I am a racist.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:13 am

No, you Fake a-hole, because someone pulled off a major crime which kills and damages millions of people--like the New Pearl Harbor--well indeed they should be punished. Of what part of the Japanese health care system --and ethos-- are you in complete denial? All of it? What part of you can stand to look in the mirror?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:49 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:Please inform us why it is that an action known to likely cause serious injury & death...

Did you not see my numeric breakdown above?

It really takes a true retard to say it's "likely," or even "lucky it didn't happen" when the odds of it happening are akin to hitting the state lottery.

ONCE AGAIN, I don't condone driving while intoxicated, and believe some reasonable measures should be in place to stop those whose sense of personal responsibility fails in that regard. For those with reading comprehension difficulties -- no one should be driving with any sort of impairment to their motor skills... social contracts, personal responsibility and whatnot. I'm opposed.

I'm just sayin'... basic. fucking. math. It's a (statistically minor, all due respect to Lefty) menace to society, yet is treated like a government-run business enterprise.

And let's not even get into the more intricate stats of the differences between 0.08 and 0.15 BAC, which aren't in the same league -- but there were coffers to fill.

At what point are cops tilting to the side of making money, rather than protecting the public (and before you submit a stupid answer, again -- do some basic freaking math)?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:30 pm

Dinsdale wrote: I'm just sayin'... basic. fucking. math. It's a (statistically minor, all due respect to Lefty) menace to society, yet is treated like a government-run business enterprise.

And let's not even get into the more intricate stats of the differences between 0.08 and 0.15 BAC, which aren't in the same league -- but there were coffers to fill.

At what point are cops tilting to the side of making money, rather than protecting the public (and before you submit a stupid answer, again -- do some basic freaking math)?

0.08 is enough to kill a man, that's what my dad's murderer blew shortly after the murder. Now if you are saying 0.15 should be treated at a much more severe level, you might be on to something, but rape is still rape.

A decent percentage of police time is only about making money. See speeding, school zones, stop signs in the middle of nowhere, red lights, registration, seat belts, inspections, etc. Do we give everyone a free pass on these as well?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:15 pm

The guy who killed your fat black gf was not charged with DUI now was he? He was charged with murder or manslaughter or dui causing death or CNH so yea dui IS a victimless crime.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:18 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:but yes DUI without damage or injury should be legal.
Do tell.

Please inform us why it is that an action known to likely cause serious injury & death should be legalized in circumstances where the driver is lucky enough to not hit anyone.

Define likely.

LS,
Rape is a crime that always had a victim. Apples and oranges.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:58 pm

Moving Sale wrote: Define likely.

Apparently, 1 out of hundreds of thousand (if not millions) meets the definition of "likely."

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:47 pm

Papa Willie wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:I relate again a recent example of a Japanese man, age 85, who checked into a Japanese hospital for two surgeries--colon and stomach cancers--and the operations, a month in the hospital, all follow up visits and medications, all first rate...cost just over $1000...cash of course. And make no mistake, all hospitals are private in Japan. So..what's the difference? Why is it not only possible but real and happening? Because the entire Japanese medical industry is understood to be in the service of the public, not a profit mongering industry for doctors and insurance companies. It is the profit oriented philosophy--of which you are completely supporting--that is the problem.

There's your answer. (That's per 100,000, btw)

So yer just blaming the lawyers? And why do you suppose Japan doesn't have the issue of hordes of rapacious lawyers? What about the fact that the Japanese abhor the very idea of Ayn Rand's "selfishness" ethos as though it is leprosy? What part of your own toxic "libertarian" ethos are you clinging to like peasant placating his lord?

P-willie groveling to Milton Friedman...

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:10 pm

Moving Sale wrote:yes DUI without damage or injury should be legal.

How about attempted murder?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:37 pm

WTF, babs..have you been drinking that frack-polluted groundwater near your Nebraska shack? What's with this idiotic digression from the stark facts of Japan's healthcare system undermining entirely your tedious Tea Bagger attacks on the National Healthcare Act?

Here's the grisly truth..
The number of Americans without health insurance declined by 10.3 million because of Obamacare enrollment, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Harvard School of Public Health, published in The New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.

That represents a reduction in the uninsured rate for adults aged 18 to 64 from 21 percent last September to 16.3 percent this April, the HHS analysis concludes. The lower rate remained stable through June. The first open enrollment period under Obamacare began Oct. 1, 2013, and officially ended March 31, 2014.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:51 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote: The number of Americans without health insurance declined by 10.3 million because of Obamacare enrollment, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Harvard School of Public Health, published in The New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.

At least 6 million of those are now on Medicaid. So your number is no more than 4.3 million.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:04 pm

mvscal wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:yes DUI without damage or injury should be legal.
How about attempted murder?

What about it?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:28 pm

It should be legal, right?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:07 am

mvscal wrote:It should be legal, right?

Why?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:16 am

[quote="Papa Willie"
Again - your comprehension levels are on par with a 2nd grader.

What part of:

Now there's plenty of greed in every industry there is, but the good ole' lawsuit is what fucks the world.

that I said on this very page didn't you understand?[/quote]

So it's all the lawyers fault? That's it? That's your simplistic response to the Japanese ethos and success at managing a huge and expensive health care system properly and cost efficiently?

Why do you suppose there's no lawsuit contagion in Japan...or France...or Germany...?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:24 am

[quote="mvscal" His fast track authority and ratification appear to be a dead letter in Congress, so I'm not that worried about it at this point.[/quote]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/0 ... 32118.html

And your "opinion" is based on what?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:15 am

You're repeating yourself like a dementia patient.

Okay..guess who opposes tort reform? And why do you suppose this problem isn't an issue in Japan?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:11 am

To think..there are racists among us. Sir ..I am shocked..
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/16/world ... -slur.html

Okay...so it's not the scheming Irish Lawyers, it's the the Butler? And Butlerettes..er..

We'll nail them to the wall...trust me..I've got this...

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:00 pm

Moving Sale wrote: LS,
Rape is a crime that always had a victim. Apples and oranges.

Oh, there are far more victims of DUI than are reported. Just because no one died or there wasn't serious property damage doesn't mean there isn't a victim.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:14 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
mvscal wrote: His fast track authority and ratification appear to be a dead letter in Congress, so I'm not that worried about it at this point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/0 ... 32118.html

And your "opinion" is based on what?

Do you even read your own links?

Ironically, the pending deals are actually less popular among Republicans than among Democrats, and recently tea party activists have been denouncing them as "Obamatrade."

You can thank those "do-nothing, tea party obstructionists" now.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:26 pm

Left Seater wrote:
Moving Sale wrote: LS,
Rape is a crime that always had a victim. Apples and oranges.
Oh, there are far more victims of DUI than are reported. Just because no one died or there wasn't serious property damage doesn't mean there isn't a victim.

If someone drives home drunk and hits no one or nothing, which is what happens most everytime, then there is no victim.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:35 pm

Wrong. Just because there isn't physical contact between two vehicles, doesn't mean there isn't a victim.

Perfect example.

Nov 30th, my in-laws are driving home from the airport at about 11:15pm. They are traveling north on a 5 lane road, two lanes each direction and a turning lane. A different car is traveling east and approaching the same intersection as them. My in-laws have a green light. Suddenly the car traveling east bound makes a wide right turn into their path. My father in law quickly steers to his right and contacts the curb and then has two of his wheels on the sidewalk. He comes to a stop after contact with the trash can at a bus stop. The clearly drunk driver continues now south bound and is in the north bound lanes.

There was no contact between the two cars. The police arrive and take a statement, but it isn't a DUI accident. My in laws are out $1350 for damage to their car and wheel.

So the drunk hit no one or nothing but there is still absolutely a victim.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:50 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
mvscal wrote:It should be legal, right?
Why?

Why not? Say one of your disgruntled former clients takes a couple shots at you and misses. No harm, no foul, right?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:29 pm

LS,
While I didn't mention it in the last post, I'm am not advocating getting rid of the charge of DUI causing injury or damage or hit and run DUI. The fact remains that most DUI causes no damage.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:30 pm

Moving Sale wrote:If someone drives home drunk and hits no one or nothing, which is what happens most everytime, then there is no victim.

MS, while it is clearly logical that you wouldn't advocate getting rid of a DUI charge resulting in injury or death (how noble of you

), your dismissal of driving while under the influence which results in no accident, fatality or damage as being okay, or without victim, is utterly preposterous. If you're driving while impaired, then you are making everybody a victim, including yourself, because you have chosen to get behind the wheel of a large, heavy piece of machinery and engage with other people while your vision, comprehension and reaction are all impacted and compromised.

If you got to your destination without incident, then you got lucky. The percentages you cite are irrelevant. Driving drunk or high is a crime, plain and simple. If you're only defending your stance due to your job, that makes you detestable. Please, do justify your logic in how a DUI is every okay.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:58 pm

mvscal wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:
mvscal wrote:It should be legal, right?
Why?
Why not? Say one of your disgruntled former clients takes a couple shots at you and misses. No harm, no foul, right?

Attempted crimes are crimes because they include the specific intent to commit the target crime. This is known as mens rea. Maybe you've heard of it.

J,
You can't just make up new definitions for words like "violence" and "victim" on a whim. Driving DUI makes everybody on the road and even people in their houses POSSIBLE victims. Not actual victims. Lots of things are dangerous. Like driving period. No one is ever at their best when driving no matter how hard you try. Stop sucking MADD cock.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:16 am

Alcohol (and other drugs) directly affect the motor skills, vission, and judgement necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle. And with DUI coming into the public eye over thirty years ago, there's no way a logical person could argue that it puts the driver at risk of killing himself, others, and/or damaging property. IOW, fuck this "it was a mistake" bullshit. Driving under the influence is well known to threaten the lives of others, so those wishing to drink need to plan how they're going to get home afterwards before they start drinking. Poor decisions made later after drinking are no more excusable than other criminal acts committed while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

And quit insinuating that driving DUI is no more dangerous than driving while sober. You're going to tell us that a person who fails a FST is no more of a threat than any other driver on the road? That pretty much sums up why lawyers are so universally hated. You throw up these cockamamie theories & platitudes that you think are so smart when the rest of the civilized world that has more than two brain cells & a lick of common sense sees right through your bullshit. The problem with the justice system is that you're allowed to use voir dire to remove remotely intelligent people from juries, and the requirement of having a unanimous guilty decision allows only one of the remaining mouth-breathing jurists to fuck up a drunk driver being held accountable. To put it another way, you enable criminals to kill with their cars. If there's an afterlife, say hello to Adolph & Pol.

Moving Fail wrote: Like driving period. No one is ever at their best when driving no matter how hard you try.

If that's the case, would you allow your son to be driven someplace by a drunk driver? If not, do tell why.

Stop sucking criminal cock.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 5:46 am

Tell me, "Diego," would you allow your son to be told that the 9/11 Commission report is in any way valid? Because that's a lot worse than driving drunk. That's morally corrupt. And possessed of a degree of cowardice that would make Dick Cheney feel strong.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:48 pm

Moving Sale wrote:J,
You can't just make up new definitions for words like "violence" and "victim" on a whim. Driving DUI makes everybody on the road and even people in their houses POSSIBLE victims. Not actual victims. Lots of things are dangerous. Like driving period. No one is ever at their best when driving no matter how hard you try. Stop sucking MADD cock.

I wasn't making up a definition of either "violence" or "victim". You're 100% correct by adding the word possible, or potential. This holds true with "implied" violence as opposed to an actual act, though a verbal threat with no physical act, still falls under the banner of violence. Adverbs aside, violence is always violence, and you're either impaired or your not. Your saying that the very act of driving is potentially dangerous. Indeed, it is, a risk each and every time. That doesn't in any way detract from DUI's being a crime. No excuse or justification. You drive impaired, you are breaking the law and risking lives and loss.

You defending it is itself a crime, if only metaphorically speaking.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:03 pm

I know it's illegal I'm trying to explain why it shouldn't be illegal. It's is not as dangerous as many things which are legal. Your indignation is misplaced. You have been lied to and are now regurgitating that lie. There is nothing about DUI laws, from the levels, to the tests, to the per se rules, to the punishments that is not a bunch of big brother crap. Try living your life with big boy pants on some time.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:00 am

Moving Sale wrote:I know it's illegal I'm trying to explain why it shouldn't be illegal. It's is not as dangerous as many things which are legal. Your indignation is misplaced. You have been lied to and are now regurgitating that lie. There is nothing about DUI laws, from the levels, to the tests, to the per se rules, to the punishments that is not a bunch of big brother crap. Try living your life with big boy pants on some time.

You didn't answer my question. Nice white flag.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:21 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:I know it's illegal I'm trying to explain why it shouldn't be illegal. It's is not as dangerous as many things which are legal. Your indignation is misplaced. You have been lied to and are now regurgitating that lie. There is nothing about DUI laws, from the levels, to the tests, to the per se rules, to the punishments that is not a bunch of big brother crap. Try living your life with big boy pants on some time.
You didn't answer my question. Nice white flag.

I must have missed it.
Answer: Define Drunk Driving.
Because if you are taking about an adult that had 3 beers and is .081 then yes. If you are talking about a totally faded 21 yo then no.
But it's my choice on how I raise my kid for the most part and being pulled over for a headlight and doing well on the FST and then blowing a .085 and going down for DUI and all it's harsh penalties is BS in the highest order.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:09 pm

No MS, it is not, not even close. I'm not sure whether your view is through a rose or dark colored glass. In either case, it is short sighted and utterly selfish. You would rather stand on your dias of legal hubris and rail in difiance of how unfair it is for that dude with a bum headlight got stuck with a DUI because whe he was pulled over, he was coincedentally...wait for it...

...drunk.

Oh, that is just so wrong! No, getting behind the wheel of a car and driving drunk or stoned, that is wrong.

If that same kid got home unscathed, caused no harm and hurt no one while being even a little intoxicated, and that means just one beer or a singel shot, that means he got lucky. He may not be the next time. The message needs to be sent that this is not okay, so we have laws, justifiable laws in place to prevent it.

Stop with your nonsense MS, you have no defense of it.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:20 pm

First off did you ever stop to think that maybe I became a defense attorney because of my views, not the other way around?
Second, you have brought nothing but conclusions. You have not even tried to defend DUI except to say that I am stupid for even DARING to question its validity.
Third, no the guy with the busted tail light is not drunk. He passed the FSTs. The only reason he is SOL is because he is over .079 NO MATTER HIS LEVEL OF INTOXICATION.
Fourth, you are a sheep with no brain and you look like someone made you out of sticks.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:38 pm

Moving Sale wrote:First off did you ever stop to think that maybe I became a defense attorney because of my views, not the other way around?

Not really, as it doesn't seem to have any real bearing, though if you wish to explain it, that would be fine. My thoughts about your practice and opinions are based on what you've written repeatedly on this site, so that is where the heart of this lies.

Second, you have brought nothing but conclusions. You have not even tried to defend DUI except to say that I am stupid for even DARING to question its validity.

I didn't say you were stupid for defending your stance, though that can be implied. As to defending my stance, there is no need. Even if you have only indulged in a single beer or shot of liquor, you should not be foolish enough to drive a vehicle, especially on a public street. Even if an individual can "hold their alcohol" and maintain a semblance of functionality, the fact remains that that person is impaired. Degree matters of course, but even a little is too much. I'm have asked you on multiple occasions to share your viewpoint or to rationalize your defense of DUI's as being any any form acceptable. You have not. All you do is deflect and insult, as par for the course of your board persona, but here's your chance Great Wizard of Laws, give us a peek behind the curtain and explain yourself.

Third, no the guy with the busted tail light is not drunk. He passed the FSTs. The only reason he is SOL is because he is over .079 NO MATTER HIS LEVEL OF INTOXICATION.

Correct and completely fair. He rolls the dice, he accepts the chance of a charge and some jail time. Don't drink and drive, that's the law. Period. If you don't like it, do something to facilitate change, stop bitching.

Fourth, you are a sheep with no brain and you look like someone made you out of sticks.

Says the straw man.

I'll put my common sense over your misplaced legalese any day of the week.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:09 pm

Jay in Phoenix wrote:I didn't say you were stupid for defending your stance, though that can be implied. As to defending my stance, there is no need. Even if you have only indulged in a single beer or shot of liquor, you should not be foolish enough to drive a vehicle, especially on a public street.

Complete and total bullshit.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:12 pm

Jay,
If you are going with
Buzzed driving IS drunk driving
Then you are a lost cause
Get back to me when you grow a brain

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:14 pm

One drink isn't even buzzed driving. It's thirst temporarily slaked driving.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:23 pm

In Moving Fail's world it's perfectly fine for someone who's mollared up to drive as long as they feel they can pass the FST's.

Brilliant take, shorty.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:23 pm

Yea because making the cops actually prove you are a imparied (which is supposedly the whole reason it's illegal) is a waste of time. Let's just go with "if u blo .08 then down u go." Fuck due process... and reason.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:37 pm

Reason is planning how to get home before one starts drinking. Reason would be not driving after drinking.

Reason is not driving after drinking because one feels they can pass a FST.

I'm betting there's very few people who have failed FST's with a b/a of .08-.10 that didn't think they were ok to drive.