T1B

Papa Willie wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Should I school you tards in partition ratio next?

Promise me you'll get REALLY fucked up every day from now on, and drive around just as much as you can - at really high speeds.

I was going to suggest that he get shit faced and start jaywalking. That way no one else gets hurt.

Mace wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Should I school you tards in partition ratio next?

Promise me you'll get REALLY fucked up every day from now on, and drive around just as much as you can - at really high speeds.

I was going to suggest that he get shit faced and start jaywalking. That way no one else gets hurt.

I would suggest that he just stop posting, but I'm obviously kinder and gentler than most of you fuckers.

Moving Sale wrote:

Derron wrote: Most people know damn good and well when they should not be driving after drinking.

That is a fucking lie. Almost no one can tell when they go from .079 to .08.
Maybe if your parents were not cousins you wouldn't be so stupid.

Most people can feel it when they get there. If you can feel it, you are there. If not there are actually these things you can use to help your stupid ass figure it out. Try it some time little man...dude your size probably blows .08 after 3 sips of beer anyway you fucking tard.

http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/#LinkURL

Derron wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Derron wrote: Most people know damn good and well when they should not be driving after drinking.

That is a fucking lie. Almost no one can tell when they go from .079 to .08.
Maybe if your parents were not cousins you wouldn't be so stupid.

Most people can feel it when they get there. If you can feel it, you are there. If not there are actually these things you can use to help your stupid ass figure it out. Try it some time little man...dude your size probably blows .08 after 3 sips of beer anyway you fucking tard.

http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/#LinkURL

Holy shit. I entered 10 beers in two hours for shutyomouth (380 lbs) and he's still only .073. Rock on, big man.

Goober McTuber wrote:I would suggest that he just stop posting, but I'm obviously kinder and gentler than most of you fuckers.

If he takes my advice, he will stop posting. It's a win-win kinda deal. And, yes, Goobs, everyone here considers you to be kinder and gentler.....well, except for Screwy maybe.

Roach wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Should I school you tards in partition ratio next?

Let me put it this way: People who put others at risk by irresponsible behavior (drunk driving, running stop signs, excessive speed, excessive testosterone, swinging knives in the mall while blindfolded, having sex while also having AIDS, etc.) need to have their throats cut and be culled from society.

Ah yes the death penalty for running a stop sign. Do you want to gas Laura Bush?

Your post is stupid, just like you.

Next!

Mace wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Should I school you tards in partition ratio next?

Promise me you'll get REALLY fucked up every day from now on, and drive around just as much as you can - at really high speeds.

I was going to suggest that he get shit faced and start jaywalking. That way no one else gets hurt.

Nice white flag tard. If DUI laws are so easily defended why are you flailing so badly?

Derron wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Derron wrote: Most people know damn good and well when they should not be driving after drinking.

That is a fucking lie. Almost no one can tell when they go from .079 to .08.
Maybe if your parents were not cousins you wouldn't be so stupid.

Most people can feel it when they get there. If you can feel it, you are there. If not there are actually these things you can use to help your stupid ass figure it out. Try it some time little man...dude your size probably blows .08 after 3 sips of beer anyway you fucking tard.

http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/#LinkURL

So you do need to be schooled on partition ratio. Do you know ANYthing about where the BAC number comes from in a breath test?

Moving Sale wrote:

Mace wrote:I was going to suggest that he get shit faced and start jaywalking. That way no one else gets hurt.

Nice white flag tard. If DUI laws are so easily defended why are you flailing so badly?

The long and short of it is that only a fucking idiot would contend that an inebriated person can safely operate a motor vehicle.

H4ever wrote:
You have a point I can agree with to a certain extent. I believe there's a difference. Example: Some dude driving home after 3 beers in a couple hours who may or may not be over the limit....prob .07 to .09. Are children at risk? Sure. Just as much as they are at risk from 350 lb Jethro the truck driver who is in desperate need of a quadruple bypass (could have a massive heart attack and take out a school bus full of kids with his Peterbilt at any moment). Or perhaps Jethro, the chain-smoker w/ COPD might suffer a coughing spell that leads him to black out and again wipe out a bus full of kids. What are the odds of dude at .08 taking out a busload of kids? How bout Jethro the coast to coast driver about to go tits up at any moment?

Now...back to the impaired driver with the kids in the back of the car. See the difference?

Couple of off setting things here. Jethro is probably on a pretty short leash as far as his CDL will allow. He would be on a one year, possibly 6 month medical check. If he hit certain levels as far as BP and some other factors go, his license is yanked, and he would have to demonstrate acceptable levels of health after 6 months to a year in order to get it back. And a CDL driver is subject to a .02 level anyway. Old Man Blue Hair has not such requirement and can drive if he can still turn the key and his oxygen tank don't run out. Jethro may have health issues, but according to a medical doctor at the time of his last physical, he did not present a hazard to anybody except himself and the buffet table.

If Jethro had risk factors, the docs are going to send his ass for specialist evaluation. My BP was slightly elevated above x level last time I had a CDL physical. The doc put me on a 6 month recheck. He wants no part of the liability when I am rolling 105,000 pounds down the road. When I went back, it was well under the previous level, and I got a one year cert on the medical.

My buddy who I go flying with all the time had a heart variation in his EKG for his flight physical. He had to be on a heart monitor / recorder for 3 days and go back in so the doc could determine there was no problem. He checked out fine and got another year on the medical. Another buddy was a corporate pilot , could have taken better care of himself and was found to have diabetes. he never sat in the cockpit again after that doctors appointment.

Soccer Mom and Joe Six Pack don't have to pass a medical every year or have any baseline restrictions. Nor does the law make allowance for someone as myself, lacking much of my large colon to absorb the alcohol, and I can guarantee you I would easily push .08 a lot faster than someone with an intact gut. Someone on chemo or with reduced liver or kidney functions is going to be affected a lot faster as well.

Pilots have to have a medical exam every year, and the standards and baseline are much higher. One small variation and you are grounded until it resolves itself to baseline levels.

Anybody is at more risk from an impaired driver than from a marginally healthy driver. If poor health was a penalizing factor in driving, half the fucking driver son the road would be guilty. Now take poor health and impairment and put them together, and you are completely fucked.

Mace wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Mace wrote:I was going to suggest that he get shit faced and start jaywalking. That way no one else gets hurt.

Nice white flag tard. If DUI laws are so easily defended why are you flailing so badly?

The long and short of it is that only a fucking idiot would contend that an inebriated person can safely operate a motor vehicle.

From both a statistical and anecdotal perspective, that's just patently false, and you know it. Otherwise, as Dins has already pointed out, the yearly fatalities would be measured in millions, not thousands.

Look, I'm genuinely sorry for Lefty's loss and for everyone else who has lost a loved one in a drunk driving accident. I just think the focus of everyone's ire should be on the folks who actually caused those deaths, rather than taking it out on Joe 9-to-5 who stopped by the bar for a couple beers on his way home from work. If someone drives drunk and causes someone else's death, we should absolutely throw the book at them. I just think the penalties for first-time offenders who blow relatively low are unreasonably harsh.

I think we all know that there are different levels of drunkenness. We've all known people who are "lightweights" and people who can "hold their liquor." There are some people who probably shouldn't be driving after even one drink. Hell, there are actually a lot of people who probably shouldn't be driving stone cold sober. By the same token, there are a lot of people who can safely operate a motor vehicle with a BAC over .08. I don't dispute for a second that every one of those people is capable of reaching a level of intoxication at which they cannot safely operate a motor vehicle. That's pretty much a universal trait. I just don't believe that .08 is that level for everyone and that people who can hold their liquor are being punished for the transgressions of lightweights.

If Joe 9-5 can't make it home from the bar without capturing the attention of a cop for his erratic driving, then he ought not be driving. The guys you're talking about who are in your opinion such great drivers when they drink probably aren't getting pulled over.

Two thoughts on this.
1- I worry a bit about even having a coupe beers with my dinner and driving home and have someone crash into me. The subsequent investigation could be bad for me even though I was not at fault.
2-Fatigue. The worst accident I had was falling asleep and hitting a culvert head on. Almost killed there. Don't know how many stats there are on driving while tired.
OK---three thoughts.
3-Why one earth are people still smoking that crap and snorting shit, and fucking up themselves with needles? This is the best to which we aspire? Sad.

Shorty;
Since you've got all the facts, why aren't you arguing before the SCOTUS & getting the laws overturned?

Because you ain't got shit. The only thing you have is blood money.

Wolfman wrote:Two thoughts on this.
1- I worry a bit about even having a coupe beers with my dinner and driving home and have someone crash into me. The subsequent investigation could be bad for me even though I was not at fault.

You are right to worry about this. I know a guy who was driving to work in the morning and hit a bicyclist who had run a red light. The bicyclist died. The driver had not been drinking that morning, but still had a BAC over the legal limit from drinking the previous evening. Eventhough the bike rider had run a red light, they charged this guy with vehicular manslaughter because of his BAC. So what's your solution Wolfie? Allow people to drink and drive? You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, don't you? I'll tell you what I did to solve this problem. I don't drink and drive at all. In fact, I don't even drink. Gave the stuff up completely eleven years ago after getting my second DUI. I can tell you for a fact that the streets are safer without me and all my old excuses.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:

Mace wrote:
The long and short of it is that only a fucking idiot would contend that an inebriated person can safely operate a motor vehicle.

From both a statistical and anecdotal perspective, that's just patently false, and you know it. Otherwise, as Dins has already pointed out, the yearly fatalities would be measured in millions, not thousands.

Look, I'm genuinely sorry for Lefty's loss and for everyone else who has lost a loved one in a drunk driving accident. I just think the focus of everyone's ire should be on the folks who actually caused those deaths, rather than taking it out on Joe 9-to-5 who stopped by the bar for a couple beers on his way home from work. If someone drives drunk and causes someone else's death, we should absolutely throw the book at them. I just think the penalties for first-time offenders who blow relatively low are unreasonably harsh.

I think we all know that there are different levels of drunkenness. We've all known people who are "lightweights" and people who can "hold their liquor." There are some people who probably shouldn't be driving after even one drink. Hell, there are actually a lot of people who probably shouldn't be driving stone cold sober. By the same token, there are a lot of people who can safely operate a motor vehicle with a BAC over .08. I don't dispute for a second that every one of those people is capable of reaching a level of intoxication at which they cannot safely operate a motor vehicle. That's pretty much a universal trait. I just don't believe that .08 is that level for everyone and that people who can hold their liquor are being punished for the transgressions of lightweights.

What I said is absolutely NOT false, Mike. A guy stopping after work for a couple of beers will not test anywhere close to .08 BAC, which is why I used the word "inebriated".

ML@Coyote wrote:

Wolfman wrote:Two thoughts on this.
1- I worry a bit about even having a coupe beers with my dinner and driving home and have someone crash into me. The subsequent investigation could be bad for me even though I was not at fault.

You are right to worry about this. I know a guy who was driving to work in the morning and hit a bicyclist who had run a red light. The bicyclist died. The driver had not been drinking that morning, but still had a BAC over the legal limit from drinking the previous evening. Eventhough the bike rider had run a red light, they charged this guy with vehicular manslaughter because of his BAC. So what's your solution Wolfie? Allow people to drink and drive? You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, don't you? I'll tell you what I did to solve this problem. I don't drink and drive at all. In fact, I don't even drink. Gave the stuff up completely eleven years ago after getting my second DUI. I can tell you for a fact that the streets are safer without me and all my old excuses.

Allow me to add a little detail on the law in regards to the "legal limit," as there's a lot of people with a huge misconception about it.

What the .08 "legal limit" actually means is that one who registers that blood/alcohol level is assumed to be intoxicated, regardless of any other evidence. In CA & WA if one registers between .04-.07, they can still be convicted of DUI provided that there is corroborating evidence (failed field sobriety test, exhibiting known driving behaviors of drunk drivers, odor of alcohol on their breath, ect.). So just because one hasn't hit the .08 level yet (like everyone carries a meter with them) doesn't mean their legally (or otherwise) safe to drive.

ML@Coyote wrote:The guys you're talking about who are in your opinion such great drivers when they drink probably aren't getting pulled over.

Bullshit. Plenty of people are driving just fine when pulled over for a taillight being out or any one of a number of technical violations. They might even be driving just fine when a sober bike rider illegally swerves out in front of them.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Shorty;

Pedophile

Since you've got all the facts, why aren't you arguing before the SCOTUS & getting the laws overturned?

Because you ain't got shit. The only thing you have is blood money.

DUI is a state issue tardling and I have two DUI appeals in the State courts as we speak.

Mace wrote:
What I said is absolutely NOT false, Mike. A guy stopping after work for a couple of beers will not test anywhere close to .08 BAC, which is why I used the word "inebriated".

So it's ok to try and put words in my mouth then you get all pissy when someone misquotes you.
Go fuck a goat jackboot.

Wolfman wrote: Don't know how many stats there are on driving while.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Dis ... sy+Driving

ML@Coyote wrote: I know a guy who was driving to work in the morning and hit a bicyclist who had run a red light. The bicyclist died. The driver had not been drinking that morning, but still had a BAC over the legal limit from drinking the previous evening. Eventhough the bike rider had run a red light, they charged this guy with vehicular manslaughter because of his BAC.

Maybe if he wasn't still half in the bag his head wouldn't have been stuck up his ass and he would have noticed the cyclist.

No excuse for operating a vehicle in an impaired condition. Vehicular manslaughter is an overcharge, but there is no denying his negligence.

Moving Sale wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Shorty;

Pedophile

Since you've got all the facts, why aren't you arguing before the SCOTUS & getting the laws overturned?

Because you ain't got shit. The only thing you have is blood money.

DUI is a state issue tardling

So is domestic violence, dumbfuck.

But that didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling on such a case from Arizona in 1966...right, shit-slurper?

and I have two DUI appeals in the State courts as we speak.

Congratulations on finding someone more stupid than Cuddles to pay your fees. But that has nothing to do with merit, asswipe.

mvscal wrote: Maybe if he wasn't still half in the bag his head wouldn't have been stuck up his ass and he would have noticed the cyclist.

No excuse for operating a vehicle in an impaired condition. Vehicular manslaughter is an overcharge, but there is no denying his negligence.

And it ended up in the DUI death stats even though there is no evidence that ML's boyfriend's drinking was to blame, mvskkkal's speculation notwithstanding.

Yes kiddydiddler once in a while a DUI related case hits the SCOTUS. 1966

Diego in Seattle wrote: Congratulations on finding someone more stupid that Cuddles to pay your fees. But that has nothing to do with merit, asswipe.

And I'm sure you are nationally known in your chosen field right pedo?

Moving Sale wrote:And I'm sure you are nationally known in your chosen field...

You are still cashing in on that championship from 15 years ago?

Moving Sale wrote:Yes kiddydiddler once in a while a DUI related case hits the SCOTUS. 1966

Diego in Seattle wrote: Congratulations on finding someone more stupid that Cuddles to pay your fees. But that has nothing to do with merit, asswipe.

And I'm sure you are nationally known in your chosen field right pedo?

Well, he's no Jerry Sandusky. Yet.

So to summarize,
DUI is not as dangerous as most people think and therefor should not be regulated the way it is and ucantamack has the posting abilities of a dead rat.

Roach wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:So to summarize,
DUI is not as dangerous as most people think and therefor should not be regulated the way it is . . .

So instead of wasting your time here, why not get busy and use your great intellect to change the laws?

Oh I know, because you are too busy making money getting/keeping drunk drivers out of jail, where they really belong.

Maybe the little bitch should post his win loss record on these DUI trials so we can see what a bad ass barrister he really is.

Moving Sale wrote:So to summarize,
DUI is not as dangerous as most people think and therefor should not be regulated the way it is and ucantamack has the posting abilities of a dead rat.

Perhaps it is not as dangerous as "most people think", whatever the fukk that is.

But, it is dangerous and DUIers should be punished because they do fukking kill people. This board's members are not all that many and I can think of two here, right off the top of my head that lost loved ones to drunk drivers.

I just hope one day one of those drunks you got off runs your sorry ass over while drunk. With a little luck, he won't kill you. Something like putting you in a wheel chair would be better, so you would be around to realize just how much of a non-problem it is.

Roach wrote:
So instead of wasting your time here, why not get busy and use your great intellect to change the laws?

Learn to read onionhead. We have already cover this area.

smackaholic wrote: But, it is dangerous and DUIers should be punished because they do fukking kill people.

Lots of thing are dangerous cupcake, STFU and grow a pair.

This board's members are not all that many and I can think of two here, right off the top of my head that lost loved ones to drunk drivers.

Do tell.

Derron wrote: Maybe the little bitch should post his win loss record on these DUI trials so we can see what a bad ass barrister he really is.

Maybe this inbred fuck should post his tax returns so we can see what a badass Republican he is.

Moving Sale wrote:So to summarize,
DUI is not as dangerous as most people think and therefor should not be regulated the way it is

■Impaired driving is often a symptom of a larger problem: alcohol misuse and abuse.
■Alcohol-impaired motor vehicle crashes cost more than an estimated $37 billion annually.
■In 2010, more than 10,000 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes - one every 51 minutes.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Impaired

Every 48 minutes, someone dies in a crash involving an alcohol-impaired driver. In 2009 alone, 10,839 people died nationwide, accounting for one-third of all highway deaths. Countless more were injured. Although we have seen a decrease in the number of highway fatalities in recent years, the fact that one-third of highway deaths involve an alcohol-impaired driver has not changed in the last decade. Furthermore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that an individual makes 88 impaired driving trips before being arrested. Impaired driving is entirely preventable. It simply doesn’t have to happen.
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl-9.html

Last year, 10,839 people were killed in traffic crashes that involved an alcohol-impaired driver. That is over four times as many deaths as all fatalities in aviation, rail, marine, pipeline, and hazmat accidents combined. 10,839 fatalities is a staggering number and an unacceptable loss.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/speeches/rosek ... 11610.html

In 2010, more than 10,000 deaths (30 percent of all highway deaths) involved an alcohol-impaired driver. Over the last decade, 130.000 people have died in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver - 20,000 more than the number of seats at the University of Michigan football stadium!
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl_2012_fac ... riving.pdf

So to summarize, DUI is AS dangerous as EVERYONE thinks and therefore should be regulated right up your midget ass. You are a liar, a fool, a short-sighted, short-minded, criminally neglegent-cum guzzling-shit swabbing piece of garbage. Eat a bullet you incompetent, ambulance chasing douchenozzle dwarf.

Five pages in and vapid pindicked fucks like Gay in Feelsdick still thinks there are stats on how many people are killed by DUI drivers. Don't forget to call me short a few more times you fucking pos MADD fuck.

Moving Sale wrote:Five pages in and vapid pindicked fuike like Gay in Feelsdick still thinks there are stats on how many people are killed by DUI drivers. Don't forget to call me short a few more times you fucking pos MADD fuck.

Too short to read the links posted retard? The stats are right in front of you fuckstain. Feel free to ignore them though, as you ingore everything else that is logical, factual and humane. Stick to chansing those sirens and slapping your over-sized midget melon on bus benches.

But the stats don't say what you say they say cumslut. I have already addressed the problems with the nhtsa "stats" you fat stupid walleyed hunchback. Learn to read and get back to me fag.

Just because your infantile brain can't absorb statistics and see them when they are right in front of you, doesn't mean they aren't there. Learn to see the truth and stop trying to get drunken, drug-addled vermin out of jail and back onto the streets where they can continue to kill people. The fact that you might have made even one fucking dollar from your sleazy practice is frightening. Go ahead Munchkin Sell-Out, take pride in your supporting scum to commit vehicular homicide. It is what you're known for.

Ok one more time for the brain dead assfuck from AZ.
EVEN THE NHTSA DOES NOT SAY THEY KEEP STATS on the number of people killed by drunk drivers!!
Is this sinking in fag?????
If a sober driver kills a drunk driver it ends up in your stats.
Stop sucking dick and read YOUR OWN fucking links.... One of which I already posted you hunch backed walleyed lisping cock whore.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:take pride in your supporting scum to commit vehicular homicide. It is what you're known for.

Clean the cum from your eyes faggot. I have never supported any such thing.

Moving Sale wrote:

smackaholic wrote: But, it is dangerous and DUIers should be punished because they do fukking kill people.

Lots of thing are dangerous cupcake, STFU and grow a pair.

This board's members are not all that many and I can think of two here, right off the top of my head that lost loved ones to drunk drivers.

Do tell.

"Grow a pair"?

Go ahead and fuck off.



11-50