witness his awesome smack-fu skillz here
and chime in on the immigration debate, if you dare. idiot.
Filed under angry, boogie woogie, homies, I believe the children are our future, rant
So, you like to stir things up just as much as your brothers do, don’t you?
Oh, and one question, for the sake of clarity– do you consider DUI to be the same as not wearing a seatbelt?
re DUI: in and of itself, it’s a victimless crime. If Bob drives home at 0.085 and doesn’t get in an accident, who is harmed?
do I think it’s the same as not wearing a seatbelt? um, NO. I think it’s irresponsible and puts you and others at greater risk.
re: stirring things up
more so. because I’m delusional enough to think I’m right.
master debater…..nice…..ask for some serious responses on how people feel about illegal aliens…im sure im not the only one who feels they either need to become LEGAL citizens or stop whining and go back…
dui in and of itself is a victimless crime. tell that to people who have had loved ones killed by drunk drivers…man your logic is hilarious. no not every drunk driver kills someone. but it’s illegal for a reason so while it may be victimless until the accident actually occurs, it is still a crime….and far too often a crime with innocent victims…
by virtue of this being on the world wide interwebs, I think I did just say it to people who had loved ones killed by drunk drivers. please invite as many of them as you wish to read this post.
I’ll stand by my statement because it’s true — you even admitted it.
“it’s illegal for a reason” — great logic: don’t question the laws passed by our governments, they know better than you do. I guess we shouldn’t have messed with those Jim Crowe laws, or the laws preventing women from voting.
what do you think about guns in DC? last week they were illegal, this week they’re not… so how could government have been so wrong just last week?
KP, I see the logic with the DUI thing, really. DUI is not ever an issue until someone is hurt/killed. The DUI itself is a victimless crime, but when a collision is factored in– whole new ballgame. What the DUI does is elevate risk.
I don’t have a problem with behaviour that elevates risk only for the person exhibiting such behaviour (i.e. not wearing a seatbelt, not wearing proper pads/helmets). DUI is not such a behaviour; it elevates risk for anyone on the road.
Of course, it could be argued that such risk is understood and that anyone who is on the road should understand and accept this risk. Driving is, after all not a right, but a privilege. (This is why I oppose smoking bans) Don’t like the risks? Then stay off the road. This is a stretch, though. How is it practical?
kelly brings up a whole new topic — why is driving a privilege? because the government owns the roads?
surely when cars were first invented and few people had them, the government wasn’t the one determining who could drive or not. were there horse/carriage-driving licenses? if not, why not?
could we live without the government licensing drivers? I’d argue that we could, since the government has done such a poor job of keeping bad drivers off the road in the first place. if it’s true that there are many unlicensed drivers on the road right now, doesn’t the argument for licensing kind of go away?
I guess that depends on how you see the role of the state government playing out. I think that regulating drivers is something which helps keep our society in some semblance of order. Cars go much faster than horse and buggy, especially the way you drive.
“regulating [anything/everything] is something which helps keep our society in some semblance of order.”
weak reasoning — you could make that argument for everything. regulating speech would help our society have more order, should we do that?
last night I said to K, “chainsaws are more inherently dangerous than cars, and probably have a higher rate of accidents-per-use, yet we don’t require people to be licensed in order to buy/use a chainsaw.”
the only reference I could find regarding horse/carriage licenses (prior to the advent of the automobile) was for hackney (taxi) drivers.
Wow, glad to see some intelligent debating going on here!…
I say that DUI is victimless, if it doesn’t hurt anyone else…
Driving is a privilege, it is somewhat regulated (look at all the folks on scooters in Vegas, think that’s their first choice in the 110 degree heat?) and should be. With a big old chunk of metal that is capable f going 100 miles per hour, the government wants to know who is responsible for them, just like they want to know who is responsible for the safe keeping of guns…
as for the other blog….. (fire up the sarcasmo and crank it into high gear!)
I was talking to my freind in Boston the other day, he said that his town is being over run by day labourers standing on the corner and asking ‘you need some help, eh?! You want to pay me $8 an hour AMERICAN, beauty!”…..
the car was from the county school district, they were looking for P.E. teachers…
I want the illegal situation to be more dealt with than it is, but instead of griping and showing nice RN ignorance, write letters to congress, petition the folks who are in charge, they surely aren’t going to look for your blog to see how you think…
Chainsaw use and accidents primarily impact those using them improperly. When setting out onto the roads, you are leaving your own little corner of earth. The impact of your decisions is more far-reaching.
We regulate things which impact a greater portion of society. For instance, many kids in rural areas learn to drive at a very young age. Are they learning on the freeway? No, they are learning in their own backyards, on farm roads and fields. Should this be regulated? i don’t think so. Parents need to assume responsibility here, and be afforded the right to decide what and when they teach their children.
Jon’s dragging me out the door to work.
Ok, just read your question about speech. Um, no. And how does regulating speech preserve order? Rather, how does free speech create havoc?
I know that this a tangent to the original post, but …
“the government has done such a poor job of keeping bad drivers off the road in the first place”
…because there is no money in it.
It would be simple to regulate/control let’s say for example speeding. Send Barney out in his patrol car all day driving the posted speed limit.
Who in their right mind would pass him? If this were done with any frequency, I for one would change my driving habits. I would leave earlier, more often, to allow more time for my travel. I can’t possibly be alone. Even if a small percentage of drivers did the same, the public roads would be marginally safer.
But how many fewer tickets would Barney end up writing than if he, say sat on the side of the road with a radar gun?
Fewer citations=less money into the state coffers.
Think about it, fines are set at a reasonable cost that most drivers, if cited will simply pay the fine without appearing in traffic court…. AND go right back to the fast lane (with their cell phones, hot coffee, ipods, etc.) to do their best Tony Stewart impression.
just my two cents…
yeah the chain saw argument makes sense…something about apples and oranges…you killing your retarded self because you don’t know how to use a chain saw has NOTHING to do with you driving drunk and running over an 8 year old because you’re a retarded drunk with a sports car…you always reach to the obscure bullshit to prove a useless point…you know what if you had your way the government wouldn’t exist..it would be anarchy…and john bender would be your boyfriend.
I reach for the obscure BS because government, almost inevitably, reaches the same obscure BS in time. witness smoking bans lately, first it was just workplaces, then it was restaurants/bars — now there are bans in entire cities/municipalities and in people’s own homes! oh, and the latest is if you’re in a car with children! I think that it’s a horrible idea to smoke with your kids in the car, but it’s not something that the government should be regulating.
or using eminent domain to take people’s homes/land to build shopping malls or private apartments. the argument when eminent domain started to get used for marginal development (say parks) was likely “oh, we’ll never use it to steal land from people to give to private developers — this is a park, for all people! :)” right.
if I had my way, the government would be significantly reduced in size and scope, and we’d both be better off. and you’d thank me for it, in time. honest.
why are you so scared to be free?
Nevada is reigning in eminent domain (finally) next session. Yay!!!! No more stealing from widows to build high rise condos.
I think that D.U.I should not be a crime unless either there is a victim or if the cop sees someone driving so poorly that it would appear to threaten other drivers on the road. When cops stop people for such insignificant things such as burned out brake lamps and then get them for a DUI because they supposedly smelleed like alcohol and “failed” the roadside gymnastics tests or the breathalizer test with a reading of .08 or a little over is BS. Here is some food for thought. Many people have guns in their homes and many of them get drunk at times. Should they be taken to jail because there is that slim chance that they could decide to use those guns on people because they are drunk? How is this any different than a person driving after drinking and “potentially” causing harm to another person? There is a HUGE difference between “potentially” harming someone and actually harming them. And why should a person suffer great consequences (usually worse consequences than a person actually committing a major crime) for “potentially” harming someone else? MADD (Muthers Against Drunk Driving 😉 has REALLY caused many people to actually go “mad” obviously! I predict that at the incredible rate of the creation of insane laws such as DUI laws, that it won’t be long before most people in the United States are locked up in jail. And those laws created to protect people from themselves (i.e. seatbelt laws) is another story in itself. Don’t get me started on that. Geesus!!!
In related news, I was pulled over and given a ‘field sobriety test’ of sorts last week. I had just left a restaurant/bar, and the officer claimed that I “pulled out of that parking garage a little fast”. Uh, OK. When the officer asked me if I had anything to drink, I said “two beers”. No sooner had the words left my lips, I was reminded that this was the most common answer given to police and a sure-fire trigger for a closer look.
In my case it was the also the truth, but that’s not the point. “When did you have your last one? Right before you left?” he asked. “No, actually, it was over an well over an hour ago. We had coffee and dessert before I left.” OK, whatever, let’s go to the sidewalk…
I’ve never concentrated so hard on the tip of someone’s finger before. I wouldn’t blink lest I missed him move. Sobriety-wise, I was fine, I knew that. I was just paranoid. This guy could seriously screw up my life if he decided I was being a smart-ass or something (me? a smart-ass?)
Anyhow, he let me go saying, “I’m not going to give you a ticket,” like he was doing me a favor. No kidding, I laughed to myself, he didn’t identify any basis to give me a ticket. I didn’t push it though, as there were at least three obvious things he could have ticketed me for: failure to use turn signal, broken left turn-signal, and no rear-view mirror (popped it off packing a gift in the front seat last Christmas, never figured out how to snap it back on).
Anyway, an entertaining way to wrap up the evening. I love cops.
you got lucky
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.