Prev: auto safety bill legislates mandatory black boxes
Next: Arizona and America want tent cities for illegals
From: Brent on 17 Jun 2010 23:42
On 2010-06-18, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
> "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.

What you neglect is that DUI is becoming a one drop offense against the
state. Or maybe you don't and just accept whatever your wise overlords
tell you. It is difficult to tell the difference. In either case DUI and
actual impairment have long since separated.

Once the "compromise" of only drinking at home is made, we will simply
see a push to prevent that practice as well. The wedge will be the
desire to drink socially which means some people will follow the lead of
Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson and open bars in their homes for their
friends once they are so restricted.

Now I could believe that you simply cannot see the obvious consquences
of what you advocate, but you are advocating (effective) prohibition
none the less.








From: Nate Nagel on 18 Jun 2010 06:18
On 06/17/2010 11:24 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
> "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.

No, I did not address the "point" because you did not have one, other
than that you don't like people drinking and you like telling people
what to do.

>
> 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?

Because bars have been a part of our society longer than you have.
People like to drink in social settings; they're social creatures.
Really, the bar is more about hanging out and talking to people than it
is the alcohol, although that of course is important as well. Drinking
alone makes you an alcoholic. Therefore trying to outlaw drinking in
public places is doomed to failure as we've already proven.

Let me knock down the next strawman for you: I don't think I've been in
a bar in probably 5 years, save for hotel bars when traveling. You can
thank the local cops for that, who at one point in time were arresting
people that they found over .08% in a bar for "public intoxication"
whether they were driving or not. So no, I'm not the guy you're
complaining about, nor do I consider the right to drink at a bar to be
that important to me personally. However, it is a right, not to mention
a tradition going back probably longer than recorded history.

>
> 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.

Up to this point I agree with you. So why do you encourage the passage
of laws that *ENCOURAGE* people to drink and drive? Sleeping in one's
car is *NOT* driving. That's the main problem that I and everyone else
have with your rantings. By all means, if someone is legitimately
intoxicated and actually driving, get them off the road. But hassling
someone for making the *responsible* decision *not to drive* is asinine
and counterproductive.

>
> 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?

needle stuck?

>
> - The entire statement is clear, it needs no further explanation.
>

I will give you that this post was more sensical than your previous
ones, which is not difficult to do seeing as of late your posts have
been gpstard-like gobbledygook from beginning to end.

I still maintain that to be guilty of DUI one needs to be both
"Intoxicated" and "Driving" while you argue for conviction merely by
being "Intoxicated" so you and I will never agree, and we will all
continue to think that you're an idiot who doesn't understand the
principles on which this country was founded.

clear enough?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: auto safety bill legislates mandatory black boxes
Next: Arizona and America want tent cities for illegals