fox 5 news car accidents image
holeymoley
After a century of the relentless trashing of our Constitution the progressives have achieved their goal of "changing America":
8/31/1910 Osawatomie, Kansas, Rep. president Teddy Roosevelt defines the progressive agenda: national health care, social security and the championing of unions (the vanguard of all "progressive" movements). TR said, âThis, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think WE HAVE GOT TO FACE THE FACT THAT SUCH AN INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT CONTROL IS NOW NECESSARY."
Dem. pres. Wilson (1913-21): âYou are not here merely to make a living. YOU ARE HERE TO ENABLE THE WORLD TO LIVE MORE AMPLY..."
FDRâs âSecond Bill of Rightsâ included the ârightâ: to âearn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreationâ; of every family to a âdecent homeâ; âto be free from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.â (Speech to Congress on 1/11/44)
LBJâs Great Society spent trillions on those ârights.â
In fact, Americaâs semi-capitalist system provided those ârightsâ in such abundance that tens of millions of Europeans fled their welfare state nations to come here. But none of that matters to democrats. They will force us to accept their agenda:
Democrats dominate the major media.
How Americans saw the mainstream media (TV and print) election coverage in 2008:
-Rasmussen poll: 69% for Obama, 6% for McCain
-Pew Research poll: 67% for Obama, 11% for McCain
-Sacred Heart University poll: 68% for Obama, 9% for McCain
-Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll: 67% for Obama, 11% for McCain
U. of Cal. Department of Public Policy survey of journalists, nationwide: During the 2008 election 52% supported Obama, 19% McCain.
8/15/12 Rasmussen Poll: 59% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the media favored Obama, 18% Romney.
Number of Republican president candidates the New York Times endorsed since 1960? NONE.
The pro-democrat media has ten times more viewers than pro-Republican Fox News and democrats resent even that slight opposition to their dogma:
5/25/11 huffingtonpost.com: NBC Nightly News averaged 9.469 million viewers, ABC's World News 8.380 million; CBS Evening News 6.204 million; among cable networks, Fox News 2.556 million.
Democrats dominate the government K-12 âeducationâ system.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php⦠Top All-Time [political campaign] Donors, 1989-2012:
-The NEA (the biggest teachersâ union) gave $43,613,263: 71% to democrats, 5% to Republicans.
-The AFT (NYâs teachersâ union) gave $34,698,466: 86% to democrats, 0% to Republicans.
They dominate the universities.
3/29/05 Washington Post: âCollege faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.â
-72% of higher education teachers are liberal, 15% conservative
-50% identified themselves as democrat, 11% republican
-At elite schools: 87% are liberal, 13% conservative.
April 2012 report on American universities http://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf: âIn some areas it [liberal dominance] is so extreme that it amounts to virtual exclusion of any but left-of-center faculty members.â
5/20/12 L. A. Times: âAt the University of California at Berkeley the ratio of Democrats to Republicans even in the hard sciences had grown to 10 to 1 in 2004, many times what it was 30 years ago...â âIn the humanities and social sciences the ratios were 17 to 1 and 21 to 1, respectively.â
They dominate Hollywood, ipso facto -- no documentation required.
They dominate government unions:
10/21/10 Wall Street Journal: The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections. It gave 0% to Republicans between 1989 and 2012.
The result of this pervasive, relentless dominance?
-2/4/10 Gallup poll: 61% of liberals have a positive view of socialism.
-6/2/11 Gallup poll: 71% of democrats favor re-distributing wealth.
-9/6-9/2012 http://www.gallup.com/poll/157481/majori: Those who want more government control over us: Republicans 15%; Independents, 29%; Democrats 67%.
-Now they have national health care, the foundation of all welfare and socialist states.
And now Obama will appoint progressives to the Supreme Court.
-------------
We are not longer a Republic, just as Ben Franklin predicted: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Weâre now a democracy, about which the Founders observed:
Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.â
Ben Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.â
Answer
Absolutely NOT! It can be amended. What we're doing now -- Despotism by Executive Order -- is madness. And Obama is, by no means, the first. We haven't had a Constitutionally adherent president for over a century, IMHO.
--
By the way, per your answer to my recent question regarding mega-cities: I do not agree with the concept of tiny living spaces which is exactly why I believe we must build UP instead of OUT all the time. And I've lived in some of the tiny spaces you mentioned, though in Asia. Since the world around was suited to the situation, it sort of worked. I really wanted to get outside a lot, though; I must say.
We'll only be forced to live in cramped spaces if we breed like bunnies and start families at 14 yrs old like many of my tenants (not exaggerating!).
As to the cars... hm... I grew up on a dealership and came to see cars as an aggravation and necessary evil. They're a pile of metal whether the priciest luxury/sport or the cheapest Yugo. If it does its job, fine. If not, what a pain.
In vertical cities, we need neither public transport nor a billion cars as a person can use the elevator for half the trip and walk or bike the rest of the trip. Many times, one need never go outside into the weather.
Absolutely NOT! It can be amended. What we're doing now -- Despotism by Executive Order -- is madness. And Obama is, by no means, the first. We haven't had a Constitutionally adherent president for over a century, IMHO.
--
By the way, per your answer to my recent question regarding mega-cities: I do not agree with the concept of tiny living spaces which is exactly why I believe we must build UP instead of OUT all the time. And I've lived in some of the tiny spaces you mentioned, though in Asia. Since the world around was suited to the situation, it sort of worked. I really wanted to get outside a lot, though; I must say.
We'll only be forced to live in cramped spaces if we breed like bunnies and start families at 14 yrs old like many of my tenants (not exaggerating!).
As to the cars... hm... I grew up on a dealership and came to see cars as an aggravation and necessary evil. They're a pile of metal whether the priciest luxury/sport or the cheapest Yugo. If it does its job, fine. If not, what a pain.
In vertical cities, we need neither public transport nor a billion cars as a person can use the elevator for half the trip and walk or bike the rest of the trip. Many times, one need never go outside into the weather.
The # 1 killer or destroyer of human life isn't war, rape, or gun. It's drunk drivers. Why NEWS full of former
serving fr
More people have been killed by drunk drivers then in all our wars combined. 95% of the alcohol consumed in USA is by only 5% of the population. Do you drink more then 5 drinks per week, your one of the 5%. The reason you might think so is all of your friends drink. Do their children, grandmothers? Nothing is wrong with drinking, only when it is excessive or done in an illegal way, (while driving, or minors). Some think it terrible we are in war and our people are dying, so do I! There have been 3000 plus killed in the total conflict. But almost as many die on our roadways every year because of drunk drivers. When they are caught, we send them to AA, but AA has a 85% failure rate! We send them to jail or prison but their recidivism rate is higher then almost all other crimes. Should we do as some of the Arab nations do and just pull them out of their cars and SHOOT THEM ON THE SPOT? The NEWS wants you to FEAR TERRORIST, GUNS, & SEX OFFENDERS but almost ignore "FEAR THE DRUNK DRIVER.
Answer
Yes, drunk driving is serious, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. You've fallen for the fear tactics of MADD, Fox News, or some other agency that makes money off of scaring you.
Tobacco kills 16 times as many people as ALL types of motor vehicle accidents, whether alcohol was involved or not.
Did you know that if a driver who had one beer and is stopped at a traffic light gets killed by someone slamming into them who was not drinking, that accident gets reported as an "alcohol-related" accident in several states?
Here's one of the best sites I've seen for keeping a proper perspective on drinking and driving:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/index.html
From one of the articles there entitled "Lower DUI Thresholds More Dangerous?":
"In 1992, the Supreme Court gave its consent to random sobriety checkpoint roadblocks, despite conceding that they are probably a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled that the threat to highway safety posed by drunk driving justifies suspending our constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure, as well as our Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Drunk driving activists seized on the ruling and moved to employ roadblocks all over the country.
Critics of roadblocks and .08 predicted that (1) the lower standard would actually cause an increase in drunk driving deaths, as scarce law enforcement resources are diverted toward motorists who don't pose a real threat to highway safety and away from the "hardcore" drunks that do; and (2) these roadblocks will be set up under the guise of drunk driving, but will in effect become little more than revenue generators, as police use them to issue citations for any number of less serious infractions.
Both predictions have proven true. From 2000 to 2003, drunk-driving deaths began to inch upward again, after two decades of decline. In March of this year, the National Transportation Safety Board conceded as much in a newsletter, warning that, "Americans are more aware than ever before of the dangers of drinking and driving. Few realize, however, that drunk driving fatalities continue to rise -- and that thousands of them are caused by extreme or repeat offenders known as 'hard core drinking drivers.'"
The release noted that these hardcore offenders produce 40 percent of traffic accidents, but comprise just 33 percent of arrests. If we look at fatalities, the numbers are worse: People with a blood alcohol content (BAC) above .10 account for 77 percent of alcohol-related fatalities (the average drunk driving fatality involves a BAC of .17). In other words, motorists with very high blood alcohol levels account for an increasing percentage of highway fatalities, but a decreasing percentage of arrests. Of course, the federal government still doesn't get it. The top bullet point in the NTSB's press release's action agenda was to install yet more "frequent and statewide sobriety checkpoints."
Last year the number of alcohol-related fatalities went down a bit. But deaths actually increased in states that use roadblocks. The overall drop came almost entirely from the handful of states that don't use roadblocks. Roadblocks are designed to catch motorists who aren't driving erratically enough to be caught by conventional means -- and consequently, aren't as much of a threat. Given that the sites are generally well-publicized, hardcore drinkers know to avoid them.
Roadblocks have also turned into naked money-generators. A study of five Sacramento roadblocks found 22 suspected DUI arrests, but 315 citations and 215 vehicle confiscations for unrelated offenses. A newspaper account of a North Carolina roadblock reported 45 non-DWI offenses and just 3 suspected DWIs. A study of a recent San Diego roadblock found 1,169 stops, 27 citations, 10 vehicles impounded -- and one DUI arrest. Here in D.C., police have been criticized for keeping a database of personal information collected from all motorists stopped at roadblocks -- even those accused of no infraction at all. Many police departments have grown so frustrated with the process that they've given up roadblocks altogether, as well as the federal funding that comes with them."
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1133834173.html
I do not drink, nor have I had a DUI during my drinking days.
Yes, drunk driving is serious, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. You've fallen for the fear tactics of MADD, Fox News, or some other agency that makes money off of scaring you.
Tobacco kills 16 times as many people as ALL types of motor vehicle accidents, whether alcohol was involved or not.
Did you know that if a driver who had one beer and is stopped at a traffic light gets killed by someone slamming into them who was not drinking, that accident gets reported as an "alcohol-related" accident in several states?
Here's one of the best sites I've seen for keeping a proper perspective on drinking and driving:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/index.html
From one of the articles there entitled "Lower DUI Thresholds More Dangerous?":
"In 1992, the Supreme Court gave its consent to random sobriety checkpoint roadblocks, despite conceding that they are probably a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled that the threat to highway safety posed by drunk driving justifies suspending our constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure, as well as our Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Drunk driving activists seized on the ruling and moved to employ roadblocks all over the country.
Critics of roadblocks and .08 predicted that (1) the lower standard would actually cause an increase in drunk driving deaths, as scarce law enforcement resources are diverted toward motorists who don't pose a real threat to highway safety and away from the "hardcore" drunks that do; and (2) these roadblocks will be set up under the guise of drunk driving, but will in effect become little more than revenue generators, as police use them to issue citations for any number of less serious infractions.
Both predictions have proven true. From 2000 to 2003, drunk-driving deaths began to inch upward again, after two decades of decline. In March of this year, the National Transportation Safety Board conceded as much in a newsletter, warning that, "Americans are more aware than ever before of the dangers of drinking and driving. Few realize, however, that drunk driving fatalities continue to rise -- and that thousands of them are caused by extreme or repeat offenders known as 'hard core drinking drivers.'"
The release noted that these hardcore offenders produce 40 percent of traffic accidents, but comprise just 33 percent of arrests. If we look at fatalities, the numbers are worse: People with a blood alcohol content (BAC) above .10 account for 77 percent of alcohol-related fatalities (the average drunk driving fatality involves a BAC of .17). In other words, motorists with very high blood alcohol levels account for an increasing percentage of highway fatalities, but a decreasing percentage of arrests. Of course, the federal government still doesn't get it. The top bullet point in the NTSB's press release's action agenda was to install yet more "frequent and statewide sobriety checkpoints."
Last year the number of alcohol-related fatalities went down a bit. But deaths actually increased in states that use roadblocks. The overall drop came almost entirely from the handful of states that don't use roadblocks. Roadblocks are designed to catch motorists who aren't driving erratically enough to be caught by conventional means -- and consequently, aren't as much of a threat. Given that the sites are generally well-publicized, hardcore drinkers know to avoid them.
Roadblocks have also turned into naked money-generators. A study of five Sacramento roadblocks found 22 suspected DUI arrests, but 315 citations and 215 vehicle confiscations for unrelated offenses. A newspaper account of a North Carolina roadblock reported 45 non-DWI offenses and just 3 suspected DWIs. A study of a recent San Diego roadblock found 1,169 stops, 27 citations, 10 vehicles impounded -- and one DUI arrest. Here in D.C., police have been criticized for keeping a database of personal information collected from all motorists stopped at roadblocks -- even those accused of no infraction at all. Many police departments have grown so frustrated with the process that they've given up roadblocks altogether, as well as the federal funding that comes with them."
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1133834173.html
I do not drink, nor have I had a DUI during my drinking days.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment