[TexasTransplant]

You are so close to being correct, yet too blind to see.

Let me paraphrase your response,

You do not wish to be responsible for your own existence or your continued existence, you want "Nanny" to take care of you and the hell with everyone else, your security and peace of mind must trump any and all.

You have a bone to pick with ONE individual and your fervent desire is to punish everyone!

Grow up

>>>"You removing mine with one of your own is what I fear. It is what I have experienced. I sure hope you never have to experience it"<<<

Proves that your minuscule world revolves around you and some unfortunate incident that "YOU" experienced, you have no idea who I am or what I have experienced and yet you wish to condemn me to your Nanny State

>>>"What other laws do you oppose? Is there no end?"<<<

I oppose about 90% of the laws we now have on the books and if we were to remove them all tomorrow the only people that would be saddened would be the Politicians/Lawyers and the Nanny Police, 90% would be a good start the remaining 10% would have to face intense scrutiny and any new law should take a considerable amount of effort by "the people" not the Tax Collecting "Representatives" or "Special Interest Groups" (Like MADD, Greepeace etc)and instead of Environmental Impact Studies, it should be Liberty Infringement studies.

So you are right there is basically no end to my opposition to Nanny Laws or my contempt for the Chicken Littles of the World.

TT

[BlueStateDepression]

"You do not wish to be responsible for your own existence or your continued existence, you want "Nanny" to take care of you and the hell with everyone else, your security and peace of mind must trump any and all."

Not hardly.
I want all people to be responsible for their own existance. You seem to think that people that make the choice to drink and drive should not be held to account. When they refuse to do so then they should be compelled to do so . that in essence is what the rule of law is all about. I subscribe to that rule......do you?


"You have a bone to pick with ONE individual and your fervent desire is to punish everyone!"

Yes I have a bone to pick with that individual and that applies to all people that do the same thing he did. Equally. I see peers as peers, don't you?

GROWN ups that take personal responsibility do not drink and drive. They get a cab or a DD or they walk home or they call a friend with the truth that they have had to much to drink and should not drive. I offer that it is you that needs to grow up if you cannot yet see that very basic common sense.


"Proves that your minuscule world revolves around you and some unfortunate incident that "YOU" experienced,"

That would be my personal LIBERTY RIGHT? Sheesh!

"I oppose about 90% of the laws we now have on the books "

Ten percent more and you are a toal anarchist eh.
I guess you really ARE against the rule of law.....how do you consider yourself an american when you oppose the rule of law by 90%??????

" the remaining 10% would have to face intense scrutiny"

The law should face scrutiny but drinking and driving shouldn't? Unreal.

"Liberty Infringement studies"

Seems you miss the study i try to present to you about MY liberty infringment. Not surprising really.

As for chicken little......that works both ways sir.
Michael Moore says 'there is no terrorist threat" Facts show otherwise RIGHT?

While YOU say 'there is no threat from drinking and driving'..facts also show otherwise. I present some personal ones to you and you dismiss them as much as Moore dismisses the ones about militant islamic punks.