CSM, I will ask you this. Cut the number from over 17 thousand a year to 5 thousand, saying those are results of strictly drunk drivers by anyones standards.
This is saying that the 17 thousand number is over 300% the actual drunk driver numbers. Do you honestly think that number is augmented THAT much? Or More?
Isn't it true that 5000 dead as a result of drunk driving enough to do something about it? If you oppose the current 'what' that is being done, what is your alternative solution?
I thought being a freeper was keeping the debate real. To keep this debate real, that is to say OPPOSITE of democrat ANTI THIS ANTI THAT policy. I thought being a freeper meant being FOR something rather than opposing something. Am I wrong there?
I thought being a freeper was about callingout the bogus and offering up the truth....the positive instead of the negative.
Financial ruin obviously ins't enough to keep all people from drinking and driving. I would offer to you that the amount of the fine doesn't matter when people attempt to take the position that there is nothing wrong with doing it. The truth shows clearly that there is something wrong with doing it. I offer that people need to just accept that there is something wrong with doing it.
People say it is wrong to financially ruin a drunk driver. How about the people they hurt and kill? How about their financial ruin? Where is the protection from financial ruin in those folks argument when put to the victim rather than the offender?
I offer that as pals make themselves the victims, as terrorists make themselves the victims, drunk drivers also make themselves out to be the victims.
Where are the numbers generated for the positives of drinking and driving? You are more than happy to attack the negatives andd say they aren't true, say they are augmented, faked or some such things.
I offer to you that is akin to dems saying BUSH LIED and MISLEAD us into war. It is the same tactic, opposition without alternative solution.
When seeking to debunk someones argument, the most effective way to do it is to provide alternative solution and show why it is better.
So what is your alternative to stop so many from being killed or hurt each year? How would you express the reality that so many die simply as a result of a poor choice to drink and drive?
I offer that A first time offender, with .08 being the BAC standard, should lose ability to drive AT ALL for five years. That means NO Work permits. If they kill a person the offender is to pay the amount of the persons salary to that persons remaining family and this could be handled much as child support is today. ( this would remove the claims about augmenting budgets for politicians and remove the civil court action).
A second time offender should spend time in jail. Supervision and probation is a farce.
In LA they have sent the message to criminals that if they run AND FAST, they will not be chased. Financial penalty as it is today for DUI is akin to the same thing, if people have the money it isn't painful or punishment at all. More just a pain in the rear.
Sorry for ranting a bit here, but this issue hits me close to home. I see people opposing drinking and driving laws in so many ways, while I see noone argue this from the merits of drinking and driving. That to me is just like the democrats politics of today of OPPOSE BUSH.
If there are merits to drinking and driving I sure would like to hear them.
"I thought being a freeper was keeping the debate real. To keep this debate real, that is to say OPPOSITE of democrat ANTI THIS ANTI THAT policy. I thought being a freeper meant being FOR something rather than opposing something. Am I wrong there?"
Yes you are wrong there.