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.
Sorry, Badeye, you are mistaken.
The SCOTUS has ruled that random stops are unreasonable. (DELAWARE v. PROUSE, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) They allow for formal road blocks where all drivers are checked but not for officers randomly stopping automobiles without probable cause in order to search and/or question the driver.
You want to finish this post of yours, now?
Maybe address the lower court rulings that haven’t been overturned SINCE that 1979 ruling, perhaps?
You know what I’m saying here if you have that one at your fingertips.
You could have made your point in a clever way. This would have been much better without the word sorry.
In my opinion which is not worth the paper it is not written on, misuse of the word “sorry” is particularly annoying. I’m so sick of it being used in this manner. Sometimes people shorten “I’m sorry” to just “Sorry but...” How annoying.
Sorry has lost it’s meaning so much.
Great points you have, just sickening to read in this format.
sorry you feel that way.
:)
You crack me up with that “Francis”!!
What can I say, I’m easy.
‘Random searches are UNREASONABLE, regardless of circumstance.’
Courts have found otherwise, as you know.
‘I suppose you support the ludicrous random searches at the airports, too, when we all know the most likely terror perpetrators are young arab-type males.’
Nope, I find that absolutely ridiculous. And I ask that before you write another post to me you back off on ‘guessing’ what I think, and instead just ask me. Pretty sure you’ll find with this exception we agree on most issues, I’ve seen your posts in the forum on a wide variety of other topics.
Sorry about that. I’ll try to do better next time.
Um, I think he was using a bit of literary licesnse to a) interject some humour and b) illustrate some points.
I ask again: Did horse-riders and drivers have to be even licensed, much less pulled over to see if they were drunk?
I understand you had a personal tie to this issue - but that is exactly what the OP was about. “I’m sorry this happened, but that doesn’t mean you get to do this.” Such is emotional argument.
As for your pounding on the “precedent” stuff - how long has this been precedent? Bet not long, maybe 50 years. And even if it was 200 years (doubt), what makes you think that they were all right - especially given the courts’ prediliction for “going on precedent”!?
We all are very aware how liberal judges are too, as a whole, so I have very little faith in “courts’ precedent” based on that alone.
He doesn’t state that he has the ‘right’ to drive.
Interestingly enough, during the horse-and-buggy days, the courts took on this question and determined that we DO have a right to drive. That’s been interpreted to mean “as long as there’s a horse pulling the carriage”. Somewhere between the horses and the reciprocating engine, the guvmint decided this is no longer a right but a privilege. I guess one could say he’s sorry about that as well.
To me, the idiot drunk drivers are not the ones out there being given criminal records for being at a .08 level. They are not a danger to the public. The ones who are killing people will have double or triple that amount in their system. Personally, I believe the police will get more dangerous drivers off the road on any given day by putting out teams of well trained observant officers than by putting up these checkpoints.
I imagine that if a police officer had saw this kid, there likely would’ve been probably cause for his erratic driving. That hardly would’ve constituted a random stop.
I’m sorry, but, would that be a chocolate chip cookie, by any chance? If so, don’t forget the milk.:)
I know that it’s the new fashion on FR to blame everything one considers bad on Bush, but Muslims have been flooding into this country since long before Bush’s watch, spud.
“I think drunk drivers that kill innocent people are in fact ‘murderers’ especially when its not the first time they’ve been busted driving drunk.”
Is everyone in the US or any given state molested to make sure they aren’t murderers?
No.
Even if it's for the childern?
Not at all true. There is absolutely no basis for that belief, except liberal rulings of the last century. Otherwise, we have no property rights - and never did.
Someone always has a personal anecdote relating to why this or that should be illegal. They mean nothing to me.
Yeah, what you're saying is that government authorities don't even have to follow prevailing SCOTUS decisions if it doesn't suit them .. and that you're OK with that.
Follow that slippery slope to it's logical conclusion ...
Where are we going ... and what's this hand-basket we're in.
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.