View Poll Results: mandatory blood draws, are they constitutional?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, it violates my rights as a person

    25 92.59%
  • yes, they are clearly constitutional

    2 7.41%
Page 6 of 70 FirstFirst ... 23456789101656 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 1050

Thread: DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

  1. #76 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    We can only hope those killed by a drunk driver are the supporters of the Supreme Court's stance that the drunk driver should be protected more so than the innocent victim.
    strawman argument full of bullshit emotion. care to comment on the 4th Amendment violations? or are you too full of 'law and order' conservatism to care about constitutional rights?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  2. #77 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    strawman argument full of bullshit emotion. care to comment on the 4th Amendment violations? or are you too full of 'law and order' conservatism to care about constitutional rights?
    Not an argument. A statement. Learn the difference.

    Apparently you don't care about the rights of the innocent those drunks kill. That's why I hope WHEN one of them kills someone, it's someone you know and love and not someone I know and love. If you support their right to drive drunk as a privacy matter, it's only fitting that it happens to you.

  3. #78 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    Not an argument. A statement. Learn the difference.
    you argued that drunk drivers get more protection than innocents. learn the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    Apparently you don't care about the rights of the innocent those drunks kill. That's why I hope WHEN one of them kills someone, it's someone you know and love and not someone I know and love. If you support their right to drive drunk as a privacy matter, it's only fitting that it happens to you.
    another strawman argument. Is it automatically support for drunk drivers because I care about my 4th Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  4. #79 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    you argued that drunk drivers get more protection than innocents. learn the difference.


    another strawman argument. Is it automatically support for drunk drivers because I care about my 4th Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?
    I stated that WHEN a drunk driver kills someone, and it will happen, I hope it's someone you care about.

    It is when you would tie the hands of those that can get drunk drivers off the streets by calling someone that can prevent it unreasonable. That's your fucking problem. YOU consider it unreasonable and because you and only you consider yourself the authority on things, you expect the rest of us to fall in line. Let me modify my statement. Not only do I hope WHEN it happen it's someone you love, I hope that it HAPPENS.

  5. #80 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    I stated that WHEN a drunk driver kills someone, and it will happen, I hope it's someone you care about.

    It is when you would tie the hands of those that can get drunk drivers off the streets by calling someone that can prevent it unreasonable. That's your fucking problem. YOU consider it unreasonable and because you and only you consider yourself the authority on things, you expect the rest of us to fall in line. Let me modify my statement. Not only do I hope WHEN it happen it's someone you love, I hope that it HAPPENS.
    and this, folks, is the so called constitution loving conservative. the one that's ready to throw all YOUR rights away in pursuit of his ideas of law and order. I bet you also believe that nobody has the right to resist an unlawful arrest, right?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  6. #81 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    and this, folks, is the so called constitution loving conservative. the one that's ready to throw all YOUR rights away in pursuit of his ideas of law and order. I bet you also believe that nobody has the right to resist an unlawful arrest, right?
    I'm willing to protect the rights of the innocent that you care nothing about by allowing a drunk driver more than they deserve.

    Who determines it's an unlawful arrest? That's the problem. YOU think that if YOU believe something is a certain way, YOU can do whatever you want because YOU believe you can. Not how it works retard.

    I hope you resist arrest because YOU think it's unlawful. Let me know what happens stupid.

  7. #82 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Just what we needed, another racist conservative boot.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to /MSG/ For This Post:

    Rune (02-09-2016)

  9. #83 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vepr 12 View Post
    Just what we needed, another racist conservative boot.
    If that reference is to me (CFM), show me anything related to race that's I've stated.

  10. #84 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    I'm willing to protect the rights of the innocent that you care nothing about by allowing a drunk driver more than they deserve.
    so guilty until proven so is your motto?

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    Who determines it's an unlawful arrest? That's the problem. YOU think that if YOU believe something is a certain way, YOU can do whatever you want because YOU believe you can. Not how it works retard.
    and your other motto is that people are just stupid when it comes to the law? are YOU stupid when it comes to the law?

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    I hope you resist arrest because YOU think it's unlawful. Let me know what happens stupid.
    i'm sure you'd love to see announcements of my death on the nightly news. sounds about right for a conservative.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  11. #85 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    so guilty until proven so is your motto?

    and your other motto is that people are just stupid when it comes to the law? are YOU stupid when it comes to the law?


    i'm sure you'd love to see announcements of my death on the nightly news. sounds about right for a conservative.
    Protecting the innocent from drunk drivers is my motto. Yours is let them drive drunk.

    Not yours. That would be too easy of a way out for you. You need to live and suffer emotionally for having protected a drunk driver while ignoring the innocent lives that could have been saved.

    I was recently in a wreck when I was going to be charged. A witness came forth and stated that the driver of the other vehicle threw something out just before the wreck occurred. The police searched and quickly found a bag of some illegal substance. They also searched the vehicle in the middle of the intersection and found illegal drugs in it. While I am grateful for the witness, I suspect you would think that the search of the vehicle was somehow a violation of the rights of the criminal having the drugs. Tell me I'm wrong or confirm that what I believe about you is right on the mark.

    Your problem is you take the Libertarian approach of "if I don't like it, I don't have to do it and the rest of the people should let me".

  12. #86 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    Protecting the innocent from drunk drivers is my motto. Yours is let them drive drunk.
    your narrow mind seems capable of only two dimensional thinking. you are seriously outgunned in a battle of wits with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    Not yours. That would be too easy of a way out for you. You need to live and suffer emotionally for having protected a drunk driver while ignoring the innocent lives that could have been saved.
    or, conversely, I could hold to constitutional principles and uphold 4th Amendment rights, affording appropriate due process to people accused of crimes, whereas you could just be a whiny serf and assume that they are all guilty or they wouldn't have been stopped at all. right?

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    I was recently in a wreck when I was going to be charged. A witness came forth and stated that the driver of the other vehicle threw something out just before the wreck occurred. The police searched and quickly found a bag of some illegal substance. They also searched the vehicle in the middle of the intersection and found illegal drugs in it. While I am grateful for the witness, I suspect you would think that the search of the vehicle was somehow a violation of the rights of the criminal having the drugs. Tell me I'm wrong or confirm that what I believe about you is right on the mark.
    If i'm to believe that what you say here is the truth, absent some reasonable suspicion that the other driver was impaired, the search should have been illegal. that is in now way a defense of the other driver being allowed to be under the influence. it's just a matter of EVERYONE having constitutional rights. I know you don't like those though.

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    Your problem is you take the Libertarian approach of "if I don't like it, I don't have to do it and the rest of the people should let me".
    you have no understanding of what Libertarianism is, obviously.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  13. #87 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    your narrow mind seems capable of only two dimensional thinking. you are seriously outgunned in a battle of wits with me.

    or, conversely, I could hold to constitutional principles and uphold 4th Amendment rights, affording appropriate due process to people accused of crimes, whereas you could just be a whiny serf and assume that they are all guilty or they wouldn't have been stopped at all. right?

    If i'm to believe that what you say here is the truth, absent some reasonable suspicion that the other driver was impaired, the search should have been illegal. that is in now way a defense of the other driver being allowed to be under the influence. it's just a matter of EVERYONE having constitutional rights. I know you don't like those though.

    you have no understanding of what Libertarianism is, obviously.
    I had you figured out after your first statement. That you don't realize it means I own you boy.

    You don't have to believe me. That isn't a requirement for it to be the truth. All you need to know is that a criminal was arrested and rightly so. Like I suspected, you protect those who commit crimes whether or not it means the one that is innocent is treated properly.

    I fully understand libertarian beliefs. It's why I'm not one. You believe because of it that all protections should be afforded to those who show signs of having done what the criminal that hit me did while showing no concern for the innocent.

  14. #88 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    I had you figured out after your first statement. That you don't realize it means I own you boy.
    ROFL ok kid.

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    You don't have to believe me. That isn't a requirement for it to be the truth. All you need to know is that a criminal was arrested and rightly so. Like I suspected, you protect those who commit crimes whether or not it means the one that is innocent is treated properly.
    maybe we should execute all suspects on sight then, right? they must be guilty, after all LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    I fully understand libertarian beliefs. It's why I'm not one. You believe because of it that all protections should be afforded to those who show signs of having done what the criminal that hit me did while showing no concern for the innocent.
    no, you truly do not understand Libertarian beliefs. your simple mindedness has ascribed your own idiot tenants to anything other then conservatism and labeled them in a way that makes you feel superior, but makes you look ignorant.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  15. #89 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    ROFL ok kid.

    maybe we should execute all suspects on sight then, right? they must be guilty, after all LOL

    no, you truly do not understand Libertarian beliefs. your simple mindedness has ascribed your own idiot tenants to anything other then conservatism and labeled them in a way that makes you feel superior, but makes you look ignorant.
    Kid? Not hardly bitch.

    I am superior to you in more ways than one. That you don't realize it is one of those ways.

    Again, you would have me charged while not being guilty in order to protect a criminal. You claim the person that hit me has rights yet show no indication that I do. It's a good thing the police did what they did or a guilty person would have gotten away with a crime and upheld your libertarian outlook on how they should be treated.

  16. #90 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    so then the courts are always right. public safety trumps individual rights.

    BREITHAUPT V. ABRAM, 352 U. S. 432 (1957)

    (c) The right of the individual to immunity from such invasion of the body as is involved in a properly safeguarded blood test is far outweighed by the value of its deterrent effect due to public realization that the issue of driving while under the influence of alcohol can often by this method be taken out of the confusion of conflicting contentions. Pp. 352 U. S. 439-440.


    I find this quite pathetic, that rights can be judicially eliminated due to public pressure over some pressing societal need. we are no longer a free country, unless the courts say it is so.
    The rights of an innocent driver to be safe because you think some drunk driver can drink/drive without being subjected to a search rank higher than that drunk driver. To say otherwise proves you show more concern for that drunk driver.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2013, 05:17 PM
  2. JPP Weekends
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 06-11-2013, 03:04 PM
  3. This place sucks on the weekends.
    By /MSG/ in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-08-2011, 11:57 AM
  4. drug checkpoints vs dui checkpoints
    By SmarterthanYou in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-26-2011, 07:32 PM
  5. In two weekends...
    By Damocles in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 11:22 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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