Of course nothing is going to change. They believe they own us. We should be thankful for the rights they still allow us to have. I guess it boils down to the level of government repression you're comfortable with.

_________________
We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails.- Eric Hoffer

Give them an inch they will take a mile...

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I completely disagree. Even if your rights are mildly stepped on you should fight it tooth and nail.
It's like the trademark infringement lawsuits you see. I love this analogy.
The reason that monster cable files those silly ass lawsuits against other companies using Monster in their name is because if you DON'T fight to protect your logo or trademark, you literally lose it or the rights to fight other infringements. I'm not sure of exactly how it works because I'm not an Irish Boy but that's the laymans way of explaining it.

Our government has a way of conditioning Americans to the slow erosion of your rights.

You have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, and there must be probable cause to enforce a search. IN the case of roadblocks, your effects (car) and your person are being searched without probable cause. Like I said even the supreme court agrees that Roadblocks are unconstitutional.

I don't see a blatient unconstitutional action being a "mild inconvenience" at all. I see it being a direct assault on Americans who have rights, regardless if they inconvenience law enforcement.

For the record I hate the law that they manipulated to nail Peterson, it's shitty and it's unconstitutional and I hope to hell his appeal succeeds even though I think he's a murdering son of a bitch.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I would argue that states rights are trumped by the constitution. In other words a state would have no right to enforce a state religion.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I think it's more important to fight the "right" battles. You'll find more people willing to join a cause that way. A majority focusing their energy on one thing is more powerful than many people fighting pointless battles. IMO an inconvenient road check is pointless. Cops have been using road checks for many things for decades.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

I couldn't disagree more. Your 4th amendment rights are worth dying for. If not for your sake for your childrens sake. That's like one of the greatest protections we have from our government.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I'm in complete agreement with you on this but disagree with your interpretation of everything else.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Well, I guess I'll have to live with that.
Peace.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

What if the government said McCown had to start this weekend?

Rebellion.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Sounds eerily similar to the reasoning put forth by the present administration after the CT school shooting.

_________________

They can take away our arms just don't touch this:

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

On Christmas Eve at 11:15pm, a Chevy Impala rolled over and struck a tree in the 1000 block of West Garfield Blvd. The roof of the car was caved in and a crew from the Fire department spent over 40 minutes getting the 26 year old man who had been driving the vehicle out of the wreck. While getting him out, they discovered the 8 year old Lauren Smith, who was a passenger in the vehicle. She was taken to Comer Childrens Hospital, where she died shortly after her arrival. The driver was impaired in the alcohol related crash and is currently in critical condition at Stroger Hospital. He is expected to survive the accident, unlike the 8 year old.

Are check-points inconvenient?.....of course. Red Light cameras and the new speed cameras are aimed less at protecting anyone than they are at raising revenue. Many are really sick of Big Brother monitoring their every move. But these check-points save lives. Not only can they detect/arrest drunk drivers, but knowing these check-points are out there, probably keeps many people from over indulging. Knowing they may well be put through a sobriety test probably keeps the alcohol consumption of many at a more moderate level. Only an idiot complains about his/her rights being infringed upon by these check-points. Nobody has the "right" to over-indulge alcohol and then get behind the wheel of a car and put innocent people in danger. The job of a Police Officer is to "protect and serve" and protecting innocent citizens from those who would negligently put them in danger, is an easy call.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

IIRC (and at midnight I'm not checking) the SCt found certain types of roadside checks unconstitutional, not the stops in general themselves. The ones in question gave undue discretion to police officers to make the stops. Of course it was argued/proven that the officers had a greater history of stopping minorities or others "that didn't seem to belong around there".

I recall the Court saying that "every fifth car" or more routine stops were ok, as were/are stops where obvious probable cause could be enumerated. Just the "allegedly random" (and typical) stops were in violation of federal civil rights & Constitutional protections.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

I'm sure that little Lauren Smith's family appreciates your crocodile tears.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

As a member of a race that had no rights under the first 95 years of this country's existence I respectfully disagree. As a member of a group that still had few effective rights until government action about 45-48 years ago, I cannot disagree with enough vigor.

As a member of that same race that is watching a substantial % of our groups' voting rights and public benefits being rolled back under the rubric of (republican) states' rights & freedom from the federal govt, I strenuously disagree.

My mother, who by virtue of her gender couldn't vote everywhere in this country until 93 years ago, would concur.

As someone who believes in labor laws, public education, civil rights, clean food/air/water that expanded my "rights" (including certain privacy ) I'd argue that generally the opposite has been more done & more beneficial on an individual rights basis. I'd suggest that this would be the appropriate place for Seacrest to renew his red herring discussions.

Pardon me but I generally find a comfort in the unfortunate truism that most of the folks now arguing about the slow erosion of "our" rights have no interest in protecting any of "my" rights. Not you, mind you, but most of your com"patriots".

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

If you are so interested in saving lives, then why allow people to drive at all? The highway signage reminds me every time as I drive that literally hundreds of people died in cars. Let's ban them. OK, that may be silly... please show me where these check points save lives... stats would be nice. Supreme Court Justice Stevens said that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." The only formally documented research regarding deterrence is a survey of Maryland's "Checkpoint Strikeforce" program. The survey found no deterrent effect: "To date, there is no evidence to indicate that this campaign, which involves a number of sobriety checkpoints and media activities to promote these efforts, has had any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors, or alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and injuries. This conclusion is drawn after examining statistics for alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving, and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk."

You keep pointing out incidents where people die, but what if they can pull it together for the two seconds through the check point and then they die? What about your check points then? Maybe people would be afraid of getting the tickets/fines/suspensions and do something they normally wouldn't do, like try to blow through it at high speeds?



Three people died because of a checkpoint. Well, they may have died anyway, but the point is no less valid than your opinion that these other deaths would have been stopped with checkpoints. You're implying that these people died because checkpoints did not exist when they were driving, and that's just something only an idiot would claim. Perhaps your argument would be better if you looked into saturation patrols?

One thing that is typically glossed over in these conversations is the level of drunkenness. And yes, it plays a big factor. Someone operating at a 0.12 BAC is going to drive much better, in general, than someone with a BAC of 0.36. I do not know the tested BAC levels of the perps you've listed ES, but I'm guessing they were more hammered than a 0.12. I'm guesstimating at least a 0.25 on those guys. And if you are at a 0.25 and are considering driving, you probably aren't reasoning that well, and you probably just want to drive wherever you want.

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas

I think sometimes I come off as if I'm a champion of drunk driving, and that really isn't the case. I certainly don't think driving around blown out of one's mind is a great thing. But we have to look at reality. We're a society that loves cars and loves alcohol. That being the case, there is going to be drunk driving. We've already tried to eliminate alcohol once. Remind me again, how did that work out? We can eliminate cars. Personally, I'd have no problem with that. But then, I'm likely one of the few guys posting in this forum who knows how to hitch up a trotter and drive him to work. More practically, we could install an Intoxalock in every vehicle. Problem solved, right? You think people are howling over the Snowden leaks? I can't wait to hear them when they have to blow every five miles.

Like most laws, the crack down on drunk driving is an attack on the lower class. The rich guy just throws his money at limo and taxi drivers. Besides that, if safety is really our concern, there are a lot of unsafe sober drivers out there. The roads would get much, much safer if we eliminated drivers under 26 and over 65. And that's what we're after, right?

Finally- and this gets right to the heart of the sentence I quoted from newper above- I recently watched a program about the rape of the girl in Steubenville, Ohio. She was obviously very drunk and she was likely in no condition to consent to anything. But several witnesses testified that she was conscious and speaking. Two guys are sitting in jail based upon the concept that she was incapable of making a judgment to engage in sex. But if that same girl, in that same condition, on that same night, had walked out to a car, started it up, and began driving it home, suddenly she would no longer be a helpless victim and a sympathetic character, but a dangerous arch criminal who should be behind bars.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Honestly. Thinks about that bolded portion. If there was care and concern for safety why are they not included as are seat belts?

_________________
Elections have consequences.

2 pages on the erosion of our rights and not one post asking when we're gonna repeal the Patriot Act. Shocking for this site. Shocking.

Maybe if we just re-named them "terror checks" people like Darko would be ok with them

Obviously, vehicular travel is necessary for the transportation of people and products on the streets and highways of the nation. Making travel as efficient and safe as possible is the chief concern of the department of Transportation. Having impaired drivers on the road negatively impacts the equation and adds a tremendous danger to other drivers of vehicles, passengers in vehicles as well as the efficient transportation of vehicles on the roadway. Lets face it, accidents are not only likely to cause injury and death, but cause lengthy delays in traffic patterns.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

Didn't save the peoples lives in your first paragraph. And countless others.
Also, cite your claim's data. I would like to see proof that check points save lives rather than claims with no data.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

The Patriot Act is just another in a long list of things that make people safer but really just end up costing us more freedom. Americans seem willing to trade freedom for perceived safety....

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Interesting. I like these kinds of conversations, particularly with people like you, because you have a way of helping me see things thru your eyes. That is fascinating stuff.

I think what I'm trying to say is that our government is eroding our (as in everybody's) rights. We have lost some of our 4th amendment protections against illegal searches and seizure due to things like the NSA programs that are in the news, we lose our 2nd amendment rights, slowly mind you (as if to condition you to the loss of the right slowly) by banning some guns, and telling us which ones we don't "need". We're told we don't "need" a certain gun for hunting. Once we've been conditioned to accept that, we can be told which next we don't "need". As if "need" had anything to do with the 2nd amendment.

Then we're told bullshit like "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear". That is like gospel for those who are willing to have their rights eroded or are willing to be the people to take your rights. We're fed bullshit propaganda wording rights theft as"Patriotic" like the propaganda king of the 21st century "Patriot Act". That is positively sickening that they've got the nerve to call it that. Hell, patriotic would be to destroy it, not embrace it.

We're told that things like the patriot act, the abuse of the 4th amendment cataloged above, the abuse of the 2nd amendment above are for the greater good. Whose greater good is my question. Are we safer with the government having records of when you spoke to your auntie and for how long? Does monitoring me speaking with my wife about what I'm gonna pick up for dinner save lives from terrorism?

I agree that things are improved in your lifetime for your particular demographic. I pray that things do not decline for all our demographics from here out. I'd hate to say that we peaked in the early 2000's in terms of civil liberty.

Preserving our rights is something that is an ongoing task for all of us. Once we accept a DUI roadblock, how long until we begin to accept other kinds of roadblocks, naturally with a DUI roadblock being the precedent? Maybe a search of your car to make sure your aren't carrying one of those guns you don't "need"? Then once they're in your car, why not check "random" houses for illegal weapons? Aren't hardcore drugs like reefer the scourge of the century? Imagine if they could randomly check out houses, looking for drugs, would that deter people from buying them, using them, dying from them and killing others in the business of distributing them? I bet it would. And really is that all that different from a roadblock?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

There really can't be any hard data to prove this. The assumption is taking people off the roads who were drunk may have saved at least 1 life. I don't think that is unreasonable to believe.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

There's no proof that this is true. If you say something with such certainty, the proof should be readily available.
If there's no hard data, it's not something to just say is true, its a hypotheses.
Perhaps nitpicking but that's how this works.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

IMO the 2nd Amendment argument is the worst. No gun rights have been taken away. In fact it is just the opposite.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Surely you are aware of why their isn't any concrete evidence. That drunk driver that was arrested DID NOT cause an accident and injure himself or anyone else because they were arrested. Is it possible he/she would have made it home without causing an accident? Sure. It's even more likely that they would not have though.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Really? That's odd, someone just told me a few days ago that we're a retired justice away from the overturn of Roe v. Wade and Mcdonald v. Chicago and Heller v. DC.
Until a couple years ago if you lived in Chicago your rights were restricted. Granted there's a relaxing of the ban but many choices are banned and they're trying to ban more all the time. magazine size restrictions, ammo limits....
I think I do get your point, that recently 2nd amendment rights have been affirmed and they have, so I would agree with you there, but my larger point is the method of eroding rights outlined above, claim that some guns do not fulfill legitimate "needs" and slowly acclimate the public to accepting that.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014