Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nanny State REVALATION

resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:01:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've noticed that during our nations history we've seen a rediculously large amount of issues crop up from prohibition to gay marriage to labour unions to presedential sex scandals. What I have also noticed is that the only way our govenment seems to be able to solve these problems is take away our personal liberty. The government then told us we'd get them back sometime.

Guess what. THEY LIED. Every time the government has taken a personal liberty for the so called greater good they never give it back.

For example. Say Larry gets drunk and drives home. He crashes and kills some poor widow lady walking her dog. Suddenly all the guys at the bar who knew better than to drink and drive are being forced to use brethalyzers even when they aren't drinking. better yet. Every citizen in the nation is now being forced to do the same thing whether they drink or not, because some bleeding heart polititian caught wind of it and want some publicity. Sounds a little extreme doesn't it.

Well guess again. Hundreds of powerful interest groups are pushing and shoving to have their congressmen do exactly that. Even this day.

Not only that, but it's happening in THOUSANDS of different issues each day. From faty foods to gas prices to workplace rights to.... well..... everything.

I'm guessing that this is a problem and that needs to be remedied. That's easy. VOTE ACCORDINGLY!!!!
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:07:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:01:58 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
I've noticed that during our nations history we've seen a rediculously large amount of issues crop up from prohibition to gay marriage to labour unions to presedential sex scandals. What I have also noticed is that the only way our govenment seems to be able to solve these problems is take away our personal liberty. The government then told us we'd get them back sometime.

Guess what. THEY LIED. Every time the government has taken a personal liberty for the so called greater good they never give it back.

For example. Say Larry gets drunk and drives home. He crashes and kills some poor widow lady walking her dog. Suddenly all the guys at the bar who knew better than to drink and drive are being forced to use brethalyzers even when they aren't drinking. better yet. Every citizen in the nation is now being forced to do the same thing whether they drink or not, because some bleeding heart polititian caught wind of it and want some publicity. Sounds a little extreme doesn't it.

Well guess again. Hundreds of powerful interest groups are pushing and shoving to have their congressmen do exactly that. Even this day.

Not only that, but it's happening in THOUSANDS of different issues each day. From faty foods to gas prices to workplace rights to.... well..... everything.

I'm guessing that this is a problem and that needs to be remedied. That's easy. VOTE ACCORDINGLY!!!!

Giving breathalysers which take >5 minutes is bad because? They prevent drunk driving and possible death.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:09:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Gotta say resolution, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

For one, I don't see any possible way that breathilyzers are being "forced" among the citizenry by the state. It is a tool for law enforcement to find out whether or not a crime is being committed (drunk driving), or to actively prevent that crime from taking place. It isn't as if the government is saying "you cannot get drunk anymore," but simply reinforcing a law they already enforce - the law against driving drunk.

Unless you want to legalize drunk driving, which you may, I don't know, this was a pretty bad example. The "nanny state" line refers more to welfare and regulation - I fail to see how enforcing a law that probably 98% of individuals agree should exist without taking away drinking itself is a symptom of "the nanny state."
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:12:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
drastic price increase in cars.
asmatics can't even use one
they don't always work
they are dang easy to cheat. get some random non-drunk guy to blow it, use a balloon to store your own non drunk breath.
it's one more slice off the ol' cheese block we call freedom

take your pick as to why they shouldn't be forced
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:14:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:12:10 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
drastic price increase in cars.

Not relevant.

asmatics can't even use one

Proof?

they don't always work

Proof?

they are dang easy to cheat. get some random non-drunk guy to blow it, use a balloon to store your own non drunk breath.

Where does someone get a balloon when drunk and driving?

it's one more slice off the ol' cheese block we call freedom

No, if you call freedom a minute spent blowing into a breathalyser you are sadly mistaken.


take your pick as to why they shouldn't be forced

I did.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:19:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:09:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
Gotta say resolution, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

For one, I don't see any possible way that breathilyzers are being "forced" among the citizenry by the state. It is a tool for law enforcement to find out whether or not a crime is being committed (drunk driving), or to actively prevent that crime from taking place. It isn't as if the government is saying "you cannot get drunk anymore," but simply reinforcing a law they already enforce - the law against driving drunk.

you're not up on your tech. They can be installed into one's ignition system to not allow a failed tester to start their car for any set period of time.

Unless you want to legalize drunk driving, which you may, I don't know, this was a pretty bad example. The "nanny state" line refers more to welfare and regulation - I fail to see how enforcing a law that probably 98% of individuals agree should exist without taking away drinking itself is a symptom of "the nanny state."

first of all "98%" of individuals don't care to consider things this far (sadly enough). second of all, i don't want to legalize drunk driving. that infringes on the other most important thing besides liberty that we call life. Your rights stop where mine begin. third brethalyzers don't prevent drunk driving as I stated to panda.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:19:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:14:19 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:12:10 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
they are dang easy to cheat. get some random non-drunk guy to blow it, use a balloon to store your own non drunk breath.

Where does someone get a balloon when drunk and driving?

One stores a balloon with sober breath in the glove compartment.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:20:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:15:09 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Do you even know how Breathalysers work?

yes I do. I'm a physics and chemestry nerd. it's actually pretty simple.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:20:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
later I'm off to church
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:22:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:19:10 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:09:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
Gotta say resolution, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

For one, I don't see any possible way that breathilyzers are being "forced" among the citizenry by the state. It is a tool for law enforcement to find out whether or not a crime is being committed (drunk driving), or to actively prevent that crime from taking place. It isn't as if the government is saying "you cannot get drunk anymore," but simply reinforcing a law they already enforce - the law against driving drunk.

you're not up on your tech. They can be installed into one's ignition system to not allow a failed tester to start their car for any set period of time.

Proof?


Unless you want to legalize drunk driving, which you may, I don't know, this was a pretty bad example. The "nanny state" line refers more to welfare and regulation - I fail to see how enforcing a law that probably 98% of individuals agree should exist without taking away drinking itself is a symptom of "the nanny state."

first of all "98%" of individuals don't care to consider things this far (sadly enough). second of all, i don't want to legalize drunk driving. that infringes on the other most important thing besides liberty that we call life. Your rights stop where mine begin. third brethalyzers don't prevent drunk driving as I stated to panda.

You say that infringes on liberty? This prevents others hurting others. As opposed to your views on Gay Marriage, Tobacco rights, Euthanasia and Drug legalisation, you despise freedom. Re-check your views before you say enforces a law which prevents death infringes upon liberty.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:22:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
... So because of some tiny and really stupid faults, which aren't noticeable in the light of how effective these machines are (http://www.articlesbase.com...), you think this is an attack on "freedom."

So, in other words, you are against drunk driving laws. You think it is perfectly OK, in the name of "freedom," to let people drive drunk down public roads and possibly end up killing others or damaging property. In your mind, this is acceptable because the state isn't crushing the ability to exercise "freedom" in relation to drunk driving. Would this sum it up for you?

To note, there is no law forcing breathalyzer tests on the public. You are perfectly free to refuse it, and the ones installed in bars are also voluntary, or not, depending upon what the private owner says. So I don't see where you get this nonsense from.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:23:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:19:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:14:19 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:12:10 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
they are dang easy to cheat. get some random non-drunk guy to blow it, use a balloon to store your own non drunk breath.

Where does someone get a balloon when drunk and driving?

One stores a balloon with sober breath in the glove compartment.

But it doesn't remove the alcohol content from the blood. Unless someone was able to go on Dialysis and completley change their blood before the breathalyser, they'd be ok. But the, they wouldn't be a danger.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:25:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:23:09 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:19:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:14:19 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:12:10 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
they are dang easy to cheat. get some random non-drunk guy to blow it, use a balloon to store your own non drunk breath.

Where does someone get a balloon when drunk and driving?

One stores a balloon with sober breath in the glove compartment.

But it doesn't remove the alcohol content from the blood. Unless someone was able to go on Dialysis and completley change their blood before the breathalyser, they'd be ok. But the, they wouldn't be a danger.

The balloon was filled before alcohol even entered the bloodstream, before you entered the bar. Thus, no alcohol breath, and a breathalyser fail.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2010 3:32:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:25:30 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:23:09 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:19:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:14:19 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:12:10 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
they are dang easy to cheat. get some random non-drunk guy to blow it, use a balloon to store your own non drunk breath.

Where does someone get a balloon when drunk and driving?

One stores a balloon with sober breath in the glove compartment.

But it doesn't remove the alcohol content from the blood. Unless someone was able to go on Dialysis and completley change their blood before the breathalyser, they'd be ok. But the, they wouldn't be a danger.

The balloon was filled before alcohol even entered the bloodstream, before you entered the bar. Thus, no alcohol breath, and a breathalyser fail.

They take it in a breath. Granted, they must do this out of sight form the police. Which usually means that by the time they've sucked it in, they would have had to intake it, meaning it fails.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 4:57:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
stupid. you don't put the balloon in your mouth. you directly deflate it into the brethalyzer. THINK...
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:00:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 4:57:39 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
stupid. you don't put the balloon in your mouth. you directly deflate it into the brethalyzer. THINK...

And the police are going to let you do that? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Think.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:23:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:22:00 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:19:10 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:09:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
Gotta say resolution, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

For one, I don't see any possible way that breathilyzers are being "forced" among the citizenry by the state. It is a tool for law enforcement to find out whether or not a crime is being committed (drunk driving), or to actively prevent that crime from taking place. It isn't as if the government is saying "you cannot get drunk anymore," but simply reinforcing a law they already enforce - the law against driving drunk.

you're not up on your tech. They can be installed into one's ignition system to not allow a failed tester to start their car for any set period of time.

Proof?

proof? what do you mean proof? get a DUI in any great plains state and you'll get your proof. what do you want next? proof that bowling balls fall when released into free fall from a tall building?

Unless you want to legalize drunk driving, which you may, I don't know, this was a pretty bad example. The "nanny state" line refers more to welfare and regulation - I fail to see how enforcing a law that probably 98% of individuals agree should exist without taking away drinking itself is a symptom of "the nanny state."

first of all "98%" of individuals don't care to consider things this far (sadly enough). second of all, i don't want to legalize drunk driving. that infringes on the other most important thing besides liberty that we call life. Your rights stop where mine begin. third brethalyzers don't prevent drunk driving as I stated to panda.

You say that infringes on liberty? This prevents others hurting others. As opposed to your views on Gay Marriage, Tobacco rights, Euthanasia and Drug legalisation, you despise freedom. Re-check your views before you say enforces a law which prevents death infringes upon liberty.

thank you for bringing that up actually. I've since changed a few of my issue stances. I wrote those when I was not quite as intelligent nor concerned with my nations overall welfare.

Gay marriage: I believe gays should be allowed to participate in their lifestyle, but in no way can that be called marriage. Sorry, but no dice. If you want to hash that one out then see the religious forum. I don't feel like hangin' out DATCMOTO right now.

Tobacco Rights: you're right. Tobacco users have the right to blacken their lungs and die 20 years early if the so freakin' choose.

Euthanasia: The right to life is pivotal to liberty. It belongs to you but by all technicality can only be taken by the one who gave it to the owner, whether that be God or Nature or chance, take your pick. From Social Contract by Jean Roussoaux (or however you spell that). When old people or anybody for that matter tries to take their own life they are taking what they don't have the authority to take. They are violating their own right to life. So they not some politition stocked death panel have the right to deem you useless to society.

Drug Legalization: If people want to run their lives and health into the ground then they can but I still say no, because the drug market (the illegal one that is) thrives on smuggling and murder to make its profit. While legalization would stop the smuggling it would not stop meth addicts from raiding a hospital and shooting 20 people just to get the ingredients to make meth (since they've spent all their money on meth and have none left).

"Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. These are to be valued above all else in this world. Liberty above both property and the pursuit of happiness. Life above them all. There is not exception and any who say other wise are either ignorant of their impending doom or those who seek to take those things away from you." -Thomas Jefferson-

"My neighbor may have one wife, or ten wives, or a husband, but I will not intervene because it will neither pick my pocket not brake my leg." -Thomas Jefferson-

I've check my views and proven them in line with Liberty and the other basic human rights. Now I believe that you need to look at the bigger picture.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:29:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 5:23:01 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:22:00 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:19:10 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
At 1/10/2010 3:09:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
Gotta say resolution, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

For one, I don't see any possible way that breathilyzers are being "forced" among the citizenry by the state. It is a tool for law enforcement to find out whether or not a crime is being committed (drunk driving), or to actively prevent that crime from taking place. It isn't as if the government is saying "you cannot get drunk anymore," but simply reinforcing a law they already enforce - the law against driving drunk.

you're not up on your tech. They can be installed into one's ignition system to not allow a failed tester to start their car for any set period of time.

Proof?

proof? what do you mean proof? get a DUI in any great plains state and you'll get your proof. what do you want next? proof that bowling balls fall when released into free fall from a tall building?

There's common sense like gravity, then there's proving this tech. exists. If it's common knowledge the proof should be easy to come by.


Unless you want to legalize drunk driving, which you may, I don't know, this was a pretty bad example. The "nanny state" line refers more to welfare and regulation - I fail to see how enforcing a law that probably 98% of individuals agree should exist without taking away drinking itself is a symptom of "the nanny state."

first of all "98%" of individuals don't care to consider things this far (sadly enough). second of all, i don't want to legalize drunk driving. that infringes on the other most important thing besides liberty that we call life. Your rights stop where mine begin. third brethalyzers don't prevent drunk driving as I stated to panda.

You say that infringes on liberty? This prevents others hurting others. As opposed to your views on Gay Marriage, Tobacco rights, Euthanasia and Drug legalisation, you despise freedom. Re-check your views before you say enforces a law which prevents death infringes upon liberty.

thank you for bringing that up actually. I've since changed a few of my issue stances. I wrote those when I was not quite as intelligent nor concerned with my nations overall welfare.

Gay marriage: I believe gays should be allowed to participate in their lifestyle, but in no way can that be called marriage. Sorry, but no dice. If you want to hash that one out then see the religious forum. I don't feel like hangin' out DATCMOTO right now.

I sit in the "Marriage should not be state recognised, ergo no tax benefits for religious marriage"


Tobacco Rights: you're right. Tobacco users have the right to blacken their lungs and die 20 years early if the so freakin' choose.

Same.


Euthanasia: The right to life is pivotal to liberty. It belongs to you but by all technicality can only be taken by the one who gave it to the owner, whether that be God or Nature or chance, take your pick. From Social Contract by Jean Roussoaux (or however you spell that). When old people or anybody for that matter tries to take their own life they are taking what they don't have the authority to take. They are violating their own right to life. So they not some politition stocked death panel have the right to deem you useless to society.

Euthanasia is ones personal choice to die with the aid of a doctor, often when they are unable to do so.


Drug Legalization: If people want to run their lives and health into the ground then they can but I still say no, because the drug market (the illegal one that is) thrives on smuggling and murder to make its profit. While legalization would stop the smuggling it would not stop meth addicts from raiding a hospital and shooting 20 people just to get the ingredients to make meth (since they've spent all their money on meth and have none left).

If meth, or any drug for that instance, is legalised, people can go and buy it as they need it. They're not going to shoot up a hospital to get it, unless it's happens a lot of the time, say, 1 in 1000 times.

Marijuana has no recoded deaths, and the effects of LSD and ecstasy are comparable to that of alcohol.


"Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. These are to be valued above all else in this world. Liberty above both property and the pursuit of happiness. Life above them all. There is not exception and any who say other wise are either ignorant of their impending doom or those who seek to take those things away from you." -Thomas Jefferson-

Ok?


"My neighbor may have one wife, or ten wives, or a husband, but I will not intervene because it will neither pick my pocket not brake my leg." -Thomas Jefferson-

Sure.


I've check my views and proven them in line with Liberty and the other basic human rights. Now I believe that you need to look at the bigger picture.

The picture is humongous. What specific part of it.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:30:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
wait..... why do you care. you're in Ireland and last time I checked that wasn't America. You don't have as much stake in an issue like this as I or any other American has. All you do is stand in the sidelines and demand proof for things that can be seen as common sense. Go hang out with the PIRA or something.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:34:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 5:30:28 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
wait..... why do you care. you're in Ireland and last time I checked that wasn't America. You don't have as much stake in an issue like this as I or any other American has. All you do is stand in the sidelines and demand proof for things that can be seen as common sense. Go hang out with the PIRA or something.

.....And you go hang out with the KKK. At any rate I abhor republican polices, much more terrorism applied through that.

At any rate, this site is made up of various nationalities. You can't shun me from a topic simply because I'm not from America. I'm attacking you're idea Drunk driving should essentially be legalised.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:47:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/10/2010 3:22:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
... So because of some tiny and really stupid faults, which aren't noticeable in the light of how effective these machines are (http://www.articlesbase.com...), you think this is an attack on "freedom."

They work when the cops use them on people that they pull over. That is not a violation of liberty because it does not cost the general law-abiding citizens any thing. I don't think it is a diliberate attack on freedom but instead a small unconsious step in the wrong direction. When combined with all the small unconsious steps of the past two hundered years (and trust me, there are a freakin' lot of them) you find that it has taken this nation a great distance in the wrong direction.

So, in other words, you are against drunk driving laws. You think it is perfectly OK, in the name of "freedom," to let people drive drunk down public roads and possibly end up killing others or damaging property. In your mind, this is acceptable because the state isn't crushing the ability to exercise "freedom" in relation to drunk driving. Would this sum it up for you?

NO!!! It is not OK. People are not to be allowed to drive drunk on the road. That is a danger to the right to life I mentioned earlier. But brethalyzers don't fix that problem. Cops do. Maybe somepeople aren't caught, but even with brethalyzers, people will still get around them and some of them will run over innocent little old ladies. There is still crime happening but now you are short one liberty with little (actually nothing) to show for it.

To note, there is no law forcing breathalyzer tests on the public. You are perfectly free to refuse it, and the ones installed in bars are also voluntary, or not, depending upon what the private owner says. So I don't see where you get this nonsense from.

I didn't say that it has actually happened yet. Still, some congressmen claim to be working on a draft to do that very same thing, if not on a national scale, then on a state one.

You are not getting the picture here. What I'm saying is that if you want to throw your life away or destroy your self in some horrendous way then go right on in your way. But if what you do violates anybodies right to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness then you deserve to loose that option no matter what it takes.

here's another example for you:

Say you decide to get as fat as you can and stay that way for the rest of your life then you can. But if you get unemployment checks from the government because you lose you job, because you rear is fused to the couch then you are picking my pocket (in this country any way) and I am then having my rights violated.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:48:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
rs: Are you saying that the government shouldn't be able to force people to use breathalyzers in their cars, or that they shouldn't exist?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:51:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The method that the government should implement should have the following properties, in order of priority:
1) Accuracy
2) Time-Efficiency
3) Cost-Efficiency

The government should adopt what-ever testing policy fits the above criterion and not be unwilling to switch to a more-effective means.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:53:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Please excuse my reference. I apologize. I do not consider all Irish a member of PIRA and shouldn't have made that suggestion. You are entitle to your opinion and input, I simply request that you try to see it from my side of the world view. I don't drink, I most certainly don't drink and drive, but still some politician is considering making me put a breathalyzer on my ignition. That drives up the price of my car. That makes me... and asthmatic... unable to start my car because I can't put out a thirty second continuous stream of air from my lips. But guess what? I still see obituaries in my newspaper for people run over by a drunk driver that tricked his breathalyzer.

It is that sort of government that bothers me.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:55:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If you can't understand that then you won't and I'm sorry, but you've got problems. I have said all that needs to be said and more and I now move on. Go on talking, but I've got other axes to grind elsewhere.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:56:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I believe some roads should be designated drunk-driving roads. Out of practicality.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:56:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 5:53:30 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
Please excuse my reference. I apologize. I do not consider all Irish a member of PIRA and shouldn't have made that suggestion. You are entitle to your opinion and input, I simply request that you try to see it from my side of the world view. I don't drink, I most certainly don't drink and drive, but still some politician is considering making me put a breathalyzer on my ignition. That drives up the price of my car. That makes me... and asthmatic... unable to start my car because I can't put out a thirty second continuous stream of air from my lips. But guess what? I still see obituaries in my newspaper for people run over by a drunk driver that tricked his breathalyzer.

It is that sort of government that bothers me.

*Sigh* proof someone tricked the breathalyser and killed someone whilst drink-driving?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 6:01:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
my brother-in-law has actually fooled the breathalyzer while stone drunk before. just ask someone to blow for you. Because of the simplicity of that, there is surely going to be drunk drivers on the road. With drunk drivers on the road then there is bound for something tragic or damaging to happen. My proof is the simplistic logic.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.