Massachusetts may get a lot worse for driving.

In article >, Bill Funk wrote:

> Most people don't check cites. They rely on the 'reporter' to get the
> facts right.

I rutinely check cites. I'll do it less often with sources that I know
there bias and have rutinely show themselves not to run wild with the
facts. In many cases what I present here is the cite of another article I
read.

> I'm just pointing out an obviously biased article, which shows the
> agenda of the site.

Thank you captain obvious. A reading of their page header would have told
you that.

In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2006 11:01:07 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
>>> I didn't say otherwise.
>>> I'm just pointing out an obviously biased article, which shows the
>>> agenda of the site.
>>
>>Bias or no, the article makes it pretty clear that more roadblocks
>>would be mandated. That certainly should be cause for concern for
>>anyone that gives a rat's ass about civil liberties or the Bill of
>>Rights. either that or the reporter was flat out lying.
>
> Tjhe article was about insurance, not any Constitutional rights.

Last paragraph:
"Reilly's other changes would increase the amount of ticketing by police
officers. First, he would mandate a minimum number of roadblocks to be
set up at random to search motorists not suspected of any wrongdoing. "

> The roadblocks in this case are to people doing really stupid things,
> and expecting someone else to pay for it.
> Seems reasonable to me.

You can't roadblock specific vehicles, everyone is stopped and checked
out. Of course the state says it's only to ticket people doing "really
stupid things" so people like you will climb on board with it. Meanwhile
those of us concerned with our basic rights don't want to be hassled so
government can play parent to the the stupid. (while profiting from it)

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2006 11:01:07 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> >> I didn't say otherwise.
> >> I'm just pointing out an obviously biased article, which shows the
> >> agenda of the site.
> >
> >Bias or no, the article makes it pretty clear that more roadblocks
> >would be mandated. That certainly should be cause for concern for
> >anyone that gives a rat's ass about civil liberties or the Bill of
> >Rights. either that or the reporter was flat out lying.
>
> Tjhe article was about insurance, not any Constitutional rights.
> The roadblocks in this case are to people doing really stupid things,
> and expecting someone else to pay for it.
> Seems reasonable to me.

IMHO the only defensible use of a roadblock is when there's a clear
danger to the general public if one is not used, as in the case of an
escaped convict, dangerous criminal on the loose, etc. that can be
clearly stated. A roadblock used as a fishing expedition is never
"reasonable." I'm not really seeing how *any* kind of roadblock other
than that which I described above wouldn't be a violation of the Fourth
Amendment.

nate

N8N wrote:

> IMHO the only defensible use of a roadblock is when there's a clear
> danger to the general public if one is not used, as in the case of an
> escaped convict, dangerous criminal on the loose, etc. that can be
> clearly stated.

That was the case at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA on Monday. Many
roads were blocked off while police conducted a manhunt. Unfortunately,
one of them was killed on the same bike trail I usually ride on.

> I'm not really seeing how *any* kind of roadblock other
> than that which I described above wouldn't be a violation of the Fourth
> Amendment.

Agreed. In fact, the habit of police putting up unnecessary road blocks
lead me to take actions to put myself in more danger than I would have
been in otherwise. When I saw a road block up ahead while driving, I
just thought it was a waste of time DUI or seatbelt "routine checkpoint"
and made a u-turn to go back to my place to get my bike. It was only
after I reached another roadblock on my bike and found out about the
situation that I realized the danger I put myself in.

If police weren't in the habit of setting up frivolous checkpoints, then
I wouldn't have bothered to take my bike in the first place.

Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able
to deliver any clue to the following address: Speeders & Drunk Drivers
are MURDERERS >
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.


>On 22 Aug 2006 10:59:52 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> You deadly reckless drivers bring all this on yourself. Stop killing
>>> and maiming innocent people with your speeding and drunk driving and
>>> we wouldn't need police state tactics to stop you.
>>
>>Name ONE person that I've killed, injured, or even mildly
>>inconvenienced. Just one.
>>
>
>Now that is really stupid. And i suppose we should also let people
>walk into banks with guns and leave them alone until they actually
>shoot someone!!! THINK YOU MORON.
>

Nice of you to address the issue, moron. No wonder you lose all your
arguments.


---

"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973

--

El Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...6999983?hl=en&

Ragnar wrote:
> Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're
> the Fool.

This is no joke.

Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able
to deliver any clue to the following address: laura bush - VEHICULAR
HOMICIDE >
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.


>You deadly reckless drivers bring all this on yourself. Stop killing
>and maiming innocent people with your speeding and drunk driving and
>we wouldn't need police state tactics to stop you.

LMAO. If the police were stopping it, it wouldn't be happening. Just
like murder. Damned you're stupid, but you enjoy that obviously.


---

"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973

--

El Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...6999983?hl=en&

Ragnar wrote:
> Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're
> the Fool.

This is no joke.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk
Drivers are MURDERERS, proud (and obvious) graduate of the South Hampton
Institute of Technology, polluted rec.autos.driving with this crap:

> Now that is really stupid. And i suppose we should also let people
> walk into banks with guns and leave them alone until they actually
> shoot someone!!! THINK YOU MORON.

Nice to see that even with the new nym, you are still as funny as ever
and equally adept at avoiding the issue and not answering the question.

Now then, why don't you just DIAF, loser?



--
C onsortium of
I mbeciles &
A ssholes

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2006 10:59:52 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>You deadly reckless drivers bring all this on yourself. Stop killing
>>>and maiming innocent people with your speeding and drunk driving and
>>>we wouldn't need police state tactics to stop you.
>>
>>Name ONE person that I've killed, injured, or even mildly
>>inconvenienced. Just one.
>>
>
>
> Now that is really stupid. And i suppose we should also let people
> walk into banks with guns and leave them alone until they actually
> shoot someone!!! THINK YOU MORON.

What would be wrong with allowing law abiding citizens to carry guns?
It would be nice for a change to have people taking responsibility for
their own safety rather than having to rely on the police.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:03:02 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> Most people don't check cites. They rely on the 'reporter' to get the
>> facts right.
>
>I rutinely check cites. I'll do it less often with sources that I know
>there bias and have rutinely show themselves not to run wild with the
>facts. In many cases what I present here is the cite of another article I
>read.

Congratulations!
And this applies to most people, how?
>
>> I'm just pointing out an obviously biased article, which shows the
>> agenda of the site.
>
>Thank you captain obvious. A reading of their page header would have told
>you that.
>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"