Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70

Thread: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

  1. #51
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Crosscheck View Post
    So you oppose to having the visibility of state troopers on the highway?
    You think he really meant that? I think there is a point where prevention can go overboard, but it's a judgment call.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #52
    Sage
    Crosscheck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,485

    Re: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You think he really meant that? I think there is a point where prevention can go overboard, but it's a judgment call.
    I don't really know. His thought that preventing crimes robs one of his rights and liberties.
    High visibility of state troopers makes most people obey traffic laws. I think that would be cateorized as prevention.

    Here is a question. When you see a state trooper on the hiway, do you tense up or are you happy to know they are out there for your protection?

    Myself, I have no problem driving right alongside a trooper. Am not intoxicated nor am I driving eratically endangering others.

  3. #53
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

    I can never drive comfortably while there are cops around. There are so many rules when driving, and it's incredibly easy not to know about one or break it by accident, and cops can pull you over without any reason. To drive near a cop is like being a cartoon mouse trying to sneak past the cat to get the oversized cheese. You're just doing what you need to do, and this other person is waiting for you to slip up so they can attack you. Not that all cops are malicious bastards, but the way we approach things, especially driving and traffic laws, puts us in a very adversarial situation.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  4. #54
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by deltabtry View Post
    I wouldn't consider you a alcoholic either judging from what you have posted, you made a mistake and i do think that the process you were dragged through also was unnecessary. Then again you are of sound mind and body...I hope anyway.
    Actually, I do believe that my sentence was necessary. And, for those who are claiming that, as long as nobody is hurt, DWI punishments are wrong, let me give you an analogy: Remember Michael Jackson dangling a baby out of a window? Should he have been prosecuted for that? I believe he should have, because he put the baby at risk. Sure, the baby was OK, but his life was endangered. What about those who leave their babies home alone, while they go out and party. In the vast majority of cases, the baby is OK, but the baby's life was still endangered. You read in the papers all the time about the babies who die in fires because the parents had left them alone. Those parents are prosecuted and jailed. However, even if the child is not hurt by that action, the possibility of death is there, which means that the child has been endangered, and that is not acceptable to a society in which people are responsible for their actions. The same applies to DWI. People die at the hands of drunk drivers every day, which means that, even though a drunk driver makes it home without killing anybody that night, he still endangered others by going out on the road drunk. He should be prosecuted, the same as those who endanger children should be prosecuted. And you believe that drunk drivers should not be subject to the same considerations that we apply to those who endanger children? Incidentally, there are also children out on the road, in the back seats of cars that their parents are driving. So, yes, driving drunk is also a form of child endangerment.

    I can't speak for anybody else, but I deserved the punishment I got. It's called accepting responsibility, and the consequences, for my actions.
    Last edited by danarhea; 04-07-11 at 12:37 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #55
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,596

    Re: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    I can never drive comfortably while there are cops around. There are so many rules when driving, and it's incredibly easy not to know about one or break it by accident, and cops can pull you over without any reason. To drive near a cop is like being a cartoon mouse trying to sneak past the cat to get the oversized cheese. You're just doing what you need to do, and this other person is waiting for you to slip up so they can attack you. Not that all cops are malicious bastards, but the way we approach things, especially driving and traffic laws, puts us in a very adversarial situation.
    I'm not sure how people drive in Washington DC, but here in Cali there are so many tailgaters, speeders, weavers from lane to lane, and assorted imbeciles on the road that there is no way any trooper is going to be interested in stopping me. Threre are just too many better choices. Look, did you see that guy just exit the freeway from the left lane? No cops around, pity. How about that SUV the size of a Freightliner driving half a car length behind another vehicle. I wonder if he bought that monster just so he could intimidate other drivers? Probably so.

    I've been driving since '58, and have never had a ticket in California. I did get a $2 ticket in New York back in '66 for making an illegal right turn, but never in the Golden State. There are just too many crazy drivers for me to get any attention from the CHP.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #56
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    12-14-11 @ 12:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    69

    Re: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

    To all of those that believe that it is proper to have DWI laws with the existing penalties, do you also believe that the same laws with the same penalties should exist for those that drive while using a cell phone? Studies have show that the likelyhood of having an accident while using a cell phone (hand held or hands free) is at least as great as when driving drunk.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,596

    Re: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by ggh View Post
    To all of those that believe that it is proper to have DWI laws with the existing penalties, do you also believe that the same laws with the same penalties should exist for those that drive while using a cell phone? Studies have show that the likelyhood of having an accident while using a cell phone (hand held or hands free) is at least as great as when driving drunk.
    If that assertion can really be supported scientifically, then yes, the same penalties should apply. I for one don't enjoy having to dodge some imbecile driving erratically while chatting away anyway.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Crosscheck View Post
    I don't really know.
    I am not one to make exceptions to what I say.

    Here is a question. When you see a state trooper on the hiway, do you tense up or are you happy to know they are out there for your protection?
    Does it? Really? Or does it make people obey when they see and/or know of the presence of troopers and ignore it otherwise?

    Do you know how silly it is to say endangering others should be punishable? Do you know how to control this?


    Myself, I have no problem driving right alongside a trooper. Am not intoxicated nor am I driving eratically endangering others.
    Why does endangering others a crime? Think about it. What is the crime in endangering others? Should using power from a coal plant be considered endangering others? Should that be a crime?


    I can't speak for anybody else, but I deserved the punishment I got. It's called accepting responsibility, and the consequences, for my actions.
    Lol, since you didn't kill anyone there isn't any responsibility or consequences from your actions. What did you deserve again?

  9. #59
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,191

    Re: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by ggh View Post
    To all of those that believe that it is proper to have DWI laws with the existing penalties, do you also believe that the same laws with the same penalties should exist for those that drive while using a cell phone? Studies have show that the likelyhood of having an accident while using a cell phone (hand held or hands free) is at least as great as when driving drunk.
    Yeah, but a lot of that is that people talking on cell phones comprises more car trips than drunk drivers. Plus when it happens -- rush hour vs. closing time. You'd think given those variables it would be a lot more.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, I do believe that my sentence was necessary. And, for those who are claiming that, as long as nobody is hurt, DWI punishments are wrong, let me give you an analogy: Remember Michael Jackson dangling a baby out of a window? Should he have been prosecuted for that? I believe he should have, because he put the baby at risk. Sure, the baby was OK, but his life was endangered.
    So you are going to punish people for everytime they throw their kids in the air and catch them? After all, the parent could fail to catch the child, killing the child. You are a fool.

    What about those who leave their babies home alone, while they go out and party. In the vast majority of cases, the baby is OK, but the baby's life was still endangered.
    This is going somewhere I hope...

    You read in the papers all the time about the babies who die in fires because the parents had left them alone. Those parents are prosecuted and jailed.
    So their actions resulted in a death? That works for your example how?

    However, even if the child is not hurt by that action, the possibility of death is there, which means that the child has been endangered, and that is not acceptable to a society in which people are responsible for their actions.
    What is acceptable to society means nothing to me, and it means nothing to what is actually going on either.

    The same applies to DWI. People die at the hands of drunk drivers every day, which means that, even though a drunk driver makes it home without killing anybody that night, he still endangered others by going out on the road drunk. He should be prosecuted, the same as those who endanger children should be prosecuted. And you believe that drunk drivers should not be subject to the same considerations that we apply to those who endanger children? Incidentally, there are also children out on the road, in the back seats of cars that their parents are driving. So, yes, driving drunk is also a form of child endangerment.
    You didn't actually show me that endangering children should be punishable, just so you know.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •