The new drinking and driving law

Mowich

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
petros said:
How the Hell do you get a Leftie to think rationally?

It's like the difference between a dog and a cat.

A dog can be easily trained and actually enjoys working for a living, giving unconditional love and will give its life to protect you.

A cat is only interested in being lazy and getting a free lunch, using you to stay warm and to stimulate them erotically. You call a cat to come to you all you want but if it doesn't feel like it, forget it.

If you shake a baggy they come running as fast as they can.
Click to expand...


The thing about lefties is they travel in groups as they constantly need reaffirmations from their buds that their feelings entitle them to think and act like total twits and that logic has no basis in their reality. In order to alter an adherent's political beliefs it would mean separating them from the pack and subjecting them to certain kinds of rendition. :p:lol:
 
pgs

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,534
8,139
113
B.C.
Mowich said:
The thing about lefties is they travel in groups as they constantly need reaffirmations from their buds that their feelings entitle them to think and act like total twits and that logic has no basis in their reality. In order to alter an adherent's political beliefs it would mean separating them from the pack and subjecting them to certain kinds of rendition. :p:lol:
Click to expand...
A job helps , if piece work is involved all the better .
 
Hoof Hearted

Hoof Hearted

House Member
Jul 23, 2016
4,477
1,173
113
"A cat is only interested in being lazy and getting a free lunch, using you to stay warm and to stimulate them erotically."

- petros

That is so wrong...on sooo many levels! ;)
 
Dixie Cup

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,313
4,021
113
Edmonton
It will likely take someone with deep pockets to challenge this law as the cost will be quite substantial. I personally don't know of anyone that could afford to challenge it; hopefully there'll be someone out there who is able to do so.


JMHO
 
MHz

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Time to open a virtual bar where you stay home and use the big screen to see what is happening at all the different 'tables'. Uber rates for the ones that want to tag up.
 
White_Unifier

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Tecumsehsbones said:
We can trust the cops and prosecutors not to abuse this, just like they'd never abuse your dumbass fornication law, right, WU?
Click to expand...

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

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,314
9,508
113
Washington DC
White_Unifier said:
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?
Click to expand...
"The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
 
DaSleeper

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Tecumsehsbones said:
"The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Click to expand...


Sometimes....



The law is an ass....................Charles dickens.
 
Danbones

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
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/the-law-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:
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
White_Unifier said:
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?
Click to expand...
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

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
taxslave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom