I have no clue? Hardly.
"Everyone is a Drunk Driver in your book and therefore must be scrutinized by the Nanny Cops"
This is untrue. This thread shows otherwise.
"We want the same thing!"
You do not know how true that is.
I SAID THIS:"You seem to think that people that make the choice to drink and drive should not be held to account"<<<
YOU SAID THIS :"Show me anytime anywhere anyplace in this forum or anywhere else that I have even inferred that, you are a typical liberal liar!"
OK :YOU SAID :"I oppose about 90% of the laws we now have on the books" post 194 I think it was. A liar I am not SIR. And as for liberal BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you put a bit much stock in my nic, take solice you are not the first to misunderstand that.
"In your self centered world you are the only adult"
You are the one that opposes 90% of the laws right? How adult.
I love it when you call me a liberal, its hilarious.
"you accuse all of drinking and driving and wish that the law was such that we suspend the liberties of all to make you feel better about yourself"
NO, i pose that .08 is what it should be. Funny how you refuse to see me post that over and over and over and over. You might think you have a right to drink and drive but you dont above .08.
"I fear I am treading closer to the truth than you want me to."
Baseless fear. I speak truth to you about what my experience. I have never gotten a DUI, can you say the same?
"LIMITS ON THE GOVERNMENT, WHAT WHEN HOW and WHY and TO WHAT DEGREE that Government can infringe upon our Liberty."
.08 is the LIMIT....see how that FITS?
"I like the way you worked Michael Moore in there, he must be quite the role model for you, he makes as much sense as you do, there I go dissing your peers again."
You are waaaay out there man. He sure aint MY hero. He sure aint my peer.
I ask you to do away with the games and post for me what you see as a proper punishment for drinking and driving. that is what level and what punishment. Lets just clear the air shall we.
If the government had left the threshhold at 0.10, would you still think the threshhold should be at 0.08? If so, why? And if not, why does that fact that the government happened to choose 0.08 as a threshhold mean that it made the best choice?
I could see sound arguments being made for 0.12 (more or less the threshhold where a person's alcohol-caused impairment starts to exceed that of other, legal, factors) or 0.15 (a point where it could generally shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person's actions greatly endangered others). Even 0.10 could be justified on the premise that the alcohol might be causing a substantial degree of impairment to others, though that's getting away from the normal 'usual doubt' concept.
But the statistics show a pretty bright line in impairment around the 0.12-0.15 range (IIRC, going from 0.12 to 0.15 increases accident rates more than going from 0.00 to 0.12). If you could wave a magic wand and get all the 0.15+ drivers off the road, that would save more lives than making all the drivers below 0.10 be stone-cold sober. So why not focus resources on the 0.15+ drivers that are the biggest problem?
>>>"Lets just clear the air shall we"<<<
You are a delusional Nanny Cop, associated with MADD a for profit Corporation whose business it is to control and strip the Liberties of all Americans. You cannot or will not take responsibilty for your own life and desire or require some Government entity to do it for you.
Or just a Troll looking to get a rise out of someone.
Dummy
TT