It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints

page: 14
54
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Fair enough - I think I perhaps didn't quite grasp what the fuss was about - it almost seemed like people were complaining about being caught DUI? It is specifically the checkpoint setup that is the issue then?
We have roadside checkpoints over here in the UK, predominantly around Xmas time when it is more prevalent, where they simply pull over a bunch of cars from traffic and breathalyse everyone.
The thought of that has never bothered me, because I never drink and drive.
There is no constitution over here like you guys have so it's perfectly legal to do...and is done more each year as they catch more drivers every time!




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


you are wrong. we in the great state of florida have kicked down the initiatives for high speed rail 2 x since my memory. And now that Rick Scott is to be sworn in as Gov, we may have a shot at it
edit on 12/30/2010 by LAUGHING-CAT because: expounding original point



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
I didn't serve just so a bunch of idiots here at home could give it all away.


Apparently you did.

Welcome to the club... brother. We've been expecting you for some time now.


Great way to refute my questions.

Care to engage in a round of "Yo Momma" since that seems to be your intellectual limit?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LAUGHING-CAT
 



In November 2000, Florida voters approved an amendment to Florida's constitution mandating the state establish a system of high speed trains exceeding 120 mph to link its five largest urban areas, with construction to commence by November 1, 2003. The Florida Legislature enacted the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act in March 2001, creating the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA).



In early 2004, Governor Jeb Bush endorsed an effort to repeal the 2000 amendment that mandated the construction of the High Speed Rail System. On October 27, 2004, the authority voted to prefer the consortium of Fluor Corp. and Bombardier Transportation to build and operate the system, using Bombardier's JetTrain technology. However a month later in November, Florida voters repealed the 2000 amendment, removing the constitutional mandate for the system. Although the amendment was repealed, no action was taken by the state legislature in regard to the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act. With the law still in effect, Florida's HSRA continued to meet, and completed the environmental impact statement for the Tampa-Orlando segment in 2005. With the constitutional mandate gone, however, funding for the project came to a halt and very little action was taken over the next several years.[5]


Appears we are both a little right. Apparently we voted FOR it, but not a lot of progress was made and Bush led the attack to repeal it, it was later repealed by a vote, but the legislature again drug its feet and didn't act on it, so the project is still alive.

Now, Obama and the stimulus package is on the job, and the project is going forward.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Good, They should switch to blood testing, the breathalyser is completely inaccurate by far. I had to work with one through my internship and you can easily fail a breathalyser by even one beer. I wouldn't mind a finger prick if it keeps me from getting a DUI. So many people have been unlawfully arrested because of those things. They need to get rid of them but they wont, it's they're money makers.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Cant believe anyone would be against that. I am a mortician that has to deal with the carnage left behind drunk A-Holes who decide to drive.

The question has to be asked, why would anyone not drunk refuse a breath tests in the first place. It certainly does not infringe on your rights, so if infringing on your rights was a real concern, you would do that immediately as opposed to being forced to take a blood test, right ? .

But no the people who decry it have no regards for "rights", or the rights of others to drive safely. They are selfish people who make me sick. So if you are one of the people reading this who fall into that category, do everyone a favor and top yourself before you hurt someone else.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 


How does assuming you are drunk, until you prove otherwise not trample on people's rights? I have no problem with people driving erratically having to take a breathalizer, but making everyone take one, without probable cause, is infringing on your rights...



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


of course i don't want it to get out of hand, but that is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy. just because it could snowball into that stuff doesn't mean it will. as it stands, no other factors or "what ifs?", i support it. it's only a breathalyzer. taking money from truckers and groping people and whatever else you decided to add to sensationalize your point is not at all what i was talking about and i feel like i was pretty clear about that. if that kind of crap happens it must stop but that is a different discussion altogether.

like i said, i'm fine with the breathalyzer at certain points on roads occasionally, especially when it's a know time for drunk drivers (i.e. new years). and by planning ahead, all i meant (and again i feel like i was pretty clear on this and you seem to have decided to twist it for your own purposes as you saw fit) was that the people doing the drinking should plan ahead and know how they'll get home in a way that excludes driving drunk. anytime i go to a bar with friends we either take a cab or have a DD. in no way, shape or form do i think the cops authority should expand or tighten past the breathalyzer checkpoint thing on days of commonly known drunk driving spikes. nothing more, nothing less. when people stop senselessly and recklessly killing each other out of irresponsibility and sheer disregard for safety, i think this is a great idea that can save lives.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 


well to answer your question pal there are already things out there to stop the transference of STD's and people still continue to not use them don't they. There is nothing out there to date that stops you from driving your car drunk is there? This is it I have no idea what your stats for drink driving deaths are a year but just imagine if one or the rest of your family was killed due to some idiot doing this.

Maybe people deemed insane should carry firearms too hey? everytime you keep trying to justify something it just opens a new can of worms to something of a worse thought.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 


well to answer your question pal there are already things out there to stop the transference of STD's and people still continue to not use them don't they. There is nothing out there to date that stops you from driving your car drunk is there? This is it I have no idea what your stats for drink driving deaths are a year but just imagine if one or the rest of your family was killed due to some idiot doing this.

Maybe people deemed insane should carry firearms too hey? everytime you keep trying to justify something it just opens a new can of worms to something of a worse thought.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 
As in all political quandaries, we see what we wish to see. thanks for being social and relevant in your reply



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Great way to refute my questions.

Care to engage in a round of "Yo Momma" since that seems to be your intellectual limit?


Sounds enjoyable, maybe we can play a game of "read the whole thread" while we're at it.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Do you have any idea how many deaths are caused by drunk drivers that seem in control right up until they crash ?

You can not always rely on a cop being in the right place at the right time, right when someone is driving erratically. If that was the case being caught would be far in favor of the drunks.

Is that what you want, the odds tipped in their favor ?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by aravoth
 


well to answer your question pal there are already things out there to stop the transference of STD's and people still continue to not use them don't they.


Indeed they do


Originally posted by vkturbo
There is nothing out there to date that stops you from driving your car drunk is there?


You just admitted people will continue to drive drunk, so tell me, what is the purpose of the checkpoint?


Originally posted by vkturbo
This is it I have no idea what your stats for drink driving deaths are a year but just imagine if one or the rest of your family was killed due to some idiot doing this.


My family could just as easily be killed by you and you retarded driving habits.


Originally posted by vkturbo
Maybe people deemed insane should carry firearms too hey?


You let the Government spy on you, steal your money, kill thousand of people yearly, and they yield Nuclear weapons, but I don't see you throwing tissy about that, even though that would certainly fit the description of an insane serial killer.


Originally posted by vkturboeverytime you keep trying to justify something it just opens a new can of worms to something of a worse thought.


I'm not the one justifying repeated violations of the 4th amendment. Your last sentence actually describes yourself perfectly.


edit on 30-12-2010 by aravoth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Great way to refute my questions.

Care to engage in a round of "Yo Momma" since that seems to be your intellectual limit?


Sounds enjoyable, maybe we can play a game of "read the whole thread" while we're at it.


You must be a politician, or one in training, to so side-step a clear mess of questions.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Great way to refute my questions.

Care to engage in a round of "Yo Momma" since that seems to be your intellectual limit?


Sounds enjoyable, maybe we can play a game of "read the whole thread" while we're at it.


You must be a politician, or one in training, to so side-step a clear mess of questions.


Aravoth, oh Aravoth.. where for art though?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Interestingly enough, the idiot woman from MADD who came up with this idea is also an employee of the local sheriffs office.


This will completely stop people from drinking and driving.


I really hope you don't honestly believe that, because if you do mean that, then there are some serious misunderstandings as to the causes behind drinking and driving.

People don't drink and drive because they sat down and deliberated the positive and negative points of the idea, such as repercussions. People drink and drive because they like to drink, and afterward, they're too drunk [and, in my opinion, stupid] to make the intelligent, conscious decision not to get in their car and drive.

("They", in this case, referring to the people who drink and drive. There are people who are smart enough to decide not to drive once they're drunk).

The root cause of drunk driving is not the concept that the fines aren't high enough. Raising the penalty straight to a mandatory death sentence may lesson the frequency of drunk driving incidents, but by absolutely no means will any such action "completely stop" the occurrence. It's just simply not dealing with the root cause.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I smell something very fishy going on here....no refusal DUI checkpoints sound to me like they know who is drunk and who is not
.On a serious note, this is a very serious breach of the 4th amendment.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Epsilon5
 


The root cause of drunk driving is pure selfishness. It goes no deeper than that.

These "people" ( I use the term loosely ) only care about the rights they think they have. Other excuses are PC BS.

If I had it my way they would have the right to loose their license, the right to have their car sold to donate to charity. And get a punch in the face just to drive the message home.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 


I disagree. The root cause of drunk driving is having really crappy friends. I am sure every single one of us has seen someone drunk off their ass, proclaiming they are fine. People with really crappy friends will get into their car and drive away, people with good friends would not. People with good friends, their friends would fight them for the keys. Been on both sides of that equation.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join