View Single Post
Old 12-21-2007, 11:05 PM   #48 (permalink)
Willravel
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
wow. I thought we had been told about the attacks and so I asked you a set of serious questions, expecting some serious answers and you come back with an attempted rip of my previous posts? Were you unable to answer my serious questions honestly?
Your question was about your perception. I proved your perception wrong. I'll try to put it more simply:
A slippery slope:

It's an idea that if one thing happens, it stands to reason that another more serious thing will happen. The problem, of course, is that you said people suspected of DUI will be forced to have a blood test, and it stands to reason that a holocaust will follow:

Everyone else in the world disagrees, and here's why. Blood being drawn forcefully from people suspected of a DUI could result in people suing the police department and losing. That could lead to more blood being drawn because some officers might abuse this. That's the worst case scenario in this, not the systematic killing of an entire race of people. Maybe you can give us a reasonable chain of events that starts with this DUI thing and leads directly to a holocaust?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
this only shows that you don't know how to read the constitution or the bill of rights.
You mean the 1,350th amendment that doesn't allow the government to take blood?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Now, if you're unable to answer the questions that I posed to you, maybe you should posting other non-sensical crap and attacks?
Wow, so I'm attacking you by making you call people sheep? The questions you posed presupposed things that aren't true. The government has not been consistently becoming more Orwellian. It has over the past 7 years, but in a year or so things will slide back a bit (because libertarianism and authoritarianism work in cycles).

Having your blood not taken isn't a legal right (as I've said before). A "right" that's not supported by law isn't a right that the state has to recognize. Therefore, the state does not have to recognize the right to bodily fluids.
Willravel is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360