"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.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"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.



So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a
pretty low standard.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

"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.



So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a
pretty low standard.

--
Nom=de=Plume




Huh? Where is a mandatory felony for a 0.08 BAC the right thing? Other
studies have shown no difference in .08 and .1 BAC safety results. How
about if the guy is endangering the child, he gets arrested for that. Not
because he was driving safely and got pulled over for a bad brake light, and
the cop does a BAC on him. So you have 2 drinks and get pulled over with
your neice in the car. You go to jail for at least a year. Definition of a
felony, is the jail sentence is longer than a year. You going to get your
life together when you get out? No home, no business, and a record.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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

"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.



So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a
pretty low standard.

--
Nom=de=Plume




Huh? Where is a mandatory felony for a 0.08 BAC the right thing? Other
studies have shown no difference in .08 and .1 BAC safety results. How
about if the guy is endangering the child, he gets arrested for that. Not
because he was driving safely and got pulled over for a bad brake light,
and the cop does a BAC on him. So you have 2 drinks and get pulled over
with your neice in the car. You go to jail for at least a year.
Definition of a felony, is the jail sentence is longer than a year. You
going to get your life together when you get out? No home, no business,
and a record.

Not sure what you're ranting about. You said there were unintended
consequences. That's true for many things. It's pretty difficult to devine
what they'll be in all situations.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:36:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


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

"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.



So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a
pretty low standard.

--
Nom=de=Plume




Huh? Where is a mandatory felony for a 0.08 BAC the right thing? Other
studies have shown no difference in .08 and .1 BAC safety results. How
about if the guy is endangering the child, he gets arrested for that. Not
because he was driving safely and got pulled over for a bad brake light, and
the cop does a BAC on him. So you have 2 drinks and get pulled over with
your neice in the car. You go to jail for at least a year. Definition of a
felony, is the jail sentence is longer than a year. You going to get your
life together when you get out? No home, no business, and a record.


Damn, and here I'd thought you'd seen the light nomdeplum.

Again, I'm not in favor of mandatory sentences, which are just a way
to keep liberal judges from imposing 'no' sentence.

I'm thinking that most DWI drivers get stopped because they *did*
engage in driving activities that were dangerous or, at least,
illegal.
--

John H

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:36:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


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

"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.



So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a
pretty low standard.

--
Nom=de=Plume




Huh? Where is a mandatory felony for a 0.08 BAC the right thing? Other
studies have shown no difference in .08 and .1 BAC safety results. How
about if the guy is endangering the child, he gets arrested for that. Not
because he was driving safely and got pulled over for a bad brake light,
and
the cop does a BAC on him. So you have 2 drinks and get pulled over with
your neice in the car. You go to jail for at least a year. Definition of
a
felony, is the jail sentence is longer than a year. You going to get your
life together when you get out? No home, no business, and a record.


Damn, and here I'd thought you'd seen the light nomdeplum.

Again, I'm not in favor of mandatory sentences, which are just a way
to keep liberal judges from imposing 'no' sentence.

I'm thinking that most DWI drivers get stopped because they *did*
engage in driving activities that were dangerous or, at least,
illegal.
--

John H


Yeah, there are lots of liberal judges who don't follow sentencing
guidelines. Same thing with governers.... like Huckabee???


--
Nom=de=Plume

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


So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a
pretty low standard.

--
Nom=de=Plume




Huh? Where is a mandatory felony for a 0.08 BAC the right thing? Other
studies have shown no difference in .08 and .1 BAC safety results. How
about if the guy is endangering the child, he gets arrested for that. Not
because he was driving safely and got pulled over for a bad brake light, and
the cop does a BAC on him. So you have 2 drinks and get pulled over with
your neice in the car. You go to jail for at least a year. Definition of a
felony, is the jail sentence is longer than a year. You going to get your
life together when you get out? No home, no business, and a record.


Plume has a habit of not thinking things through before making her
idiotic emissions.

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.

jps wrote:
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.

Gee, I never would have thought of that as a comeback. I'm sure Miss La
Plume will high five you again.
--


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

"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.