General Motors hires more "activists" to nullify DUI checkpoints

In article > ,
Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:

> David Hartung > wrote in
> :
>
> > On 07/04/2012 07:06 PM, Wayne wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "David Hartung" wrote in message
> >> news > >>
> >> On 07/04/2012 10:19 AM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
> >> criminals wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As we all know, car crashes mean car sales and GM is fighting to get
> >>> drunk driving legalized and common. Their present ploy is to claim
> you
> >>> have some sort of "right" to drive drunk and kill others and only
> >>> nanny-staters oppose drunk driving.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=40007
> >>>
> >>> Article posted Jun 26 2012, 4:51 AM
> >>>
> >>> Libertarians "Nullify" Police State Checkpoint in Pennsylvania
> >>>
> >>> The problem with these checkpoints is that they’re warrantless,
> >>> arbitrary searches. This goes against all standards of civilized
> >>> behavior and is not tolerable in a free society. Not only are
> >>> checkpoints violating our rights they’re not effective. “Traditional
> >>> police patrols are three times more likely to locate genuinely
> >>> impaired drivers than these suspicionless checkpoints,” according to
> >>> James Babb, founder of the Valley Forge Revolutionaries. “So not only
> >>> are these checkpoints blatantly immoral and illegal, they’re also a
> >>> waste of police time and tax dollars. It’s long past time someone
> took
> >>> a stand for fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and plain common
> >>> sense.” That’s exactly what happened on Friday night.
> >>>
> >>> A note on staying out of trouble and keeping the activism going,
> don’t
> >>> talk to the police. Stay alert for the tricks they use to provoke a
> >>> problem that they then use as an excuse to arrest or threaten to
> >>> arrest activists for. I want to thank my fellow checkpoint nullifiers
> >>> for having the discipline and level headedness that kept us all safe
> >>> from the police.
> >>
> >> # 1. The posted article says nothing about GM. This indicates the
> poster
> >> # is a crackpot.
> >>
> >> # 2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as
> I
> >> # detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
> >> # accidents:
> >>
> >> However, the question is left about how many of your rights are you
> >> willing to give up. DUI checkpoints set a precedent for all sorts of
> >> life intrusions.
> >
> > An excellent question.
> >
> > Another question. Would the American people have accepted the TSA, had
> > they no already been conditioned to accept the intrusion of a DUI
> > checkpoint?
>
>
> After failure of the "privatized" security system that
> let the 9/11 security lapsed occur the people were ready to
> accept anything better.


Yep, and we're still waiting for something better.


snicker

On 07/04/2012 09:39 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> In article >,
> David Hartung > wrote:
>
>> On 07/04/2012 07:06 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "David Hartung" wrote in message
>>> news >>>
>>> On 07/04/2012 10:19 AM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
>>> criminals wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As we all know, car crashes mean car sales and GM is fighting to get
>>>> drunk driving legalized and common. Their present ploy is to claim you
>>>> have some sort of "right" to drive drunk and kill others and only
>>>> nanny-staters oppose drunk driving.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=40007
>>>>
>>>> Article posted Jun 26 2012, 4:51 AM
>>>>
>>>> Libertarians "Nullify" Police State Checkpoint in Pennsylvania
>>>>
>>>> The problem with these checkpoints is that they¹re warrantless,
>>>> arbitrary searches. This goes against all standards of civilized
>>>> behavior and is not tolerable in a free society. Not only are
>>>> checkpoints violating our rights they¹re not effective. ³Traditional
>>>> police patrols are three times more likely to locate genuinely
>>>> impaired drivers than these suspicionless checkpoints,² according to
>>>> James Babb, founder of the Valley Forge Revolutionaries. ³So not only
>>>> are these checkpoints blatantly immoral and illegal, they¹re also a
>>>> waste of police time and tax dollars. It¹s long past time someone took
>>>> a stand for fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and plain common
>>>> sense.² That¹s exactly what happened on Friday night.
>>>>
>>>> A note on staying out of trouble and keeping the activism going, don¹t
>>>> talk to the police. Stay alert for the tricks they use to provoke a
>>>> problem that they then use as an excuse to arrest or threaten to
>>>> arrest activists for. I want to thank my fellow checkpoint nullifiers
>>>> for having the discipline and level headedness that kept us all safe
>>>> from the police.
>>>
>>> # 1. The posted article says nothing about GM. This indicates the poster
>>> # is a crackpot.
>>>
>>> # 2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as I
>>> # detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
>>> # accidents:
>>>
>>> However, the question is left about how many of your rights are you
>>> willing to give up. DUI checkpoints set a precedent for all sorts of
>>> life intrusions.
>>
>> An excellent question.
>>
>> Another question. Would the American people have accepted the TSA, had
>> they no already been conditioned to accept the intrusion of a DUI
>> checkpoint?
>
> Damned good question, and the same issues, a lot of intrusion and
> aggravation with no real improvement in security.

The fact that so many Americans seem to willingly, and meekly accept
such intrusions, is of great concern to me.

On Jul 4, 11:15*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:

>
> Even if the checkpoints were *equally* as effective as roving patrols, I
> would still oppose them for Constitutional reasons.
>

Constitutional reasons?? HAHAHA. What could possibly be
unconstitutional about them, you idiot?. These are public roads.

On Jul 4, 8:04*pm, David Hartung > wrote:

>
> Another question. Would the American people have accepted the TSA, had
> they no already been conditioned to accept the intrusion of a DUI
> checkpoint?

.. Both checks make sense. There are terrorists and there certainly
are drunk drivers.

On Jul 5, 4:54*am, David Hartung > wrote:

> The fact that so many Americans seem to willingly, and meekly accept
> such intrusions, is of great concern to me

HAHAHA. Yes indeed. Drunk drivers are practically non-existent,
aren't they? HAHA

On 07/05/2012 10:53 AM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals wrote:
> On Jul 4, 11:15 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>>
>> Even if the checkpoints were *equally* as effective as roving patrols, I
>> would still oppose them for Constitutional reasons.
>>
>
> Constitutional reasons?? HAHAHA. What could possibly be
> unconstitutional about them, you idiot?. These are public roads.

Yes, and the vehicle is private.

On 07/05/2012 10:55 AM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals wrote:
> On Jul 4, 8:04 pm, David Hartung > wrote:
>
>>
>> Another question. Would the American people have accepted the TSA, had
>> they no already been conditioned to accept the intrusion of a DUI
>> checkpoint?
>
> . Both checks make sense. There are terrorists and there certainly
> are drunk drivers.

There is an old saying about those who are willing to give up liberty
for security. At what point do we draw the line?

On 7/4/2012 9:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung > wrote in
> :
>[...]
>> Another question. Would the American people have accepted the TSA, had
>> they no already been conditioned to accept the intrusion of a DUI
>> checkpoint?
>
>
> After failure of the "privatized" security system that
> let the 9/11 security lapsed occur the people were ready to
> accept anything better.

You mean people still believe the official government version, which is
of course total BS, as it makes claims that are not physically possible?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

**** 4 Brains spewed:

> . Both checks make sense. There are terrorists and there certainly
> are drunk drivers.

The only terrorist and drunk driver around here goes by the name, "Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"