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
news

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.