1. #110381

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="lawl"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"]New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million.[/quote] question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?[/quote]In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know.[/quote] come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?[/quote]I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.[/quote] but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties.[/quote] You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money.[/quote] thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time.[/quote] Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing?* Nobody is arguing that.* If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years and*permanent loss of license.[/quote]

    The law is set up to stop the act of drunk driving correct??? We all agree that this is a serious offense...my question remains...If cutting down on drunk driving is the goal with the law then why such a laxed one???

  2. #110382
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    6,818

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="jmike"][quote user="lawl"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="lawl"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="ny06"][quote user="lawl"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="lawl"]


    [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

    but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
    [/quote]</P>


    Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stop*it or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


    I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>


    [/quote]

    but thats my point

    u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
    [/quote]</P>


    I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


    *</P>


    *</P>


    If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


    The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


    [/quote]</P>


    I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>


    [/quote]

    Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here.* I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister.* I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me.* But I was not the only one with problems.* In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair.* So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


    [/quote] Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.[/quote]</P>


    *</P>


    That is a terrible arguement and makes no sense.* "It's not the nuclear bomb that was hurting anyone, it was the person choosing to set it off.* I find it rather unreasonable to say that the government should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others."</P>


    Ridiculous, yes, but no more so than your point.* By your logic, the government should only ban people and nothing else.* So once we get rid of all those damned people, we'll be fine.</P>


    However, I agree that the government should not waste it's time and resources chasing those who choose to destroy their lives.* Much better things to do (like have baseball players talk about steriods in a pointless hearing, when everyone with 2 functioning brain cells knew they were taking them).* My drug of choice was legal, so if someone wants to get wasted they will find a way and by criminalizing it you create more crime.</P>


    I was only responding to the scope of victim point.* You can't make an arguement that there is only one victim when there isn't.</P>


    [/quote] Your analogy to disprove me is rather far off. Nuclear bombs actually do hurt people(surprise). Your sister was hurt because of what *you* were doing, not what the drug was doing. The drug never directly harmed her, whereas nuclear bombs dish out quite alot. It comes down to personal choice and responsibility. If its something you want to do and it doesn't directly harm someone else...then what's the problem??[/quote]No it doesn't, it only hurts people if another person sets it off.* Just like a pile of drugs hurts nobody until somebody takes them.* A gun doesn't hurt anyone until somebody fires it.* The act of drunk driving hurts nobody until somebody gets hit.* It is all ludicrous.* Just get rid of all the people and we'll be safe.* </P>[/quote]

    Guns are legal, alcohol is legal.

  3. #110383
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    6,818

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="lawl"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"]New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million.[/quote] question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?[/quote]In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know.[/quote] come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?[/quote]I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.[/quote] but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties.[/quote] You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money.[/quote] thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time.[/quote] Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing?* Nobody is arguing that.* If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years and*permanent loss of license.[/quote]

    The law is set up to stop the act of drunk driving correct??? We all agree that this is a serious offense...my question remains...If cutting down on drunk driving is the goal with the law then why such a laxed one???[/quote]

    What you're trying to argue can be applied to every law. Life in prison isn't enough of a deterrent to murder someone? Ok well let's make it automatic death sentence.

    Speeding tickets are used to prevent speeding, but everyone speeds so let's make the law automatic year suspension of license.

    The punishment for DUI is what they deem enough to be fair and enough of a deterrent. It's not because they aren't interested in safety.

  4. #110384
    All-Pro jmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    13,297

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="lawl"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="lawl"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"]New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million.[/quote] question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?[/quote]In mind? Yes. Are they effective? Mostly no. But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know.[/quote] come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?[/quote]I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are. I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.[/quote] but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties.[/quote] You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money.[/quote] thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time.[/quote] Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing? Nobody is arguing that. If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years andpermanent loss of license.[/quote]

    The law is set up to stop the act of drunk driving correct??? We all agree that this is a serious offense...my question remains...If cutting down on drunk driving is the goal with the law then why such a laxed one???[/quote]

    What you're trying to argue can be applied to every law.<font size="4"> Life in prison isn't enough of a deterrent to murder someone? Ok well let's make it automatic death sentence.</font>

    Speeding tickets are used to prevent speeding, but everyone speeds so let's make the law automatic year suspension of license.

    The punishment for DUI is what they deem enough to be fair and enough of a deterrent. It's not because they aren't interested in safety.[/quote]

    The death penalty is not a deterrent at all. People commit murder for one of three reasons 1-profit, 2-passion and 3-compulsion.

    1-profit: A person killing for profit is a professional and does not believe he will get caught so nothing is a deterrent.

    2-passion: A crime of passion is just that, you don't stop to think about the potential consequences of your actions, you just act.

    3-compulsion: If a person has a need to kill no deterrent will effectively prevent that.

    Punishment for murder is just that, punishment, there is no real way to deter it.

  5. #110385
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    6,818

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="jmike"][quote user="lawl"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="lawl"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"]New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million.[/quote] question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?[/quote]In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know.[/quote] come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?[/quote]I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.[/quote] but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties.[/quote] You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money.[/quote] thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time.[/quote] Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing?* Nobody is arguing that.* If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years and*permanent loss of license.[/quote]

    The law is set up to stop the act of drunk driving correct??? We all agree that this is a serious offense...my question remains...If cutting down on drunk driving is the goal with the law then why such a laxed one???[/quote]

    What you're trying to argue can be applied to every law.<font size="4"> Life in prison isn't enough of a deterrent to murder someone? Ok well let's make it automatic death sentence.</font>

    Speeding tickets are used to prevent speeding, but everyone speeds so let's make the law automatic year suspension of license.

    The punishment for DUI is what they deem enough to be fair and enough of a deterrent. It's not because they aren't interested in safety.[/quote]

    The death penalty is not a deterrent at all.* People commit murder for one of three reasons 1-profit, 2-passion and 3-compulsion.

    1-profit: A person killing for profit is a professional and does not believe he will get caught so nothing is a deterrent.

    2-passion: A crime of passion is just that, you don't stop to think about the potential consequences of your actions, you just act.

    3-compulsion: If a person has a need to kill no deterrent will effectively prevent that.

    Punishment for murder is just that, punishment, there is no real way to deter it.
    [/quote]

    This is besides the point, but thanks for the tidbit.

    That's not sarcasm, if it seems that way

  6. #110386
    All-Pro jmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    13,297

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="lawl"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="lawl"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="lawl"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"][quote user="allentown PA"][quote user="jmike"]New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million.[/quote] question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?[/quote]In mind? Yes. Are they effective? Mostly no. But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know.[/quote] come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?[/quote]I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are. I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.[/quote] but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties.[/quote] You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money.[/quote] thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time.[/quote] Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing? Nobody is arguing that. If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years andpermanent loss of license.[/quote]

    The law is set up to stop the act of drunk driving correct??? We all agree that this is a serious offense...my question remains...If cutting down on drunk driving is the goal with the law then why such a laxed one???[/quote]

    What you're trying to argue can be applied to every law.<font size="4"> Life in prison isn't enough of a deterrent to murder someone? Ok well let's make it automatic death sentence.</font>

    Speeding tickets are used to prevent speeding, but everyone speeds so let's make the law automatic year suspension of license.

    The punishment for DUI is what they deem enough to be fair and enough of a deterrent. It's not because they aren't interested in safety.[/quote]

    The death penalty is not a deterrent at all. People commit murder for one of three reasons 1-profit, 2-passion and 3-compulsion.

    1-profit: A person killing for profit is a professional and does not believe he will get caught so nothing is a deterrent.

    2-passion: A crime of passion is just that, you don't stop to think about the potential consequences of your actions, you just act.

    3-compulsion: If a person has a need to kill no deterrent will effectively prevent that.

    Punishment for murder is just that, punishment, there is no real way to deter it.
    [/quote]

    This is besides the point, but thanks for the tidbit.

    That's not sarcasm, if it seems that way[/quote]You're welcome, but it isn't really besides the point. Sometimes (like in the case of murder) an increase in punishment for the crime does not work as a deterrent. Sometimes it does. In the case of drunk driving, I believe it would. Because unlike murder for reasons stated above and stealing which mostly is done out of desperation or as a profession (again no use as a deterrent) most drunk drivers are otherwise law abiding citizens. If the punishments were severe enough more people would think about alternate plans before they go out to drink. So in this instance, an increased punishment would have a positive impact; how much is debatable.

  7. #110387
    Hall of Famer Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    61,143

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    <FONT size=6>102</FONT>
    "Typical Morehead!"..................and he didn't even mean that as a compliment..

  8. #110388
    Hall of Famer Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    61,143

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD



    BTW, I don't want any stinking trades this week. I don't want Carlos Beltran or any of the other names being thrown around. Josh Red**** is good with me at right field. We gave up a lot of prospects in the Gonzo trade.</P>


    My team is on the field. We just need to get Clay Buchholtz healthy by September.</P>
    "Typical Morehead!"..................and he didn't even mean that as a compliment..

  9. #110389
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,290

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    WOooohooo looks like players will sign today..

  10. #110390
    All-Pro JPizzack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Poughkeepsie, NY. Heeltown, USA
    Posts
    35,526

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    That's good news! I had some football talk yesterday. Was good to have it for a change without having to talk about the lockout, or fantasy football or any of that BS.
    Oderint Dum Metuant

    It's too bad, I'm too good....

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts