Terbolizard was arrested for DUI this weekend??

[Dave Wood]

http://laist.com/2008/02/12/terbolizard_dis.php

Is this true? If so what in the world was he thinking.

Maybe he was profiled for the name TERBOLIZARD.....how many could there be?

I hope this isnt true.

Here is a link to local news video with Ted.....apparently true. Pulled over for speeding.

http://cbs13.com/local/candidate.terbolizard.dui.2.651050.html

[hopeforamerica]

oops.

[Pauliana]

See, that would be "bad" publicity.

Idiot.

[pinkmandy]

It happens.

[nate895]

Great, -1 from our hopes in Congress, now even I wouldn't vote for him.

[yongrel]

Lovely, he lost my support.

[slantedview]

ah man.

may i point out that while this sucks, i'd still vote for him. he's still a lot better than the alternative.

[Paul/Belichick08]

For so-called "libertarians" you sure are quick to rush to judgement. Lets all give the mighty police the benefit of the doubt, we know they have never been wrong before. Even if he is guilty, that shouldn't detract from his message, everyone makes mistakes.

[slantedview]

the sad part is the last congressman from this district (dolittle) was one of the worst in washington. he was absolutely horrible.

[nate895]

For so-called "libertarians" you sure are quick to rush to judgement. Lets all give the mighty police the benefit of the doubt, we know they have never been wrong before. Even if he is guilty, that shouldn't detract from his message, everyone makes mistakes.

I'm not supporting anyone who gets behind the wheel of a car who is drunk to be dog catcher, let alone a Congressman, it is irresponsible to do so and may result in death for them or someone else.

[pinkmandy]

For so-called "libertarians" you sure are quick to rush to judgement. Lets all give the mighty police the benefit of the doubt, we know they have never been wrong before. Even if he is guilty, that shouldn't detract from his message, everyone makes mistakes.


I agree. Sh*# happens and it happens more often (or easily?) if you're driving around with RP bumperstickers I'd wager. I say give him the benefit of the doubt and if he was drinking who are we to judge? It isn't like he killed someone! And we can't be so judgmental, especially those of us who haven't taken the initiative to seek public office ourselves.

I'm really hoping that part of this revolution is to stop caring about minor things like so and so had a dui or so and so is gay or so and so had an affair 20 yrs ago...I'd rather go after people for breaking their oath and not upholding the Constitution. Step away from the MSM feeding frenzy...

[yongrel]

I agree. Sh*# happens and it happens more often (or easily?) if you're driving around with RP bumperstickers I'd wager. I say give him the benefit of the doubt and if he was drinking who are we to judge? It isn't like he killed someone! And we can't be so judgmental, especially those of us who haven't taken the initiative to seek public office ourselves.

I'm really hoping that part of this revolution is to stop caring about minor things like so and so had a dui or so and so is gay or so and so had an affair 20 yrs ago...I'd rather go after people for breaking their oath and not upholding the Constitution. Step away from the MSM feeding frenzy...

1) Yes, we can be judgemental.
2) DUI is not a minor thing
3) DUI is not at all equivalent to being gay or having an affair.
4) DUI is a criminal offense that endangers the innocents around you.
5) With a recent DUI under his belt, Terbolizard's campaign is effectively over already.

[MooCowzRock]

For so-called "libertarians" you sure are quick to rush to judgement. Lets all give the mighty police the benefit of the doubt, we know they have never been wrong before. Even if he is guilty, that shouldn't detract from his message, everyone makes mistakes.

I do trust the police, and I can back it up with his quote that essentially admits he's wrong. He is guilty of what he did, period. It was a stupid mistake, and as someone running for congress under this movement, he deserves some punishment. He doesnt deserve to get votes, because his mistake is only going to cause bad publicity for us, and hurt us in the long-run. Stop trying to make it out to be some police abuse of power thing, when you know very well it wasnt.

[pinkmandy]

1) Yes, we can be judgemental.
2) DUI is not a minor thing
3) DUI is not at all equivalent to being gay or having an affair.
4) DUI is a criminal offense that endangers the innocents around you.
5) With a recent DUI under his belt, Terbolizard's campaign is effectively over already.


Tell me, sir, do you know what he blew? How much he drank to get that dui? Was he actually drunk? For all YOU know, he had a beer or two, was pulled over and harrassed. Right? Or do you know something we don't?

I might be crazy but I think some drinking laws are a bit over the top and just give a cop a reason to charge you with something. If he couldn't stand up or was in no condition to drive, I'd take it more seriously. But, we don't know do we? That's what I meant about judgmental. You read something and you rushed to judgment. Have you read lately what talking heads say about Dr. Paul? :rolleyes:

[Wyurm]

lol, you guys saying he lost your support for congress are showing me just how dumb voters are. You aren't supporting him to become a school bus driver, you're supporting him to not violate the constitution. So you're telling me that when there is one guy standing up for your freedom and liberty in CA, you are willing to walk away from him because of an ALLEDGED DUI? You don't deserve freedom and that's the end of it.

[yongrel]

Tell me, sir, do you know what he blew? How much he drank to get that dui? Was he actually drunk? For all YOU know, he had a beer or two, was pulled over and harrassed. Right? Or do you know something we don't?

I might be crazy but I think some drinking laws are a bit over the top and just give a cop a reason to charge you with something. If he couldn't stand up or was in no condition to drive, I'd take it more seriously. But, we don't know do we? That's what I meant about judgmental. You read something and you rushed to judgment. Have you read lately what talking heads say about Dr. Paul? :rolleyes:

He admitted guilt. Nuff said.

[thoughtbombing]

His gun has still killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car.

[nate895]

lol, you guys saying he lost your support for congress are showing me just how dumb voters are. You aren't supporting him to become a school bus driver, you're supporting him to not violate the constitution. So you're telling me that when there is one guy standing up for your freedom and liberty in CA, you are willing to walk away from him because of an ALLEDGED DUI? You don't deserve freedom and that's the end of it.

You don't deserve responsible public officials if you'll vote for a drunk to become Congressman. Remember, this is when the Public spotlight is upon him, this is when he should be acting more responsible than ever before, not less so.

[DealzOnWheelz]

Yeah guys seriously DUI laws are so ridiculous over the top that he could have had a wine cooler on an empty stomach and blew over the limit


You guys are quick to drop the guillotine on someone


in PA .08 is "intoxicated"

THATS RIDICULOUS do you know that is depending on the person, weight, and kind of beer 1-3 beer's


NOBODY IS PERFECT AND HE ADMITTED HE MADE A MISTAKE

IT HAPPENS NOBODY IS JESUS BUT JESUS HIMSELF

how bout we ban everyone from ron paul forums that has ever committed a crime

oh we wouldn't have ron paul forums then ok

[Revolution9]

I'm not supporting anyone who gets behind the wheel of a car who is drunk to be dog catcher, let alone a Congressman, it is irresponsible to do so and may result in death for them or someone else.

If I drink two beers with dinner and the cop is an ass i am going to jail. I would be a damned far sight away from being drunk at two beers. Six or seven in less than two hours..maybe..depends on how much food i ate. The legal limits are too low. They are meant to be.. they are a good revenue flow and make a great set of chans to lay on the citizens neck as they know most folks go out once in a while to enjoy a few drinks. Used to be a cop would give you a lift back home instead of fucking your whole life up.

]This Turbo-Lizard fellow probably had three r four and the local cops are McCain heads.. They are ticketing and busting RP supporters for the merest of infraction. A sticker on a rear wndow??? fuck them..I have seen thousands. Betcha they dont give the guys with the police fraternity stickers on their rear window tickets. Screw the jackboots and do not judge a man guilty just because he was arrested. that is entirely un-American if i understand the real culture properly.

Best Regards
Randy
HTH
Randy

[yongrel]

how bout we ban everyone from ron paul forums that has ever committed a crime

oh we wouldn't have ron paul forums then ok

I would still be here.

But more to the point, there is a slight difference between internet forum membership and a national elected office. We elect politicians because we expect them to have good judgment and faculties. Mr. Terbolizard, if the story above is true, displayed an alarming lack of good judgment by deciding to drink and then drive.

[Paulitical Correctness]

What the hell kind of name is Terbolizard?

God, I love it!

[pinkmandy]

lol, you guys saying he lost your support for congress are showing me just how dumb voters are. You aren't supporting him to become a school bus driver, you're supporting him to not violate the constitution. So you're telling me that when there is one guy standing up for your freedom and liberty in CA, you are willing to walk away from him because of an ALLEDGED DUI? You don't deserve freedom and that's the end of it.

Thank you. Lmao. No...he won't be my first choice as a school bus driver. :D And he may lose the support of the holier than thou "I have never done anything wrong and what I have done has been forgiven" but that shouldn't hurt him too bad. Those folks are all out voting for Huckabee today. ;)

Laws are strict here, I could have 2 glasses of wine and be "guilty" of a dui if pulled over yet nowhere near drunk. Nuff said.

[Tim724]

jeez, you guys are really uptight about DUI.

The levels of alcohol you need for DUI are pretty low in most places...getting pinched for DUI is not necessarily a wreckless act by any strecth.

Harry Browne used to say it shouldn't matter what substances you take before driving, it only matters what tangible damage you actually inflict on someone else.

[DealzOnWheelz]

You don't deserve responsible public officials if you'll vote for a drunk to become Congressman. Remember, this is when the Public spotlight is upon him, this is when he should be acting more responsible than ever before, not less so.

YOu just called the man a DRUNK


You sir are a fucked up individual

What is a drunk??

someone who got a dui once? DO you know how often he drinks? do you know how much he drank??

In PA dui laws are so restrictive that 1-3 beers will put you over the limit so on an empty stomach 1 beer could have you arrested


That kinda sounds like a form of moderate prohibition to me

Is it not close to reality to believe that the MEDIA THAT HAS BEEN FUCKING US IS FUCKING HIM BECAUSE HE IS ONE OF US

They could be blowing it out of proportion and in AMERICA I THOUGHT YOU WERE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN THE COURT OF LAW

[Wyurm]

You don't deserve responsible public officials if you'll vote for a drunk to become Congressman. Remember, this is when the Public spotlight is upon him, this is when he should be acting more responsible than ever before, not less so.

right, because everyone has voted for responsible officials so far, you know, the ones that make sure not to do anything that would make them look bad, so we must have the absolute best representatives by your reasoning, right?

Use your brain. Think. You either aren't thinking or don't really want freedom.

[MooCowzRock]

If I drink two beers with dinner and the cop is an ass i am going to jail. I would be a damned far sight away from being drunk at two beers. Six or seven in less than two hours..maybe..depends on how much food i ate. The legal limits are too low. They are meant to be.. they are a good revenue flow and make a great set of chans to lay on the citizens neck as they know most folks go out once in a while to enjoy a few drinks. Used to be a cop would give you a lift back home instead of fucking your whole life up.

]This Turbo-Lizard fellow probably had three r four and the local cops are McCain heads.. They are ticketing and busting RP supporters for the merest of infraction. A sticker on a rear wndow??? fuck them..I have seen thousands. Betcha they dont give the guys with the police fraternity stickers on their rear window tickets. Screw the jackboots and do not judge a man guilty just because he was arrested. that is entirely un-American if i understand the real culture properly.

Best Regards
Randy
HTH
Randy
Or Terbolizard was an idiot and, while running for fucking congress, got drunk and drove. I cant imagine getting more moronic than that.

[slantedview]

in PA .08 is "intoxicated"
it's the same here in CA (where theo is), .08

[BreakYourChains]

Tell me, sir, do you know what he blew? How much he drank to get that dui? Was he actually drunk? For all YOU know, he had a beer or two, was pulled over and harrassed. Right? Or do you know something we don't?

I might be crazy but I think some drinking laws are a bit over the top and just give a cop a reason to charge you with something. If he couldn't stand up or was in no condition to drive, I'd take it more seriously. But, we don't know do we? That's what I meant about judgmental. You read something and you rushed to judgment. Have you read lately what talking heads say about Dr. Paul? :rolleyes:

I agree with you.

[Paulitical Correctness]

Or Terbolizard was an idiot and, while running for fucking congress, got drunk and drove. I cant imagine getting more moronic than that.

Given the circumstances ( running for Congress ), even touching alcohol before getting behind the wheel was, obviously, a stupid move.

However, as many have previously stated, the laws are ridiculous. Couple that with the fact that cops are entirely too eager to bust people and you have an unnecessary situation.

[Wyurm]

Or Terbolizard was an idiot and, while running for fucking congress, got drunk and drove. I cant imagine getting more moronic than that.

I can. Supporting his opponent because he got a DUI. Then a few years later complaining about loss of rights, etc.... Seems pretty moronic to me.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Thank you. Lmao. No...he won't be my first choice as a school bus driver. :D And he may lose the support of the holier than thou "I have never done anything wrong and what I have done has been forgiven" but that shouldn't hurt him too bad. Those folks are all out voting for Huckabee today. ;)

Laws are strict here, I could have 2 glasses of wine and be "guilty" of a dui if pulled over yet nowhere near drunk. Nuff said.

+1


I would still be here.

...

What?, you've never skinny-dipped?, or driven a mile over the speed limit, or ...

Hhhhmmmmm...

[Revolution9]

He admitted guilt. Nuff said.

Ah..guilty of having had a drink before driving as hundreds of thousands do daily. But how many is the key. he probably was not drunk. Drunk would be irresponsible. Having three or four drinks and a conversation should be fine but isn't. They want you to sit at the bar for an hour every drink you have to be legal..

I had a DUI in 1984 for two glasses of wine. The cop didn't like how i was dressed, looked in the window and told me "Yer goin' to jail boy" I had .07 but the call is the officers jurisdiction. i did not know enough at that point to fight it properly so I pleaded nolo contendre. meanwhile while the cop was harassing me a guy who was puking in the parking lot by his mustang came out of the parking lot and whipped right by the cop.. But hey..he had his revenue for the night and could retire to the station for paperwork and coffee and slacktime.

Best Regards
Randy

[MrZach]

In CA they have something called "wet and reckless" where if you get pulled over for ANYTHING - a tail light being out even - and you blow ANY percentage at all (you had a beer earlier that night), they can charge you with a Wet & Reckless and it is basically like a DUI. I wouldn't surprised if this is what this is really about.

I used to live up by Grass Valley, and the cops around there are NOTORIOUS for going after frivolous W&R charges.

Keep in mind he was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving - it doesn't say DUI, and it doesn't say he blew. It is quite likely that he can get out of this.... but it probably will sink his political career even if he is exonerated...

[MooCowzRock]

I can. Supporting his opponent because he got a DUI. Then a few years later complaining about loss of rights, etc.... Seems pretty moronic to me.

Whats worse, not supporting a candidate and risk getting his opponent elected, or get a candidate who is going to give us bad publicity in ther national spotlight and hurt the movement overall...hmmm......

[slantedview]

I can. Supporting his opponent because he got a DUI. Then a few years later complaining about loss of rights, etc.... Seems pretty moronic to me.

yep. nobody will argue that drinking anything and driving is not wise, it lacks common sense. but what's lacking even more in common sense is to vote for a socialist/authoritarian/status quo candidate over a free market/freedom loving/libertarian candidate because the freedom candidate got a DUI.

as you said, let's see how much that DUI matters when your freedom is gone.

[Shink]

Or Terbolizard was an idiot and, while running for fucking congress, got drunk and drove. I cant imagine getting more moronic than that.

You're going to have to define "drunk" before we move any further.

[FireofLiberty]

If you're running for Congress ideally you don't drive at all. You get a driver.

[DealzOnWheelz]

I would still be here.

But more to the point, there is a slight difference between internet forum membership and a national elected office. We elect politicians because we expect them to have good judgment and faculties. Mr. Terbolizard, if the story above is true, displayed an alarming lack of good judgment by deciding to drink and then drive.

Actually you wouldn't because there are so many laws on the books that no one even knows exist and have no idea that they are in fact breaking the law


IT STILL MAKES YOU A CRIMINAL


DUI laws arethe complete opposite of a free society

I have not hurt another person
They arrest on the fact that you MAY hurt someone or yourself granted in severe cases there is perfectly good reason

how bout we make breathalyzers standard equipment on EVERY VEHICLE it will make us safer


Thats like saying we should search everyone for drugs

or like saying we should TAP EVERYONE'S PHONE CUZ WE MIGHT FIND A BADGUY


shit they might as well arrest everyon because you MIGHT END UP HURTING SOMEONE EVENTUALLY

[Steve_New_Jersey]

Go easy folks. We are not robots. Humans are bound to make a mistake. He will pay for his and its not our right or our duty to judge him for being human.

[Wyurm]

Go easy folks. We are not robots. Humans are bound to make a mistake. He will pay for his and its not our right or our duty to judge him for being human.

+1 well said

[yongrel]

What?, you've never skinny-dipped?, or driven a mile over the speed limit, or ...

Hhhhmmmmm...

Correct. To my knowledge, I have never broken any laws. There remains the distinct possibility that I am in violation of an obscure law pertaining to drinking egg nog on a Sunday while wearing a sweater though.

But I digress. Mr. Terbolizard made an astonishingly poor choice. I don't care whether he drank a wine cooler on an empty stomach or a keg of god-knows-what after a hearty meal of bratwurst and sauerkraut. The fact of the matter is that his blood-alcohol level was above the legal limit while he was driving, and he admitted to this.

This does not mean he is anything but a swell guy. Having never met him, I am going to assume he's a decent bloke. I'm glad that he has admitted his mistake, but that changes nothing in my mind.

When I vote for someone, I do it because I expect them to be a person of good judgment among other things. Terbolizard has displayed an unfortunate absence of this virtue by deciding to drive intoxicated, and as such I cannot in good conscience support him.

[bj72]

the sad part is the last congressman from this district (dolittle) was one of the worst in washington. he was absolutely horrible.

Are you speaking about John Doolittle? Are you in Roseville area?

I worked for him in 1995 in DC, then left to go into advertising. It was my first job after college. He started off okay. I remember liking that he wouldn't be alone with any female staffers as to protect his marriage from temptation and the appearance of any wrong doing (that was before being alone with male staffers could create talk too, lol).

I didn't keep up and when checked him out this year on google was sad and surprised to see all the scandal around him. Not to mention, Kevin Ring and Gretchen Moss named in articles...they were my co-workers. Glad I left when I did. My husband said that I might not have "seen the light" had I stayed in DC all these years. Unfortunately it is a rare person who does and isn't dragged down by it. Ron Paul is one of a handful that has managed not to wallow in the mud with the rest of them.

[bj72]

BTW, I loved his constituents. They were always so very nice and friendly when I met them and gave tours :)

[MrZach]

Actually you wouldn't because there are so many laws on the books that no one even knows exist and have no idea that they are in fact breaking the law

IT STILL MAKES YOU A CRIMINAL

DUI laws arethe complete opposite of a free society

I have not hurt another person
They arrest on the fact that you MAY hurt someone or yourself granted in severe cases there is perfectly good reason

how bout we make breathalyzers standard equipment on EVERY VEHICLE it will make us safer

Thats like saying we should search everyone for drugs

or like saying we should TAP EVERYONE'S PHONE CUZ WE MIGHT FIND A BADGUY

shit they might as well arrest everyon because you MIGHT END UP HURTING SOMEONE EVENTUALLY

Driving isn't a right. It is a privilege. You have to get a driver's license to drive. You don't HAVE to drive - you voluntarily drive, therefore you voluntarily submit yourself to the regulations on driving. You cannot operate a motor vehicle without a license, therefore if you voluntarily obtain said license (at which point you are basically signing a contract to obey the regulations) and operate the massive and highly deadly piece of machinery and violate your license agreement - you can be CRIMINALLY punished however the State that granted your the license or privileged of operating your vehicle on their roadways sees fit.

I happen to be a HUGE fan of DUI laws. In fact, I think they should be must stricter.

[Revolution9]

I happen to be a HUGE fan of DUI laws. In fact, I think they should be must stricter.

I am a huge fan of freedom . I think the ways the jackboots can use to stop you, fuck up your llfe and leave you in virtual chains should be restricted. I have no use for yellers like you backing up flaw reinforcement.

Driving is a professional occupation. Travelling is allowed inder the Constitution and needs no permiture or licensing. Roll those marbles around in your jackboot loving brain..

HTH
Randy

Regards
Randy

[angelatc]

Driving isn't a right. It is a privilege. You have to get a driver's license to drive. You don't HAVE to drive - you voluntarily drive, therefore you voluntarily submit yourself to the regulations on driving. You cannot operate a motor vehicle without a license, therefore if you voluntarily obtain said license (at which point you are basically signing a contract to obey the regulations) and operate the massive and highly deadly piece of machinery and violate your license agreement - you can be CRIMINALLY punished however the State that granted your the license or privileged of operating your vehicle on their roadways sees fit.

I happen to be a HUGE fan of DUI laws. In fact, I think they should be must stricter.

Driving should be a freaking right. I pay taxes to build roads, don't I? As long as I buy a car that should be the end of the state's involvement. You, on the other hand, have a right to stay home if the world scares you.

The mass media has done its job on this issue. I agree with the person you quoted. It's a victimless crime. Punishing people because somebody *might* get hurt is pretty darned socialist.

And the science behind the Federally enforced .08 limit is flawed, as usual.

[Itzsoez]

arrested NOT convicted.

some of you have convicted him before his trial.
you must think that cops only arrest guilty people.

[Wyurm]

We have a wide array of people here ranging from liberty-minded, long-time political activists who are seasoned, all the way to complete noobs that sound more statist or collectivist but like the message of liberty though not fully understanding it. I don't want to offend any of them and everyone is entitled to make choices based on personal values. However, we are at a pivotal moment in history and making the wrong choice here will affect what happens to you later on.

Essentially, this movement is late in peaking. This needs to have happened years ago, but it hasn't been until recently that the obvious attacks on our rights have really grown to undeniable levels. It just saddens me to see people that will look at this, make a moral judgement to not support him and instead allow their rights to be taken away. I'm not saying we should applaud what he did. What he did was likely wrong and dangerous. However, if you have one guy acting as your bodyguard against 3 people who want to kill you, and you find out that he has done something morally offensive to you. Are you really going to tell him to stop defending you and sacrifice yourself for your moral beliefs? That is essentially what you are doing here and that makes horribly little sense to me.

[FireofLiberty]

Actually, as far as driving goes, if you own your car it is YOUR property and therefore you have certain PROPERTY RIGHTS that go along with it.

[Paulitical Correctness]

you must think that cops only arrest guilty people.


Sadly, this is a common misconception.

[LandonCook]

"Terbolizard Disassociates with Hollywood Celeb DUIs
Ted Terbolizard, a republican congressional candidate running for the 4th district (Northeastern California) in the June election, was arrested in Grass Valley over the weekend on suspicion of drunken driving. Normally, we would not report on a potential congressman who has not much to do in Los Angeles. Beside his name being Terbolizard (we love it), that he is a fervent Ron Paul fan and the fact that he actually blogs and loves the arts, he gets one of those "politicians say the darndest things" awards after his defense of the recent arrest. Courtesy of the Sacremento Bee's Capitol Alert blog via the candidate's blog:

"It's not like the sort of Lindsay Lohan story or Nicole Ritchie (sic) story where I was driving 5 mph the wrong way on the freeway with the doors open and a car full of narcotics, it was absolutley (sic) nothing like that; no car crash or anything." [Capitol Alert]
Heh, "...with doors open and a car full of narcotics." Classic. He was later quoted saying “The press will have a hard time ignoring this.” We almost did ignore it until he brought Hollywood in. And as one commenter on his blog said, we're "glad you are alright and hope you can learn from this.” At this point, that's what is important. "

on the suspicion? WTF?

[FireofLiberty]

on the suspicion? WTF?

This is often code for he refused to blow on the straw.

[Eponym_mi]

I happen to be a HUGE fan of DUI laws. In fact, I think they should be must stricter.

DUI laws are unneeded. Stiffer penalties for property damage and personal injury would be just as much of a deterrent.

[DealzOnWheelz]

When I vote for someone, I do it because I expect them to be a person of good judgment among other things. Terbolizard has displayed an unfortunate absence of this virtue by deciding to drive intoxicated, and as such I cannot in good conscience support him.

then you shouldn't support ron paul because he allowed his good judgement to be lost when the newsletters were printed in his name

[MrZach]

A car is an extremely dangerous and deadly piece of machinery. I have no problem with there being restrictions and regulations on it. Even with all that, automobile accidents are one of the leading causes of death in America. So... we should make it even less regulated, making the roads even LESS safe is what you're saying, right? What planet are you living on?

During the 4 years I was in high school, I ran out of fingers to count the number of friends I had die in automobile accidents - alcohol was involved in the majority of them, and not always on the part of my friends. One of my closest friends was in a coma for almost 6 months and now has severe brain damage, limited motor function and speech capability.

So... what you're basically arguing is that we should wait until AFTER people are dead and brain damaged...?

When a police officer pulls someone over and arrests them for a DUI - they are SAVING LIVES.

Get educated. Ger real.
http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Young_Adults.html
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/kpfleger/auto/causes_of_death.html
http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rilj/9712/ri971204.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/
http://www.weitzlux.com/motorvehiclecrashes/leadingcauseofdeath_960.html

[Johncjackson]

1) Yes, we can be judgemental.
2) DUI is not a minor thing
3) DUI is not at all equivalent to being gay or having an affair.
4) DUI is a criminal offense that endangers the innocents around you.
5) With a recent DUI under his belt, Terbolizard's campaign is effectively over already.

DUI is a "pre-crime." No one has actually been harmed.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! You people wouldn't vote for the man because he got a DWI???

Kennedy killed a woman and ran, his brother wrecked his car and the police helped him escape. Bush did Cocaine, my Senator Vitter was caught with a prostitute.

Personally, none of that (well maybe Ted Kennedy) bothers me. What bothers me is that our politicians STEAL our money in the name of Patriotism. They debase our currency for the benefit of the elite and the destruction of the middle class.

Many of these "angelic" politicians who have never done anything wrong legally are the most evil.

A simple DWI is NOTHING compared to what our current politicians do.

When 2 beers is the legal limit to drive a car, something is wrong.
When 3 DWI's makes you a Felon, on the same level with murderers rapists and thieves, something is wrong.

When 6 Beers and a car can technically make sure you never receive a passport, can take away your second amendment rights, and take your drivers license for good, something is VERY wrong....

I am firmly opposed to the current DWI laws.

[LandonCook]

Ah..guilty of having had a drink before driving as hundreds of thousands do daily. But how many is the key. he probably was not drunk. Drunk would be irresponsible. Having three or four drinks and a conversation should be fine but isn't. They want you to sit at the bar for an hour every drink you have to be legal..

I had a DUI in 1984 for two glasses of wine. The cop didn't like how i was dressed, looked in the window and told me "Yer goin' to jail boy" I had .07 but the call is the officers jurisdiction. i did not know enough at that point to fight it properly so I pleaded nolo contendre. meanwhile while the cop was harassing me a guy who was puking in the parking lot by his mustang came out of the parking lot and whipped right by the cop.. But hey..he had his revenue for the night and could retire to the station for paperwork and coffee and slacktime.

Best Regards
Randy

Thankyou for reminding me why I hate cops...

[LandonCook]

This is often code for he refused to blow on the straw.

You see, he is much better than most politicans who blow on much bigger things than straws...

[MrZach]

DUI laws are unneeded. Stiffer penalties for property damage and personal injury would be just as much of a deterrent.

That's total BS and you know it. People don't drink and drive because they think the penalty isn't stiff enough if they have an accident or injure or kill someone so it is an "acceptable risk." They drink and drive because they are idiots who exercise poor judgment.

It has been shown numerous times that the stiffer the drinking and driving laws get, there is a very correlated reduction in alcohol related MV accidents.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

A car is an extremely dangerous and deadly piece of machinery. I have no problem with there being restrictions and regulations on it. Even with all that, automobile accidents are one of the leading causes of death in America. So... we should make it even less regulated, making the roads even LESS safe is what you're saying, right? What planet are you living on?

During the 4 years I was in high school, I ran out of fingers to count the number of friends I had die in automobile accidents - alcohol was involved in the majority of them, and not always on the part of my friends. One of my closest friends was in a coma for almost 6 months and now has severe brain damage, limited motor function and speech capability.

So... what you're basically arguing is that we should wait until AFTER people are dead and brain damaged...?

When a police officer pulls someone over and arrests them for a DUI - they are SAVING LIVES.

Get educated. Ger real.
http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Young_Adults.html
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/kpfleger/auto/causes_of_death.html
http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rilj/9712/ri971204.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/
http://www.weitzlux.com/motorvehiclecrashes/leadingcauseofdeath_960.html



Regulations are your answer to safety? Why are you in Ron Paul's camp.

Sacrificing Liberty for Safety guarantees you will receive neither.

Do you think Regulations are needed for the 2nd Amendment too?



IMO, a DWI should be a $200+ ticket, and brought to jail for the night. That is what the law was like until MADD started lobbying, and now 3rd time offenders are treated the same as Murderers.

IF someone is killed in the accident, charge them with Manslaughter.

[MrZach]

DUI is a "pre-crime." No one has actually been harmed.

This is ludicrous BULL SHIT!!!

It isn't PRE-CRIME. Charging someone with a DUI isn't charging them with "potentially harming someone" - it is charging them with violating their LICENSE AGREEMENT!!!

Did you sign your driver's license? Then you signed an agreement to follow the state's laws on drinking and driving. Grow up.

[MrZach]

Regulations are your answer to safety? Why are you in Ron Paul's camp.

Sacrificing Liberty for Safety guarantees you will receive neither.

Do you think Regulations are needed for the 2nd Amendment too?

IMO, a DWI should be a $200+ ticket, and brought to jail for the night. That is what the law was like until MADD started lobbying, and now 3rd time offenders are treated the same as Murderers.

IF someone is killed in the accident, charge them with Manslaughter.



You aren't sacrificing any liberty by regulating driving automobiles. Stop making ridiculous comparisons. It is a VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. You sign your driver's license, you agree to comply by the regulations. If you don't get a driver's license and you don't operate a motor vehicle - you aren't "losing your liberty" so get the hell over it.

Next thing you'll be saying anyone should be allowed to fly a plane - thats another piece of machinery that requires a license and has strict regulations on it. Where does it stop?

[DealzOnWheelz]

Driving isn't a right. It is a privilege. You have to get a driver's license to drive. You don't HAVE to drive - you voluntarily drive, therefore you voluntarily submit yourself to the regulations on driving. You cannot operate a motor vehicle without a license, therefore if you voluntarily obtain said license (at which point you are basically signing a contract to obey the regulations) and operate the massive and highly deadly piece of machinery and violate your license agreement - you can be CRIMINALLY punished however the State that granted your the license or privileged of operating your vehicle on their roadways sees fit.

I happen to be a HUGE fan of DUI laws. In fact, I think they should be must stricter.

You also have to get a license to be married does that mean marriage is not a right??

You don't have to get married you voluntarily get married, therefore you voluntarliy submit yourself to the regulation on marriage. You cannot get marriedwithout a license(in some states), therefore if you voluntarily obtain said license(at which point you are basically signing a contract to obey the regulations) and don't allow the State control of your children(thats what happens when you sign a marriage license your child becomes a property of the state)- you can be criminally punished however the state that granted you the license or privilege of being allowed to marry in their jurisdiction.


I happen to be a STAUNCH opponent of laws that infringe on ones civil liberties as well as constitutional liberties. The DUI laws destroy your life under the assumption that you would have hurt somebody sooner or later.

I would be much more inclined to support a law stating that if you are caught under the influence your keys will be taken for the night and you must walk home BUT IF YOU HURT ANYONE INCLUDING KILLING AND INCLUDING YOURSELF WHILE DUI THEN YOU GET AN EXTREMELY HARSH SENTENCE

[MrZach]

CountryboyRonPaul - I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul hasn't been calling for the abolition of driver's licenses and regulations on operating motor vehicles... When you find the quotes on him discussing such, please enlighten me.

In the meantime, read Adam Smith - I mean ACTUAL Adam Smith. It'll blow your mind...

[Paulitical Correctness]

Obviously there's going to be grey area, as with all things regarding the police and the "laws" they uphold.

[Eponym_mi]

They drink and drive because they are idiots who exercise poor judgment.

Yeah, and once you remove them from the pool of drivers, that problem is solved. Drinking isn't a crime (driving or not)...damaging property or injuring someone is the crime...and the real problem is lack enforcement of those laws. Besides, DUI laws are blatantly unconstitutional. :rolleyes:

[MrZach]

You also have to get a license to be married does that mean marriage is not a right??

You don't have to get married you voluntarily get married, therefore you voluntarliy submit yourself to the regulation on marriage. You cannot get marriedwithout a license(in some states), therefore if you voluntarily obtain said license(at which point you are basically signing a contract to obey the regulations) and don't allow the State control of your children(thats what happens when you sign a marriage license your child becomes a property of the state)- you can be criminally punished however the state that granted you the license or privilege of being allowed to marry in their jurisdiction.


I happen to be a STAUNCH opponent of laws that infringe on ones civil liberties as well as constitutional liberties. The DUI laws destroy your life under the assumption that you would have hurt somebody sooner or later.

I would be much more inclined to support a law stating that if you are caught under the influence your keys will be taken for the night and you must walk home BUT IF YOU HURT ANYONE INCLUDING KILLING AND INCLUDING YOURSELF WHILE DUI THEN YOU GET AN EXTREMELY HARSH SENTENCE


You don't have to have a license to get married. You have to have a license to be recognized by the state as married. You are perfectly free to get married by a church and call yourselves married and enjoy a married life not recognized by the state.

Also, I'm not aware of the statistics of how many people were accidentally killed by a marriage... Maybe you could share...

Again - a DUI violation isn't a crime because you potentially committed a crime. It is a violation of contract. When you sign your driver's license, you are signing a contract to not drive under the influence. You violate that contract, you get what's coming to you. THINK before you open your mouth.

[DealzOnWheelz]

That's total BS and you know it. People don't drink and drive because they think the penalty isn't stiff enough if they have an accident or injure or kill someone so it is an "acceptable risk." They drink and drive because they are idiots who exercise poor judgment.

It has been shown numerous times that the stiffer the drinking and driving laws get, there is a very correlated reduction in alcohol related MV accidents.

The same can be said about any law

MORE ENFORCEMENT ALWAYS MEANS LOWER RATE OF SAID INCIDENT TO ENFORCE

SO that means you would be fine with cops being allowed to search anyone walking the street to see if they have an illegal firearm

The founders were for FREE TRADE TRAVEL WITH ALL ENTANGLING ALLIANCES WITH NONE

[Paulitical Correctness]

You don't have to have a license to get married. You have to have a license to be recognized by the state as married. You are perfectly free to get married by a church and call yourselves married and enjoy a married life not recognized by the state.

Also, I'm not aware of the statistics of how many people were accidentally killed by a marriage... Maybe you could share...

Again - a DUI violation isn't a crime because you potentially committed a crime. It is a violation of contract. When you sign your driver's license, you are signing a contract to not drive under the influence. You violate that contract, you get what's coming to you. THINK before you open your mouth.


Let's just bring this back while we're at it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

:D

[MrZach]

Yeah, and once you remove them from the pool of drivers, that problem is solved. Drinking isn't a crime (driving or not)...damaging property or injuring someone is the crime...and the real problem is lack enforcement of those laws. Besides, DUI laws are blatantly unconstitutional. :rolleyes:

Blatantly unconstitutional, huh? It is unconstitutional to enforce a contract? Really... Whatever you say, bub...

PS - I'm pretty sure that automobiles weren't around when the constitution was written, so I'm not exactly sure you all get off saying the constitution regulates the automobile. Last time I checked, the constitution outlines the powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and allows states to have the power to regulate the rest. You're arguing the US constitution in light of state laws. Brilliant one there... You're so smart... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[neil]

Per http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html "There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year."
That's a lot of individuals personal liberty being violated.

[pinkmandy]

CountryboyRonPaul - I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul hasn't been calling for the abolition of driver's licenses and regulations on operating motor vehicles... When you find the quotes on him discussing such, please enlighten me.

In the meantime, read Adam Smith - I mean ACTUAL Adam Smith. It'll blow your mind...

Um, actually...he has said he doesn't like licensing in the medical profession, he'd prefer not to have it all- not for midwives or doctors. This was when asked a question about midwives and birth choices. Consider yourself enlightened. :D

These threads can be fun. I really think some people show where they stand in the freedom movement, what their core ideals are. When I see people who just aren't getting it, well, that reminds me of politicians who don't get the revolution and media people trying to figure out where the money comes from...seems some of our own supporters don't "get" the movement, either. For those who don't understand, being for freedom means innocent until proven guilty and anti-police state. Hope I didn't blow your cover. :p

Being so harsh on someone because of a DUI, in a situation we know nothing about IS judgmental and and some of the responses are borderline fascist.

[MrZach]

Let's just bring this back while we're at it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

:D

Oh brother, lol... grow up and argue the issue and stop distracting onto topics that are totally non germane.

People are perfectly free to put whatever they want into their bodies as far as I'm concerned. It is when they are unable to control their motor functions and go out in public hurling massive hunks of metal at high speeds down the roadways that I begin to get concerned.

[DealzOnWheelz]

You don't have to have a license to get married. You have to have a license to be recognized by the state as married. You are perfectly free to get married by a church and call yourselves married and enjoy a married life not recognized by the state.

Also, I'm not aware of the statistics of how many people were accidentally killed by a marriage... Maybe you could share...

Again - a DUI violation isn't a crime because you potentially committed a crime. It is a violation of contract. When you sign your driver's license, you are signing a contract to not drive under the influence. You violate that contract, you get what's coming to you. THINK before you open your mouth.

It is a contract and so is your W2 does that mean it is right???

The income tax is illegal and unconstitutional but because you fill out your w2 you sign a contract saying you will pay it

And as far as the marriage license without one NONE OF YOUR PENSION AND OTHER POSSESSIONS AND ASSETS CAN BE GIVEN TO YOUR CHILDREN or WIFE IF YOU DIE


When a Church files 501 c 3 they are signing a contract to not endorse politicians for office among other things and they become tax exempt yet by the constitutions definition of seperation of church and state they should be tax immune

[CountryboyRonPaul]

You don't have to have a license to get married. You have to have a license to be recognized by the state as married. You are perfectly free to get married by a church and call yourselves married and enjoy a married life not recognized by the state.

Also, I'm not aware of the statistics of how many people were accidentally killed by a marriage... Maybe you could share...

Again - a DUI violation isn't a crime because you potentially committed a crime. It is a violation of contract. When you sign your driver's license, you are signing a contract to not drive under the influence. You violate that contract, you get what's coming to you. THINK before you open your mouth.

You can also drive a car without a license, I did it for two years before I turned 16.

Ron Paul calls for less regulations at all levels of government. No, He has never specifically stated DWI laws...

However, he has called for the end of the Drug War, and I think this should tell you a little bit about how he values individuals to make their own decisions about health and safety, rather than letting the government tell you what you can and can't do with your life.


Blatantly unconstitutional, huh? It is unconstitutional to enforce a contract? Really... Whatever you say, bub

Signing a contract and paying the government under the threat of force to use YOUR OWN property is blatantly unconstitutional.

[FireofLiberty]

The real question is will licenses or laws like DUI laws stop people from driving or driving drunk. The answer, as has been proven time and time again, is no.

By the same token, someone could easily fly a plane without a license if they wanted to. Not having a license won't stop them if they're bound and determined.

By the way, Michael Badnarik has long argued you don't need a license to drive. In fact, he doesn't have a drivers license (yet still drives) for this reason.

[Paulitical Correctness]

Oh brother, lol... grow up and argue the issue and stop distracting onto topics that are totally non germane.

People are perfectly free to put whatever they want into their bodies as far as I'm concerned. It is when they are unable to control their motor functions and go out in public hurling massive hunks of metal at high speeds down the roadways that I begin to get concerned.

Exactly!

A "DUI" doesn't necessarily mean someone is speeding down the roadways and unable to control their motor functions.

You're making ignorant generalizations.

[MrZach]

Um, actually...he has said he doesn't like licensing in the medical profession, he'd prefer not to have it all- not for midwives or doctors. This was when asked a question about midwives and birth choices. Consider yourself enlightened. :D

These threads can be fun. I really think some people show where they stand in the freedom movement, what their core ideals are. When I see people who just aren't getting it, well, that reminds me of politicians who don't get the revolution and media people trying to figure out where the money comes from...seems some of our own supporters don't "get" the movement, either. For those who don't understand, being for freedom means innocent until proven guilty and anti-police state. Hope I didn't blow your cover. :p

Being so harsh on someone because of a DUI, in a situation we know nothing about IS judgmental and and some of the responses are borderline fascist.

I'm so enlightened by Dr. Paul's comments on the medical profession and how they OBVIOUSLY apply to driving a vehicle. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Everyone of you idiots keeps making the same challenge to the DUI thing - it is pre-crime, blah blah blah... I'm arguing that it is not - it is the violation of a license agreement that you receive upon signing for and receiving your license.

Can you argue with that? No, you cannot. If you sign a contract - whether it be with another individual or the state - you sign a contract and should be bound to that contract. IF you're really opposed to this crap, put your money where your mouth is and revoke your own license.

As soon as you do that, I'll shut up. :D:D:D

[mavtek]

In Texas DUI is Driving under the influence and it's an absurd law. If you're driving and you had 1 beer while at a restaurant and a cop pulls you over and gives you a breathalizer and you register .015 which is no where near intoxicated, not even close you will be given a citation for DUI. Luckily the penalty is less than DWI, but DUI in of itself is a pretty minor offense and honestly I know it could have happened to me in Texas at least 100 times by now if I'd been pulled over after having 2 beers with friends while out to eat.

Is there a slight difference between my reaction time and coordination after having 2 beers? Maybe, but I along with those riding with me and several witness' can attest to it being a non-existent difference. In my mind you are either DWI or you are not, if not send them on their way.

[MrZach]

You can also drive a car without a license, I did it for two years before I turned 16.

Ron Paul calls for less regulations at all levels of government. No, He has never specifically stated DWI laws...

However, he has called for the end of the Drug War, and I think this should tell you a little bit about how he values individuals to make their own decisions about health and safety, rather than letting the government tell you what you can and can't do with your life.



Signing a contract and paying the government under the threat of force to use YOUR OWN property is blatantly unconstitutional.

When you do drugs you endanger your own safety. When you operate a motor vehicle, you endanger other people's safety. There's no reason why it shouldn't be regulated.

[Wyurm]

Oh brother, lol... grow up and argue the issue and stop distracting onto topics that are totally non germane.

People are perfectly free to put whatever they want into their bodies as far as I'm concerned. It is when they are unable to control their motor functions and go out in public hurling massive hunks of metal at high speeds down the roadways that I begin to get concerned.

Actually, by those standards I guess I shouldn't drive at all as I have asthma and it is possible that I could end up with an asthma attack while driving and get into an accident Diabetics shouldn't drive either since if they have a reaction while driving they could cause an accident. Heck women going through menopause, angry people, people with high-blood pressure, heart-problems, etc... they should all be prevented from driving based on your standards. I agree, we need to make the roads so safe that the chance you get hurt on them is practically 0. Guess I have to walk to work tonight :(

Oh, and you're right because a DUI is likely going to prevent him from getting elected: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

[MrZach]

You know what? When you or someone close to you dies by a drunk driver then I'll be right there to make sure the person who did it gets punished to the fullest extent of the law for manslaughter.

That'll make you happy won't it? Oh wait... you'll be dead or mourning the loss of your loved one.

Never mind...


idiots...

[CountryboyRonPaul]

I'm so enlightened by Dr. Paul's comments on the medical profession and how they OBVIOUSLY apply to driving a vehicle. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Everyone of you idiots keeps making the same challenge to the DUI thing - it is pre-crime, blah blah blah... I'm arguing that it is not - it is the violation of a license agreement that you receive upon signing for and receiving your license.

Can you argue with that? No, you cannot. If you sign a contract - whether it be with another individual or the state - you sign a contract and should be bound to that contract. IF you're really opposed to this crap, put your money where your mouth is and revoke your own license.

As soon as you do that, I'll shut up. :D:D:D

Driving Drunk IS breaking a law.

I completely disagree with the defintion/enforcement of that law.

If DWI's were like speeding tickets I would agree with them.

Perhaps a .08 blood alcohol level would be a $75 ticket. a .18 would be a $700 ticket. And I absolutely abhor the 3 strikes your out rule.

About the Contract, the Government has no right to make you sign a contract to use YOUR OWN PROPERTY. However, this is one of many constitutional rights we have lost.

[Eponym_mi]

I'm pretty sure that automobiles weren't around when the constitution was written, so I'm not exactly sure you all get off saying the constitution regulates the automobile. Last time I checked, the constitution outlines the powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and allows states to have the power to regulate the rest. You're arguing the US constitution in light of state laws. Brilliant one there... You're so smart... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes, blatantly unconstitutional. 4th amendment. I was pulled over and subjected to a breathalyzer test once stone sober...I haven't had a drink in over 20 years, nor have I done any drugs. And no, I wasn't driving erratically. I was merely driving slow to look at the address on houses because I was asked to pick someone up.

Moreover, I absolutely detest any government attempt to restrict travel by means of any conveyance a person may choose. Hello? Real ID is about monitoring and controlling where people go. Fucking Nazi Gestapo shit!! If I want to go somewhere, it isn't anybody's business but mine and/or whoever I might hire to take me there.

[pinkmandy]

I'm so enlightened by Dr. Paul's comments on the medical profession and how they OBVIOUSLY apply to driving a vehicle. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Everyone of you idiots keeps making the same challenge to the DUI thing - it is pre-crime, blah blah blah... I'm arguing that it is not - it is the violation of a license agreement that you receive upon signing for and receiving your license.

Can you argue with that? No, you cannot. If you sign a contract - whether it be with another individual or the state - you sign a contract and should be bound to that contract. IF you're really opposed to this crap, put your money where your mouth is and revoke your own license.

As soon as you do that, I'll shut up. :D:D:D


Free country, no need to shut up. The more you post the better as far as I'm concerned as your true colors shine.

The eyerolls were very unnecessary, though. I was giving you an example of Dr. Paul being against licenses. With your mentality wouldn't you think an unlicensed doctor would be as dangerous and an unlicensed driver? ;)

As for the contract, I got my license at age 16. I signed it but if you want to get technical I was still a minor and not old enough to enter into a contract...:cool:

[MrZach]

Actually, by those standards I guess I shouldn't drive at all as I have asthma and it is possible that I could end up with an asthma attack while driving and get into an accident Diabetics shouldn't drive either since if they have a reaction while driving they could cause an accident. Heck women going through menopause, angry people, people with high-blood pressure, heart-problems, etc... they should all be prevented from driving based on your standards. I agree, we need to make the roads so safe that the chance you get hurt on them is practically 0. Guess I have to walk to work tonight :(

Oh, and you're right because a DUI is likely going to prevent him from getting elected: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

Actually, there ARE regulations about your health and whether or not you will be licensed to drive. For example, you have to pass a VISION TEST. Maybe we should just let nearly blind people drive in the name of "personal liberty" right? lol... This argument is retarded. Seriously. I've had enough with you inexperienced fools...

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

When our law is based on 'risk' and statistics we are reduced to simply numbers and property and we lose all individuality.
It's the same logic for preemptive war - Iran poses a 'risk', therefore we attack before they kill us. Same thing with DUI/DWI - Iran's rhetoric is analogous to a swerving driver.
But since humans are not evolved enough to be responsible with true freedom, we have laws.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

You know what? When you or someone close to you dies by a drunk driver then I'll be right there to make sure the person who did it gets punished to the fullest extent of the law for manslaughter.

That'll make you happy won't it? Oh wait... you'll be dead or mourning the loss of your loved one.

Never mind...


idiots...

This is the same arguement used for Gun Control.

Again, Safety is no substitute for Liberty.

[FireofLiberty]

This is the same arguement used for Gun Control.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Pauliana]

Sure the legal limit is absurdly low. But he could have been driving fine (endangering no one) and I'd still feel the same way.

When you're RUNNING FOR CONGRESS under RON PAUL'S BANNER you have taken upon yourself something sacred.

And he just pissed all over that banner.

Might I suggest that while a candidate one sticks to their best behavior at all times and refrains from imbibing outside of the home at all times?

[familydog]

I find it ironic that the same people blasting those as being "uptight" and "too judgemental" are then "judging" peoples opinions as being stupid/unreasonable/uninformed etc.

[MrZach]

Free country, no need to shut up. The more you post the better as far as I'm concerned as your true colors shine.

The eyerolls were very unnecessary, though. I was giving you an example of Dr. Paul being against licenses. With your mentality wouldn't you think an unlicensed doctor would be as dangerous and an unlicensed driver? ;)

As for the contract, I got my license at age 16. I signed it but if you want to get technical I was still a minor and not old enough to enter into a contract...:cool:

This is a retarded comparison. Completely retarded.

I can have all the information available to me about what doctors I choose to see and whether they are licenses or not. That is a choice.

I do not have that choice when driving down the street. In fact, I have no idea whether or not the thousands of cars I pass on the road are licensed or not, yet they all pose a serious danger to my safety. I don't get the luxury of stopping every car that comes within 100 feet of me on a road and making sure they are not under the influence and have passed their driver's license exam to show that they are capable of operating their vehicle safely.

I willingly submit that power to the state and local law enforcement officers. If there were no laws regulating driving, I wouldn't drive. In fact, I pretty much quit driving altogether and only do so in absolute necessity because I think the roads are too dangerous and the police where I live are totally incompetent at doing their jobs to keep crazy drivers out of my way. So, I choose not to drive. I walk a lot and take public transportation.

[Wyurm]

Actually, there ARE regulations about your health and whether or not you will be licensed to drive. For example, you have to pass a VISION TEST. Maybe we should just let nearly blind people drive in the name of "personal liberty" right? lol... This argument is retarded. Seriously. I've had enough with you inexperienced fools...

no, you totally ignored what I said. I didn't say vision blah blah. I said specific diseases that cause the symptoms you described above. By law, those people are currently allowed to drive. By your standards they wouldnt be. Furthurmore you have strawmanned this argument by changing it from a discussion of whether or not Terbolizard should be elected now after having a DUI into whether or not a DUI is wrong.

I do not support irresponsible driving, however, making a decision which will affect your life negatively just because of a moral concern is utterly idiotic in my view. What's worse is the laws are on the books and yet there are thousands of deaths due to DUIs every year. I'm seeing that the laws don't work as intended, yet you defend them to the death rather than admitting there needs to be discussion on what is wrong and how to fix it. That is exactly what is wrong with our current political system: stubborn stupidity.

[josh24601]

lmfao

A guy named Terbolizard gets a DUI and this is somehow a shock.

[Paulitical Correctness]

Just to propose an entirely ridiculous, radical side of the argument..

If I drive while drunk, then maybe you deserve any injuries you receive. When you got in your car you knew, based on statistics, the risks involved. You opted to drive regardless of the possibility that I may be out there, swerving through lanes of traffic while intoxicated.

It's like jumping into a shark tank. You knew the risks of losing a limb or possibly dying. That's your problem. Don't euthanize the sharks, they're just behaving instinctually. Stay out of their tank.

Stay off the road.

:rolleyes:

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Sure the legal limit is absurdly low. But he could have been driving fine (endangering no one) and I'd still feel the same way.

When you're RUNNING FOR CONGRESS under RON PAUL'S BANNER you have taken upon yourself something sacred.

And he just pissed all over that banner.

Might I suggest that while a candidate one sticks to their best behavior at all times and refrains from imbibing outside of the home at all times?

I agree, Politicians should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

However, they never are.

The Voters Should, and Will decide if Driving Drunk is a good enough reason not to elect one of the few candidates that is actually willing to uphold the constitution.

[coffeewithchess]

Actually, by those standards I guess I shouldn't drive at all as I have asthma and it is possible that I could end up with an asthma attack while driving and get into an accident Diabetics shouldn't drive either since if they have a reaction while driving they could cause an accident. Heck women going through menopause, angry people, people with high-blood pressure, heart-problems, etc... they should all be prevented from driving based on your standards. I agree, we need to make the roads so safe that the chance you get hurt on them is practically 0. Guess I have to walk to work tonight :(
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

There is a difference between a DUI and the rest of your arguments...he went out and picked up the beer/alcohol and drank it...if you are driving and have an asthma attack, more than likely you weren't trying to get one. Also, I'm a diabetic and I take my driving very seriously, because I know I'm responsible for my life and others while driving. Before I drive, I make sure to check my bloodsugar to make sure I SHOULD be driving...I wouldn't vote for this guy because it shows how he doesn't think. If he can make this kind of decision after a few drinks, imagine what the lobbyists will do with him in DC.

[MrZach]

I find it ironic that the same people blasting those as being "uptight" and "too judgemental" are then "judging" peoples opinions as being stupid/unreasonable/uninformed etc.

I hope you're not talking about me, because I haven't called anyone uptight or too judgmental. ;) I'm totally fine with it, lol... I do think that this argument is pretty stupid though and that those who are jerking themselves off to the tune of "unlimited unmitigated liberty for all" have never actually read any legitimate political science history on the subject that shows that there is not such thing and there is always a balance between the two - and our nation, our Founding Fathers, and our Constitution was never meant to me a free pass to do whatever the hell anyone wanted "as long as it didn't infringe on another's rights" - and if they think that they really should do some more reading, lol...

[Pauliana]

Just to propose an entirely ridiculous, radical side of the argument..

If I drive while drunk, then maybe you deserve any injuries you receive. When you got in your car you knew, based on statistics, the risks involved. You opted to drive regardless of the possibility that I may be out there, swerving through lanes of traffic while intoxicated.

It's like jumping into a shark tank. You knew the risks of losing a limb or possibly dying. That's your problem. Don't euthanize the sharks, they're just behaving instinctually. Stay out of their tank.

Stay off the road.

:rolleyes:

This is absolutely correct. Much safer to just stay off the roads, in my house... doing what? Collecting welfare? Hrm... I have now seen the rationality of that lifestyle.

[Wyurm]

There is a difference between a DUI and the rest of your arguments...he went out and picked up the beer/alcohol and drank it...if you are driving and have an asthma attack, more than likely you weren't trying to get one. Also, I'm a diabetic and I take my driving very seriously, because I know I'm responsible for my life and others while driving. Before I drive, I make sure to check my bloodsugar to make sure I SHOULD be driving...I wouldn't vote for this guy because it shows how he doesn't think. If he can make this kind of decision after a few drinks, imagine what the lobbyists will do with him in DC.

I realize there is a difference. I wasn't using it as a general argument. It was specifically aimed at the poster I quoted because of statements he made, not ment to be a cover-all argument.

As for not voting for that guy, that's your choice, see my above comment about the bodyguard illustration.

[pinkmandy]

This is a retarded comparison. Completely retarded.

I can have all the information available to me about what doctors I choose to see and whether they are licenses or not. That is a choice.

I do not have that choice when driving down the street. In fact, I have no idea whether or not the thousands of cars I pass on the road are licensed or not, yet they all pose a serious danger to my safety. I don't get the luxury of stopping every car that comes within 100 feet of me on a road and making sure they are not under the influence and have passed their driver's license exam to show that they are capable of operating their vehicle safely.

I willingly submit that power to the state and local law enforcement officers. If there were no laws regulating driving, I wouldn't drive. In fact, I pretty much quit driving altogether and only do so in absolute necessity because I think the roads are too dangerous and the police where I live are totally incompetent at doing their jobs to keep crazy drivers out of my way. So, I choose not to drive. I walk a lot and take public transportation.

You submit. Bingo. McCain man? Or are you here stirring up crap because your man Julie Anne dropped out? It's way too easy to draw you guys out, you just can't resist a good old "the state is all knowing and powerful" argument. Doesn't matter to you or your ilk if someone had a case of beer or one beer. SUBMIT!

[MrZach]

Just to propose an entirely ridiculous, radical side of the argument..

If I drive while drunk, then maybe you deserve any injuries you receive. When you got in your car you knew, based on statistics, the risks involved. You opted to drive regardless of the possibility that I may be out there, swerving through lanes of traffic while intoxicated.

It's like jumping into a shark tank. You knew the risks of losing a limb or possibly dying. That's your problem. Don't euthanize the sharks, they're just behaving instinctually. Stay out of their tank.

Stay off the road.

:rolleyes:


Actually, I do - because of idiots like you. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

So I guess you can't argue that one with me, can you? =o)

My uncle who is slightly mentally retarded stole my grandparent's car when he was 15 and made it about 2 blocks before he freaked out, lost control of the vehicle and drove it into a building, hitting 2 people on a sidewalk, and people INSIDE the building. Two of those injured were in prolonged comatose states.

So... I guess, even if I stay off the road, I'm never really safe from the likes of you, am I? ;)

[BarryDonegan]

George W. Bush had a DUI.

Just putting that out there.

[Paulitical Correctness]

Actually, I do - because of idiots like you. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

So I guess you can't argue that one with me, can you? =o)

My uncle who is slightly mentally retarded stole my grandparent's car when he was 15 and made it about 2 blocks before he freaked out, lost control of the vehicle and drove it into a building, hitting 2 people on a sidewalk, and people INSIDE the building. Two of those injured were in prolonged comatose states.

So... I guess, even if I stay off the road, I'm never really safe from the likes of you, am I? ;)

Idiots like me? I'm neutral on this argument for the most part - there's grey area (as I stated before). On the one hand, innocent people shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of others' bad judgment, but at the same time it's ridiculous for people to be sitting in prison for drinking and driving because they MIGHT have hurt someone.

As far as the message you replied to, it was completely a joke. Shark tanks? Come on..

And for the record, I do not drink. :eek:

[familydog]

I hope you're not talking about me, because I haven't called anyone uptight or too judgmental. ;) I'm totally fine with it, lol... I do think that this argument is pretty stupid though and that those who are jerking themselves off to the tune of "unlimited unmitigated liberty for all" have never actually read any legitimate political science history on the subject that shows that there is not such thing and there is always a balance between the two - and our nation, our Founding Fathers, and our Constitution was never meant to me a free pass to do whatever the hell anyone wanted "as long as it didn't infringe on another's rights" - and if they think that they really should do some more reading, lol...

No, I wasn't talking about you.

I used to be against PA's low tolerance for alcohol and driving, but I've spent time as a volunteer fireman which affected my opinion. I couldn't cut it there. After being called to the scene of numerous accidents and seeing mangled bodies because someone thought they'd be ok to drive just after a few drinks, I've changed my opinion and will join those that would not vote for someone who commits DUI.

[MrZach]

You submit. Bingo. McCain man? Or are you here stirring up crap because your man Julie Anne dropped out? It's way too easy to draw you guys out, you just can't resist a good old "the state is all knowing and powerful" argument. Doesn't matter to you or your ilk if someone had a case of beer or one beer. SUBMIT!

Yes, its called voluntarily entering into a contractual agreement. Grow up.

As for the accusations of my "loyalty" to the campaign, lol you can put that to rest right now. I quit my job in mid November so I could volunteer for the campaign full-time. I spent my Christmas break canvasing in Iowa and then South Carolina after the Iowa Caucuses. I canvassed 4 precincts in IL by myself with door-to-door making sure to talk to EVERYONE (which means numerous go-arounds), and then made a second round to drop custom designed literature and personally paid for slim jims on all the issues that each person said was important to. I am the owner/operator of KnowBeforeYouVote.com (http://ww.KnowBeforeYouVote.com/).

Yeah, I'm *totally* a McCain spy. Just because I don't agree with every last nuance of your ideology I *must* be the enemy. Brilliant logic, dumbass...

[MrZach]

No, I wasn't talking about you.

I used to be against PA's low tolerance for alcohol and driving, but I've spent time as a volunteer fireman which affected my opinion. I couldn't cut it there. After being called to the scene of numerous accidents and seeing mangled bodies because someone thought they'd be ok to drive just after a few drinks, I've changed my opinion and will join those that would not vote for someone who commits DUI.

First hand experience changes everything... I've seen WAY too much - and from people who had just 2 beers making a reaction too late or being distracted winding up killing someone.

It is these guys who haven't seen jack squat or been through it who are "safe" to argue these Utopian, totally non-realistic ideals. Sadly, the way things are going, they're all going to get a dose of reality before too long, and then they'll be singing a different tune.

[nosebruise]

cellphones?

[familydog]

cellphones?

My headset works just fine.

[MrZach]

Idiots like me? I'm neutral on this argument for the most part - there's grey area (as I stated before). On the one hand, innocent people shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of others' bad judgment, but at the same time it's ridiculous for people to be sitting in prison for drinking and driving because they MIGHT have hurt someone.

As far as the message you replied to, it was completely a joke. Shark tanks? Come on..

And for the record, I do not drink. :eek:

You keep saying people are in prison because they MIGHT have hurt someone. They weren't charged with possibly hurting anyone, can't you see that? They are charged with violating the terms under which they are allowed to operate a dangerous piece of machinery on roadways financed by the public - and those laws are also.

You are perfectly free to operate your vehicle in the privacy of your own private property. It is when you take it onto a public road that you are now willfully submitting yourself to the regulations that have been enacted by the same people, the taxpayers, have agreed upon for being the regulations for those roadways.

[webber53]

Hey Mods,
How does this thread have anything to do with getting
our candidate (Dr. Ron Paul) elected or promote his ideas????

Why hasn't this thread been moved already? :confused:

[slantedview]

Here's my bottom line:

If the election is between two pro-freedom/free-market/libertarian candidates, one of them having a DUI, I'd vote for the one without a DUI. Unfortunately that's not the situation we have.

If, as is the case, my vote is between a status quo warmonger/socialist/fascist/collective/whatever and a pro-freedom/free market/libertarian with a DUI, I'd choose freedom any day of the week.

How much does that DUI matter when you have no freedom?

[nosebruise]

My headset works just fine.

i'm sure it does, and i'm sure you dont drink yourself into a stupor and drive either...


yet...
putting on makeup.
eating...

[MrZach]

Look, as long as roads are financed by the state, county, or municipality you live in - the people who financed those roads - the taxpayers - have the right to set regulations and rules on people for using those roads through the organization that financed them.

You simply cannot argue with that. You have a right to operate your vehicle, fine. But you don't own the roads - the state, county, and city who paid for them does. Yes, the money comes from the taxpayers - that is why the TAXPAYERS are allowed to vote and elect representatives to make rules for those roads. As long as you're operating your private property on a PUBLIC roadway, YOU ALL are voluntarily submitting to the regulations set by the people who put the road there. End of argument.

If YOU have a problem with the laws governing the usage of public roads - then YOU'RE the one who needs to stay off the road until you raise enough $$ to finance building your own private road.

[Liberty_is_NORML]

That's total BS and you know it. People don't drink and drive because they think the penalty isn't stiff enough if they have an accident or injure or kill someone so it is an "acceptable risk." They drink and drive because they are idiots who exercise poor judgment.

It has been shown numerous times that the stiffer the drinking and driving laws get, there is a very correlated reduction in alcohol related MV accidents.

No shit? It has also been shown that thieves that get their hands cut off have a hard time picking their noses.

You, sir, need to move to communist China.

Your arguement is black and white and that is not how a smart person approaches conflict.

Having a beer or two and then driving doesn't necessarily make you a danger. As a matter of fact (since you are the expert) why don't you tell us what the average BAC is for drivers that are arrested for DUI when it involves injury, death, or property destruction? I'll give you a clue...it is NOWHERE near .08. Look it up and show the class what you have learned. If you don't, I will...I'm giving you a chance to not look stupid.

Get past that and I will take you off IGNORE.

Some people sure hate freedom in these forums.

[DealzOnWheelz]

FOR ANYONE THAT SAYS THEY CAN'T VOTE FOR HIM BECAUSE OF HIS POOR JUDGEMENT CAN'T VOTE FOR RON PAUL BECAUSE HE USED POOR JUDGEMENT ALLOWING THE NEWSLETTERS TO BE PRINTED UNDER HIS NAME

and I know you are gonna say NOBODY's LIFE WAS AT STAKE



Ummmmm YES

OUR COUNTRIES LIFE IS AT STAKE

[Dave Wood]

Here is a video interview with Ted on local news.......apparently this is true.

Click on video in the upper right corner.

http://cbs13.com/local/candidate.terbolizard.dui.2.651050.html

[DealzOnWheelz]

By the way Mr ZACH you just said the roads are not our property they belong to the state where the taxpayers paid for them


Last time I checked I wasn't being charged for tax evasion so if my logic serves me correctly I own the roads in my state or at least a portion of the roads in my state

[tommy7154]

Ok if this is true I don't see how he can be defended...

"It happens."?????? YES it happens and do you want to know what else happens? A child could have been run down by this DRUNK SOB. What if it was yours? Jesus Christ some of you people are unreal.

[familydog]

No shit? It has also been shown that thieves that get their hands cut off have a hard time picking their noses.

You, sir, need to move to communist China.

Your arguement is black and white and that is not how a smart person approaches conflict.

Having a beer or two and then driving doesn't necessarily make you a danger. As a matter of fact (since you are the expert) why don't you tell us what the average BAC is for drivers that are arrested for DUI when it involves injury, death, or property destruction? I'll give you a clue...it is NOWHERE near .08. Look it up and show the class what you have learned. If you don't, I will...I'm giving you a chance to not look stupid.

Get past that and I will take you off IGNORE.

Some people sure hate freedom in these forums.

You say its not black and white, yet you're making the same case except on the other side. Freedom completely, or no freedom at all.

All I'm pointing out is that just because one believes in laws for DUI, doesn't make them stupid like some here have suggested.

If he did this 20 years ago, and has a proven record of good judgement since, I reckon I'd vote for the man. If I can't trust someone with the life of me, my family, friends, and the general public while you're on the raod, I'm not trusting you with my country. If that makes my Hitler or whatever like apparently it does to some, I guess I'm Hitler.

[MrZach]

No shit? It has also been shown that thieves that get their hands cut off have a hard time picking their noses.

You, sir, need to move to communist China.

Your arguement is black and white and that is not how a smart person approaches conflict.

Having a beer or two and then driving doesn't necessarily make you a danger. As a matter of fact (since you are the expert) why don't you tell us what the average BAC is for drivers that are arrested for DUI when it involves injury, death, or property destruction? I'll give you a clue...it is NOWHERE near .08. Look it up and show the class what you have learned. If you don't, I will...I'm giving you a chance to not look stupid.

Get past that and I will take you off IGNORE.

Some people sure hate freedom in these forums.

I didn't realize we were arguing specific DUI regulations.

I'm pretty sure this argument is about whether or not the same public who finances the roads have the right to regulate them. I'm of the opinion that they are. It isn't about your right to operate your private property - it is about your usage of public roadways paid for by tax payers - who elected the people who set the laws for the conditions to use those roadways.

You can fight a DUI in court and win if you were driving your vehicle on your own private property drunk. It is when you're on the public road that you're under the jurisdiction of the same public that paid for the road. Don't like it? Go vote for someone who will repeal the laws and see if you win.

[Forefall]

Maybe he used too much mouthwash?

[LandonCook]

I love this! You guys are great... Our guy has a few sips of a beer and gets pulled over and it erupts a huge disscusion about the law itself! Its like watching the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists go at it! Although I think it is silly, I do side with the state on this one. A contract is a contract...

The question is: is Travel by car a right?
Well, freedom of travel is a right, but I think the real question is, Does the loss of a licence pervent the right to travel?

For me, yes... If I was in the city... No.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

ah man.

may i point out that while this sucks, i'd still vote for him. he's still a lot better than the alternative.

+1

[FireofLiberty]

Here is a video interview with Ted on local news.......apparently this is true.

Click on video in the upper right corner.

http://cbs13.com/local/candidate.terbolizard.dui.2.651050.html

Wow, I'm actually impressed by how well he's handling it.

[pinkmandy]

Yes, its called voluntarily entering into a contractual agreement. Grow up.

As for the accusations of my "loyalty" to the campaign, lol you can put that to rest right now. I quit my job in mid November so I could volunteer for the campaign full-time. I spent my Christmas break canvasing in Iowa and then South Carolina after the Iowa Caucuses. I canvassed 4 precincts in IL by myself with door-to-door making sure to talk to EVERYONE (which means numerous go-arounds), and then made a second round to drop custom designed literature and personally paid for slim jims on all the issues that each person said was important to. I am the owner/operator of KnowBeforeYouVote.com (http://ww.KnowBeforeYouVote.com/).

Yeah, I'm *totally* a McCain spy. Just because I don't agree with every last nuance of your ideology I *must* be the enemy. Brilliant logic, dumbass...


Um, then why are you such an asshole? You are honestly the only RP supporter I've had the displeasure of discussing a subject with who resorts to calling people idiots, retards, dumbasses? The only people I've talked with who are this ugly, this vile have been with the McCain campaign. If you're not, my bad but you sure as hell talk and act like it here. Kudos to you if you walked the walk elsewhere but HERE you're acting like a freaking jerk. Do you have some personal reason for going after Terb? You certainly have dug yourself in like a bulldog on something that most don't see as a big deal, ready to attack your fellow supporters...respond as you wish but I think it's time I use that ignore feature. Congrats! You're my first ignore!!! :D

[nosebruise]

For me, yes... If I was in the city... No.

that really depends on the city you're talking about.

[Eponym_mi]

cellphones?

Applying make up? Receiving fellatio? Eating? Smoking? Reading the newspaper? Watching a DVD? Masturbating? I'm sure someone could come up with a more comprehensive list. The point being that any one of these activities done while driving can be just as deadly to others as drinking. The distraction/impairment isn't a crime...causing damage or injury is the crime.

[Liberty_is_NORML]

Per http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html "There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year."
That's a lot of individuals personal liberty being violated.

From the same site:

Nationwide in 2005, alcohol was present in 24 percent of the drivers involved in fatal crashes (BAC .01-.07, 4 percent; BAC .08 or greater, 20 percent).

That means that 76% of all traffic fatalities had NO ALCOLHOL INVOLVED.

Should we make DWD a law, also? (Driving While Dumb)

[FreeTraveler]

Did you sign your driver's license? Then you signed an agreement to follow the state's laws on drinking and driving. Grow up.

I signed my license under duress. I am a free man and should have the right to travel as I see fit. Driver licensing is a violation of my right to liberty.

[MrZach]

By the way Mr ZACH you just said the roads are not our property they belong to the state where the taxpayers paid for them


Last time I checked I wasn't being charged for tax evasion so if my logic serves me correctly I own the roads in my state or at least a portion of the roads in my state

Exactly, therefore that gets you 1 vote on how those roads are to be regulated. Just because you don't like the final decision of the majority doesn't mean you aren't susceptible to the consequences. By your logic, I can vandalize the local park because I "own a percentage of it."

I'm actually very much in favor of *private* ownership of parks, roads, etc. No taxes on this crap, and you just pay to use them. You also agree to follow the rules of whatever entity that owns them sets.

That is basically what is happening here, except it is on a larger scale, and it is involuntary. You can't argue with the fact that the same entity that pays for property and lets you use it has the right to regulate how you use it. Period. :D

[MrZach]

I signed my license under duress. I am a free man and should have the right to travel as I see fit. Driver licensing is a violation of my right to liberty.

Your license isn't for the privileged to operate your MV - it is for the privlidge to operate it on public roadways. You were under duress to obtain your license, really? Yeah right, lol... Well, I guess if that is true, then your license should be invalidated - along with your privilege to use public roads.

Read my statements on using public roadways (where these regulations actually apply).

[MrZach]

Applying make up? Receiving fellatio? Eating? Smoking? Reading the newspaper? Watching a DVD? Masturbating? I'm sure someone could come up with a more comprehensive list. The point being that any one of these activities done while driving can be just as deadly to others as drinking. The distraction/impairment isn't a crime...causing damage or injury is the crime.

Actually you can be ticketed for doing all of these things if you demonstrated that you were driving recklessly.

The crime isn't endangering someone's life. The crime is using a publicly financed roadway and not abiding by the regulations enacted by the same organization that financed the roadway.

[MrZach]

Um, then why are you such an asshole? You are honestly the only RP supporter I've had the displeasure of discussing a subject with who resorts to calling people idiots, retards, dumbasses? The only people I've talked with who are this ugly, this vile have been with the McCain campaign. If you're not, my bad but you sure as hell talk and act like it here. Kudos to you if you walked the walk elsewhere but HERE you're acting like a freaking jerk. Do you have some personal reason for going after Terb? You certainly have dug yourself in like a bulldog on something that most don't see as a big deal, ready to attack your fellow supporters...respond as you wish but I think it's time I use that ignore feature. Congrats! You're my first ignore!!! :D

Because I've had dozens of friends killed and injured by drunk driver's in my lifetime. Call me unlucky, but I get pretty emotional about the subject.

[Malum Prohibitum]

You folks who are worried about this need to loosen your chastity belts. So the guy made a mistake. Id vote for the biggest screw up in the world so long as he votes to reduce the size of government at every opportunity. Remember, we want these guys to do NOTHING for the most part...

[MrZach]

Um, then why are you such an asshole? You are honestly the only RP supporter I've had the displeasure of discussing a subject with who resorts to calling people idiots, retards, dumbasses? The only people I've talked with who are this ugly, this vile have been with the McCain campaign. If you're not, my bad but you sure as hell talk and act like it here. Kudos to you if you walked the walk elsewhere but HERE you're acting like a freaking jerk. Do you have some personal reason for going after Terb? You certainly have dug yourself in like a bulldog on something that most don't see as a big deal, ready to attack your fellow supporters...respond as you wish but I think it's time I use that ignore feature. Congrats! You're my first ignore!!! :D

Plus, I'm *TOTALLY* not going after Terbolizard. In fact, if you read my earliest posts, I was defending him saying that the wet & reckless laws in CA are totally retarded and that was possibly what he was arrested for - and that he hasn't even been convicted so people should back off.

I'm going after people who think that DUI laws are "unconstitutional" - because they don't seem to understand that if any organization finances something they have every right to regulate its usage - roadways not excluded.

[JMann]

The roads regulated by the people? I guess you mean the insurance companies and the trial attorneys that make hundreds of millions of dollars based entirely on the "MADD women laws".

I for one would never defend anyone driving drunk. The problem is the current DWI laws and drunk driving check points are not designed for only ticketing/punishing drunk people but rather to regulate people. In my state I remember the arguments in the early/mid 80's when the laws where being updated the question was do you go after everyone with .08 or pass a graduated more severe system and leave the BAC at .10. Even though the evidence showed it is more safe to spend time and effort going after people that where actually drunk rather than setting a very low bar.

These law are very punitive to the young and poor and make it difficult for them to get out of the system once they have been printed and hauled to jail. They have community service, fines and loss of driving rights or privileges. Many times jobs are loss and even careers destroyed over a first 'minor' offense.

Once again, if someone is drunk and a danger on the road make the punishment severe but these MADD women laws that classify everyone as drunk at .08 are insane and very punitive especially to the non-wealthy class.

[nosebruise]

you can also be charged with a DUI without demonstration that you were driving recklessly.

[tommy7154]

From the same site:

Nationwide in 2005, alcohol was present in 24 percent of the drivers involved in fatal crashes (BAC .01-.07, 4 percent; BAC .08 or greater, 20 percent).

That means that 76% of all traffic fatalities had NO ALCOLHOL INVOLVED.

Should we make DWD a law, also? (Driving While Dumb)

If someone is at fault in an accident (by being or doing something dumb) they will be held responsible.

Do you actually believe that you should have every right to get piss drunk and drive on the roads?

[hueylong]

Babble all you want about libertarian theory and random intellectual crap -- he got a DUI, and he's toast. Had the slimmest of chances before. Now -- absolutely ZERO.

And his response was completely awful. Total failure to take responsibility for his mistake.

If for no other reason, that's why candidates for public office need professional assistance.

What an embarassment to the R3VOLUTION.

[pinkmandy]

The roads regulated by the people? I guess you mean the insurance companies and the trial attorneys that make hundreds of millions of dollars based entirely on the "MADD women laws".

I for one would never defend anyone driving drunk. The problem is the current DWI laws and drunk driving check points are not designed for only ticketing/punishing drunk people but rather to regulate people. In my state I remember the arguments in the early/mid 80's when the laws where being updated the question was do you go after everyone with .08 or pass a graduated more severe system and leave the BAC at .10. Even though the evidence showed it is more safe to spend time and effort going after people that where actually drunk rather than setting a very low bar.

These law are very punitive to the young and poor and make it difficult for them to get out of the system once they have been printed and hauled to jail. They have community service, fines and loss of driving rights or privileges. Many times jobs are loss and even careers destroyed over a first 'minor' offense.

Once again, if someone is drunk and a danger on the road make the punishment severe but these MADD women laws that classify everyone as drunk at .08 are insane and very punitive especially to the non-wealthy class.


Well said. :D

[MrZach]

I love this! You guys are great... Our guy has a few sips of a beer and gets pulled over and it erupts a huge disscusion about the law itself! Its like watching the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists go at it! Although I think it is silly, I do side with the state on this one. A contract is a contract...

The question is: is Travel by car a right?
Well, freedom of travel is a right, but I think the real question is, Does the loss of a licence pervent the right to travel?

For me, yes... If I was in the city... No.

Whoever pays for the roads you are traveling on has the right to regulate them.

[Liberty_is_NORML]

You are perfectly free to operate your vehicle in the privacy of your own private property.

That is TOTALLY WRONG.

You have an accident anywhere that causes damage or injury, you WILL be charged.

Look it up....you can race cars in your back yard drunk but if you have to call the police you WILL be arrested.

You should know what you are talking about before you open it...everyone is against you on this thread, dude. Wake up.

[tommy7154]

You folks who are worried about this need to loosen your chastity belts. So the guy made a mistake. Id vote for the biggest screw up in the world so long as he votes to reduce the size of government at every opportunity. Remember, we want these guys to do NOTHING for the most part...

And what will your family make of it when a drunk makes a "mistake" and runs your dumb ass over, killing you both.

Oops? Getting behind the wheel and driving drunk is not a fucking mistake.

[FreeTraveler]

Your license isn't for the privileged to operate your MV - it is for the privlidge to operate it on public roadways. You were under duress to obtain your license, really? Yeah right, lol... Well, I guess if that is true, then your license should be invalidated - along with your privilege to use public roads.

Read my statements on using public roadways (where these regulations actually apply).

I've read your statements, and they are typical MSM bull, regurgitated without an ounce of thought applied to the product.

I have a right to move from here to there as I see fit. I have a right to move about in any way I choose. Just because some gang of thugs decides to build a set of roads from here to there and coherce people into paying for them, doesn't mean I've joined that silly little club. If I have to sign some bogus agreement to use the way from here to there, instead of paying a toll, then I have no choice except to play along with the silly little game. That's called coercion when the gang involved is not officially approved. Well, I don't "officially approve" of ANY gang.

I can throw words around too. You are no supporter of Liberty, sir. Go goose-step behind your hero McCain. You'll fit right in over there. It's obvious that your reaction to earnest discussion is sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la-la-la-la-la.

[Eponym_mi]

you can also be charged with a DUI without demonstration that you were driving recklessly.

A person could be in the middle of nowhere out in the desert with no cars in front of them for 20 miles. Some cop pulls in behind, and bam, off to the pokey. Who was harmed?:rolleyes:

[Malum Prohibitum]

And what will your family make of it when a drunk makes a "mistake" and runs your dumb ass over, killing you both.

Oops? Getting behind the wheel and driving drunk is not a fucking mistake.

They will collect my life insurance and his liability coverage and move on. This is a misdemeanor here guys. If he had killed someone, then fine, fry him. He didnt, so calm down. Hell, Teddy Kennedy even KILLED someone...

[Liberty_is_NORML]

If someone is at fault in an accident (by being or doing something dumb) they will be held responsible.

Do you actually believe that you should have every right to get piss drunk and drive on the roads?

Hell no, I don't think that...I think that the laws are stupid and need to be changed to a higher BAC level.

There are some drivers that are perfectly sober that are worse drivers than some of the so-called drunk drivers I know that have been arrested.

[MrZach]

you can also be charged with a DUI without demonstration that you were driving recklessly.

I think many people are unfairly charged and convicted under these laws (the laws I support, not the way they are abused). I am in huge favor of people getting a good lawyer and getting out of being overly punished for something they didn't do wrong or that the law enforcement can't prove they did wrong. Don't get me wrong on that!! :D

[angelatc]

During the 4 years I was in high school, I ran out of fingers to count the number of friends I had die in automobile accidents - alcohol was involved in the majority of them, and not always on the part of my friends.

That's pretty odd, considering my graduating class was HUGE compared to most of the numbers that I hear, and we were in a pretty rough part of town too. This back in the early '80's before the nanny state started cracking down on such things, to be sure we didn't hurt ourselves.

Alcohol wasn't out biggest problem - drugs were far more dibilitating. ANd I don't know a single person who died. in a DUI car accident or otherwise. So I have to say that I don't believe you when you said your friends were dropping like flies around you. It just doesn't compute statistically.

The Supreme Court ruled that DUI roadblocks were indeed a violation of our rights, but because it made the world safe, they were going to allow them.

Congratulations on destroying freedom, because thats what DUI laws do. THey destroyed our right to drive down a public street without getting pulled over for no reason.

[angelatc]

Whoever pays for the roads you are traveling on has the right to regulate them.

I pay for the roads. Probably more than you do, because Chicago is expensive and inefficient.

[DealzOnWheelz]

Well lets talk about the fact that if you are in a parking lot with your car on and running and you are sleeping because your drunk you can get a DUI

the ignition cannot be on because it shows intent

I say FUCK that it shows intent that it's probably cold as shit outside and I got the heat on for my nap

Point being DUI laws are FAR FROM PERFECT


Do I hate that peope kill people by driving drunk yes but do I believe the laws should be stricter hell no I belive some should be repealled

[tommy7154]

A person could be in the middle of nowhere out in the desert with no cars in front of them for 20 miles. Some cop pulls in behind, and bam, off to the pokey. Who was harmed?:rolleyes:

Nobody, thanks to the cop that took this lush to jail before he could plow anyone over.

Here's a hypothetical. My daughter is run over and killed by a fucking drunk because he thought it was ok since the last time he was swerving all over the road a cop passed by him and just smiled and waved. Who was harmed? My daughter. Shes fucking dead. My daughters family is harmed for life. The drunk is harmed too. If he was not killed in the crash I murder him myself.

Have any of you people advocating drunk driving had anyone you know and love die because of one?

[angelatc]

I would be much more inclined to support a law stating that if you are caught under the influence your keys will be taken for the night and you must walk home BUT IF YOU HURT ANYONE INCLUDING KILLING AND INCLUDING YOURSELF WHILE DUI THEN YOU GET AN EXTREMELY HARSH SENTENCE

GOd I love these boards!

This is where I am. If you hurt somebody while you're driving drunk, then the penalty should be much, much harsher than if it was a "routine" crash. But searching people, taking away their cars before they've had a trial...all those things are police state tactics.

Freedom means giving other people the chance to make choices that you disagree with.

[nosebruise]

Hell no, I don't think that...I think that the laws are stupid and need to be changed to a higher BAC level.

There are some drivers that are perfectly sober that are worse drivers than some of the so-called drunk drivers I know that have been arrested.

this is exactly it.

but it shouldnt have anything to do with alcohol. it should be about reckless driving, just like cellphones or eating or taking pictures in your car.

for instance, i have a friend with a very very high tolerance level, and... in all honesty, i'd feel much safer driving with him after he had a couple hard drinks than a few people i know stone cold sober.

alcohol affects different people in different ways.

someone swerving across the road on the other hand, whether it's cause they drank too much, or are too tired or are getting a BJ or looking through their CDs... that should cause for punishment.

someone getting hurt in a car crash by someone who was putting up makeup or screaming at their kids, isn't going to be any less painful to the people involved than an accident by someone who drank more than they could handle.

[MrZach]

I've read your statements, and they are typical MSM bull, regurgitated without an ounce of thought applied to the product.

I have a right to move from here to there as I see fit. I have a right to move about in any way I choose. Just because some gang of thugs decides to build a set of roads from here to there and coherce people into paying for them, doesn't mean I've joined that silly little club. If I have to sign some bogus agreement to use the way from here to there, instead of paying a toll, then I have no choice except to play along with the silly little game. That's called coercion when the gang involved is not officially approved. Well, I don't "officially approve" of ANY gang.

I can throw words around too. You are no supporter of Liberty, sir. Go goose-step behind your hero McCain. You'll fit right in over there. It's obvious that your reaction to earnest discussion is sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la-la-la-la-la.

Again - some idiot who thinks that if someone happens to disagree with one tiny nuance of his version of liberty that he must be the enemy. That kind of logic is beyond stupid. I humbly request that you once again read my earlier post, #108, on my involvement with fighting for liberty.

Go ahead, MAKE an enemy of me just because I disagree with you on a few things. Don't be silly, friend...

I've given plenty of thought about this - MSM bull? What on *earth* are you talking about? I've never heard any MSM opinions on this at all, so there goes your little theory that I'm just spouting MSM rhetoric. I've actually thought this out on my own and researched it on own, thank you very much.

I'm not an all or nothing liberty person. That kind of black and white thinking is for morons. I actually think there are nuances and such thing as living in a society and such a thing as a social contract, and the idea that not everything can be perfect for everyone at all times...

Sure, you have the right to move about - but when you do, when you traverse across someone else's personal property, you are under their jurisdiction, and they have the right to tell how to behave on their property. "Public property" that has been used for the sake of putting roads down have been done so under public mandate, and with the understanding that there would be rules about how those roads would be used. You don't HAVE to drive a car on public roads. If you choose to, you are subjecting yourself to the regulations set on those roads.

Again, if you want to buy the land and lay down your own roads to get form point A to point B - go for it! If you are unwilling to submit to the regulations placed upon the roads you are voluntarily using - then stop using them, or be prepared to pay the consequences when the regulations are enforced.

In the meantime, I'm staying off the roads because I know there are enough blockheads out there who won't follow the rules (and the police aren't doing a good enough job enforcing them) that it is not an acceptable risk for me to participate.

See, I actually have the integrity to put action behind my beliefs. Do you? :p

[Eponym_mi]

My daughter is run over and killed by a fucking drunk because he thought it was ok since the last time he was swerving all over the road a cop passed by him and just smiled and waved. Who was harmed? My daughter. Shes fucking dead. My daughters family is harmed for life. The drunk is harmed too. If he was not killed in the crash I murder him myself.

Killing your daughter was a crime...doesn't make any difference whether the person responsible was drunk and did it with a vehicle, a knife, or a nail gun. The person responsible should be charged and sentenced accordingly.

[nosebruise]

... oops. accidentally posted here.

[MrZach]

That's pretty odd, considering my graduating class was HUGE compared to most of the numbers that I hear, and we were in a pretty rough part of town too. This back in the early '80's before the nanny state started cracking down on such things, to be sure we didn't hurt ourselves.

Alcohol wasn't out biggest problem - drugs were far more dibilitating. ANd I don't know a single person who died. in a DUI car accident or otherwise. So I have to say that I don't believe you when you said your friends were dropping like flies around you. It just doesn't compute statistically.

The Supreme Court ruled that DUI roadblocks were indeed a violation of our rights, but because it made the world safe, they were going to allow them.

Congratulations on destroying freedom, because thats what DUI laws do. THey destroyed our right to drive down a public street without getting pulled over for no reason.

The same public that finances the construction of roads has the right to regulate their usage.

As for your accusation that I didn't have 16 friends die while I was in high school, well that is just plain pointless to argue with. What am I going to do? Bring up all the obits? Basically you're calling me a liar based on... statistics - which you haven't even provided... so basically you're really just interested in calling me a liar because you don't want to believe me. Well, call me tragically unlucky, but it is true.

What I can't believe is that you have the disrespect to argue over whether or not someone died. That is pretty sick...

Oh, and actually none of my friends who died went to my high school - only the one girl who was put in a coma. Wow, I actually had friends who didn't go to my hight school! Wow... imagine that! Guess you didn't think of that, didja? lol

[MrZach]

I pay for the roads. Probably more than you do, because Chicago is expensive and inefficient.

Um... in case you didn't notice, I live in Chicago too, buddy... Or are you having trouble reading the top right corner of every post I make?

Seriously, why am I arguing with someone who even the most obvious of observable facts escape his attention? :p

Your argument that since you pay some for the roads that you have the right to do whatever you want with them makes no sense whatsoever. I pay for the roads too - in fact the exact same ones you are paying for, so I guess my vote cancels out yours! You paying a tiny portion for the roads gives you a say, that's all. Not the final word. Deal with it.

[MrZach]

It is obvious how weak an argument is when someone has to come up with totally unrealistic hypotheticals to support it.

Thank you for that lovely illustration, Mr. 20-Miles-In-The-Middle-Of-Nowhere-Desert-Driver. LMAO

[tommy7154]

Killing your daughter was a crime...doesn't make any difference whether the person responsible was drunk and did it with a vehicle, a knife, or a nail gun. The person responsible should be charged and sentenced accordingly.

Ok I see your viewpoint I wasn't paying much attention to where this thread had gone but I still disagree with it. The very act of driving while drunk is and should be illegal imo. Normally a drunk will get pulled over for swerving, speeding, a light out...whatever.

So what you are saying is that you agree that if the person was swerving he should be arrested for reckless driving or whatever the charge for swerving all over may be.

But going with the light out scenario, you don't believe he should be arrested simply for being drunk?

Just seeing if i'm understanding the argument.

[DealzOnWheelz]

yeah Zach you put actions behind your beliefs so you decided to stop driving because you are scared of all the dumb drunk drivers

are you sure you don't want to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here??

[MrZach]

Okay, I gotta jet. Besides, at this point I'm only repeating myself because no one wants to actually read everything I've posted before they react to me and therefore end up saying stuff that doesn't make any sense in light of my most recent arguments... totally pointless argument, especially when no one reads what you write and just goes on and on with their cognitive flatulence.

I've pretty much said all I need to say on it. If you missed something, go back and read my posts again... I have other things to do now besides waste my time arguing the same thing over and over again, lol...

[nosebruise]

i dont know about him, but that's what i'm saying.


the problem is driving recklessly, not the fact that you have alcohol in your system. its the equivalent of being tired and ready for a nap and driving home after doing overtime at work,
and being so tired you can't drive straight and are starting to nod off every 5 minutes.

driving recklessly whether it's too much alcohol, too little sleep, makeup, DVDs, having a fight with your wife, reading a newspaper, talking on a cellphone... this is the problem... it doesnt matter which one it is if you are swerving or cause an accident, and the accident that "kills your daughter" isn't going to be any different between any of them.

[MrZach]

yeah Zach you put actions behind your beliefs so you decided to stop driving because you are scared of all the dumb drunk drivers

are you sure you don't want to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here??

You fail to impress with you completely illogical connections. :confused:

And, yes - I don't drive because I believe the risk to my life isn't worth it. :(

I decided this after my last accident. I was in a 5 car (4 SUV's and a van) pileup on the the highway (94) that was caused when the driver of a van drifted over the right shoulder and stuck my vehicle at 70 mph (limit is 55) while I was still on the entrance ramp and not even on the highway yet. The impact caused my left front tire to be smashed under my vehicle which pulled my car onto the highway - at a mere 30 mph - into traffic all going about 60-70 mph, where I was pummeled by three other SUV's before we all came to a stop on the left shoulder smashed into the median. :eek:

It was a miracle that I was able to walk away from that incident. By the way - the driver of the van who caused the accident? Didn't have a license. His excuse? He was tired. He got off. :mad:

I'm done with these fucking roads. :mad:

I'm done with this argument. I have night class. History of American Business - VERY good class - don't want to miss a moment! :D

[MrZach]

i dont know about him, but that's what i'm saying.


the problem is driving recklessly, not the fact that you have alcohol in your system. its the equivalent of being tired and ready for a nap and driving home after doing overtime at work,
and being so tired you can't drive straight and are starting to nod off every 5 minutes.

driving recklessly whether it's too much alcohol, too little sleep, makeup, DVDs, having a fight with your wife, reading a newspaper, talking on a cellphone... this is the problem... it doesnt matter which one it is if you are swerving or cause an accident, and the accident that "kills your daughter" isn't going to be any different between any of them.

The only problem with your argument is that the causes of the reckless driving are what people are interested in mitigating - and that is why there are laws to attack those things directly - eliminate contributing factors to recklessness. There's nothing wrong with that, and by attacking a direct cause you can mitigate the symptoms. Makes sense to me...

Okay, if I don't leave in 5 I'm going to miss my train downtown. Seriously! lol... gotta jet!

[nosebruise]

so i guess we should have timecards to punch how long we've been awake before driving as well then, eh?

[Eponym_mi]

So what you are saying is that you agree that if the person was swerving he should be arrested for reckless driving or whatever the charge for swerving all over may be.

But going with the light out scenario, you don't believe he should be arrested simply for being drunk?

In those situations, there might be some lesser offense for being a hazard to others, but the activities you describe occur even with sober people. Should the person be arrested? Should their vehicle be impounded? Today, you're more likely to be given a ticket and sent on your way unless you're obviously impaired or have caused an accident. I don't know, but I oppose random searches, which is how I would characterize most traffic enforcement stops.

Hell, how about grandpa plowing through 35 people at an outdoor market? Seems I've read about a few of those...bet he never went to jail.

[tommy7154]

i dont know about him, but that's what i'm saying.


the problem is driving recklessly, not the fact that you have alcohol in your system. its the equivalent of being tired and ready for a nap and driving home after doing overtime at work,
and being so tired you can't drive straight and are starting to nod off every 5 minutes.

driving recklessly whether it's too much alcohol, too little sleep, makeup, DVDs, having a fight with your wife, reading a newspaper, talking on a cellphone... this is the problem... it doesnt matter which one it is if you are swerving or cause an accident, and the accident that "kills your daughter" isn't going to be any different between any of them.

I see your point I just can't agree with it when it comes to driving drunk. It should just be common sense and responsibility that prevents anyone from doing it (along with reading a newspaper, talking on the phone, putting on makeup etc..) but unfortunately too many people are lacking in both of those areas. The way I see it is if driving drunk were legal it would cost many more people their lives plain and simple. I can't agree with something that would do that.

It's like if I were driving a forklift at work, I would not be allowed to talk on a phone, put on makeup, or anything so dumb that it may cost someone their life. If I did any of those things while operating that machinery, I would hope that i'd be fired for being so negligent. It's just plain old common sense and I think the same things should apply to public roads as well. Maybe that's a minority viewpoint here, but it's one that won't change in my mind.

[MrZach]

Argh! I'm such an idiot! I missed my train!!! Now I'm going to be 30 minutes late for class because the next one doesn't come for an hour! =o( stupid, stupid, Zach...

[MrZach]

In those situations, there might be some lesser offense for being a hazard to others, but the activities you describe occur even with sober people. Should the person be arrested? Should their vehicle be impounded? Today, you're more likely to be given a ticket and sent on your way unless you're obviously impaired or have caused an accident. I don't know, but I oppose random searches, which is how I would characterize most traffic enforcement stops.

Hell, how about grandpa plowing through 35 people at an outdoor market? Seems I've read about a few of those...bet he never went to jail.

There has been a strong correlation (and very scientifically backed up I might add) that inebriation directly causes recklessness. Therefore, this is the reason the laws attack a choice that someone can freely make and can easily be clearly identified.

On the other hand, all your other examples, old age, poor health, being tired - these things either are not choices, or cannot be easily identified, or there is not a strong enough cause-effect relationship between them and recklessness. Being under the influence directly correlates, it is a choice, and it can be easily identified. That is why it is under attack.

So far, all these other off the wall examples I've heard don't fit those basic descriptors, so it is pointless to bring them up at this point.

[nosebruise]

the problem here is the definition of DRUNK. you are equating drunk with being to the point where you are driving irresponsibly, which would be the same point where you are nodding off while driving. im sure we're both on the same page with that.

the difference here is the stringency of the laws tend to put people who are the equivalent of "being tired", and not "too tired to drive" or "about to nod off" in the same position.

there is a scale, and people can handle alcohol, like people handling staying awake, are varied from person to person. if there is a problem with recklessness it should be handled on an individual basis to see if the person actually posed a danger or not. blanketing everyone under the same rules and regulations, especially ultra stringent ones may help some people from doing something irresponsible, but it also punishes people who wouldnt be a danger and simply are trying to get home, and also invites for abuse of these laws by law enforcement to harass or criminalize people who otherwise would not be a danger to society.

[tommy7154]

In those situations, there might be some lesser offense for being a hazard to others, but the activities you describe occur even with sober people. Should the person be arrested? Should their vehicle be impounded? Today, you're more likely to be given a ticket and sent on your way unless you're obviously impaired or have caused an accident. I don't know, but I oppose random searches, which is how I would characterize most traffic enforcement stops.

Hell, how about grandpa plowing through 35 people at an outdoor market? Seems I've read about a few of those...bet he never went to jail.

If a person sober or drunk is swerving all over they should not be on the roads plain and simple. If a light is out and the person is sober then no they should not go to jail. They should be told that it's out and it needs to get fixed.

I also absolutely oppose random searches on public roads. THAT crosses way over the line imo. That is an invasion. If I pull someone over for a reason though and then discover they're drunk then I think they should be held responsible. They are impaired and should not have been driving.

If a person is drunk and driving but obeying all observable laws, then there's no reason they should be pulled over to begin with.

As for grandpa, he shouldn't have been on the road and he probably knows it. He should be held responsible and he should have gone to jail if he didn't.

And when I say get arrested and go to jail i'm speaking generally and don't necessarily mean just that. There are many deterrents. I just don't believe anyone should be taught that such irresponsible things are OK.

[MrZach]

so i guess we should have timecards to punch how long we've been awake before driving as well then, eh?

Maybe when sleepy driving causes enough accidents in some state, people will get fed up and do something about it. What can one reasonably do? You can't really prove one way or another if someone has had enough sleep. It is very easy to measure someone's BAC.

Here's something to think about: When I was in the Air Force, when you take leave and go on a long trip and are under the age of 26, you must submit a travel plan that details how you're getting from point A to point B. If you are driving, there are strict regulations on how many miles/hours you can drive in one day. You are required to show that you are making stops every few hours for at least 15 minutes to rest, and you must allot for at least 8 hours of good sleep. You cannot even switch off drivers and use the "they slept in the car" excuse because there is good evidence that sleeping in the care doesn't give you the "good night's sleep" necessary to really be fully awake and alert.

Anyway, if you are in an accident and injured or killed - your health benefits and or your life insurance benefits will be null and void if there is reasonable evidence that you did not follow your pre-approved plan. Weren't wearing a seatbelt? No benefits. Didn't get a full night's rest and it can actually be proven? No benefits. Anything else can be proven that you did that could have been preventable and caused an accident? No benefits.

Additionally, if you're off your plan, you are subject to further punishment from your commander who signed the approval of your plan. Keep in mind, this is only for people under the age of 26 (don't ask me why - everything they do in the AF is purely statistics driven).

Do I think this is way crazy unreasonable? Yeah... perhaps. Then again, I don't HAVE to drive everywhere, and it isn't too hard for me to follow a plan if I do submit one or to follow... Plus, I don't have to stay in the Air Force (which I didn't) so I do have a choice in the matter... Once you accept the fact that you DO have options and choices - you kinda have to take responsibility for the choices you make... no matter how unreasonable the consequences.

I'm not arguing for making everything as strict as it was in the Air Force... I'm just trying to illustrate the fact that as long as you have choices and recourse - you really don't have a lot of room to complain...

[MrZach]

If a person sober or drunk is swerving all over they should not be on the roads plain and simple. If a light is out and the person is sober then no they should not go to jail. They should be told that it's out and it needs to get fixed.

I also absolutely oppose random searches on public roads. THAT crosses way over the line imo. That is an invasion. If I pull someone over for a reason though and then discover they're drunk then I think they should be held responsible. They are impaired and should not have been driving.

If a person is drunk and driving but obeying all observable laws, then there's no reason they should be pulled over to begin with.

As for grandpa, he shouldn't have been on the road and he probably knows it. He should be held responsible and he should have gone to jail if he didn't.

And when I say get arrested and go to jail i'm speaking generally and don't necessarily mean just that. There are many deterrents. I just don't believe anyone should be taught that such irresponsible things are OK.


I'm totally against random searches as well. Most places are rising up and making this illegal to do. Someone has to have shown a clear violation of traffic laws to be pulled over, first. THAT is the police state everyone's talking about, and I'm totally against that. Block aids, random searches... all a bunch of bunk!

[nosebruise]

If a person is drunk and driving but obeying all observable laws, then there's no reason they should be pulled over to begin with.

wow. come to LA.

better yet, come to LA and have a beer, where you can't park anywhere past 2AM, and it will probably put you over the BAC.

i'll bet 80% of the people driving down sunset or hollywood on a friday or saturday night could probably get charged with a DUI if the cop wanted to whether they posed a danger or not.

and of course to people like celebrities and politicians with pull could have cocaine and a hooker and drive away with their red cells free floating in pure alcohol instead of plasma and they could get away with it.:D

[tommy7154]

wow. come to LA.

better yet, come to LA and have a beer, where you can't park anywhere past 2AM, and it will probably put you over the BAC.

i'll bet 80% of the people driving down sunset or hollywood on a friday or saturday night could probably get charged with a DUI if the cop wanted to whether they posed a danger or not.

and of course to people like celebrities and politicians with pull could have cocaine and a hooker and drive away with their red cells free floating in pure alcohol instead of plasma and they could get away with it.:D

Yah I know the reality is that it does happen and that is also wrong. They should only be stopped in the first place if they are breaking some other law. It's complete bullshit. I don't mean to say that the cops are the good guys, they can be just as dumb, if not dumber than anyone.

And for whoever compared this with the eeevilll terrorists...come on. It'd be closer if I equated it with running a drunk off the road before they did it to me. That I obviously wouldn't agree with.

[nosebruise]

Maybe when sleepy driving causes enough accidents in some state, people will get fed up and do something about it. What can one reasonably do? You can't really prove one way or another if someone has had enough sleep. It is very easy to measure someone's BAC.

Here's something to think about: When I was in the Air Force, when you take leave and go on a long trip and are under the age of 26, you must submit a travel plan that details how you're getting from point A to point B. If you are driving, there are strict regulations on how many miles/hours you can drive in one day. You are required to show that you are making stops every few hours for at least 15 minutes to rest, and you must allot for at least 8 hours of good sleep. You cannot even switch off drivers and use the "they slept in the car" excuse because there is good evidence that sleeping in the care doesn't give you the "good night's sleep" necessary to really be fully awake and alert.

Anyway, if you are in an accident and injured or killed - your health benefits and or your life insurance benefits will be null and void if there is reasonable evidence that you did not follow your pre-approved plan. Weren't wearing a seatbelt? No benefits. Didn't get a full night's rest and it can actually be proven? No benefits. Anything else can be proven that you did that could have been preventable and caused an accident? No benefits.

Additionally, if you're off your plan, you are subject to further punishment from your commander who signed the approval of your plan. Keep in mind, this is only for people under the age of 26 (don't ask me why - everything they do in the AF is purely statistics driven).

Do I think this is way crazy unreasonable? Yeah... perhaps. Then again, I don't HAVE to drive everywhere, and it isn't too hard for me to follow a plan if I do submit one or to follow... Plus, I don't have to stay in the Air Force (which I didn't) so I do have a choice in the matter... Once you accept the fact that you DO have options and choices - you kinda have to take responsibility for the choices you make... no matter how unreasonable the consequences.

I'm not arguing for making everything as strict as it was in the Air Force... I'm just trying to illustrate the fact that as long as you have choices and recourse - you really don't have a lot of room to complain...

-testing for sleep is ridiculous no matter how you swing it. the problem is NOT how much someone has slept, the problem is reckless driving. people handle sleep differently.

-AF rules example has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. when you are in active duty you are not free, and you have signed away your liberties to serve your country for a certain amount of time. this has absolutely no bearing on citizens, and if it did we would be a police state straight and simple.

-don't see your point about the insurance stuff. you're telling me if people are proven negligent then they dont get benefits. so what? i'm saying people should be charged with crimes if the commit one while being negligent. my problem isnt with charging people for driving irresponsibly or commiting crimes irresponsibly. it's with stringent laws which take away liberty and can be abused for the promise of "safety."

-yes it is completely and utterly unreasonable. chicago also has a great public transportation system, too. try living in Dallas and relying on getting around via public transportation.

ain't gonna happen.

-i'm saying you have choices as well, i'm saying if you make the wrong one and are negligent and driving eratically or hurt someone you should be completely charged with your infractions. my problem is the current laws that blanket things and are easily abused, and put people who may not pose as much a danger as you have been lead to believe, like the drug war.

[angelatc]

Um... in case you didn't notice, I live in Chicago too, buddy... Or are you having trouble reading the top right corner of every post I make?

Seriously, why am I arguing with someone who even the most obvious of observable facts escape his attention? :p

Your argument that since you pay some for the roads that you have the right to do whatever you want with them makes no sense whatsoever. I pay for the roads too - in fact the exact same ones you are paying for, so I guess my vote cancels out yours! You paying a tiny portion for the roads gives you a say, that's all. Not the final word. Deal with it.

Well. Mr King Of Observation...my name is ANGELA.

I am saying that because I have to pay for the roads I should have a right to use them. That's freedom. You're not advocating freedom by insisting that driving is a privelege. You're advocating statism.

Are you a Northwestern student per chance? They're the most ill-informed lot of social liberals in the midwest.

ANd now we learn that you don't drive because apparently trouble just follows you around. ALl those dead kids in high school, and vans out to get you...no wonder freedom frightens you.

Here I am, driving for 30 years or so...no accidents, no tickets, and no pile of big dead friends either. Just because you feel the need to insist on protection doesn't mean that I need it.

[angelatc]

The same public that finances the construction of roads has the right to regulate their usage.

As for your accusation that I didn't have 16 friends die while I was in high school, well that is just plain pointless to argue with. What am I going to do? Bring up all the obits? Basically you're calling me a liar based on... statistics - which you haven't even provided... so basically you're really just interested in calling me a liar because you don't want to believe me. Well, call me tragically unlucky, but it is true.

What I can't believe is that you have the disrespect to argue over whether or not someone died. That is pretty sick...

Oh, and actually none of my friends who died went to my high school - only the one girl who was put in a coma. Wow, I actually had friends who didn't go to my hight school! Wow... imagine that! Guess you didn't think of that, didja? lol

Of course I did. I had friends that went to the county school, Catholic school, and one of several other high schools. It's very statistically improbable that a single teenager knows 16 people who died in car crashes.

I'm pretty much not convinced that it's true. The odds of teenagers dying is pretty high. The odds of you knowing 16 of them is even higher. I suppose there could have been a party bus crash, but I gathered you were talking about an incredible amount of different accidents, and you're right. I don't believe you.

[MrZach]

-testing for sleep is ridiculous no matter how you swing it. the problem is NOT how much someone has slept, the problem is reckless driving. people handle sleep differently.

-AF rules example has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. when you are in active duty you are not free, and you have signed away your liberties to serve your country for a certain amount of time. this has absolutely no bearing on citizens, and if it did we would be a police state straight and simple.

-don't see your point about the insurance stuff. you're telling me if people are proven negligent then they dont get benefits. so what? i'm saying people should be charged with crimes if the commit one while being negligent. my problem isnt with charging people for driving irresponsibly or commiting crimes irresponsibly. it's with stringent laws which take away liberty and can be abused for the promise of "safety."

-yes it is completely and utterly unreasonable. chicago also has a great public transportation system, too. try living in Dallas and relying on getting around via public transportation.

ain't gonna happen.

-i'm saying you have choices as well, i'm saying if you make the wrong one and are negligent and driving eratically or hurt someone you should be completely charged with your infractions. my problem is the current laws that blanket things and are easily abused, and put people who may not pose as much a danger as you have been lead to believe, like the drug war.

LOVELY... my class was canceled at the last minute due to weather, so I guess its a good thing I missed that train!



- You make my point. You cannot easily test sleep, that is why it is not an issue and why it cannot be compared to people's BAC. That was my point.

- When you are on active duty you ARE free. You have not signed away your liberties. There are certain *limits* to your freedom, but the constitution still applies to you. I don't know where you came up with that silly statement...

- The point wasn't about the strong relationship between AF regs and state laws about operating a MV. The point was about the fact that at the end of the day you have a choice.

- I used to "live" in Carrolton (Dallas suburb - my mother's family lives there and I'd visit all the time, sometimes for a couple of months), and went to Dallas all the time. I understand that it is difficult to get around without a car... for example, getting across state... but you can get around. I used to walk all over the place when I was there, and it wasn't a problem. Walking isn't that hard, and you'd be surprised how far you can get. I also used to walk all over the place when I lived in Joplin, Missouri. There is NO public transportation there, but sure enough - you don't really need it - you can cover many miles in a short amount of time.

- The point still is that you have choices - maybe not the best ones, but it is still a choice you can freely make or not make.

[MrZach]

Well. Mr King Of Observation...my name is ANGELA.

Oh EXCUSE me for not pulling your gender out of the forum name "angelatc" lol... Seriously? You expect me to assume your a female from that? For all I know, the name that i would pronounce "Angel-atic" has something to do with angels in the atic or something... lol

Keep grasping at straws to hit me with though. It is quite becoming. ;)


I am saying that because I have to pay for the roads I should have a right to use them. That's freedom. You're not advocating freedom by insisting that driving is a privelege. You're advocating statism.

Yes, I'll give you that - on THIS issue. Remember, we're talking about ONE issue here, not the broad strokes of all political science and public policy. It is ridiculous to say that just because I actually make rational discernments and don't go all or nothing in to every last detail that I'm all of the sudden advocating statism across the board. Give me a break! lol


Are you a Northwestern student per chance? They're the most ill-informed lot of social liberals in the midwest.

No, I'm not. Keep trying.


ANd now we learn that you don't drive because apparently trouble just follows you around. ALl those dead kids in high school, and vans out to get you...no wonder freedom frightens you.

Here I am, driving for 30 years or so...no accidents, no tickets, and no pile of big dead friends either. Just because you feel the need to insist on protection doesn't mean that I need it.

Wow, imagine that - we actually had dramatically different experiences in life. And it actually effected our perspectives on things. Wow, that is SO weird. I've never heard of that happening.

I honestly don't get why everyone has their panties in a bunch over this. Someone earlier said that I'm advocating sacraficing liberty for safety, so somehow that quote about sacrificing liberty for safety and deserving neither applies to me. Are you serious? Who actually sees one's right to drink and rive as an ESSENTIAL liberty on which our entire system hinges? And the fact that little ole' me is willing to make exception on that issue because I think it actually will make us safer - and for practically NO sacrifice of liberty at all - doesn't make me some kind of commie or fascist or statist. People who throw around terms like that as if it is going to trump everything anyone says and win every argument are just as bad as the people who slap terms like "isolationist" on Dr. Paul and say, "You're an isolationist, we're not! We win! Nah-nah-nee-nah-nah!"


Of course I did. I had friends that went to the county school, Catholic school, and one of several other high schools. It's very statistically improbable that a single teenager knows 16 people who died in car crashes.

I'm pretty much not convinced that it's true. The odds of teenagers dying is pretty high. The odds of you knowing 16 of them is even higher. I suppose there could have been a party bus crash, but I gathered you were talking about an incredible amount of different accidents, and you're right. I don't believe you.

Well, on that account, Angela, you can pretty much go fuck yourself. You disrespect my friends who have died tragically and you call me a liar, so go fuck yourself. I may not agree with all your ideologies, but it is your complete lack of human compassion that makes you worthless. Go to hell.

[MrZach]

By the way, Angela, it is statistically improbable that any single person would know four people who were burned alive in their car right in front of their eyes because they were driving under the influence and had a wreck on the highway that caused their car to light up... BUT, it happened, and myself and many of my friends were there to witness it. You can take your statistics (and complete ignorance about them) and shove them up your ass.

[MsDoodahs]

First, STOP THE DAMNED FLAMEFEST AND I DONT CARE WHO STARTED IT.

I'm ending it.

Second, is it confirmed that the person arrested for DUI was in fact an RP GOPer running for office? PM me with the info, I'm locking this thread.

IF it has been confirmed, ALL THOSE CONSIDERING RUNNING FOR OFFICE TAKE NOTE: Don't do this stupid shit if you are SERIOUS about holding office at ANY POINT in your lifetime.

This kind of crap will come back to haunt you.