For the children's sake...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"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.



So, basically you can't support your claims.


--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

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


But, since Bill believes it to be true, then it must be true.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

Don White wrote:
"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 ~~



Don, as your only friend, I have to tell you that you are losing it. If
it wasn't for you highlighting everyone's typos, while making spelling
errors and unintelligible sentences in the same post, what would you do
in rec.boats

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

For the children's sake...
 

Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...

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 ~~



You live for typos, dummy. It frees you from the pathetic existence you
have at home.

For the children's sake...
 

Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...

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.



Your master, WAFA, sent you in the wrong direction with that one,
dummy. Dig deeper.

For the children's sake...
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
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.


No need. Look up sarcasm.

For the children's sake...
 

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


No need. Look up sarcasm.


If you think that would help you, I'd be happy to!

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
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. :)

It sounds to me that the problem was you needed to find a better store
that had Aqua Velva, Boone's Farm and rot gut bourbon. It would have
saved you the trouble of driving all over town.



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

For the children's sake...
 

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:11:12 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


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. :)

Whew, glad you turned it around. That sort of drinking doesn't lend
itself to longevity.

For the children's sake...
 

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:05:40 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:11:12 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


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. :)

Whew, glad you turned it around. That sort of drinking doesn't lend
itself to longevity.

My boss at the time told me I was a great employee and one of the best
he'd ever hired, but he couldn't afford to keep me anymore - the
choice was take a six month leave of absence in a boot camp style
rehab program he knew about and if I made it, my job would be waiting
when I got back. If I didn't at least try - goodbye.

Owe that man my life.