Posted on 08/07/2007 4:59:35 PM PDT by rellimpank
"Pre-emptive war" got us into a real mess in Iraq. So maybe we ought to think twice before adopting similar measures when it comes to traffic law. Specifically, when it comes to an idea floated by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to require that all new cars be fitted with an ignition interlock that can detect alcohol in the driver's system -- and shut the car down if it does.
Several large automakers (including GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda) also support the idea -- and are working on ways to get these things into new cars, maybe within the next two or three years, if not sooner.
Sounds OK in principle -- sort of like the idea of liberating Iraq. The devil's in the details, though.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I think the following off the wall tirade kind of speaks for itself in a sense . . . I don’t need to add anything:
Damn, you are ignorant! I never said anyone had any kind of right to drive drunk. I’m sorry your reading comprehension skills are so weak, as is your understand of rights, but you really should stop with your erroneousclaims. You are a flat out liar on top of your follish ignorance.
Hit abuse, I’ve said nothing wrong. It’s you i could hit abuse of for your flat out lies, fool.
Sure could have fooled me . . .
walks like a duck . . . waddles, quacks, floats, bobs head under water, lays eggs, flys, flat bill . . .
Must be an elephant. That’s right a quacking, flying, egg laying elephant. Makes perfect sense.
See, you can’t even post a coherent reply. Look, toots, just because you are an alcoholic doesn’t mean everyone should have to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure.
The idea is almost as stupid as your logic and your posts on this thread.
Later toots, you ain’t worth it. Don’t go getting app cranky and hitting the bottle, you’d be getting another day one chip.
I guess you’ve missed along the way . . . that really . . . I’m NOT in favor of mandatory breathalizers in every car.
But for the sake of argument . . . I certainly didn’t emphasize my preferences.
And, TO A DEGREE . . . theoretically . . . if it would save massive numbers of lives, it MIGHT be worth considering.
But don’t let me disturb your tirades and rants. They are quite consistent with a particular mentality, preference, pattern of behavior etc.
What’s an SB? Sorry for being a retard, I just don’t get it. Send me a PM (private message) if it’s something you can’t disclose in public.
And, if thereby, I've helped change the mind of 1 woman; saved the life of one child . . .
Then your petty, ill-informed, un-informed, thoroughly off-the-wall personal assaults and attacks on me will have been much more than worth it.
BTW, thanks for helping me so much to provoke thought. Couldn't have done it so well without you.
But that is not how you are responding here. You are coming across as being an advocate for this for everyone with the attitude "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about."
As I stated in other posts the BACs are not trustworthy, as my own situation proves. I had a BAC of .04, not from a breathalyzer, but a blood test (taken for other reasons) and it had been nearly a week since I had consumed an alcoholic beverage, and that was a couple of glasses of wine with Thanksgiving dinner.
Alcoholic rages; alcoholic child and wife beating; drunken brawling etc. would be sufficient, for me.
My first husband was abusive when he was drunk, so I speak from firsthand experience. However, just because he was a jacka$$ when drunk, there is no reason I should be required to have one of these machines in my vehicle, nor should my husband, the father of our child.
DENIAL is sooooo transparent to everyone but the one wallowing in it and ranting out of it.
I do believe you are the one in denial here. All I have seen is abhorrence of drunk driving, no defense of it, you keep throwing in the strawman of folks supporting people getting drunk, which is entirely different than drunk driving.
BTW, I actually had 3 beers over the course of the 4 hours I was cooking this evening, my husband had none, because he was driving. Friday we're cooking out with FReeper FRiends at their house, I'm sure alcohol consumption will be involved, but none of us are driving and none of us are going to be abusing our spouses or children.
The vast majority of folks who consume alcohol are responsible in such consumption, a fact that seems to escape you.
I’ve said nothing wrong. It’s you i could hit abuse of for your flat out lies, fool.
= = =
Another excellent example of a mystifying habit of being inaccurate.
Evidently you have never read the posting rules of FREEREPUBLIC.COM.
Personal assaults are strictly forbidden.
And USUALLY that rule is enforced.
Except, of course on UFO threads.
Smokey backroom
Fascinating . . . this compulsion to be chronically WRONG. In 60 years of living, I've never been the least bit tipsy. AT most I've had two glasses of wine over a 3 hour dinner. I tend to drink 1-3 glasses of wine per year to year and a half.
IF THAT
Is YOUR definition of an alcoholic . . . I'm beginning to understand the level of confused perspective here, quite a bit better. Thanks for the illumination. I hadn't realized that the construction on alcohol realities was THAT far out of whack.
I didn’t know you cared.
That’s an excellent version of an outrageously hostile-to-Christianity as well as personally assaultive post.
Fascinating.
I’ve been called a lot of things and they probably all fit...
Arrogant, obnoxious...
But that is a new one.
I assure you that I am NOT hostile to Christianity. I’m a Christian myself.
But that is not how you are responding here. You are coming across as being an advocate for this for everyone with the attitude “if you didn’t do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.”
= = =
I think I have only part of the responsibility for how I’ve come across on that score.
The knee jerk responses have been to jump to conclusions.
I’m supposed to have made and am being castigated by many for not making wholesale and intensely important to that perspective distinctions between it being warranted for proven drunk drivers vs everyone else . . . though I actually have here and there made some such bits of such distinctions.
Yet, others are off scott free for FAILING UTTERLY to catch the distinctions I made in my wording many times.
Fascinating. Hypocrisy does tend to be a chronic human failing—especially amongst those who . . .
Yeah, I’ve deliberately come across in a fiesty combative sort of way because I feel very intensely about the destructiveness of alcoholism
AND I’VE LEARNED FROM HARD EXPERIENCE THAT SOFTER WORDS TEND TO FAIL TO SCRATCH THE SURFACE WITH SUCH FOLKS
AT ALL.
It’s true that it increases the defensiveness . . . but, in my experience . . . later . . . lying alone with one’s thoughts late at night . . . some bits of truth are brought back to certain individuals’ minds . . . to a more fruitful end . . . occasionally.
= = =
“if you didn’t do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.”
= = =
I’ve never said that and I don’t think I’ve even implied it. Because I don’t believe that way, feel that way.
I think it’s quite arguable whether society would benefit from your alcoholic hubby having such a device in his car and/or any car he routinely drove, including yours.
How would you feel . . . God forbid . . . 10 minutes after an accident in which 5 family members had been burned to death including children under the age of 6 . . . by his drunk driving that such a device would likely have prevented?
I agree the issues are tricky and fraught with problems either way the decision would go.
But I REALLY HATE kids getting killed by drunk drivers . . . and worse . . . burned to death. And, if they were your kids or kids you loved, I’d think you’d really hate it, too.
= = =
The vast majority of folks who consume alcohol are responsible in such consumption, a fact that seems to escape you.
= = =
Perhaps. I haven’t seen up-to-date statistics on that issue. Used to be true.
I wonder, nowadays.
I do live near one of the worst county’s in the country for drunk driving accidents.
I have just learned from experience that a certain flavor of defense of alcohol is virtually identical to the word choices, phrases, behaviors, denial etc. of full blown alcoholics.
And, when I run into such a pattern of defensiveness over alcohol, I don’t mind tweaking the thought provoking statements more than a little.
LIVES ARE PRECIOUS.
Ignorant pride is not.
duh. Should have gotten that. The four cases of Miller Lite that I’ve drank in the last 2 hours have apparently killed all of my brain cells like Quix said. :-)
I hear you! I need to go hop in my car and break into a meighbors house to steal their whiskey. I ran out a couple minutes ago. Those ten fifths (that reduces to two) of vodka I plowed in tonight just didn’t quench my thirst.
If I hear a banging on my door in the next few minutes you will confirm my suspicions...
You’re my neighbor down the block! I thought I recognized you from your comments. You didn’t tell me that you are a FReeper too!!!!
I was drunk at the time. onest Hociffer!
What an improvement! Amazing. A most welcome change. Thanks.
Lives are precious, I hear you. You are right. Let me tell you a personal story...huh, what the heck is that banging? Hold on, I'll be right back...
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.