New North Carolina Drivers License Has Emblem for NORTH AMERICANUNION -This is treason!!!

Bama Brian > wrote in
:

> Larry wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, Larry
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> Larry
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article >, Bama Brian
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The state does not restrict your right to travel. They
>>>>>>>>>>> control one
>>>>>>>>>>> mode of doing so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it is the primary mode, both of travel and of shipment of
>>>>>>>>>> goods.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a power the states will never relinquish - it's simply
>>>>>>>>>> too tempting as a control mechanism.
>>>>>>>>> They will continue to expand that control. That's why the
>>>>>>>>> government tells people that driving is a privilege government
>>>>>>>>> grants. This way they can tie all sorts of controls on other
>>>>>>>>> aspects of people's lives
>>>>>>>>> to it.
>>>>>>>> <cue instrument="violins">
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The other night I had to detour around yet another checkpoint.
>>>>>>>>> 20 years after the end of cold war it's looking more and more
>>>>>>>>> like the soviets won.
>>>>>>>> My God! You had to *detour* around a checkpoint? It's almost
>>>>>>>> as if you'd
>>>>>>>> been thrown in the gulag!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> </cue>
>>>>>>> The 'it could be worse' excuse.
>>>>>> No, the "your analogy is completely inapposite and you have no
>>>>>> sense of perspective" excuse.
>>>>> Bull****. I am sick and tired of being told I should accept one
>>>>> intrusion of the government into my life after another because 'it
>>>>> could be worse'.
>>>> Accept it (or reject it) for the legitimate reasons offered for it.
>>> There are no legitimate reasons for a checkpoint in a free society.
>>> The checkpoint exists for the state and the minions that carry it
>>> out. It doesn't make us 'safer', all it does it make it easier for
>>> us to be victimized by government.
>>
>> It most certainly makes us safer. Don't you think one drunk driver
>> ever arrested at a checkpoint would have had a crash of some sort
>> causing property damage and/or injury to others had he not been
>> stopped at the checkpoint?
>>
>> If you admit this happened just once, we're safer. Whether it is
>> worth the cost of checkpoints is a different discussion, but its
>> absurd to say there is no safety benefit at all.
>
> Here's someone who knew better:
>
> Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
> the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt

So we should never do anything because it's necessary?

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Deadrat wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>
>>> Absurd comparisons? Checkpoints are a halmark of nations like the
>>> soviet union. Adopting those mechanisms makes the USA *MORE* like
>>> the soviet union. There is no 'absurd comparison'.
>
>> No, the hallmark of the Soviet Union was centralized control of the
>> economy and the ruthless suppression of all dissent, including the
>> murder of millions of people. Get the difference?
>
> I wrote _A_ halmark, NOT _the_ halmark.

And you're still wrong.

> The two phrases have
> different meanings. The former means one of several, the later means
> the main or central one. Understand the difference? Actually I don't
> care if you do, I'm done.

I doubt that. Your paranoid fantasies will probably continue unabated.
>
> <rest snipped, unread>

Unread. How sad!

> You're a waste of time since you pass everything you read through a
> meaning translator.

Nothing you say seems to pass throught the sense filter. Why is that?

Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 12:25 pm, "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote in ...
>>>
>>>> Soon we'll all be mexican-americans unless we stand up to the traitors in our
>>>> govt.
>>> Mexicans ARE Americans you stammering white-trash imbecile.
>>>
>> You lying sack of ****. Illegally entering america does not make you
>> an american!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> The nation of Mexico is located on the continent of North America,
> making all citizens of the nation a resident of the North American
> continent. Hence, they're Americans.

No moron - that makes them North AMericans, not americans. You
mexico-loving repubs are pathetic. Fat, friendless freaks who sit in
their trailer all day eating cheet-ohs and talking to their hound dogs.
Get a life, loser.

Bama Brian > wrote in
:

> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> Bert Hyman > wrote in
>> news:Xns99A57EE7EC958VeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>
>>> In "Topp@Work"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You have no "Right" to have a Drivers License....
>>> You're missing the real point. Do you have a right to travel?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Do you
>>> have a right to use an automobile to travel?
>>
>> Not really. Operating an automobile is simply a mode of travel. One
>> can exercise their right to travel (which is really a right to move
>> from state to another or to visit the nation's capitol) by horseback,
>> on foot, fly in plane, ride a bus, hitchhike, etc..
>>
>>> Why would you need
>>> permission from the state, in the form of a license, to travel using
>>> an automobile?
>>
>> The state makes that requirement via its state police powers. Some
>> states, for a long time, did not require a DL. They acted like
>> Vermont and Alaska do regarding firearms.
>>
>>>> It's not in the Constitution, so it's a gift from the State.
>>> Does the state have the power to restrict your right to travel in
>>> this way?
>>
>> The state does not restrict your right to travel. They control one
>> mode of doing so.
>
> And it is the primary mode, both of travel and of shipment of goods.
>
> It's a power the states will never relinquish - it's simply too
> tempting as a control mechanism.

Of course....and a revenue stream.

--
RD (The Sandman)

"Once you sacrifice rights, it's hard to get those rights protected
again."

Senator Dianne Feinstein, on White House pressure to expand government
surveillance, meant for suspected terrorists.

Too bad she doesn't feel that way about other rights like the right to
keep and bear arms.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Deadrat
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Bama Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The state does not restrict your right to travel. They control
>>>>> one mode of doing so.
>>>
>>>> And it is the primary mode, both of travel and of shipment of
>>>> goods.
>>>>
>>>> It's a power the states will never relinquish - it's simply too
>>>> tempting as a control mechanism.
>>>
>>> They will continue to expand that control. That's why the government
>>> tells people that driving is a privilege government grants. This way
>>> they can tie all sorts of controls on other aspects of people's
>>> lives to it.
>>
>><cue instrument="violins">
>>
>>> The other night I had to detour around yet another checkpoint. 20
>>> years after the end of cold war it's looking more and more like the
>>> soviets won.
>>
>> My God! You had to *detour* around a checkpoint? It's almost as if
>> you'd been thrown in the gulag!
>>
>></cue>
>
> The 'it could be worse' excuse. Well it could be worse, they could be
> pulling drivers out of their cars and line up against a brick wall and
> execute them with their side arms. It can *ALWAYS* be worse. Just
> because it could be worse is no excuse.
>
> Unlike you, I remember the days when we were told we had to fight the
> cold war against the soviets so we *wouldn't* have checkpoints. There
> was even a line in a popular movie from a soviet navy officer who was
> defecting that he would travel in mobil home from state to state
> without papers, without being stopped at checkpoints. Well not any
> more.
>
> I can't be the only one who remembers that the USA used to be the good
> guys because there wasn't crap like papers and checkpoints here.

You must *really* be old. I remember on graduation night from high
school in 1956 that there were checkpoints looking for alcohol and I am
no spring chicken.



--
RD (The Sandman)

"Once you sacrifice rights, it's hard to get those rights protected
again."

Senator Dianne Feinstein, on White House pressure to expand government
surveillance, meant for suspected terrorists.

Too bad she doesn't feel that way about other rights like the right to
keep and bear arms.

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:53:36 -0400, Magus > wrote:

>the heekster wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:29:45 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> the heekster > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:20:08 -0400, "Topp@Work" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote
>>> in
>>>>> message oups.com...
>>>>>> On Sep 6, 10:52 am, Bert Hyman > wrote:
>>>>>>> (Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS) wrote
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> "The hologram looks exactly [like] the map of North America that
>>> is
>>>>>>>> used as the background for the Security and Prosperity
>>> Partnership
>>>>>>>> of North America logo on the SPP website,"
>>>>>>> I'd bet that most maps of North America look pretty much alike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not the point, loony. The map should be just NC or just
>>>>>> america. I don't want muds on my drivers license.
>>>>> You have no "Right" to have a Drivers License....
>>>>> It's not in the Constitution, so it's a gift from the State.
>>>>> Be glad you get anything
>>>>>
>>>> You might want to peruse that pesky 9th amendment.
>>> Who issued your state drivers license? It was done under state police
>>> powers.
>>
>> A small red fish. It was not done under "state police powers". It
>> was done as prescribed by a law passed by the legislature.
>>
>
>Just for general info:
>
>Blacks Law Dictionary, first edition, under the word "POLICE" states:
>"The police of a state, in a comprehensive sense, embraces its whole
>system of internal regulation, by which the state seeks not only to
>preserve the public order and to prevent offenses against the state, but
> also to establish for the intercourse of citizen with citizen those
>rules of good manners and good neighborhood which are calculated to
>prevent a conflict of rights, and to insure to each the uninterrupted
>enjoyment of his own, so far as is reasonably consistent with the like
>enjoyment of rights by others. Cooley, Const Lim. *572"
>
>Under "POLICE POWER", Blacks Law Dictionary, first edition, states: The
>power vested in a state to establish laws and ordinances for the
>regulation and enforcement of its /police/.
>
>>> The feds had little to do with it.
>>
>> I didn't say that they did. The 9th says that the people retain all
>> rights not specifically enumerated. Likewise for state governments,
>> regardless of whether there is such a disclaimer in their
>> constitutions. Why? Because all governments derive their just powers
>> from the consent of the governed.
>>
>> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
>> Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
>> among Men,
>>
>> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
>>
>> — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
>> ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
>> organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
>> to effect their Safety and Happiness."
>>
>> One more time: "deriving their just powers from the consent of the
>> governed..."
>>
>> State police powers I have heard of, but usually it is associated with
>> countries like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mainland China, North
>> Korea, and Vietnam.
>>
>> Applying the term to the US seems to me like a relatively recent
>> action.
>>
>
>The oldest dictionary I have access to is from 1755, is that "recent"?
>
>Dr. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1755, defines
>"POLICE" as #2, The internal regulation and government of a Kingdom or
>State.
>
>> I don't like it.

Just for general info: you seem to either ignore, or not be able to
comprehend, the point that I made.

I suggest you reread what I wrote, and address that, rather than what
you think I wrote.

BTW, did you have a point, other than showing that you have access to
a 2 1/2 century old dictionary?

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:02:36 -0400, Larry > wrote:

>In article >,
> the heekster > wrote:
>>
>> State police powers I have heard of, but usually it is associated with
>> countries like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mainland China, North
>> Korea, and Vietnam.
>>
>> Applying the term to the US seems to me like a relatively recent
>> action.
>>
>> I don't like it.
>
>The term has been applied since the Constitution was ratified.

Then you should have no problem providing a legitimate cite.

> Do you
>think there should be laws against crimes like murder and kidnapping?
>
I believe that there already are such laws. Some are at the federal
level, some are at state, city or county, or parish levels.

>Do you think that crimes should be investigated and criminals should be
>arrested?
>
And this is germane to the discussion because...?

>All of these are done by the government pursuant to the exercise of the
>state police power.

Non sequitur. You ask two questions, and you think that proves
anything? You have shown nothing to support this conclusion.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) wrote:
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>> On Sep 6, 12:25 pm, "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote in ...
>>>>
>>>>> Soon we'll all be mexican-americans unless we stand up to the traitors in our
>>>>> govt.
>>>> Mexicans ARE Americans you stammering white-trash imbecile.
>>>>
>>> You lying sack of ****. Illegally entering america does not make you
>>> an american!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> The nation of Mexico is located on the continent of North America,
>> making all citizens of the nation a resident of the North American
>> continent. Hence, they're Americans.
>
>No moron - that makes them North AMericans, not americans. You

When you demonstrate that you've got a firm grasp on reality, I'll
consider your "correction." As you've not done this in the past,
you'll pardon me if I don't offer credence to your screed.

>mexico-loving repubs are pathetic. Fat, friendless freaks who sit in
>their trailer all day eating cheet-ohs and talking to their hound dogs.

LMAO. No hound dog, no trailer, and at 5'11", 165lbs ain't exactly
fat. :-)

Looks like you're projecting again. You're the one who yelled "mobile
home" when I made fun of your trailer-trash ass some time back.

> Get a life, loser.

Says the one who's only contribution to society is a rap sheet and
some usenet trolling.


--

"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity:
the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie.
: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1dd649fb?hl=en

"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle:
I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash.
: http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e8a61824?hl=en

the heekster wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:53:36 -0400, Magus > wrote:
>
>> the heekster wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:29:45 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> the heekster > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:20:08 -0400, "Topp@Work" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote
>>>> in
>>>>>> message oups.com...
>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 10:52 am, Bert Hyman > wrote:
>>>>>>>> (Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS) wrote
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>> "The hologram looks exactly [like] the map of North America that
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> used as the background for the Security and Prosperity
>>>> Partnership
>>>>>>>>> of North America logo on the SPP website,"
>>>>>>>> I'd bet that most maps of North America look pretty much alike.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not the point, loony. The map should be just NC or just
>>>>>>> america. I don't want muds on my drivers license.
>>>>>> You have no "Right" to have a Drivers License....
>>>>>> It's not in the Constitution, so it's a gift from the State.
>>>>>> Be glad you get anything
>>>>>>
>>>>> You might want to peruse that pesky 9th amendment.
>>>> Who issued your state drivers license? It was done under state police
>>>> powers.
>>> A small red fish. It was not done under "state police powers". It
>>> was done as prescribed by a law passed by the legislature.
>>>
>> Just for general info:
>>
>> Blacks Law Dictionary, first edition, under the word "POLICE" states:
>> "The police of a state, in a comprehensive sense, embraces its whole
>> system of internal regulation, by which the state seeks not only to
>> preserve the public order and to prevent offenses against the state, but
>> also to establish for the intercourse of citizen with citizen those
>> rules of good manners and good neighborhood which are calculated to
>> prevent a conflict of rights, and to insure to each the uninterrupted
>> enjoyment of his own, so far as is reasonably consistent with the like
>> enjoyment of rights by others. Cooley, Const Lim. *572"
>>
>> Under "POLICE POWER", Blacks Law Dictionary, first edition, states: The
>> power vested in a state to establish laws and ordinances for the
>> regulation and enforcement of its /police/.
>>
>>>> The feds had little to do with it.
>>> I didn't say that they did. The 9th says that the people retain all
>>> rights not specifically enumerated. Likewise for state governments,
>>> regardless of whether there is such a disclaimer in their
>>> constitutions. Why? Because all governments derive their just powers
>>> from the consent of the governed.
>>>
>>> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
>>> Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
>>> among Men,
>>>
>>> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
>>>
>>> — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
>>> ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
>>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
>>> organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
>>> to effect their Safety and Happiness."
>>>
>>> One more time: "deriving their just powers from the consent of the
>>> governed..."
>>>
>>> State police powers I have heard of, but usually it is associated with
>>> countries like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mainland China, North
>>> Korea, and Vietnam.
>>>
>>> Applying the term to the US seems to me like a relatively recent
>>> action.
>>>
>> The oldest dictionary I have access to is from 1755, is that "recent"?
>>
>> Dr. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1755, defines
>> "POLICE" as #2, The internal regulation and government of a Kingdom or
>> State.
>>
>>> I don't like it.
>
> Just for general info: you seem to either ignore, or not be able to
> comprehend, the point that I made.
>

You wrote, "A small red fish. It was not done under "state police
powers". It was done as prescribed by a law passed by the legislature."

Just for general info, I gave you some definitions from a legal
dictionary showing that the legislature passing a law is done under the
police power of the State. And also that this legal concept is not a
"recent" invention.

> I suggest you reread what I wrote, and address that, rather than what
> you think I wrote.
>

I suggest you reread what you wrote, see that what I posted was directly
relevant to what you'd written, and don't assume I was addressing any
other point included in your previous post.

> BTW, did you have a point, other than showing that you have access to
> a 2 1/2 century old dictionary?
>

Other than supplying some information, and showing the concept had been
around for a long time, to someone who had not heard of the concept
before [other than in relation to "countries like Nazi Germany, the
Soviet Union, Mainland China, North Korea, and Vietnam."]? No point.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Larry
> wrote:
>
> >> The 'one life' is a cry of a control freak.
>
> > How can I be a control freak when I never said I supported checkpoints?
>
> gpstroll reading comprehension.... wether you are or are not doesn't
> change what 'if it will save one life is', the cry of a control freak. I
> don't care if you are or are not a control freak, the argument you put
> forth is that of one.

*I* lack the reading comprehension? You said that checkpoints have no
safety benefit whatsoever. "If they will save one life" then it has a
safety benefit!

I'm sorry that those buzzwords provoke such a visceral reaction in you.
Although, since they prove your statement to be wrong, I understand why
you hate that phrase so much.

As for me being a control freak: I can accept the possibility that even
though they save lives, they can be seen as too much of an intrusion
into people's lives. Makes your head spin, doesn't it?

> > Permitting full-body cavity searches of everyone suspected of any crime
> > and unlimited searches of their possessions and homes at any time would
> > also make us safer, but I don't think that's a basis to allow them.
>
> And a control freak who wants that would argue it is worth it if it just
> 'saves one life'.


Then that proves I'm not a control freak, since I don't want or support
full-body cavity searches of suspects at any time.


> > Try to address the issues instead of resorting to personal attacks, if
> > you can.
>
> I didn't make a personal attack. It's not my fault you subscribe to the
> gpstroll school of usenet.

There you go again. Why do you do it? Besides, of course, because I
proved you wrong.


> >> > You said there are no legitimate reasons for a checkpoint in a free
> >> > society. You said that checkpoints do not make us safer. (Look for
> >> > yourself; its still quoted above.)
> >>
> >> "one life" is not a legitimate reason.
>
> > How many would make it a legitimate reason?
>
> infinity plus one. In other words there is no legitimate reason for
> checkpoints from the POV of the people. Checkpoints serve the state.
>
> >> > I simply demonstrated that checkpoints DO make us safer.
>
> >> No you did not. You stated the old control freak cry of 'if it saves just
> >> one life'. That is not a legitimate argument for anything.
>
> > You said they DO NOT make us safer.
>
> They don't.
>
> > If one life was saved, then they DO
> > make us safer.
>
> False. Even if you could show they saved a life, the use of resources
> other places could have saved more or they could have actually taken two
> lives for every one saved by displacing the dangerous activity.

Do you have any proof of this whatsoever? Sounds like fishy math to me.
I've never heard of a more serious crime being under-investigated or any
other investigation having a shortfall of resources because of a DWI
checkpoint.


> > Saving "just one" life may not justify their existence
> > (I never said it did) but it does show you are wrong.
>
> Only in gpstroll style (limited and misguided) thinking.
>
> >> > That doesn't
> >> > mean they are worthwhile at all costs, and that doesn't mean their net
> >> > effect is a positive one. I simply demonstrated that your claims were
> >> > inaccurate.
>
> >> No, you built a strawman and knocked it down.
>
> > I didn't build anything. You said checkpoints don't make us safer. I
> > showed they do (or do you think that they haven't saved any lives?)
>
> They don't, and you haven't. I have seen no proof that checkpoints do
> anything positive with regard to safety.

Do you think that there was ever a drunk driver arrested at a checkpoint
who would have gone on to cause property damage or injury to others? A
yes or no will do.


> >> > Checkpoints DO make us safer.
>
> >> PROVE IT. I feel no safer now than before the checkpoints. I am no safer
> >> from drunks on the road because of the checkpoints.
>
> > Do you really think that not one drunk driver ever stopped at a
> > checkpoint would have ended up causing a collision resulting in injury
> > to others? Not one? Ever? Anywhere?
>
> Do you really think the mis-allocation of resources to checkpoints hasn't
> resulted in the deaths of people that would have otherwise not occured?

I don't think there is a mis-allocation of resources. Do you have any
proof of a crime being under-investigated or any other aspect of
policework suffering due to the existence of a checkpoint?

I have, however, heard of plenty of other crimes - stolen cars, weapons
possession, robberies, and the like - being solved by DWI checkpoints.


> >> > Gosh, I'm pretty sure we agree that people should not have property
> >> > "wrongfully" seized under "other" laws. But what's that have to do with
> >> > checkpoints?
>
> >> I see you don't have the background information. Study up on what the
> >> checkpoints actually bring in... hint, DUIs are usually a very small
> >> minority of what is caught in the net. It's siezures of property under
> >> the various web of laws enacted. Usually the war on drugs.
>
> > Actually, I happen to be a prosecutor who has handled thousands of cases
> > (and dozens of DWIs) in my career in New York City.
>
> In the profit system in service of the state. No wonder.

"Profit" system? I could make a heck of a lot more money being in the
private sector. I don't do it for profit, and don't know anyone who
does. Nice try, though, painting me with a broad stroke of ignorance.


> > While yes, some
> > drunk drivers are committing other offenses such as possessing drugs,
> > the overwhelming majority are solely charged with DWI. Do you have
> > evidence that says otherwise? What do you propose I use to "study up"
> > on this issue? Do you have any firsthand knowledge? I didn't think so.
>
> You only see the DUI cases.... nice self serving limited data set. What
> about the people who lose their cash under the drug war siezure laws?

I see those cases too. I've litigated those cases. People lose their
cash in every other situation in which the cash is proceeds of a crime,
why should drug dealers get a benefit?

> What about the people that lose their cars under some other siezure law?

Cite a specific seizure (it's "seizure," not "siezure") law, and I'll
let you know if I think the laws go to far or not. Despite your
ignorant stereotyping of me, I have seen and heard of some laws that I
believe go too far in this regard.


> You do know you never see those cases prosecuter because they may never
> even have a trial... the property is just taken. If they protest it goes
> through the ADMINSTRATIVE court system....

Not in my jurisdiction.

> sometimes the first step is
> hearing judged by _A COP_.

Not in my jurisdiction.

> You don't see it, because there isn't a trial
> against a person.

Not in my jurisdiction.

> The property is charged and the owner has to *SUE*
> the government to get it *BACK*.

Not in my jurisdiction.

> Knowledge... well I just read what gets out to the public, which seems
> more comprehensive than the picture you get in your compartmentalized
> service to the state.


Ahhh, so you believe everything you read, and that makes you an expert.
Oh, and I presume you read all this material with an open mind, right?


> >> >> You can justify the police state with crap like that, but it is still a
> >> >> police state. A drunk driver is a tiny risk compared to what happens by
> >> >> government power. It's governments that have killed people by the
> >> >> millions. Government is the leading cause of death.
> >>
> >> > Out of curiousity, which do you think you're most likely to be killed or
> >> > physically injured by?
>
> >> Given what I have been put at risk by while driving, they are in the
> >> following order: Cops, taxi/limo drivers, MFFY drivers, truckers, magoos,
> >> geezers who should have hung up their keys, and lastly drunks.
>
> > The choice was drunk drivers or the government. You're the one who set
> > up the options ("A drunk driver is a tiny risk compared to what happens
> > by government power.") Do you think you're more likely to be killed by
> > government power than by a drunk driver? Do you really?
>
> Given the fact I was nearly killed by two different cops on two different
> occasions, I would say yes, government power is a greater fear than some
> random drunk. When I am driving late at night, I am not in fear of
> drunks, I am in fear of cops. It's cops that can steal from me (money,
> life, property, and liberty), drunks are just another road hazard like a
> magoo or a geezer.


Now the truth comes out. I knew there must have been a basis for your
irrational positions, and there is. Personal dislike for the police.
Pray tell, though, how were you "nearly killed" by them, twice?


> >> > And the fact that you're not shot on sight for being drunk at a
> >> > checkpoint, but instead are entitled to due process,
>
> >> You're showing your gpstroll like comprehension again but this time doing
> >> the mix and match. that was from a dismissal of the 'it could be worse'
> >> argument. It was saying it could always be worse than it is now.
>
> > It could be worse. It isn't. That's what Deadrat was pointing out to
> > you. Thanks for acknowledging your mistaken analogy and
> > "sky-is-falling" mentality is not the case.
>
> It's not offered as an analogy, get that through your gpstroll brand
> computer. It's offered as a reduction to the absurd.

So you reduced it to the absurd. Got it.

By the way, who or what is "gpstroll"? You use it like its your
favorite word, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

> The absurd being no
> matter what the present condition is, one can always argue 'it could be
> worse'. Grow a ****ing clue.

I'm not making a subjective determination that checkpoints are
acceptable because it could be worse. But the fact of the matter is
that IT COULD BE WORSE. It doesn't mean checkpoints are acceptable, it
doesn't mean they're not. But if you don't acknowledge this, you have
no perspective whatsoever, and lack all reasonable judgment.


> >> > means checkpoints
> >> > are barely a start down that path, Chicken Little.
>
> >> Barely a start... I don't think you've been reading the laws that have
> >> been put in place. Read the military commissions act, read the john
> >> warner defense act, read the patriot act, read the countless pieces of
> >> legislation and executive orders that are making this nation more like
> >> the soviet union.
>
> > Has any one of these laws affected you or anyone you know in any way
> > whatsoever (other than to make you safer)? Do you know a single
> > innocent person who has been adversely affected by any of these laws?
>
> So they just passed all those laws for ****s and giggles, eh?

No, its to punish criminals and keep innocent people safe. Obviously.

> They'll
> never *use* them, eh?

I sure hope they use them! They're very powerful tools for law
enforcement to fight crime.

> Or we can trust the government only to use them on
> those 'bad' people?

I'd like to think so, and you seem to have no evidence otherwise. In
any event, its why we have a judicial system and checks and balances and
allow civil lawsuits for the deprivation of civil rights. But there's
no making you happy, because it is possible that some rogue government
officer might possibly abuse his power. Therefore, I suppose, we
shouldn't have any laws whatsoever, should we?

> I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable with selective
> enforcement and selective use the way you are.

Who presented any evidence of selective enforcement?

> See, the problem with laws
> that I am supposed to believe are there never to be used against a good
> upstanding type like myself or people I know personally is that they
> *can* be for any reason.

They can be used against you for any reason? Have you read any of these
laws? (And I don't mean read about them on the kook web sites I'm sure
you visit, I mean read the laws themselves with a semblance of
understanding the legal terminology they use).

> If I speak out against, oh say the Iraq
> reconstruction, I get to lose all my property if someone in the
> government so wants to take it. (see the executive order)

What executive order would that be? How come no one who has spoken out
- such as Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, the Daily Kos people, or anyone
else - has had "all their property" taken away? Could it be - gasp -
because the law doesn't say what you think it does?

> Throughout my life I've been one of those 'unlucky' people that gets
> selectively enforced upon. It started in grade school... there would be
> some stupid rule that was never enforced... if I was even close to
> someone breaking it, I'd get in trouble.... I was nearly suspended once
> because some other kid PUNCHED ME in the chest. I never hit him.... ****
> like that. So excuse me if your reasoning that I shouldn't be worried
> because the government will only use the power on 'bad' people doesn't
> make me comfortable.

Boo-hoo. You're unlucky and paranoid that everyone's out to get you.
Get over it - you're not that important!


> Oh, BTW, the patriot act, etc abuses are far and wide if you took the
> time to keep up with the news. The magic cube one is the most
> particularly absurd application of homeland security resources that I
> know of. Just because my neighor hasn't been hauled away in the dead of
> night as an enemy combatant doesn't mean the laws are fine and dandy.

Because they've never been misused that you know of doesn't mean they're
fine and dandy? Isn't that backwards?


> >> >> I remember the USA before checkpoints. I remember the USA
> >> >> before I had to present papers at the whim of so-called 'authority'.
>
> >> > You have the right to travel, and there is a 100% certain way not to be
> >> > stopped at a checkpoint. Don't drive.
>
> >> I almost tested that the other night. But I didn't have enough energy
> >> left for the 12 mile round trip biking.
>
> > Well then you chose to take that 12-mile trip in a vehicle, and didn't
> > want to take a taxi or other method or transportation home. Not my
> > problem.
>
> Do you have trouble thinking? Seriously.... I was on my way home
> *driving* I saw the check point and took a detour around it because I
> know the minor roads. The check point was an aproximate 6 mile bike ride
> from my home on minor roads. It would have been about 4 miles if I just
> took the arterials... Understand now?

I understand that before you got in your car that day, you knew that
checkpoints were legal and a possible event you would encounter. You
then got in your car anyway, and came upon a checkpoint. Boo hoo.
Decisions have consequences. What do you want from me?


> But let me go the next step in your response... it's that I have to put
> up with the police state you work for just because I drive? Well, back in
> july I was hassled by cops because I chose to *WALK* to the carry-out
> place to get my dinner. I suppose you'd just come back that well it was
> my choice to walk so I deserved to be hassled?

Well that I'll ask you to elaborate on. It's well documented that the
police cannot stop someone walking down the street and question them for
no reason whatsoever. So despite what you think of me based on your
name calling and ignorant commentary of my job, I'm willing to discuss
this further if you'll describe what happened.


> >> I'm pointing out that people who think the checkpoints are good and
> >> government is good are idiots with no memories.
>
> > There's your way, and everyone else is an idiot? I see. Why do you
> > bother posting, then? You just know everything there is to know, and
> > everyone else is dumb. I see.
>
> Are you gpstroll's long lost brother? Damn grow a clue, learn how to
> read. No wonder you work for government.

There's your way, and everyone else is an idiot? I see. Why do you
bother posting, then? You just know everything there is to know, and
everyone else is dumb. I see.