Posted on 11/17/2021 6:03:46 AM PST by devane617
Everyone is guilty/drunk until you prove your innocence/sobriety!
What’s next?
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
These are the Assistant Democrats that made all of this possible
Dan Sullivan (R-AK) Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) Mike Crapo (R-ID) Roy Blunt (R-MO) Richard Burr (R-NC) Deb Fischer (R-NE) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Rob Portman (R-OH) Thom Tillis (R-NC) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Jim Risch (R-ID) Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Bill Cassidy (R-LA) Kevin Cramer (R-ND) Roger Wicker (R-MS) Mitch McConnell (R-KY) John Hoeven (R-ND) Susan Collins (R-ME) Mitt Romney (R-UT)
Plus these Assistant Democrats in the House: Van Drew, Katko, Bacon, YoungAK, Upton, Kinzinger, SmithNJ, Fitzpatrick, Reed, Gabarino, GonzalezOH, McKinley.
The Democrats needed GOP help and they got it.
It was brought up on the floor one time that I know for sure. But nothing further. And here is why... Drinking is deemed a “sin”. Religious folks are all in and fine with taxes and unconstitutional regulations that are aimed at sins like smoking, porn, and drinking. And they greatly influence and support the GOP party.
Here is the problem. Once these doors of “acceptable compromise” unconstitutionality are opened for sins, that control and unconstitutional precedent spreads to anything and everything the controlling party decides it should be even if not a sin.
Like this... Based on the concept that drinking is a sin, they are all good with violating the constitutional rights of even those who are not sinners or guilty of anything sinful. Anyone who accepts this door to be opened, no matter the topic, will in the end be very sorry they accepted it. Because it will expand to ideology that is NOT considered sinful but it will be too late, the door will never be closed.
This support for “selective” dilution and compromise of individual constitutional rights to prevent just one sin will come back to bite EVERYONE in the rear. They know not what they ask for with this ideology. The moral should not be punished for the actions of the immoral.
Guilty, until proven innocent, technology.
It's the standard way to push undesirable products. Invent it, then payoff a politician to mandate it via a new law, then sit back while the profits roll in. The same crap was applied to "microstamping" of brass in firearms as a means of tracing the firearm (and by extension, the owner of the firearm) to a crime scene with a serial number. CA mandated it, but it is crap technology. Collect range brass. Sprinkle it around the "crime" site.
Because there won’t be any other kinds of cars to buy.
At least, not new ones
Then stick with an old one and boycott the market, whatever it takes. The auto industry will slam congress so hard they will have no choice but to backtrack. Can customers live without buying a new car every year? Or every two years? Of course they can, they just “think” they can’t because they are sheep brainwashed with “Throw away and buy new” consumerism. I would rather dump 20k into a old 66 Chevy before I bought one of these. Because I am not a brainwashed sheep who would accept universal constitutional violations just to keep up appearances of status.
But as a side note... I was actually talking about the one you have now... With the “mommy knows best” features it has and you do not like. I would never buy a car that thinks it is smarter than the driver as a “feature”. Give an inch and they are going to take a mile. Now is when to start boycotting these “features”.
If such tech were developed that detected weed in a person’s system, the entire lefty party would be like “OH HELL, NO!!”
OH... Lol. I had no idea it contained this “feature” when I bought it. It doesn’t do anything, except beep at me. Which, is distracting and NOT helpful
I wonder if there are any exceptions to the requirement listed in the bill. For example, are police cars exempt? Ambulances? School buses? Taxicabs?
I wonder if there are any exceptions to the requirement listed in the bill. For example, are police cars exempt? Ambulances? School buses? Taxicabs?
methinks the drunk/drugged ambulance driver the other day could have used it
I am against it too many problems
Methinks this will be fun for hackers, and birth a new industry.
5.56mm
What if you are listening to a conservative radio station?
But as you say... This years model might just beep, next years model will beep three times and then shut down.
Give an inch and they will take a mile. Until folks start asking about these features and state “then I won’t buy it” if they do.
File a complaint with the federal safety regulators explaining that it is a driving attention distraction and safety hazard. Enough do his and they will have to recall them to disable the feature.
But as a mechanic, I’ll bet you can have a dealer disable it for you. I would ask if you haven’t yet. :)
That is next...
I will ask. I spent a couple of hours trying to disable it… looking through the owners manual and checking settings. Couldn’t find a way
Since it is what THEY consider a safety feature it can probably only accessed by their computer plugged 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.