Terbolizard was arrested for DUI this weekend??

[mavtek]

In Texas DUI is Driving under the influence and it's an absurd law. If you're driving and you had 1 beer while at a restaurant and a cop pulls you over and gives you a breathalizer and you register .015 which is no where near intoxicated, not even close you will be given a citation for DUI. Luckily the penalty is less than DWI, but DUI in of itself is a pretty minor offense and honestly I know it could have happened to me in Texas at least 100 times by now if I'd been pulled over after having 2 beers with friends while out to eat.

Is there a slight difference between my reaction time and coordination after having 2 beers? Maybe, but I along with those riding with me and several witness' can attest to it being a non-existent difference. In my mind you are either DWI or you are not, if not send them on their way.

 

[MrZach]

You can also drive a car without a license, I did it for two years before I turned 16.

Ron Paul calls for less regulations at all levels of government. No, He has never specifically stated DWI laws...

However, he has called for the end of the Drug War, and I think this should tell you a little bit about how he values individuals to make their own decisions about health and safety, rather than letting the government tell you what you can and can't do with your life.



Signing a contract and paying the government under the threat of force to use YOUR OWN property is blatantly unconstitutional.

When you do drugs you endanger your own safety. When you operate a motor vehicle, you endanger other people's safety. There's no reason why it shouldn't be regulated.

 

[Wyurm]

Oh brother, lol... grow up and argue the issue and stop distracting onto topics that are totally non germane.

People are perfectly free to put whatever they want into their bodies as far as I'm concerned. It is when they are unable to control their motor functions and go out in public hurling massive hunks of metal at high speeds down the roadways that I begin to get concerned.

Actually, by those standards I guess I shouldn't drive at all as I have asthma and it is possible that I could end up with an asthma attack while driving and get into an accident Diabetics shouldn't drive either since if they have a reaction while driving they could cause an accident. Heck women going through menopause, angry people, people with high-blood pressure, heart-problems, etc... they should all be prevented from driving based on your standards. I agree, we need to make the roads so safe that the chance you get hurt on them is practically 0. Guess I have to walk to work tonight

Oh, and you're right because a DUI is likely going to prevent him from getting elected: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

 

[MrZach]

You know what? When you or someone close to you dies by a drunk driver then I'll be right there to make sure the person who did it gets punished to the fullest extent of the law for manslaughter.

That'll make you happy won't it? Oh wait... you'll be dead or mourning the loss of your loved one.

Never mind...


idiots...

 

[CountryboyRonPaul]

I'm so enlightened by Dr. Paul's comments on the medical profession and how they OBVIOUSLY apply to driving a vehicle.

Everyone of you idiots keeps making the same challenge to the DUI thing - it is pre-crime, blah blah blah... I'm arguing that it is not - it is the violation of a license agreement that you receive upon signing for and receiving your license.

Can you argue with that? No, you cannot. If you sign a contract - whether it be with another individual or the state - you sign a contract and should be bound to that contract. IF you're really opposed to this crap, put your money where your mouth is and revoke your own license.

As soon as you do that, I'll shut up.

Driving Drunk IS breaking a law.

I completely disagree with the defintion/enforcement of that law.

If DWI's were like speeding tickets I would agree with them.

Perhaps a .08 blood alcohol level would be a $75 ticket. a .18 would be a $700 ticket. And I absolutely abhor the 3 strikes your out rule.

About the Contract, the Government has no right to make you sign a contract to use YOUR OWN PROPERTY. However, this is one of many constitutional rights we have lost.

 

[Eponym_mi]

I'm pretty sure that automobiles weren't around when the constitution was written, so I'm not exactly sure you all get off saying the constitution regulates the automobile. Last time I checked, the constitution outlines the powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and allows states to have the power to regulate the rest. You're arguing the US constitution in light of state laws. Brilliant one there... You're so smart...

Yes, blatantly unconstitutional. 4th amendment. I was pulled over and subjected to a breathalyzer test once stone sober...I haven't had a drink in over 20 years, nor have I done any drugs. And no, I wasn't driving erratically. I was merely driving slow to look at the address on houses because I was asked to pick someone up.

Moreover, I absolutely detest any government attempt to restrict travel by means of any conveyance a person may choose. Hello? Real ID is about monitoring and controlling where people go. Fucking Nazi Gestapo shit!! If I want to go somewhere, it isn't anybody's business but mine and/or whoever I might hire to take me there.

 

[pinkmandy]

I'm so enlightened by Dr. Paul's comments on the medical profession and how they OBVIOUSLY apply to driving a vehicle.

Everyone of you idiots keeps making the same challenge to the DUI thing - it is pre-crime, blah blah blah... I'm arguing that it is not - it is the violation of a license agreement that you receive upon signing for and receiving your license.

Can you argue with that? No, you cannot. If you sign a contract - whether it be with another individual or the state - you sign a contract and should be bound to that contract. IF you're really opposed to this crap, put your money where your mouth is and revoke your own license.

As soon as you do that, I'll shut up.

Free country, no need to shut up. The more you post the better as far as I'm concerned as your true colors shine.

The eyerolls were very unnecessary, though. I was giving you an example of Dr. Paul being against licenses. With your mentality wouldn't you think an unlicensed doctor would be as dangerous and an unlicensed driver?

As for the contract, I got my license at age 16. I signed it but if you want to get technical I was still a minor and not old enough to enter into a contract...

 

[MrZach]

Actually, by those standards I guess I shouldn't drive at all as I have asthma and it is possible that I could end up with an asthma attack while driving and get into an accident Diabetics shouldn't drive either since if they have a reaction while driving they could cause an accident. Heck women going through menopause, angry people, people with high-blood pressure, heart-problems, etc... they should all be prevented from driving based on your standards. I agree, we need to make the roads so safe that the chance you get hurt on them is practically 0. Guess I have to walk to work tonight

Oh, and you're right because a DUI is likely going to prevent him from getting elected: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

Actually, there ARE regulations about your health and whether or not you will be licensed to drive. For example, you have to pass a VISION TEST. Maybe we should just let nearly blind people drive in the name of "personal liberty" right? lol... This argument is retarded. Seriously. I've had enough with you inexperienced fools...

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

When our law is based on 'risk' and statistics we are reduced to simply numbers and property and we lose all individuality.
It's the same logic for preemptive war - Iran poses a 'risk', therefore we attack before they kill us. Same thing with DUI/DWI - Iran's rhetoric is analogous to a swerving driver.
But since humans are not evolved enough to be responsible with true freedom, we have laws.

 

[CountryboyRonPaul]

You know what? When you or someone close to you dies by a drunk driver then I'll be right there to make sure the person who did it gets punished to the fullest extent of the law for manslaughter.

That'll make you happy won't it? Oh wait... you'll be dead or mourning the loss of your loved one.

Never mind...


idiots...

This is the same arguement used for Gun Control.

Again, Safety is no substitute for Liberty.

 

[FireofLiberty]

This is the same arguement used for Gun Control.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Pauliana]

Sure the legal limit is absurdly low. But he could have been driving fine (endangering no one) and I'd still feel the same way.

When you're RUNNING FOR CONGRESS under RON PAUL'S BANNER you have taken upon yourself something sacred.

And he just pissed all over that banner.

Might I suggest that while a candidate one sticks to their best behavior at all times and refrains from imbibing outside of the home at all times?

 

[familydog]

I find it ironic that the same people blasting those as being "uptight" and "too judgemental" are then "judging" peoples opinions as being stupid/unreasonable/uninformed etc.

 

[MrZach]

Free country, no need to shut up. The more you post the better as far as I'm concerned as your true colors shine.

The eyerolls were very unnecessary, though. I was giving you an example of Dr. Paul being against licenses. With your mentality wouldn't you think an unlicensed doctor would be as dangerous and an unlicensed driver?

As for the contract, I got my license at age 16. I signed it but if you want to get technical I was still a minor and not old enough to enter into a contract...

This is a retarded comparison. Completely retarded.

I can have all the information available to me about what doctors I choose to see and whether they are licenses or not. That is a choice.

I do not have that choice when driving down the street. In fact, I have no idea whether or not the thousands of cars I pass on the road are licensed or not, yet they all pose a serious danger to my safety. I don't get the luxury of stopping every car that comes within 100 feet of me on a road and making sure they are not under the influence and have passed their driver's license exam to show that they are capable of operating their vehicle safely.

I willingly submit that power to the state and local law enforcement officers. If there were no laws regulating driving, I wouldn't drive. In fact, I pretty much quit driving altogether and only do so in absolute necessity because I think the roads are too dangerous and the police where I live are totally incompetent at doing their jobs to keep crazy drivers out of my way. So, I choose not to drive. I walk a lot and take public transportation.

 

[Wyurm]

Actually, there ARE regulations about your health and whether or not you will be licensed to drive. For example, you have to pass a VISION TEST. Maybe we should just let nearly blind people drive in the name of "personal liberty" right? lol... This argument is retarded. Seriously. I've had enough with you inexperienced fools...

no, you totally ignored what I said. I didn't say vision blah blah. I said specific diseases that cause the symptoms you described above. By law, those people are currently allowed to drive. By your standards they wouldnt be. Furthurmore you have strawmanned this argument by changing it from a discussion of whether or not Terbolizard should be elected now after having a DUI into whether or not a DUI is wrong.

I do not support irresponsible driving, however, making a decision which will affect your life negatively just because of a moral concern is utterly idiotic in my view. What's worse is the laws are on the books and yet there are thousands of deaths due to DUIs every year. I'm seeing that the laws don't work as intended, yet you defend them to the death rather than admitting there needs to be discussion on what is wrong and how to fix it. That is exactly what is wrong with our current political system: stubborn stupidity.

 

[josh24601]

lmfao

A guy named Terbolizard gets a DUI and this is somehow a shock.

 

[Paulitical Correctness]

Just to propose an entirely ridiculous, radical side of the argument..

If I drive while drunk, then maybe you deserve any injuries you receive. When you got in your car you knew, based on statistics, the risks involved. You opted to drive regardless of the possibility that I may be out there, swerving through lanes of traffic while intoxicated.

It's like jumping into a shark tank. You knew the risks of losing a limb or possibly dying. That's your problem. Don't euthanize the sharks, they're just behaving instinctually. Stay out of their tank.

Stay off the road.

 

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Sure the legal limit is absurdly low. But he could have been driving fine (endangering no one) and I'd still feel the same way.

When you're RUNNING FOR CONGRESS under RON PAUL'S BANNER you have taken upon yourself something sacred.

And he just pissed all over that banner.

Might I suggest that while a candidate one sticks to their best behavior at all times and refrains from imbibing outside of the home at all times?

I agree, Politicians should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

However, they never are.

The Voters Should, and Will decide if Driving Drunk is a good enough reason not to elect one of the few candidates that is actually willing to uphold the constitution.

 

[coffeewithchess]

Actually, by those standards I guess I shouldn't drive at all as I have asthma and it is possible that I could end up with an asthma attack while driving and get into an accident Diabetics shouldn't drive either since if they have a reaction while driving they could cause an accident. Heck women going through menopause, angry people, people with high-blood pressure, heart-problems, etc... they should all be prevented from driving based on your standards. I agree, we need to make the roads so safe that the chance you get hurt on them is practically 0. Guess I have to walk to work tonight
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

There is a difference between a DUI and the rest of your arguments...he went out and picked up the beer/alcohol and drank it...if you are driving and have an asthma attack, more than likely you weren't trying to get one. Also, I'm a diabetic and I take my driving very seriously, because I know I'm responsible for my life and others while driving. Before I drive, I make sure to check my bloodsugar to make sure I SHOULD be driving...I wouldn't vote for this guy because it shows how he doesn't think. If he can make this kind of decision after a few drinks, imagine what the lobbyists will do with him in DC.

 

[MrZach]

I find it ironic that the same people blasting those as being "uptight" and "too judgemental" are then "judging" peoples opinions as being stupid/unreasonable/uninformed etc.

I hope you're not talking about me, because I haven't called anyone uptight or too judgmental. I'm totally fine with it, lol... I do think that this argument is pretty stupid though and that those who are jerking themselves off to the tune of "unlimited unmitigated liberty for all" have never actually read any legitimate political science history on the subject that shows that there is not such thing and there is always a balance between the two - and our nation, our Founding Fathers, and our Constitution was never meant to me a free pass to do whatever the hell anyone wanted "as long as it didn't infringe on another's rights" - and if they think that they really should do some more reading, lol...