For the children's sake...
 

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:



On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
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...

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

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

--

Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in
Atlanta.

Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.

I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.

Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

**********************************

He may be a buddy, but I sense that you are a reasonably sensible , well
adjusted person.
Would you want this character running the roads drunk when your kids are
driving back from a social or sporting event?
The Mounties and city cops hold random traffic stops here..especially at
this time of year, to try and weed out the drunks, the unlicensed &
uninsured and those driving unsafe vehicles. I say the more they catch, the
safer it is for my family.

For the children's sake...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:45:46 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:30:43 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


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...

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


You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

Why?

I'm too short of time this morning to speak to this adequately. For
the time being, I'll repost what I posted in another thread. I think
it spells out my position somewhat;

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.

If I have time this evening, I'll return to this.

--

Bottom line... some people just have to have someone try to control their
anti-social or violent behavior.
It's great to say they will suffer the consequences of their own actions
after the fact, but I'm more concerned with their innocent victims who want
no part of it.

For the children's sake...
 

Don White wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:



On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:
wrote in message
...
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...
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??
Yes.
--
Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in
Atlanta.
Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.
I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.
Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

**********************************

He may be a buddy, but I sense that you are a reasonably sensible , well
adjusted person.
Would you want this character running the roads drunk when your kids are
driving back from a social or sporting event?
The Mounties and city cops hold random traffic stops here..especially at
this time of year, to try and weed out the drunks, the unlicensed &
uninsured and those driving unsafe vehicles. I say the more they catch, the
safer it is for my family.


Serious question. Do you take your boy's car keys from him after he
throws back more than one beer? That would be the resonably sensible
thing to do.

--


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
...
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:45:46 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:30:43 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


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...

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

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??
Yes.
Why?
I'm too short of time this morning to speak to this adequately. For
the time being, I'll repost what I posted in another thread. I think
it spells out my position somewhat;

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.

If I have time this evening, I'll return to this.

--

Bottom line... some people just have to have someone try to control their
anti-social or violent behavior.
It's great to say they will suffer the consequences of their own actions
after the fact, but I'm more concerned with their innocent victims who want
no part of it.


Absolutely correct. You are speaking from first hand experience, no
doubt. Keep up the good work.

--


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

For the children's sake...
 

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:34:23 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:54*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:30:10 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:



On Dec 9, 10:06*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:39:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:35 pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
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...

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

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

--

Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in Atlanta.

Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.

I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.

Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

Actually, not really. we attend separate churches, however we share
close to the same beliefs.

if by chance J. *had kids the same age as mine who were active in
sports, then they probably did compete with each other

Uh oh, spilled the beans and feeling like you overstepped?

No.

He'd have done well as a church official during the crusades. *Don't
know what he's like live but he sure comes off as the true heir to
William F. Buckley, minus the intellect.

you're probably right.

Yes, I thought so.

Lets refresh my origional post, shall we?

you're probably right.

Thanks for confirming.

For the children's sake...
 

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...y.aspx?ref=rss


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.

For the children's sake...
 

On Dec 10, 7:45*am, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:34:23 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:





On Dec 9, 10:54 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:30:10 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:06 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:39:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:35 pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
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...

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

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

--

Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in Atlanta.

Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.

I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.

Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

Actually, not really. we attend separate churches, however we share
close to the same beliefs.

if by chance J. had kids the same age as mine who were active in
sports, then they probably did compete with each other

Uh oh, spilled the beans and feeling like you overstepped?

No.

He'd have done well as a church official during the crusades. Don't
know what he's like live but he sure comes off as the true heir to
William F. Buckley, minus the intellect.

you're probably right.

Yes, I thought so.

Lets refresh my origional post, shall we?

"in you're eyes you're probably right. But you see only what you wish.
"

I wouldn't bother, Tim. *You're arguing with a sophist.

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

- Show quoted text -

A sophist.

I'd say that's being complimentary.

For the children's sake...
 

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?

For the children's sake...
 

Don White wrote:
"H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:



On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:
wrote in message
...
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...
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??
Yes.
--
Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in
Atlanta.
Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.
I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.
Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?
Both.

**********************************

He may be a buddy, but I sense that you are a reasonably sensible , well
adjusted person.
Would you want this character running the roads drunk when your kids are
driving back from a social or sporting event?
The Mounties and city cops hold random traffic stops here..especially at
this time of year, to try and weed out the drunks, the unlicensed &
uninsured and those driving unsafe vehicles. I say the more they catch,
the safer it is for my family.
Serious question. Do you take your boy's car keys from him after he throws
back more than one beer? That would be the resonably sensible thing to do.

--

I watch him carefully, but he is a very responsible sensible young man.
Certainly more so than I was at his age, and yes he takes taxies if he plans
on consuming "more than one beer".


Good man.
Taxies?

--


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

For the children's sake...
 

Tim wrote:
On Dec 10, 7:45 am, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:34:23 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:





On Dec 9, 10:54 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:30:10 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:06 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:39:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:35 pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:
wrote in message
...
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...
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??
Yes.
--
Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in Atlanta.
Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.
I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.
Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?
Both.
Actually, not really. we attend separate churches, however we share
close to the same beliefs.
if by chance J. had kids the same age as mine who were active in
sports, then they probably did compete with each other
Uh oh, spilled the beans and feeling like you overstepped?
No.
He'd have done well as a church official during the crusades. Don't
know what he's like live but he sure comes off as the true heir to
William F. Buckley, minus the intellect.
you're probably right.
Yes, I thought so.
Lets refresh my origional post, shall we?
"in you're eyes you're probably right. But you see only what you wish.
"
I wouldn't bother, Tim. You're arguing with a sophist.

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

- Show quoted text -

A sophist.

I'd say that's being complimentary.

Right on the money, I'd say

"a captious or fallacious reasoner"

It fits Harry, JPS, and Plume to a T.