The new drinking and driving law


Tecumsehsbones
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Quote me!

We can trust the cops and prosecutors not to abuse this, just like they'd never abuse your dumbass fornication law, right, WU?
 
White_Unifier
+1
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

We can trust the cops and prosecutors not to abuse this, just like they'd never abuse your dumbass fornication law, right, WU?

There's a difference. In the first instance, we're talking about finding a person guilty of drinking and driving without proof that he actually drank and drove. In the second, we'd be fining him for fornication after proving beyond reasonable doubt that he did fornicate. We can even make a social and economic argument: STI's, broken families, mental health, etc.

That said, I could stupport making recreational consumption of alcohol a fineable offence on the condition that it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but not finding a person guilty of drinking and driving without proof of actual drinking and driving.

See the difference?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

There's a difference. In the first instance, we're talking about finding a person guilty of drinking and driving without proof that he actually drank and drove. In the second, we'd be fining him for fornication after proving beyond reasonable doubt that he did fornicate. We can even make a social and economic argument: STI's, broken families, mental health, etc.
That said, I could stupport making recreational consumption of alcohol a fineable offence on the condition that it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but not finding a person guilty of drinking and driving without proof of actual drinking and driving.
See the difference?

"The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
 
White_Unifier
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

"The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Nice quote. Your point?
 
DaSleeper
+1 / -1
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

"The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.


Sometimes....



The law is an ass....................Charles dickens.
 
Danbones
#36
As usual our braindead expert is making up things as he goes along again, which is why he is NEVER wrong about anything


"Whoever the author was, we can be sure it wasn't Charles Dickens...

In fact, 'the law is an ass' is from a play published by the English dramatist George Chapman in 1654 - Revenge for Honour:

Ere he shall lose an eye for such a trifle... For doing deeds of nature! I'm ashamed. The law is such an ass.

'Published by' doesn't necessarily mean 'written by'. In 1653, Chapman's play was registered, as The Parricide, or, Revenge for Honor, to fellow playwright Henry Glapthorne"
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/...is-an-ass.html

Too dumbass to do google I guess.



Oh dASSie duck, what are we going to do with "rabbi"thole theorists like you?
Last edited by Danbones; 3 weeks ago at 04:15 AM..
 
DaSleeper
#37
*


*




*




*




*
Last edited by DaSleeper; 2 weeks ago at 12:35 PM..
 
taxslave
+1
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

There's a difference. In the first instance, we're talking about finding a person guilty of drinking and driving without proof that he actually drank and drove. In the second, we'd be fining him for fornication after proving beyond reasonable doubt that he did fornicate. We can even make a social and economic argument: STI's, broken families, mental health, etc.
That said, I could stupport making recreational consumption of alcohol a fineable offence on the condition that it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but not finding a person guilty of drinking and driving without proof of actual drinking and driving.
See the difference?

No difference at all. Both are clearly open to abuse except your crazy anti sex laws are something we would expect from Muslim hard liners, not thinking, educated people in a democracy.
Perhaps you should explain why you have such an unhealthy interest in other people's sex lives.
 
White_Unifier
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

No difference at all. Both are clearly open to abuse except your crazy anti sex laws are something we would expect from Muslim hard liners, not thinking, educated people in a democracy.
Perhaps you should explain why you have such an unhealthy interest in other people's sex lives.

Because my taxes pay to treat other people's STIs and poverty and mental-health problems resulting from divorces as well as lower educational success in children coming from such broken families. Economics would back up such a policy if you believe in economics.
 
Twin_Moose
#40
Do you think there would be a reduction of taxes if they make these changes?
 
pgs
+2
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Do you think there would be a reduction of taxes if they make these changes?

Not . I just received a form that I am obligated to fill out as I am a homeowner in B.C. . The government requires me to prove my home is occupied and not owned by a speculator , this despite that fact that it is plain as day this is my official residence in all correspondence with the government and has been since the day we took possession. I notice some guy named Steven Emery got the sweet gig as Administer , Speculation and Vacancy Tax and all the perks and staff that go with it . I am going to google him to see his connection to B.Cís NDP and will be shocked if I donít find any .
 
White_Unifier
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Do you think there would be a reduction of taxes if they make these changes?

Over the long term, a moderate reduction since fines would bring in some revenue and people might not sleep around quite as much. I'm sure many still would, but not as widespread and as openly as now. They'd be more cautious about it at least.
 
taxslave
+1
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Do you think there would be a reduction of taxes if they make these changes?

Sure. If you don't count the wages and overhead for the thousands of government employees that are peeping into betrom windows to make sure they have a permit in triplicate to get some nookie.
 
taxslave
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Not . I just received a form that I am obligated to fill out as I am a homeowner in B.C. . The government requires me to prove my home is occupied and not owned by a speculator , this despite that fact that it is plain as day this is my official residence in all correspondence with the government and has been since the day we took possession. I notice some guy named Steven Emery got the sweet gig as Administer , Speculation and Vacancy Tax and all the perks and staff that go with it . I am going to google him to see his connection to B.Cís NDP and will be shocked if I donít find any .

Please keep us informed. I haven't got the form yet.
 
taxslave
#45
Does everyone in BChave to fill one out or just in the prescribed areas?
 
White_Unifier
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Sure. If you don't count the wages and overhead for the thousands of government employees that are peeping into betrom windows to make sure they have a permit in triplicate to get some nookie.

Who says it would need to be so strictly enforced? Do we hire police officers to peep in each window every day to ensure we're not trafficking narcotics from our home? In principle, if a narcotrafficker keeps a low profile, the police would never know. The same would apply to fornication laws. Just don't have sex with anyone who might falsely accuse you of rape, don't repond to a sex ad online, don't have sex in a public park, don't film it and post it online, don't brag about it, and no one should know, right?

Why would we police fornication any more than we would narcotrafficking? If we don't spy in people's windows to catch would-be murderers, why would we spy for this?
 
pgs
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Does everyone in BChave to fill one out or just in the prescribed areas?

I think just in certain areas I believe but if they are making money expanding it will only be fair .
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Who says it would need to be so strictly enforced? Do we hire police officers to peep in each window every day to ensure we're not trafficking narcotics from our home? In principle, if a narcotrafficker keeps a low profile, the police would never know. The same would apply to fornication laws. Just don't have sex with anyone who might falsely accuse you of rape, don't repond to a sex ad online, don't have sex in a public park, don't film it and post it online, don't brag about it, and no one should know, right?
Why would we police fornication any more than we would narcotrafficking? If we don't spy in people's windows to catch would-be murderers, why would we spy for this?


So Sharia law then Lol adultery police
 
taxslave
+1
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Who says it would need to be so strictly enforced? Do we hire police officers to peep in each window every day to ensure we're not trafficking narcotics from our home? In principle, if a narcotrafficker keeps a low profile, the police would never know. The same would apply to fornication laws. Just don't have sex with anyone who might falsely accuse you of rape, don't repond to a sex ad online, don't have sex in a public park, don't film it and post it online, don't brag about it, and no one should know, right?
Why would we police fornication any more than we would narcotrafficking? If we don't spy in people's windows to catch would-be murderers, why would we spy for this?

Why would we want laws against either one?
 
taxslave
+1
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

I think just in certain areas I believe but if they are making money expanding it will only be fair .

If this tax applies to rental houses the price of rent will go up in unison with the tax. Plus administration costs. Making it even harder for low income families to live. I wonder if they socialists thought of this when they were looking for tax revenue.
 
pgs
+1
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

If this tax applies to rental houses the price of rent will go up in unison with the tax. Plus administration costs. Making it even harder for low income families to live. I wonder if they socialists thought of this when they were looking for tax revenue.

It is supposed to be targeting vacant houses , But appears to be penalizing those fortunate enough to have dual residences .
 
taxslave
#52
NDP do like to make taxes all inclusive.
 

Similar Threads

0
Drinking and Driving
by mt_pockets1000 | Jun 24th, 2010