I'm sorry, but...

09/18/2007 | Philistone

[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.

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

I take it back-I just checked, and you WERE the one who said you didn’t mind all the cameras. So my comment was directed at you. That’s the problem with a lengthy thread,you tend to get people’s comments confused. Either way, I’m out of it, as you and Badass will never change your point of view. Adios. Enjoy the cameras in your workplace crapper. Nothing to worry about.

[Kevmo]

You two seem pretty knowledgeable about this subject. That link that elk4 posted looks like it’s suitable as its own thread. I’ve certainly heard this urban legend often enough. Whaddya say?

[William Terrell]

Let me clarify my stance.

I'd rather see 100,000 children a year mashed to bloody bits by drunk drivers than seen one tiny freedom of Americans even perceived to have been turned into a privilege.

Do you understand the principle that, that by baby steps, a free country can be turned into a tyranny, not unlike the Soviet Union, by erosion and precedence to the tune of heartstrings?

If you want to keep your freedom you had better be willing to see a few people die needlessly than see millions die needfully.

[zeugma]

 You two seem pretty knowledgeable about this subject. That link that elk4 posted looks like it’s suitable as its own thread. I’ve certainly heard this urban legend often enough. Whaddya say?

 If this is the one you're talking about, it could probably do with a thread, though it will probably be banished to bloggers.

Driving is a Right - Not a Privilege

 

I've pretty much given up on trying to beat the concept of liberty into folks who think that the state has the right to decide whether or not I can travel.
 

It gets tiring, and most folks don't want to hear it anyway. THey are comfortable in their chains. See this thread for a couple of examples. There are more statists here on FR than you'd think if you thought that conservatives are supposed to support personal responsibility. 

[zeugma]

Let me clarify my stance.

I'd rather see 100,000 children a year mashed to bloody bits by drunk drivers than seen one tiny freedom of Americans even perceived to have been turned into a privilege.

Do you understand the principle that, that by baby steps, a free country can be turned into a tyranny, not unlike the Soviet Union, by erosion and precedence to the tune of heartstrings?

If you want to keep your freedom you had better be willing to see a few people die needlessly than see millions die needfully.

 

Nice to see someone else who understands the concept.

Freedom isn't easy. Or free. 

[elkfersupper]

That link that elk4 posted looks like it’s suitable as its own thread. I’ve certainly heard this urban legend often enough. Whaddya say?

I've tried that before-actually for years on end.

People just don't care.

Knock yourself out. I will show up for support, I'm just really tired of arguing with people who won't read or comprehend. I don't really know why I spent so much time on this thread.

Thank you.

[Kevmo]

All the more reason to start a thread. The next time you run into one of these nanny statists that insist driving is a privilege, just include the link. Should save time & frustration.

[Shadowstrike]

Sorry, I did not say that I didn’t mind the cameras, I do to a point, I only asked what you would suggest instead.

It’s only discussion. Have a coke and a smile, and watch your blood pressure.

[elkfersupper]

I would like to hear your suggestions then for dealing with drunk drivers.

Define "drunk".

[elkfersupper]

Bravo!

[dcwusmc]

This is not a drunk-driving protection lobby. This is a pro-Constitution, pro-Liberty forum, where ANYONE who would shred the Constitution for any reason is shunned as a statist moron. I care not HOW worthy your cause is, if it does not fit within the specific limits on governmental authority granted by the Constitution, then as far as I am concerned, it is OUTTA here. If you have to violate the rights of the many in order to catch the few, then I have no use for you. Find a way that is Constitutional and I might just be on your side.

[caver]

Hey I like that! I haven’t seen it before.

[Badeye]

‘When they can post, I’ll consider that. Til then, I want drunk drivers off the road my any means possible.
Okay, here we go again. Define “drunk”.’

We both know the level is different for each person. .08 is the limit in most states from what I’ve seen and read.

That said....after considering every post directed my way on this topic, on this thread.....I can see the arguement about ‘incrementalism’. And I can also see the validity of the assertion its inefficent (Checkpoints) to a certain extent.

I’m in a better frame of mind to fairly consider the opposition to my view on this, in short.

[Badeye]

‘Do you understand the principle that, that by baby steps, a free country can be turned into a tyranny, not unlike the Soviet Union, by erosion and precedence to the tune of heartstrings?’

Yep. Do you understand how insulting it is to assert thats the only reason people feel so strongly about idiot drunk drivers?

That said....everybody on this thread has caused me to reconsider my view on this.

As you might imagine, thats quite an ‘accomplishment’ based on my posts from yesterday.

[Badeye]

‘This is not a drunk-driving protection lobby. This is a pro-Constitution, pro-Liberty forum, where ANYONE who would shred the Constitution for any reason is shunned as a statist moron’

I’m not a ‘statist’ and hardly a ‘moron’. And might I suggest you note the posts from today, under my screen name on this topic before you lose all sense of control, and escalate the name calling?

Hope you do...but if you don’t, no big thing. Others have a more civil approach thats made some points with me as to reconsidering my viewpoint.

It was helpful they kept the name calling to a minimum. You might note that.

Peace.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Badeye, let me see if I can explain this to you logically without calling you third grade names like poopyface:

The ultimate problem with the agenda afflicted social engineers is that they are never satisfied when their Public Service Announcements and incrementalism only reduce the problem significantly. They see it as a sign that what they are doing has worked and if they do more they can completely illiminate the problem.

For example, the anti tobacco jihadists weren't satisfied that warning labels only reduced cigarette smoking from 50% of the population to 25%. They needed a way to coerce the other 25% who won't get with the program to quit too, thus the idea to kick them out of their favorite bars, parks, stadiums, beaches and restaurants and charge them $9/per pack so they would have no choice but to quit.

The PSA's against drunk driving have had a dramatic effect on public tolerance for DWI. It's no longer seen as the equivalent to a speeding ticket, but as a serious criminal offense.

But MADD and other groups will never stop until there is 0 drunk driving. Which is impossible, but it won't stop them from using the scorched Earth theory in trying.

Back Door to Prohibition: The New War on Social Drinking: A great piece by Radley Balko who is the editor of Cato.org and a columnist for FoxNews.com. Read his blog "The Agitator", it's great.

Let's have a toast! Now that the smelly smokers are gone from the bar, we can have a few pints without that annoying, stinky smell of tobacco smoke. We're fine. The Government never has and never will go after alcohol....NOT!

Behind the Neo-Prohibition Campaign The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: The Center For Consumer Freedom will help to explain why non-smokers who like Sam Adams or Jimmy Beam have nothing to worry about. It's not as if RWJF, a key group behind the anti-tobacco crusade, has them in their sights. You can rest easy.

Colleges are reaching their limit on alcohol : You're in the stands watching the USC-UCLA game at the Rose Bowl. How about an ice cold beer? Bwa,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!! Not for you my friend. Don't be surprised when you go to the Ballpark to watch your favorite team in the future and find no beer for sale. Can't say I didn't warn you.

Single Glass of Wine Immerses D.C. Driver in Legal Battle: We all agree that the drunk driver with a .45 BAC who kills a family of 5 by plowing into them while going the wrong way down a highway should be put away for life. However, under the category of "this could be you", read this before you take a sip of wine at your cousin's wedding, especially if it happens to be in the capital of our great nation.

Arresting Drinkers...In Bars: Let me repeat this for maximum effect: Arresting Drinkers...In Bars.

[Badeye]

Just don’t call me Shirley....(chuckle)

I understand what your saying. And while I agree you can’t stop all DUI’s, you can make it socially unacceptable. For decades ‘drunks’ were used as comedic props, from ‘Otis’ on the Andy Griffith show on down the line. Just an example, and while that hasn’t been the ‘norm’ for quite a while, many of us were raised with it as ‘the norm’.

Personally, I think if we got ‘medieval’ on the repeat offenders, while we wouldn’t acheive the ‘0 drunk drivers’ as you note, we could seriously cut into the numbers related to ‘repeat offenders’.

Its my view the second time you get busted for DUI, you go to jail for a year. No time off for good behavior (bizzare concept if there ever was one) no parole, and no judicial latitude at all.

Third time? Remove the idiots eyesight....if he can then find the car...okay.

I know, I know, thats draconian as hell.

But these repeat offenders don’t give a damn if they kill themselves, let alone you or I, or those we hold dear.

thanks for the links, thanks for the civility. Wanna hit the bar?

(just kidding)

[Eric Blair 2084]

I think you have already achieved your agenda.

Social engineering and PSA’s have already reduced the public acceptance of drunk driving. I don’t know the law in other states but in the DPRNJ, you lose your license for 6 months after the first conviction. 2nd conviction carries a mandatory jail sentence. 3rd conviction, I think the punishment is really harsh...like crucifixion or they shove a living snake up your ass...something like that.

What we are up against right now is groups like MADD and CSPI who make their living feeding off the Gubmint Tit and grant money.

They will never, ever stop promoting and lobbying for more Draconian measures...otherwise they would have to get a real job. It’s their gravy train. Their meal ticket.

What I think others here have asked you repeatedly is to “define drunk driving”. .08 is an arbitrary number that MADD pulled out of their ass and was rammed into a federal transportation bill a couple of decades ago. It was .10. Why not .04. How about .001? How about 0.00 like in DC?

[Eric Blair 2084]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1899653/posts

This just came over the General/chat newswire...drunk man stuck in chimney.

[Badeye]

I think you see way to much stuff ‘between the lines’ for your own good, but its okay.

I did address the question about my view on the limit set at .08 up above. I graduated from the Police Academy two decades ago, and was certfied as a operator of the old breathalyser machine.

The fact is every human reacts differently to various amounts of alcohol in their bloodstream, and the variables are compounded by a dozen other factors, including how much you ate in a given day, your own body weight/mass, etc etc etc.

I don’t have an ‘agenda’ as you put it.

I have a deep, visceral hatred of Drunk Drivers. Specifically those that ‘repeat’.

Like just about everybody else, I was once young, and yep I know there were times I drove when I absolutely had no business doing so. As the saying goes, youth is wasted on the young....(chuckle)

I was exceedingly LUCKY. As were those that passed me on the highway/street.

I’ve never had a DUI.

I did, however, have my eyes forced wide open to the danger, as I related above yesterday.

I want repeat offenders stopped. Don’t you? We can quibble about the ‘how’ but I think I’m safe saying we agree on the ‘stop them’ part, can’t we?

It could be you, or me, that gets killed today or tonight by one of these idiots. Or somebody each of us cares about dearly.