For the children's sake...
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote:

This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.

Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue.

Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober?

A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well
and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you
take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of
society as a whole.

As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk
driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271
times under the influence prior to being arrested.

That is behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real
drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI
driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has
gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first
arrest.

For the children's sake...
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the
word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing.

She's pretty smart (her own words) you know.
--

John H


Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!!

I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.)


And, evidently, insanely narcissistic. She fits right in with her leader,
WAFA. Get a room.




Ah, self-esteem, especially for a woman is "insanely narcissistic." I see
now.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Dec 13, 3:11 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...



On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim

wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon,
to
drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI
with a
passenger should be prosecuted as a felon.

I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus
view.
I
don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own
irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe
penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that
legislated
behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his
or
her
personal autonomy.

Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control?

To state the case generically does not do the topic justice.
There
is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an
individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions
presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be
civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the
individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the
social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to
personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country.
We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the
utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this
to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme
in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose
that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the
1700s.
Get
with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly
different.

He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -
Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you
get such an idea?

I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut.

--
Nom=de=Plume

huh?

I've never heard that one before...

She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the
word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing.

She's pretty smart (her own words) you know.
--

John H

Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!!

I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.)

--
Nom=de=Plume

Yes. You've found it! And I'm proud of you.

Found it?

That's the first step, D'Plume. However, no Légion d'Honneur for you
today. Please try again tomorrow.

First step? You need to calm down. You're not making much sense.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


On Dec 10, 11:05 am, wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Dec 10, 9:00 am, wrote:




On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume"


wrote:

wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:


On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote:


On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST),

wrote:


http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to
drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.


That ought to help save lives!


George Orwell just wasn't too far off...


Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI
with a
passenger should be prosecuted as a felon.


I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus
view.
I
don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own
irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe
penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated
behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or
her
personal autonomy.


Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control?


To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There
is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an
individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be
civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the
social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to
personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country.
We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.


--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s.
Get
with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different.


He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide
quoted
text -


- Show quoted text -
Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you
get such an idea?

I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut.

--
Nom=de=Plume

huh?

I've never heard that one before...

She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the
word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing.

She's pretty smart (her own words) you know.


She better be smart. She doesn't have much else going for her unless
she's into men 20 years older than her with failing eyesight.

Rob


You wish!

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

I was responding to his typo... :)


Yipee!


Wow... you sure are excitable. I think you can take a pill for this.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote:

This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.

Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue.

Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober?

A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well
and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you
take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of
society as a whole.

As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk
driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271
times under the influence prior to being arrested.

That is behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real
drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI
driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has
gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first
arrest.

Hate to tell you, but you don't need to be 0.08 or above to get convicted.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

On Dec 14, 12:02*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...
On Dec 13, 3:11 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"John H" wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim

wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon,
to
drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI
with a
passenger should be prosecuted as a felon.

I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus
view.
I
don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own
irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe
penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that
legislated
behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his
or
her
personal autonomy.

Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control?

To state the case generically does not do the topic justice.
There
is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an
individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions
presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be
civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the
individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the
social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to
personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country..
We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the
utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this
to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme
in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose
that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the
1700s.
Get
with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly
different.

He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -
Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you
get such an idea?

I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut.

--
Nom=de=Plume

huh?

I've never heard that one before...

She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the
word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing.

She's pretty smart (her own words) you know.
--

John H

Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!!

I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.)

--
Nom=de=Plume
Yes. You've found it! *And I'm proud of you.

Found it?

That's the first step, D'Plume. However, no Légion d'Honneur for you
today. Please try again tomorrow.

First step? You need to calm down. You're not making much sense.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Actually D'Plume, I'm very calm. It's not a measuring of the amount
of sense being made. It's your perception level that is a bit low on
the scale.

Please, try again sometime later today.

For the children's sake...
 

nom=de=plume wrote:


Who sent you, and why?

--


Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using
someone else's ID

For the children's sake...
 

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote:

This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.

Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue.

Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober?

A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well
and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you
take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of
society as a whole.

As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk
driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271
times under the influence prior to being arrested.

That is behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real
drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI
driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has
gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first
arrest.

Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm
as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats
present.

With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a
standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic
license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same
amount of time.

With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my
situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away
the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems
to work.

For the children's sake...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


On Dec 10, 11:05 am, wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Dec 10, 9:00 am, wrote:




On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume"


wrote:

wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:


On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote:


On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST),

wrote:


http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon,
to
drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.


That ought to help save lives!


George Orwell just wasn't too far off...


Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI
with a
passenger should be prosecuted as a felon.


I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus
view.
I
don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own
irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe
penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that
legislated
behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his
or
her
personal autonomy.


Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control?


To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There
is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an
individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be
civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the
social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to
personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country.
We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the
utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this
to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.


--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s.
Get
with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly
different.


He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide
quoted
text -


- Show quoted text -
Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you
get such an idea?

I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut.

--
Nom=de=Plume

huh?

I've never heard that one before...

She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the
word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing.

She's pretty smart (her own words) you know.


She better be smart. She doesn't have much else going for her unless
she's into men 20 years older than her with failing eyesight.

Rob


You wish!

--
Nom=de=Plume


There's a lot more than eyesight failing with Ditzy Dan.
Business must be way down at 'Elite'....I remember when he'd disappear for a
few days, return to spew his bile and disappear again. This went on quite a
while until lately. I wonder if Margaret finally fired his lazy ass.