|
For the children's sake...
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! |
For the children's sake...
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 |
For the children's sake...
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. |
For the children's sake...
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. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
For the children's sake...
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?? -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ... 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 tend to agree, but I think the distinction is that a child can't legally make a decision to avoid getting in the car, where an adult can. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
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. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
For the children's sake...
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! This is what happened to Britain. That is the piling on of laws and restrictions to the point that their charter or Constitution is worthless. We have been witness to the change from about 1950 to now. It seemed less apparent here but we are spiraling the same way. |
For the children's sake...
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? -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
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...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. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access In that case, how would "irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe penalties meted out by the justice system" work? -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Steve B" wrote in message
... "Tim" wrote in message ... 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! Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment. Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers. And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this already, as we have increased the laws. There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their criminal acts. Look at Prohibition. Steve I'm not sure what you mean by "lessening their criminal acts." If you mean that laws don't reduce criminal activity, then that's true for some laws, e.g., death penalty laws don't reduce homicides. But, I suspect it's not true for others, and laws do prevent bad outcomes, e.g., seat belt laws. I don't have access to the full article, but here's the abstract. "This article reexamines the effectiveness of blood alcohol content (BAC) laws in reducing traffic fatalities. Differences-in-differences estimators of U.S. state-level data with standard errors corrected for autocorrelation show no evidence that lowering the BAC limits to 0.08 g/dL reduced fatality rates, either in total or in crashes likely to be alcohol related, or in states that passed BAC 08 in laws either in advance of or in response to federal pressure. Other legislations, including administrative license revocation and primary seat belt laws, are found effective in reducing fatalities in all specifications. Endogeneity tests using event analyses confirm the differences-in-differences estimates." -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Tim" wrote in message ... 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! Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment. Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers. And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this already, as we have increased the laws. There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their criminal acts. Look at Prohibition. Steve |
For the children's sake...
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. This must be from living in ideas of the head instead of the real world. Or maybe you know that life being fleeting and all, getting killed by a drunk driver is just "The Price of Freedom" Or maybe you are willing to take the chance that everybody is as responsible as you and won't drive drunk. They ain't. Only reason I won't drive inebriated is the law might hammer me with fines and jail and take my driver's license away. I know that beer don't affect me, When I'm drunk I still drive good. Just like everybody else. --Vic |
For the children's sake...
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! Can't enforce the laws they have, what good is another? More lawyers? I like it the way some countries do it. First offence and 2 years in jail. No prarole, no good behavior, no nothing. Two years in cement walls. |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 9, 6:43*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message ... 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! Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment. a snide comment. Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers. And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this already, as we have increased the laws. There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their criminal acts. *Look at Prohibition. Steve And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too. |
For the children's sake...
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...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. -- 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. |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 9, 3:58*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article b9c6b372-c019-4fe4-910a-445f57676f74 @y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com, says... 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! Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any passenger in the car? Just sayin'... Or a felony to DUI/DWI without passengers, period? |
For the children's sake...
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. |
For the children's sake...
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 |
For the children's sake...
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? Still thinking... still thinking... still thinking... bzzzzzt... |
For the children's sake...
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:50:27 -0600, Vic Smith
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. This must be from living in ideas of the head instead of the real world. Or maybe you know that life being fleeting and all, getting killed by a drunk driver is just "The Price of Freedom" Or maybe you are willing to take the chance that everybody is as responsible as you and won't drive drunk. They ain't. Only reason I won't drive inebriated is the law might hammer me with fines and jail and take my driver's license away. I know that beer don't affect me, When I'm drunk I still drive good. Just like everybody else. --Vic I was recently returning from a trip to Whistler Mountain, north of Vancouver, BC. The sound to mountain road was packed with drunk Canadians racing back to Vancouver. They were insane! I couldn't believe the risky behavior we observed on the road. Swerving at high speeds around cars. Evidently, the penalties up there aren't very stiff. |
For the children's sake...
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? |
For the children's sake...
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. |
For the children's sake...
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 |
For the children's sake...
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? |
For the children's sake...
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? 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. |
For the children's sake...
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. in you're eyes you're probably right. But you see only what you wish. |
For the children's sake...
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. |
For the children's sake...
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 9, 6:43 pm, "Steve B" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... 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! Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment. a snide comment. Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers. And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this already, as we have increased the laws. There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their criminal acts. Look at Prohibition. Steve And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too. reply: Well, if there are more laws, it means the government needs to hire more law enforcement officers. Is that what they're talking about with all this jobs creation stuff? The old laws worked so good, lets make some more! Yeah, that oughta do it. Steve |
For the children's sake...
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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ... 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? Good question!! -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Tim" wrote in message
... On Dec 9, 6:43 pm, "Steve B" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... 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! Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment. a snide comment. Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers. And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this already, as we have increased the laws. There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their criminal acts. Look at Prohibition. Steve And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too. The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
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 |
For the children's sake...
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. " |
For the children's sake...
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. The program? -- Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using someone else's ID |
For the children's sake...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 9, 6:43 pm, "Steve B" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... 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! Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment. a snide comment. Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers. And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this already, as we have increased the laws. There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their criminal acts. Look at Prohibition. Steve And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too. The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%. Not enough credit is given to the peacemaker, as a tool to keep crime down. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Peacemaker Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using someone else's ID |
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. That is a specious argument. We're talking about legal philosophies that transcend technologicial and sociological advances (if there is such a thing). Your same argument is used to deprecate the Constitution. The document necessarily transcends the passage of time. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
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? "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 |
For the children's sake...
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. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com