• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

Crosscheck said:
So you oppose to having the visibility of state troopers on the highway?
Click to expand...
You think he really meant that? I think there is a point where prevention can go overboard, but it's a judgment call.
 
American said:
You think he really meant that? I think there is a point where prevention can go overboard, but it's a judgment call.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
deltabtry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
ggh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Crosscheck said:
I don't really know.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Lol, since you didn't kill anyone there isn't any responsibility or consequences from your actions. What did you deserve again?
 
ggh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

You didn't actually show me that endangering children should be punishable, just so you know.
 
Henrin said:
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?
Click to expand...
.
You have no right to put other people in danger. You talk about personal freedom, but what about the freedom of people not to be put in danger if they don't choose it themselves?
Drunk driving is like firing your weapon indicriminately out into the street. If you want to play Russian Roulette in your own home, be my guest. But you have no right to force me to play.

Your coal power plant analogy might work if people had much of a choice as to where they get their power from. Most of us pretty much get the electricity from the power company and don't have a lot of say about how it's done. It may surprise you, but coal power plants don't bother me a lot. We need the electricity, and it has to come from somewhere.
 
rocket88 said:
.
You have no right to put other people in danger. You talk about personal freedom, but what about the freedom of people not to be put in danger if they don't choose it themselves?
Click to expand...

I didn't abridge your rights by endangering your life.
I didn't abridge your liberty
and I didn't need you to allow me to do it.

I have the right.
Drunk driving is like firing your weapon indicriminately out into the street. If you want to play Russian Roulette in your own home, be my guest. But you have no right to force me to play.
Click to expand...

Who is forcing you to play?

Your coal power plant analogy might work if people had much of a choice as to where they get their power from. Most of us pretty much get the electricity from the power company and don't have a lot of say about how it's done. It may surprise you, but coal power plants don't bother me a lot. We need the electricity, and it has to come from somewhere.
Click to expand...

You need electricity? Why? Because of your life style? So your life style is essential to your life? Again, no one is forcing you to use the electricity from coal plants. You make a choice that you want it to live your life. You could just make another choice.
 
Henrin said:
I have the right.


Who is forcing you to play?



You need electricity? Why? Because of your life style? So your life style is essential to your life? Again, no one is forcing you to use the electricity from coal plants. You make a choice that you want it to live your life. You could just make another choice.
Click to expand...

You don't have the right to put other people in danger. Sorry you just don't. I have the right to live my life as I please, I have the right to not get killed or disabled because some asshole was drunk. Maybe you live way out in East Jesus Nowhere where you never see anybody else. I live in a major American city, and not the suburbs either.

When you drive drunk in my neighborhood, it means that I can't walk on my street. It means that I can't park my car on the side of the road. You are forcing me to play your little life and death game. So yes, it does abridge my liberty.

Should someone just have the right to walk up and down my street spraying gunfire all over the place?
 
I already told you why I do, and I already told you its not forcing you to do anything. You can continue to say it does if you wish, it doesn't matter to me. You can walk in the street, the danger that might be there or not does not stop you from doing it. If you want to walk in the street and not pay attention, go right ahead, but drunk drivers is not your problem.

Oh and I'm not religious, but nice strawman with the "Jesus nowhere" comment.
 
Last edited:
Henrin;1059399121 Oh and I'm not religious said:
You have no idea what I was talking about do you?
Click to expand...
 
I honesty don't care.
 
Henrin said:
I didn't abridge your rights by endangering your life.
Click to expand...

I have a god given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You endangering that life is most certainly abridging my rights.

Henrin said:
I have the right.
Click to expand...

Not to put me in danger, no. If you want to go base jumping or surf the ten meter waves, then, by all means, do so. I don't want to share the highway with some ****** drunk.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...
LMAO.. this style of driving is SOP here is Boston, you need to really and I mean really F up to get pulled over here is Boston and when you do...then you deserve it. The state troopers here in MA. are alright in my book, they understand what goes on and so on, but if your F'en up they will catch you.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I have a god given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You endangering that life is most certainly abridging my rights.
Click to expand...

None of those are abridged if you don't die.

Not to put me in danger, no. If you want to go base jumping or surf the ten meter waves, then, by all means, do so. I don't want to share the highway with some ****** drunk.
Click to expand...

By all means make a choice to not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom