Posted on 07/02/2006 4:39:39 PM PDT by neverdem
His link reminds me of the goofballs who attempt to prove why, constitutionally of course, you really don't have to pay income taxes.
I agree.
In Docket No. 129269, defendant Delores M. Derror was driving east ons now- and slush-covered M-72 when she crossed into oncoming traffic and collided with another vehicle, killing the front-seat passenger, paralyzing two children in the rear seat, and injuring a third child. The accident occurred at approximately 6:00 p.m. Derror admitted that she had smoked marijuana, at 2:00 p.m., earlier that day. Two blood samples were taken, one at approximately 8:00 p.m. and one at approximately 11:00 p.m. The first blood sample reflected 38 nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter, and the second contained 31 nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter. Derror was charged with operating 3 a motor vehicle with the presence of a schedule 1 controlled substance in her body, causing death and serious injury, under MCL 257.625(4), (5), and (8). Derror was also charged with possession of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d).
In Docket No. 129364, defendant Dennis Kurts was stopped at approximately 9:00 p.m. for driving erratically. The officer smelled the odor of alcohol on Kurts. Kurts also had glassy, bloodshot eyes. Kurts admitted consuming two beers. During a pat-down search, the officer found a marijuana pipe in Kurts pocket. Kurts then admitted that he had smoked marijuana a halfhour earlier. A blood sample was taken at approximately 10:00 p.m. Tests revealed that his blood contained eight nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter and 0.07 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters. Kurts was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, MCL 257.625(9); operating a motor vehicle with the presence of a schedule 1 controlled substance in the body, MCL 257.625(8); and operating a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license, MCL 257.904(3)(a). Pretrial evidentiary hearings were held in both cases in
That sounds like one would be in favor of letting drunks drive? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your post.
Goofballs paulsen?
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
Link please.
Can't turn this board over to MrLeRoy, can I?
In the workplace if the person is operating heavy machinery or driving a dump truck and injures himself or someone else and a blood test shows drugs, the injured person can sue the living daylights out of the company he works for, and the insurance company can deny the claim, leaving the company with its butt hanging out.
And, on why 'majority rule' can trump the rest of our constitution.
OK. I can't comment on the post without a link. It sounds strange though.
Ignore the troll. He like to cause trouble by pulling up my three-year-old post taken out of context.
That is my general rule.
EGAD. Do you realize this page and all related pages are already in Google?
Oh - I see - we must define "conservative".
I love definitions!
Does being a Christian make one a Conservative?
Isn't there something in one of our important national documents about "separation of church and state"?
Weren't some of our founding fathers inclined to not practicing religion?
Is "pothead" your way of saying "connoisseur of cannabis"?
Live and let live?
His link reminds me of the goofballs who attempt to prove why, constitutionally of course, you really don't have to pay income taxes.
Goofballs paulsen?
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
No 'link' to the above is necessary. Paulsen admits he made the post, and is more than ready to expound, at length, on why States can ignore the 2nd.
And, on why 'majority rule' can trump the rest of our constitution.
Ignore the troll. He like to cause trouble by pulling up my three-year-old post taken out of context.
The "context" is self evident.. -- Do you deny believing that "-- California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. --"?
Your trolling started this by claiming "goofballs" believe weird things about our Constitution. -- Your own words confirm that claim..
If the contract says blacks or Jews or women or disabled or gay or whoever have less rights protected than others, then they have less rights protected. - posted on 08/21/2005 9:48:21 AM CDT by robertpaulsen
Thank you for the link. It shows how you have excerpted his words and labeled them incorrectly. His final words that you DIDN'T post were:
"But, attitudes change. Contracts are amended."
He is obviously NOT justifying the holocaust but arguing a point that once slaves had few rights (removed by our government) and now that attitudes have changed, those rights have been restored.
Thank you for showing me who is dishonest.
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.