 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 08:00 pm |
|
Great White wrote: Then thing is RC, that you have not even tried to reason.
I have laid out my position and the reasons for it. I have said my concern is not this instance in of itself. I have look forward and my concern is for the future implications.
For this you called me myopic i.e shortsighted. While you have a right to disagree, only fool would looking forward and having concern for the future to be shortsighted.
You on the other hand have have only said that you agree with the proposal., and that anybody that does not agree must be wearing a tinfoil hat, and be shortsighted.
You don't actually dispute my position in any way, or with any facts or reason. You're onlty defense is that I must be wearing a tinfoil hat, i.e am insane.
That's real compelling. - Any body that doesn't agree with you must be insane.
And you consider that to be trying to reason with somebody
You take foolish to new heights.
Not at all. Disagreeing with me is not a sign of insanity (though believing in mythological beings is). What is nutsy though is your paranoia and refusing to take into consideration that fact that we as a society must have certain restraints and not drinking and driving is one of them. Do you know or care how many people are killed or maimed by drunk drivers every day? It is not unreasonable in the least to take all necessary measures to save those lives. I guess it comes down to you not willing to believe this...until someone in your family meets a drunk head-on. I sincerely hope that never happens to you. I have seen it all too often.
Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 08:06 pm by Realitycheck
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 09:55 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Not at all. Disagreeing with me is not a sign of insanity (though believing in mythological beings is). What is nutsy though is your paranoia and refusing to take into consideration that fact that we as a society must have certain restraints and not drinking and driving is one of them. Do you know or care how many people are killed or maimed by drunk drivers every day? It is not unreasonable in the least to take all necessary measures to save those lives. I guess it comes down to you not willing to believe this...until someone in your family meets a drunk head-on. I sincerely hope that never happens to you. I have seen it all too often.
UH. Mythological beings? WTF are you on about
In any case, how about explaining how striping the presumption of innocence or the need for probable cause is being "paranoid" I have clearly said that it is not specifically what police could do with this power in this circumstance that is the issue, but the precedent it sets for stripping the presumption of innocence and the need for just cause. It won't stop here. Once the precedent is set, they will ALWAYS find other good cuases to apply this concept to. The list will grow and grow, and grow
It sounds to me like you are, or have been a cop. Only a cop would have the wherewithal to presume that the citizenship should accept that their Charted rights be forsaken and replaced with the expectation that the police (i.e.yourself) will act honourably with such powers. That said, if you were a cop, you should know damn well how many of them don't deserve that level of trust. Any good cop does.
As for "It is not unreasonable in the least to take all necessary measures to save those lives" . In fact it is unreasonable. We could just make travel by automobile illegal. No more car accidents at all, drunk or otherwise. That would save lives. Are you saying that wouldn't be unreasonable ? More specifically I am saying it IS unreasonable to strip our Chartered Rights.
Aside from that, nobody has shown with any empirical data, that this measure would actually help with the problem. The reality is this is a very emotional issue. Given the issue, of course it is, and they are strong emotions. But when people act on emotion instead of facts, bad things happen. Even if you could convince me that on a cost benefit balance, the cost of loosing our Rights is worth it, nobody has shown with anything other than emotional responses why we should allow this. You don't go stripping one of our most fundamental rights based on emotional responses. At least rational people don't
Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 09:59 pm by Great White
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 11:09 pm |
|
Rational people don't don't jump to conclusions predicated upon their own paranoia. The very fact that you have demonstrated a well-developed paranoia here, excludes you from the definition of "rational".
I note you studiously avoid discussing the lives which will be saved when police are permitted to make these stops.
I doubt you have the cojones to do the drive-along I suggested.
No, never been a cop, fire-fighter, ambulance attendant.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 11:44 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Rational people don't don't jump to conclusions predicated upon their own paranoia. The very fact that you have demonstrated a well-developed paranoia here, excludes you from the definition of "rational".
I note you studiously avoid discussing the lives which will be saved when police are permitted to make these stops.
I doubt you have the cojones to do the drive-along I suggested.
No, never been a cop, fire-fighter, ambulance attendant.
IOW you cannot actually address a single thing I said. All you can do is call a legitimate concern for the Rights of Canadians "paranoia".
And in fact I did discuss the lives that would be supposedly be saved in this passage :
"Aside from that, nobody has shown with any empirical data, that this measure would actually help with the problem."
Can you get anymore lame ?
As for the "ride-along" .
I should waste a day doing that becuase some pencil dick on this forum said I should?
Hardly.
And to what end ?
I am not disputing the horrors that drunk driving causes. I am well aware. I have lost friends to it.
So maybe you can stop wasting both of our times with that drivel.
Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 11:49 pm by Great White
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 11:54 pm |
|
Why don't you just stop wasting time period and take your paranoia to a psychiatric forum?
I didn't think you had the balls to do the drive-along.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 12:22 am |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Why don't you just stop wasting time period and take your paranoia to a psychiatric forum?
I didn't think you had the balls to do the drive-along.
This is all you've got isn't . Dismiss valid concerns held by many, and already validated as legitimate concerns by numerous legal professionals as "paranoia"
Can you explain why it's nothing but paranoia? Didn't think so
Why would I need to go on a ride along ? Why should waste time with such a silly notion just because you say so? Any explanation for that? Thought not.
No substance. Just B.S.
You are so lame
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 12:26 am |
|
I guess the National Post editorial board is just paranoid and wears tin foil hats ![[eyeroll]](/forums/themes/default/sarcasm.gif)
Drunk driving is a scourge, to be sure. But greater enforcement of existing laws -- which require police to establish a reasonable suspicion that a driver has been drinking before being permitted to administer the tests -- would be as much of a deterrent to impaired driving while doing far less harm to Canadians' venerable legal protection against unreasonable searches.
Government is the servant of the people, not the other way around. That means that no matter how noble are the public policy ends advocated by politicians -- such as reducing drunk-driving fatalities -- it is dangerous for citizens to surrender one of their few protections against arbitrary police action.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/06/national-post-editorial-board-no-to-random-breathalyzer-tests.aspx#
Last edited on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 12:26 am by Great White
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 12:29 am |
|
I guess the staff of the UOS paper are a bunch of alien abductees as well:
More importantly, the notion of roadside breathalyzer tests sets a dangerous precedent for pre-emptive policing. The application of breath tests to any or all passing motorists, regardless of whether they appear to be drunk, is untenable because it presumes drunkenness.
More specifically, breath tests at check stops undermine the fundamental principle of presumed innocence. To suggest that anyone, regardless of what they have allegedly done, is guilty and therefore subject to search is a pre-emptive, as opposed to a preventative, measure.
Citizens of this country who advocate the abuse of our charter rights and the use of pre-emptive law enforcement are delusional. No law, regardless of its potential benefits, can ever be justified if it coercively expropriates our fundamental rights.
http://thesheaf.com/2009/10/random-breathalyzer-tests-a-threat-to-our-rights/
Last edited on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 12:30 am by Great White
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 01:34 am |
|
Why don't you form a little club with these addlepated editorial writers? You can maybe get a group discount on aluminum foil.
As well, you sound increasingly like the anarchist/white supremecy types we have here on this forum.
Instead if making snide remarks, why not own up to the fact you haven't the balls to face the reality of doing a ride-along?
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 01:51 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Why don't you form a little club with these addlepated editorial writers? You can maybe get a group discount on aluminum foil. It's a given fact that this issue is a DIRECT affront to the Charter of Rights. Why don't you just admit that while you are of a different opinion, to which you are entitled, and do not care about the rights granted by the Charter being violated, there are numerous others in this country that have issue with it being violated. If can't wrap you head around these basic concepts, you should really be tested to help determine your affliction.
As well, you sound increasingly like the anarchist/white supremacy types we have here on this forum.
Yet another comment bred from ignorance
Instead if making snide remarks, why not own up to the fact you haven't the balls to face the reality of doing a ride-along?
You do realize that to participate in discussion here it isn't a requirement to go on field trips, do you not ? If this demand of your's really makes sense to you, you seriously need some help Last edited on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 01:53 pm by Great White
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 04:58 pm |
|
Great White wrote: Realitycheck wrote: Why don't you form a little club with these addlepated editorial writers? You can maybe get a group discount on aluminum foil. It's a given fact that this issue is a DIRECT affront to the Charter of Rights. Why don't you just admit that while you are of a different opinion, to which you are entitled, and do not care about the rights granted by the Charter being violated, there are numerous others in this country that have issue with it being violated. If can't wrap you head around these basic concepts, you should really be tested to help determine your affliction.
Where is your proof this is a "DIRECT" affront to the charter? All I see is your anarchist side being affronted.
As well, you sound increasingly like the anarchist/white supremacy types we have here on this forum. Yet another comment bred from ignorance
Rather, predicated on your posts.
Instead if making snide remarks, why not own up to the fact you haven't the balls to face the reality of doing a ride-along? You do realize that to participate in discussion here it isn't a requirement to go on field trips, do you not ? If this demand of your's really makes sense to you, you seriously need some help I have made no demands GW, merely a suggestion you get educated about the reality of the subject matter. A suggestion and a reality you clearly have not the courage to face up to. Whatsa matter, afraid you might get your mind changed? Go ahead, attend the accident scene, watch them remove people in pieces from the wreckage caused by yet another drunk driver...one who, had this law been in effect, might have been stopped in time. Listen to the screams of fear and agony as the paramedics and fire-rescue people do their best to save the lives of children injured and mutilated by a drunk driver...a drunk driver you would rather see still on the road in order to see your paranoia appeased.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 05:35 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: I have made no demands GW, merely a suggestion you get educated about the reality of the subject matter. A suggestion and a reality you clearly have not the courage to face up to. Whatsa matter, afraid you might get your mind changed? Go ahead, attend the accident scene, watch them remove people in pieces from the wreckage caused by yet another drunk driver...one who, had this law been in effect, might have been stopped in time. Listen to the screams of fear and agony as the paramedics and fire-rescue people do their best to save the lives of children injured and mutilated by a drunk driver...a drunk driver you would rather see still on the road in order to see your paranoia appeased.
The fact is the you continue to make this adsurd demand that I go on a ride along. If that were not these case , you wouldn't keep telling me to do it and we wouldn't still be talking about it.
You really need to get a grip on reality. I am well aware of the horrors drunk driving causes. Your continued assertions that I do not simply because I don't agree with you would seem indicative of some sort of serious comprehension issues.
Further, assertions that people concerned with a DIRECT and INDISPUTABLE violation of the rights granted by the Charter are simply paranoid and worthy of tin foil hats is beyond absurd. How does that even make sense to you? What good is the Charter if the rights it provides are dismissed as paranoid? How can you believe that the entire purpose of the document is to satisfy the paranoid ? As I have said before, I can see how one can make the argument that the violation is worth it, but to deny that it is a violation altogether is simply astounding. Only a complete non-thinker could keep up with such an absurd position.
Additionally, you make absurd accusations that I want to see drunks on the , yet have got the kahunas to address the simple fact that no one has shown this will address the problem. The reality is that the vast majority of the deaths are the result of drunks that are well into the realm in which "just cause" would be a slam dunk, and this proposal would have been irrelevant to their situation. So , why would would want to violate the Charter, for absolutely no net gain gain, based merely on emotion and not facts ?
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 05:41 pm |
|
Seems you are having a little problem with comprehension today GW.
First, where is your proof this proposal is contra to the constitution?
Second, I make no demands, merely a suggestion, a suggestion you clearly have no stomach for.
Thirdly, a Kahuna is a sort of Hawaiian priest and I assure you I have none of those.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahuna
Last, your paranoia is demonstrated in your every post. I just threw in the foil hats for laughs.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 06:04 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Seems you are having a little problem with comprehension today GW.
First, where is your proof this proposal is contra to the constitution? Proof that violating the presumption of innocence nad the requirement for just cause is a violation of the Charter? Are you kidding me? Even proponents of the measure recognize that is a fact, that a Charter challenge is a foregone conclusion, that this would occur and that it would then be up to the judiciary to determine whether it was a "justifiable" violation. It's a freaking foregone conclusion by everybody that knows what they are talking about , and you want me to "prove" it to you. What the heck is wrong with you?
Second, I make no demands, merely a suggestion,
If was merely a suggestion you would have stopped harping on it a suggestion you clearly have no stomach for. This is what you really believe? Seriously? It's doesn't even cross your mind that somebody may not have time for such a thing or cannot afford to loose a days pay, or is already well aware of the problem and that such would serve no purpose whatsoever? Are you really this f'in stupid ?
Thirdly, a Kahuna is a sort of Hawaiian priest and I assure you I have none of those.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahuna UH yeah, how about you take up the spell check issue with the admin, I don't have that kind of time
Last, your paranoia is demonstrated in your every post. I just threw in the foil hats for laughs. The only thing being demonstrated is your inability to comprehend that people can have differing opinions without being paranoid. Assertions that anybody that defends the Rights provided in the Charter is paranoid is an affront to ideals the Charter is based on on.
Last edited on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 06:08 pm by Great White
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 06:18 pm |
|
Great White wrote: Realitycheck wrote: Seems you are having a little problem with comprehension today GW.
First, where is your proof this proposal is contra to the constitution? Proof that violating the presumption of innocence nad the requirement for just cause is a violation of the Charter? Are you kidding me? Even proponents of the measure recognize that is a fact, that a Charter challenge is a foregone conclusion, that this would occur and that it would then be up to the judiciary to determine whether it was a "justifiable" violation. It's a freaking foregone conclusion by everybody that knows what they are talking about , and you want me to "prove" it to you. What the heck is wrong with you?
Simply show me that section of the charter which supports your paranoia.
Second, I make no demands, merely a suggestion, If was merely a suggestion you would have stopped harping on it
Getting to you huh? a suggestion you clearly have no stomach for. This is what you really believe? Seriously? It's doesn't even cross your mind that somebody may not have time for such a thing or cannot afford to loose a days pay, or is already well aware of the problem and that such would serve no purpose whatsoever? Are you really this f'in stupid ?
Such ride-alongs can be done at night, assuming you have a daytime job. Weekend nights would be best. But, don't worry about it, you will make any excuse you need to to avoid facing the reality. My point has been made, you havn't the cojones (is that the word you were groping for below?
Thirdly, a Kahuna is a sort of Hawaiian priest and I assure you I have none of those.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahuna UH yeah, how about you take up the spell check issue with the admin, I don't have that kind of time
It is not a spell check issue. It is about knowing what you are talking about and you clearly don't.
Last, your paranoia is demonstrated in your every post. I just threw in the foil hats for laughs. The only thing being demonstrated is your inability to comprehend that people can have differing opinions without being paranoid. Assertions that anybody that defends the Rights provided in the Charter is paranoid is an affront to ideals the Charter is based on on.
No problems with differing opinions Bud. You have yet to prove the proposal is contra the charter and you have done the thing typical of NDP types (not accusing you of being one...but), extrapolated from a goosebump, the end of the world. THAT, my fine feathered friend is paranoia.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 07:19 pm |
|
Simply show me that section of the charter which supports your paranoia.
For the terminally stupiod:
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html
SEARCH OR SEIZURE.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Such ride-alongs can be done at night, assuming you have a daytime job. Weekend nights would be best. But, don't worry about it, you will make any excuse you need to to avoid facing the reality. My point has been made, you havn't the cojones (is that the word you were groping for below?
What I have proven is twofold,
First - I don't have time to waste on pointless demands from a foolish poster on this forum
Second - that you keep making this mindless assertion, but have not yourself proven why it is necessary, nor have you shown that I do not undertstand the reality of which you refer.
No problems with differing opinions Bud. You have yet to prove the proposal is contra the charter and you have done the thing typical of NDP types (not accusing you of being one...but), extrapolated from a goosebump, the end of the world. THAT, my fine feathered friend is paranoia.
---------------------------------------------------------
The legislation appears to have all-party support, but there are concerns that the law might not survive a court challenge.
David Eby, the executive cirector of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, expressed worry about automatic testing from police.
"Canadians generally have a feeling that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a good thing, that being free from arbitrary search and detention at the whim of a police officer is a good thing," he said
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091005/breath_law_091005/20091005/?hub=TorontoNewHome
Concerns were raised by lawyers on how the proposed law circumvents the Charter of Rights and a persons right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
http://www.behindtheblueline.ca/blog/blueline/2009/10/06/random-breathalyzer-tests/
But don’t underestimate the Supreme Court’s reluctance to side with the politicians, cautions Frank Addario, president of the Criminal Lawyers Association. He says the proposed law would be “doomed” if subjected to a Charter challenge
http://www.thedrunkdrivingmasses.com/2009/10/opinion-random-breathalyzer-tests-could.html
I have shown it very clearly that this is a Charter issue . But more importantly, it's a given to everybody that discusses the issue. You're the only one disputing the violation, everybody else is well past that, and the debate now revolves around whether or not the violation is justifiable,
It's readily apparant that it in fact does run contrary to the Charter. Only a fool would deny that and try to assert that such a recognition constitutes paranoia.
If you want to discuss that issue, sure. But if you simply want to bury your head in the sand and deny the REALITY that everybody else already knows, then go waste somebody elses time.
Last edited on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 07:22 pm by Great White
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 07:31 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: It is not a spell check issue. It is about knowing what you are talking about and you clearly don't.
Says the guy that posted this:
You have yet to prove the proposal is contra the charter
-----------------------------------------
You do know the contra have nothing to do with this right? According to you OWN WORDS, you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about
Typos and spell check errors happen.
Taking issue with such things simply means you don't have anything else valid to say
Last edited on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 07:33 pm by Great White
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 09:30 pm |
|
Great White wrote: Realitycheck wrote: It is not a spell check issue. It is about knowing what you are talking about and you clearly don't.
Says the guy that posted this:
You have yet to prove the proposal is contra the charter
-----------------------------------------
You do know the contra have nothing to do with this right? According to you OWN WORDS, you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about
Typos and spell check errors happen.
Taking issue with such things simply means you don't have anything else valid to say
![[fallingdown]](/forums/themes/default/laughing.gif) Actually I am surprised, I thought you were better educated. Well, it is likely not your fault, so I suppose I should be finding your lack of knowledge more pitiable than funny.
"Contra", means "against" or "counter to". Had I wanted to speak of "The Contra" I would have capitalized it as I have shown in quotations. Further "Contra" is an acronym, not a proper word.
GW, you have proven yourself unwilling or unable to look into the devastation drunk drivers cause. You are unwilling or unable (likely because you can't) show me where the proposal is contra the Charter.
Your case is without merit and hereby dismissed.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 09:56 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote:
GW, you have proven yourself unwilling or unable to look into the devastation drunk drivers cause.
I challenge you to prove that I am unaware of devastation caused by drunk driving. You are unwilling or unable (likely because you can't) show me where the proposal is contra the Charter. I have directly cited the section of the charter in question. More over I have cited numerous links where people on both sides of the issue recognize such. You are clearly aware that it violates the charter and are simply being obtuse. Go waste somebody else's time.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 10:11 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Actually I am surprised, I thought you were better educated. Well, it is likely not your fault, so I suppose I should be finding your lack of knowledge more pitiable than funny.
"Contra", means "against" or "counter to".
Oh don't worry about, I got thru college and to this point in my life without a single person ever uttering the word contra as opposed to the far more recognized contrary. As I find it unlikley I run into any more as foolish as you, I'll get by.
But hey, I'm glad that Word of the Day Calander you've got is doing what it is supposed to. Making you feel smarter than you actually are. Little other reason anybody would use that word. Kudos for you.
|
Current time is 12:39 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
|
