Jump to content

Mizzou's Michael Sam comes out


McCall

Recommended Posts

There really isn't anything everyone can agree on huh?

Nope. You have people who deny that the Earth is round. In the Western world. In 2014.
Those people are what I like to call "Amish"

Which shows how little you know of the world.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There really isn't anything everyone can agree on huh?

Nope. You have people who deny that the Earth is round. In the Western world. In 2014.
Those people are what I like to call "Amish"
I was referring to the Flat Earth Society.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

They even have a podcast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drunk driving is not a "victimless crime", just a crime that doesn't have a victim yet. The act carries an intrinsic risk of creating victims, and is therefore proper grounds for law.

I haven't had sex with Amber Lancaster yet. Doesn't mean that it will happen.

I simply don't get how a rational person can support issuing tickets and/or jail time for something that might happen or hasn't happened. Not advocating everyone to drink brown liquor before hitting the roads, but there are alternate methods in handling drunk drivers than, and again I mention, using taxpayer money to keeping a guy in jail and the numerous folks working the courthouse and these 'crimes' being a cash flow for the police department. You guys are smart enough to figure out how to get these drunk drivers to a safe place to sober up.

I simply feel that you should be only issued citations or face jail time if there is a victim involved....no "mights" or "possibly" or "preventing" or any other in-the-future term you want to come up with. Maybe that's the Libertarian in me coming out in this.....

No victim....no harm, no foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look Hedley, I'm sorry you had to cancel your vacation to Mexico because you picked the wrong night to go drunk driving and then lipped off to that Georgia State Patrolman. That doesn't make DUI tickets bad.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drunk driving is not a "victimless crime", just a crime that doesn't have a victim yet. The act carries an intrinsic risk of creating victims, and is therefore proper grounds for law.

I haven't had sex with Amber Lancaster yet. Doesn't mean that it will happen.

I simply don't get how a rational person can support issuing tickets and/or jail time for something that might happen or hasn't happened. Not advocating everyone to drink brown liquor before hitting the roads, but there are alternate methods in handling drunk drivers than, and again I mention, using taxpayer money to keeping a guy in jail and the numerous folks working the courthouse and these 'crimes' being a cash flow for the police department. You guys are smart enough to figure out how to get these drunk drivers to a safe place to sober up.

I simply feel that you should be only issued citations or face jail time if there is a victim involved....no "mights" or "possibly" or "preventing" or any other in-the-future term you want to come up with. Maybe that's the Libertarian in me coming out in this.....

No victim....no harm, no foul.

I'm Libertarian myself, but I wouldn't classify DUIs as nothing more than an excessive police "profit maker". Speeding tickets, yeah sure. Other traffic and parking violations that clearly have no victims and wouldn't cause potential harm can be excessive. But not drunk driving. If you make it home fine drunk, that's great, but all it takes is that one time and there could be severe damage. Since it's considered an impairment, I believe DUIs are ok. As for the other violations, I'd rather just have reckless driving violations. As long as your not driving like 100mph in 35 zone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drunk driving is not a "victimless crime", just a crime that doesn't have a victim yet. The act carries an intrinsic risk of creating victims, and is therefore proper grounds for law.

I haven't had sex with Amber Lancaster yet. Doesn't mean that it will happen.

I simply don't get how a rational person can support issuing tickets and/or jail time for something that might happen or hasn't happened. Not advocating everyone to drink brown liquor before hitting the roads, but there are alternate methods in handling drunk drivers than, and again I mention, using taxpayer money to keeping a guy in jail and the numerous folks working the courthouse and these 'crimes' being a cash flow for the police department. You guys are smart enough to figure out how to get these drunk drivers to a safe place to sober up.

I simply feel that you should be only issued citations or face jail time if there is a victim involved....no "mights" or "possibly" or "preventing" or any other in-the-future term you want to come up with. Maybe that's the Libertarian in me coming out in this.....

No victim....no harm, no foul.

You are currently breaking a law when you drunk drive, because you are currently driving dangerously (you might not think so but you are) and a danger to everyone around you. You say there are better ways to deal with drunk drivers but have yet to actually say what those alternatives are, until then the current method of citations, fines, and prison time is the best method available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drunk driving is not a "victimless crime", just a crime that doesn't have a victim yet. The act carries an intrinsic risk of creating victims, and is therefore proper grounds for law.

I haven't had sex with Amber Lancaster yet. Doesn't mean that it will happen.

I simply don't get how a rational person can support issuing tickets and/or jail time for something that might happen or hasn't happened. Not advocating everyone to drink brown liquor before hitting the roads, but there are alternate methods in handling drunk drivers than, and again I mention, using taxpayer money to keeping a guy in jail and the numerous folks working the courthouse and these 'crimes' being a cash flow for the police department. You guys are smart enough to figure out how to get these drunk drivers to a safe place to sober up.

This isn't like Minority Report... you are actually getting into your car and operating it while you are not of sound mind to do so. This is begging for a Ron Burgundy GIF, but is planning a terrorist attack not a crime because there are no victims yet?

There are systems in place to get drunk drivers home safely... taxis. Every damn city has 'em. There are even special programs where someone will drive you home from the bar and someone else will drive your car home for you. People are just too dumb and/or drunk to use them.

I'm a libertarian (little L), too, and the only traffic rule I really disagree with is the strict speed limits. Many places have a "soft" speed limit, but in NY you can be going 1 MPH over the speed limit and get a ticket. There are certain municipalities that specialize in these kinds of tickets... THAT'S a cash grab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drunk driving is not a "victimless crime", just a crime that doesn't have a victim yet. The act carries an intrinsic risk of creating victims, and is therefore proper grounds for law.

I haven't had sex with Amber Lancaster yet. Doesn't mean that it will happen.

I simply don't get how a rational person can support issuing tickets and/or jail time for something that might happen or hasn't happened. Not advocating everyone to drink brown liquor before hitting the roads, but there are alternate methods in handling drunk drivers than, and again I mention, using taxpayer money to keeping a guy in jail and the numerous folks working the courthouse and these 'crimes' being a cash flow for the police department. You guys are smart enough to figure out how to get these drunk drivers to a safe place to sober up.

This isn't like Minority Report... you are actually getting into your car and operating it while you are not of sound mind to do so. This is begging for a Ron Burgundy GIF, but is planning a terrorist attack not a crime because there are no victims yet?

There are systems in place to get drunk drivers home safely... taxis. Every damn city has 'em. There are even special programs where someone will drive you home from the bar and someone else will drive your car home for you. People are just too dumb and/or drunk to use them.

I'm a libertarian (little L), too, and the only traffic rule I really disagree with is the strict speed limits. Many places have a "soft" speed limit, but in NY you can be going 1 MPH over the speed limit and get a ticket. There are certain municipalities that specialize in these kinds of tickets... THAT'S a cash grab.

In ALL states, 1 mph OVER the speed limit is cause for a ticket. The only state I've seen enforce it that closely is PA.

If you have to wear glasses to drive and don't, that's a crime! Oh, let's hear about that being a victim ess crime

Tuesday, July 29 and the only person that's being a distraction is Ray Rice.

tumblr_nulnnz7RCV1r5jqq2o1_250.jpg

Oh what could have been....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience in PA both personally and from talking to cops is that there's a 10 MPH cushion, unless you're doing something else as well, or the guy just feels like being a dick.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience in PA both personally and from talking to cops is that there's a 10 MPH cushion, unless you're doing something else as well, or the guy just feels like being a dick.

Up to nine you are fine, ten and up your ass is mine.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My cop friend says if you're going 9 over is when he pulls you over.

But if you're swerving because you're drunk he'll pull you over no matter how fast you're going. Even if you haven't hit a victim.

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.