|
Post by Evil Yoda on Sept 17, 2014 9:31:59 GMT -5
It is a standard... and obviously higher than yours... which is okay... I'd make both illegal if I could... (of course I can't... and never will)... both have killed thousands and thousands of people and wreaked havoc on far too many homes... Sure they've killed a lot of people. Smokers generally kill only themselves. In a free society people must be free even to make bad decisions as long as those decisions involve only themselves. Drinking is certainly more problematic, inasmuch as people routinely drive (or do other activities dangerous to others) while drunk. My idea is to let people drink, if they like, but punish them if they threaten or cause harm to others. Your idea is apparently to forbid smoking and drinking, but if a district attorney, just for example, is a drunk, then by all means keep her in office as long as she's a Democrat!
|
|
|
Post by cyclegeek on Sept 17, 2014 10:28:23 GMT -5
It is a standard... and obviously higher than yours... which is okay... I'd make both illegal if I could... (of course I can't... and never will)... both have killed thousands and thousands of people and wreaked havoc on far too many homes... Sure they've killed a lot of people. Smokers generally kill only themselves. In a free society people must be free even to make bad decisions as long as those decisions involve only themselves. Drinking is certainly more problematic, inasmuch as people routinely drive (or do other activities dangerous to others) while drunk. My idea is to let people drink, if they like, but punish them if they threaten or cause harm to others. Your idea is apparently to forbid smoking and drinking, but if a district attorney, just for example, is a drunk, then by all means keep her in office as long as she's a Democrat! I'd like you solution, if we had real penalties, but we don't. We start tough and then Libs water them down year after year until the penalty is all but useless. Of course that is unless you're in the NFL, then your guilty until proven innocent and life without parole isn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 17, 2014 11:21:23 GMT -5
It is a standard... and obviously higher than yours... which is okay... I'd make both illegal if I could... (of course I can't... and never will)... both have killed thousands and thousands of people and wreaked havoc on far too many homes... Sure they've killed a lot of people. Smokers generally kill only themselves. In a free society people must be free even to make bad decisions as long as those decisions involve only themselves. Drinking is certainly more problematic, inasmuch as people routinely drive (or do other activities dangerous to others) while drunk. My idea is to let people drink, if they like, but punish them if they threaten or cause harm to others. Your idea is apparently to forbid smoking and drinking, but if a district attorney, just for example, is a drunk, then by all means keep her in office as long as she's a Democrat! Never said a word about Lehmberg not having to pay for her crime just like others are required to do... my only beef was with her keeping her job as a consequence... a job (in government) she has held and performed will at for almost 40 years... individuals caught drinking and driving don't normally lose their jobs as a result... unless in the case, they're Democrats... Lehmberg's problem was that she got caught driving while drunk... not that she drank/drinks... if everybody in the Congress lost their jobs because they drink/drank... over half, or more, of them would be unemployed...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 17, 2014 11:30:44 GMT -5
Sure they've killed a lot of people. Smokers generally kill only themselves. In a free society people must be free even to make bad decisions as long as those decisions involve only themselves. Drinking is certainly more problematic, inasmuch as people routinely drive (or do other activities dangerous to others) while drunk. My idea is to let people drink, if they like, but punish them if they threaten or cause harm to others. Your idea is apparently to forbid smoking and drinking, but if a district attorney, just for example, is a drunk, then by all means keep her in office as long as she's a Democrat! I'd like you solution, if we had real penalties, but we don't. We start tough and then Libs water them down year after year until the penalty is all but useless. Of course that is unless you're in the NFL, then your guilty until proven innocent and life without parole isn't enough. You might want to check on some of those "watered down" DUI penalties... most are pretty stiff monetary fines... $500-$1,000... some suspend licenses for a certain number of days... 30-90... not that many suspend licenses (after watering down) for the common sense realization that individuals shouldn't necessarily lose their jobs as a result... unless they're a Democrat...
|
|
|
Post by cyclegeek on Sept 17, 2014 11:56:17 GMT -5
I'd like you solution, if we had real penalties, but we don't. We start tough and then Libs water them down year after year until the penalty is all but useless. Of course that is unless you're in the NFL, then your guilty until proven innocent and life without parole isn't enough. You might want to check on some of those "watered down" DUI penalties... most are pretty stiff monetary fines... $500-$1,000... some suspend licenses for a certain number of days... 30-90... not that many suspend licenses (after watering down) for the common sense realization that individuals shouldn't necessarily lose their jobs as a result... unless they're a Democrat... Good to know.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 17, 2014 13:06:48 GMT -5
I'd like you solution, if we had real penalties, but we don't. We start tough and then Libs water them down year after year until the penalty is all but useless. Of course that is unless you're in the NFL, then your guilty until proven innocent and life without parole isn't enough. You might want to check on some of those "watered down" DUI penalties... most are pretty stiff monetary fines... $500-$1,000... some suspend licenses for a certain number of days... 30-90... not that many suspend licenses (after watering down) for the common sense realization that individuals shouldn't necessarily lose their jobs as a result... unless they're a Democrat... So now you want us to believe that every (D) found guilty of DUI/DWI loses their jobs. Talk about a drama queen, or in this case, king. Lehmberg should not lose her job because she drinks. She should not lose her job because she's a (D). She should lose her job because she's a public official, a DA no less, who broke the law.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Sept 17, 2014 14:09:34 GMT -5
Never said a word about Lehmberg not having to pay for her crime just like others are required to do... my only beef was with her keeping her job as a consequence... a job (in government) she has held and performed will at for almost 40 years... individuals caught drinking and driving don't normally lose their jobs as a result... unless in the case, they're Democrats... Lehmberg's problem was that she got caught driving while drunk... not that she drank/drinks... if everybody in the Congress lost their jobs because they drink/drank... over half, or more, of them would be unemployed... The driving was bad enough. But the abuse of power - threatening the police officers with her official powers - is why she needed to lose her job. Too, there's a difference between the occasional social drink, and being the kind of habitual drinker (also called an alcoholic) whose BAL is 3x the legal limit. That's a hardcore oiler right there.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 17, 2014 14:51:51 GMT -5
You might want to check on some of those "watered down" DUI penalties... most are pretty stiff monetary fines... $500-$1,000... some suspend licenses for a certain number of days... 30-90... not that many suspend licenses (after watering down) for the common sense realization that individuals shouldn't necessarily lose their jobs as a result... unless they're a Democrat... So now you want us to believe that every (D) found guilty of DUI/DWI loses their jobs. Talk about a drama queen, or in this case, king. Lehmberg should not lose her job because she drinks. She should not lose her job because she's a (D). She should lose her job because she's a public official, a DA no less, who broke the law. Seems to me that it's you guys who think (D)'s are protected from prosecution... because they're a (D)... not me...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 17, 2014 17:49:18 GMT -5
Never said a word about Lehmberg not having to pay for her crime just like others are required to do... my only beef was with her keeping her job as a consequence... a job (in government) she has held and performed will at for almost 40 years... individuals caught drinking and driving don't normally lose their jobs as a result... unless in the case, they're Democrats... Lehmberg's problem was that she got caught driving while drunk... not that she drank/drinks... if everybody in the Congress lost their jobs because they drink/drank... over half, or more, of them would be unemployed... The driving was bad enough. But the abuse of power - threatening the police officers with her official powers - is why she needed to lose her job. Too, there's a difference between the occasional social drink, and being the kind of habitual drinker (also called an alcoholic) whose BAL is 3x the legal limit. That's a hardcore oiler right there. Being 3 times over the legal limit is NO indication that someone is an habitual drinker or an alcoholic... I gave you a personal example of that... have you forgotten that?... Drunk people say stupid things... law officers realize that... some onlookers don't...
|
|