finally, some rational thinking re: DUI
in [Cars]
|
Prev: auto safety bill legislates mandatory black boxes
Next: Arizona and America want tent cities for illegals
From: Brent on 17 Jun 2010 08:44 On 2010-06-17, Nate Nagel <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote: > On 06/17/2010 12:21 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: > >> Even better is not to drink at all > > And here we have your real agenda. You're just another > neoprohibitionist douchebag not worth taking seriously. We tried > prohibition and it didn't work 90 years ago, get over it. With many if not all control freaks it's never that it's a bad idea it's just that the wrong people were doing it and the technology not advanced enough. With the right people and more monitoring and more force they believe they can accomplish a utopia.
From: N8N on 17 Jun 2010 09:18 On Jun 17, 8:44 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-17, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: > > > On 06/17/2010 12:21 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: > > >> Even better is not to drink at all > > > And here we have your real agenda. You're just another > > neoprohibitionist douchebag not worth taking seriously. We tried > > prohibition and it didn't work 90 years ago, get over it. > > With many if not all control freaks it's never that it's a bad idea it's > just that the wrong people were doing it and the technology not advanced > enough. With the right people and more monitoring and more force they > believe they can accomplish a utopia. That's a place I don't want to live; you can keep your "utopia" and I'll have the country where people really are free and the laws simply exist to keep citizens from infringing on the rights/freedoms of other citizens, thankyewverymuch. nate
From: gpsman on 17 Jun 2010 09:19 On Jun 17, 6:10 am, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: > On 06/17/2010 12:21 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: > > > Even better is not to drink at all > > And here we have your real agenda. You're just another > neoprohibitionist douchebag not worth taking seriously. We tried > prohibition and it didn't work 90 years ago, get over it. Your straw man is a raging inferno. ----- - gpsman
From: Brent on 17 Jun 2010 12:50 On 2010-06-17, N8N <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 8:44�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-06-17, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: >> >> > On 06/17/2010 12:21 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: >> >> >> Even better is not to drink at all >> >> > And here we have your real agenda. �You're just another >> > neoprohibitionist douchebag not worth taking seriously. �We tried >> > prohibition and it didn't work 90 years ago, get over it. >> >> With many if not all control freaks it's never that it's a bad idea it's >> just that the wrong people were doing it and the technology not advanced >> enough. With the right people and more monitoring and more force they >> believe they can accomplish a utopia. > > That's a place I don't want to live; you can keep your "utopia" and > I'll have the country where people really are free and the laws simply > exist to keep citizens from infringing on the rights/freedoms of other > citizens, thankyewverymuch. This is where the control freaks tell us to 'love it or leave it'. If we don't like serfdom* we can leave. *Where we are cared for by owners who don't want us to hurt ourselves, in exchange for a significant percentage of our productivity of course.
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 17 Jun 2010 23:24
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote in message news:hvcta601056(a)news6.newsguy.com... > On 06/17/2010 12:21 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: > >> Even better is not to drink at all > > And here we have your real agenda. You're just another neoprohibitionist > douchebag not worth taking seriously. We tried prohibition and it didn't > work 90 years ago, get over it. > > nate > How nice that you took the entire statement out of context, just means you couldn't address the point in the context of what was being discussed. Therefore, what you have written is meaningless. But let me repeat what I said in context... maybe it needs to be broken down into parts for you to understand it? * Common sense: if one anticipates they may be DUI, it's is certainly not beyond reality to be well aware of the public transit and taxi availability. Even better is not to drink at all in a case where one knows they will have to drive themselves back home. If it's really that necessary to drink an alcoholic beverage, and one may question later if they might be in a potential DUI situation, why not just... really, it can't be that hard to consider the obvious option... drink the alcoholic beverage(s) at home instead? So let's see what that means: 1. If one is going to drink, know the bus and taxi schedules and availability. - Nowhere does that suggest prohibition. It just means know the alternatives to getting in the vehicle and driving. 2. Even better is not to drink at all in a case where one knows they will have to drive themselves back home. - Nowhere does that suggest prohibition. If one isn't going to drive themselves home for all I care they can drink themselves into alcohol poisoning where they have to be hospitalized, if that is what they really want to do. Just don't drink and then get behind the wheel! It really is that simple. 3. If it's really that necessary to drink an alcoholic beverage, and one may question later if they might be in a potential DUI situation, why not just... really, it can't be that hard to consider the obvious option... drink the alcoholic beverage(s) at home instead? - The entire statement is clear, it needs no further explanation. |