For the children's sake...
 

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

Seems to be all he's got going for him these days!
I'd better insert a few typos into each message just to make him feel
usefull. ~~ Snerk ~~

For the children's sake...
 

On Dec 14, 9:39*am, "Don White" wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message

...

"Rob" wrote in message
m...
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

Seems to be all he's got going for him these days!
I'd better insert a few typos into each message just to make him feel
usefull. *~~ Snerk ~~

Hilarious! Don, I guess you're not bright enough to notice this, but
he's correcting you to make fun of YOU, then king of typo
correction......

For the children's sake...
 

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
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.


Yet, you keep repeating the same phrase over and over.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
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.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am
for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get.
And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The
body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol
provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in
the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a
problem.

For the children's sake...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
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.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am
for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get.
And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The
body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol
provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in
the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a
problem.



What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference between
having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:37:58 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:27:42 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:27:21 -0600, Richard Casady
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:58:43 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any
passenger in the car?

Many bad ideas are sold as ' for the children '

Casady

I agree with Tim. The children not in the car deserve protection also.
--

John H

Guy blows 0.08 and a kid in the car. He goes to jail for more than a
year,
felony, and the kid ends up in foster care, or the mom and kid end up
sleeping in a shelter. Just like a lot of other mandatory sentencing
laws.
unintended consequenses rule.

Black woman, drives a Cadillac, lives on welfare and pops kids out
every year so she can increase her welfare payments.

Why do you keep repeating this? Because of your KKK membership? Has
nothing to do with the thread.

I'm just matching your fantasy scenario with Ronny Raygun's.
Il-founded and only applicable in the furthest reaches of reality.

For the children's sake...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
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.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am
for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you
get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0.
The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the
alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get
going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect,
you have a problem.



What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference between
having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Google the studies.

For the children's sake...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
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.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I
am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you
get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a
0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the
alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to
get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little
effect, you have a problem.



What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference between
having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Google the studies.



So, basically you have no citation.


--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:52:14 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am
for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get.
And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The
body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol
provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in
the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a
problem

Well, you say that, but it's not true. You may not show the effects,
but they are there. And I know - believe me, I know. You're talking
to somebody who once drank a bottle of Aqua Velva to get rid of the
shakes enough to drive to the convience store to get a bottle of
Boone's Farm to be able to get to the package store for a case of beer
and a quart of Valu-Rite bourbon. :)

It was shortly after that that I understood that I had a problem - so
to speak. :)

And I'm sorry, but it's just not true that a drunk can drive better at
..1 than .0 - they may not show the effects as readily, but they are
blitzed. Very few people metabolize alcohol efficiently enough to
avoid the effects - something like 1 out of every 15 million or so I'm
given to believe.

For the children's sake...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
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.

Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I
am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a
you get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at
a 0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that
the alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink
to get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little
effect, you have a problem.



What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference
between having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Google the studies.



So, basically you have no citation.


--
Nom=de=Plume


So basically you are lazy.