m serious asking this.
"Ineffective" as compared to what? I'm sure that posting cameras in people's homes would be effective in reducing all kinds of crime. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Personally, I think the danger to the public of "drunk driving" is vastly overblown. As has been shown in previous posts, DUI checkpoints are primarily about raising revenue.
I think the far greater threat is that these checkpoints get the public used to having police stop and "show their papers" on demand. Used to be when you saw that in stories or movies, it indicated a police state. Now, we're supposed to accept it as good public policy. Sorry, but some of us are more serious about our freedom than that.
He told you - “it’s in the last 3 lines”. Bottom line, just like mine - getting them when they’re apparently drunk. Cops watching bars might be a particularly good idea.
“As for checkpoints, no. It makes as much sense to go through the whole rigamarole of collecting nail clippers or strip searching some norwegian granny in a wheelchair before she gets on the plane to keep us ‘safe’ from terrorists. All it is is window dressing so the usual suspects can’t whine about being singled out—if they even are.
“For that, the rest of us pay in time, aggravation and the gross invasion of our privacy.”
I’ve mentioned this as well, and I might also specify that it is MORE EFFICIENT (time, $$$$, etc - i.e., cost) to NOT waste effort on “just anybody” - random, or every single person coming through.
It is a waste of tax dollars - ours - to have a bunch of cops or TSA agents in 1 place checking even just “every 5th person”, much less “every person”, without regard to “probable cause”. 1 in 500 is not good odds. But if you hone it down to those who look suspicious - much better results and no wasted resources.
‘Several people (including myself) have answered your query but you have ignored their answers.’
Not to anyone’s satisfaction, to be blunt. Most of whats been offered up is what wasn’t working in the first place.
‘I think the far greater threat is that these checkpoints get the public used to having police stop and “show their papers” on demand. Used to be when you saw that in stories or movies, it indicated a police state. Now, we’re supposed to accept it as good public policy.’
Bravo. Exactly.
The “papers” in this case being “your privilege to drive or even have this car on the road”. ;-)
Most places have “dis”incentives in place to deter establishments from overserving patrons, such as fines, loss of alcohol license, etc. How about looking into incentives to these establishments to provide some type of shuttle service or partnership with local cab companies.
I livein a very rural area. One very popular spot for live entertainment is doing just that. Any patron who wishes a ride home, gets one, at no charge. It has become so popular that if you have a group of folks you can call ahead and they will actually come and pick you up at a pre-arranged time. They started out doing the ride in just a 10 mile radius, they have no expanded it to just about anywhere in the county. So if I happen to be in there and realize I’ve had too much to drink they will drive me home, even though I live a good 20 miles away.
I understand other establishments in the area are also looking into providing similar services.
Will this get all drunks off the road? Of course not, but neither do the road blocks, and encouraging establishments to do something like this would be far less intrusive to law abiding citizens and probably cost far less than the DUI checkpoints.
I understand
I never drink, FYI. I hate alcohol. It’s 1 of the most overrated things, ever. You get out of control and it doesn’t taste good, either.
But, as much as I’d personally see it banned, period, I know that’s not right, and not every person who likes some alcohol is a drunkard (I don’t use PC terms like “alcoholic” - I like old-fashioned pointed terminology).
Fair enough, to each his or her own. Personally, I like a couple of cocktails with friends, but never when I’m driving. I know the wreckage thats irreversible from that poor choice, and how many lives it effects...or ends completely.
(ack I cut off the rest of my post)
The last sentence should read:
I undertand a number of other popular spots are looking into providing a similar service.
‘I think the far greater threat is that these checkpoints get the public used to having police stop and “show their papers” on demand. ‘
Oookay....(chuckle)
‘He told you - “it’s in the last 3 lines”. ‘
Yes he did. I was looking for a new idea on how to address the problem.
I live in a very rural area as well. I don’t know how viable a shuttle service would be in areas like yours and mine, but within larger urban centers it makes perfect sense.
Thanks.
Yep. It had the added benefit of having a moving police presence as well, instead of tying up a bunch of officers at a set location which can be avoided. Within a half hour or less, the word will be ‘out’ as to where the checkpoints are anyway.
‘Within a half hour or less, the word will be ‘out’ as to where the checkpoints are anyway.’
Right, cause we all know drunks listen closely to such things while drinking heavily in a bar with loud music and cheap wimmin....(chuckle)
Yep, its at the forefront of their brains the whole time!
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.