So I was driving through the ghetto yesterday.....

[tec699]

YOU see what you started Scarp? Do you see!!??

I hope you can live with yourself.

:|

 

[MercenaryForHire]

We're spending entirely too much time arguing over the morality of this and not enough flaming Scarpozzi for drinking Bitch Beer. 😛

- M4H

 

[moshquerade]

.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi

Originally posted by: SampSon
Very poor taste in beer.

I was in the ghetto in a food lion. The only other singles they had were ice house and malt liquors...as stated by others in the thread. I didn't want to even feel remotely buzzed by the beer. Btw...I'm 230. On a full stomach of crappy cold chicken, it's going to take at least 2 more beers to get me buzzed...maybe 3 since Coors light is so weak.

you drink beer while driving often?

First timer. I know what I did was illegal...but I was in the ghetto... 😉

When in Rome.... 😛

There was no apparent danger anywhere...traffic was light, and I was definitely just cruising and playing some Van Halen. I do feel bad for those who have lost their lives due to drunk drivers. Drunk driving isn't something I support or practice if I can help it. However, I know my limits and certainly know I'll never have a problem with alcoholism. I've got a good tolerance built up lately because I'm going to be partying hard next weekend...so I've been having a few drinks every now and again to keep it up.

Sorry if my story offended anyone. I just felt ghettofabulous!

 

[lancestorm]

Originally posted by: tec699
YOU see what you started Scarp? Do you see!!??

I hope you can live with yourself.

:|

LMAO. Yeah, he started with an innocent thread thinking he was "cool" driving and eating while drinking..Oops...shoulda let off that drinking part.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

what the OP did was illegal. do you dispute that?

This argument is the last refuge for assholes and idiots. Things often are made illegal because of hysteria. Add sex, drugs, drunk driving, terrorism, immigration, guns, etc. to any legislative docket and you'll see some fvcked up laws spew forth. If you rely on our legal system for you ethical cues, there's no hope.


The op was impaired by the fact that he was EATING AND DRINKING, not drinking alcohol. The reactionaries on this board get their panties all in a wad about cell phone drivers, but probably don't care about distractions like this one. Of course, he was driving 25 mph, so who cares. Sounds fun.

drinking and driving was not made illegal because of hysteria oh wise one :roll:

it was obviously made illegal because assholes drank too much, drove impaired, and frickin killed themselves and others by getting into auto accidents.

your fancy words aren't worth posting.

I wasn't posting so much about drunk driving. It's a complicated issue, and deserves a complicated response. My problem is with assholes who use the "it's illegal, so it is wrong."

The op was reckless in two ways: 1) He could have been caught by the cops and gotten seriously fvcked over. 2) He was eating and drinking, and therefor distracted. Only one of those was dangerous to others, and only in a minor way.

He was not drunk and he doesn't deserve your self righteous bullsh !t. He broke the law, but that's his decision, not yours.

fvck off
i never said the OP was drunk. save your bullsh#t rants for someone who did say that.

No you never said he was drunk. You did tell the op that his actions were wrong, indirectly link them to drunk driving, and then posted that bullsh!t statement/question.

so you condone popping a top and drinking a beer while driving, too?

I haven't condoned a single thing in this thread. I try not to go around condoning things. It really ain't my place. I don't do like to do illegal things in public because I am pretty paranoid about cops. If I drink non-socially it is usually with a meal or a book, not in my car. I just don't think drinking a single beer is particularly dangerous, or that it deserves all this stupid, self-righteous flaming.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
We're spending entirely too much time arguing over the morality of this and not enough flaming Scarpozzi for drinking Bitch Beer. 😛

- M4H

I don't need a mercenary...I need mercy!!!! I can't help that I didn't want to down some King Cobra or Colt 45 with my chicken...I'm not that hard core.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
We're spending entirely too much time arguing over the morality of this and not enough flaming Scarpozzi for drinking Bitch Beer. 😛

- M4H

I don't need a mercenary...I need mercy!!!! I can't help that I didn't want to down some King Cobra or Colt 45 with my chicken...I'm not that hard core.

Quiet, you light-beer drinking pantywaist. Now ...

😀

- M4H

 

[vood0g]

Originally posted by: Amused

The people inclined to obey the OC law will also be inclined to obey the DD laws.

You've stopped nothing but innocent people who were never going to break the DD laws, but now are limited by the OC laws as well.

Again, OC laws are much like gun control laws. Laws created to stop people from breaking already existing laws. Well, just as gun control laws do nothing to curb crime, OC laws do nothing to curb DD.

i guess that is where we differ in our opinions. people who drink at a bar will be more able to judge how much they can drink and still be able to drive (not all the time). but for some, its easier to pick up a six pack from a gas station and drink it on the way home.

i still think that the open container law will do its part in preventing more cases of drunk driving. i know, in my case, that i will not drink in the car mainly because the laws are against it. if there were no laws against it, what's to stop me from doing it other than the small that i might hurt someone else.

i dont think that you can deny that the law does prevent people from drinking in the car when they might otherwise do it if the law was not in place. i have no hard facts to back that claim, but i guess it reasonable to assume that (since most people do not want to get fined/ticketed). and of the many people that will not drink who might otherwise have, there must be a few cases of accidents that have been prevented.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: lancestorm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: vood0g

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: vood0g

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
:::sigh:::

You were free to do it before, and now you are not. I'd call that a loss of freedom.

I think you've confused "right" with "freedom" in this case.

You can thank idiots who drive drunk for the loss of that freedom. IMO I believe the law actually prevents Drunk Driving to some extent and actually saves lives. Argue with me all you want but I think you are just being obstinate. As a Motorcycle Rider I'd think that you would be for this law. One less drunken idiot on the road to run you down because some cop pulled his ass over for driving with an open container. You know the odds are that if a person has an open container in his car, even if it's just one, he's had a few belts before he got behind the well. WTF, what's the problem with waiting to get home to crack one open or to stop at the local watering hole just to have 1 beer?

Well, thats the problem. I do not believe that passing more laws to prevent people from breaking already existing laws have any effect at all, except to rob innocent people of their freedoms.

The person inclined to drive while impaired is ALREADY breaking a law. What makes you, or anyone within reason think that another law will stop them from breaking the first law?

Of COURSE I oppose drunk driving. I just do not believe open container laws do anything to curb it.

of course the open container law does prevent more drunk driving. a reasonable person that likes to follow the law will not drink a six pack that he picked up from a 7-11 on his way to work. if the law wasnt in place, then that person would go ahead and have one, then two then three....

we cant do anything about the ones that like to break the laws and drink anyway, but there are people who will not drink and will wait until they get home because of the laws.

You are saying that without open container laws, people not inclined to drive drunk will suddenly be overwhelmed with stupidity and start drinking all the alcohol in their car as fast as they can because without the law, they have no brain?

What next? A law against untied shoe laces because without it, people will be too stupid to tie them and we'll have a rash of trip and falls?

people not inclined to drive drunk will not do it with or without the laws. the laws will prevent the people who are inclined to drive drunk but wont do it because they may get a ticket. of course it wont stop all of them, but it will stop many people from doing it in the care and have them wait until they get home. all i am saying is that, there will be people that will not drink in the car because there are laws against it. and that is where the law helps in preventing accidents.

why do you think there are fences built around the top of the buildings? to keep the dumbasses from hurting themselves when they get too close to the edge.

The people inclined to obey the OC law will also be inclined to obey the DD laws.

You've stopped nothing but innocent people who were never going to break the DD laws, but now are limited by the OC laws as well.

Again, OC laws are much like gun control laws. Laws created to stop people from breaking already existing laws. Well, just as gun control laws do nothing to curb crime, OC laws do nothing to curb DD.

Now that is b.s. if I've ever heard it. People following the OC law and waiting to get home can be the exact same people who get drunk and then decide to drive home. When you are drunk you are not rational nor able to make good decisions. The law does not just protect just the innocents as you falsely state.

Really? So passing an OC law will suddenley turn law breakers into law abiding citizens?

Wow. now if only we could find a way to do the same thing with violent crimes, eh?

Maybe we could ban guns?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

what the OP did was illegal. do you dispute that?

This argument is the last refuge for assholes and idiots. Things often are made illegal because of hysteria. Add sex, drugs, drunk driving, terrorism, immigration, guns, etc. to any legislative docket and you'll see some fvcked up laws spew forth. If you rely on our legal system for you ethical cues, there's no hope.


The op was impaired by the fact that he was EATING AND DRINKING, not drinking alcohol. The reactionaries on this board get their panties all in a wad about cell phone drivers, but probably don't care about distractions like this one. Of course, he was driving 25 mph, so who cares. Sounds fun.

drinking and driving was not made illegal because of hysteria oh wise one :roll:

it was obviously made illegal because assholes drank too much, drove impaired, and frickin killed themselves and others by getting into auto accidents.

your fancy words aren't worth posting.

I wasn't posting so much about drunk driving. It's a complicated issue, and deserves a complicated response. My problem is with assholes who use the "it's illegal, so it is wrong."

The op was reckless in two ways: 1) He could have been caught by the cops and gotten seriously fvcked over. 2) He was eating and drinking, and therefor distracted. Only one of those was dangerous to others, and only in a minor way.

He was not drunk and he doesn't deserve your self righteous bullsh !t. He broke the law, but that's his decision, not yours.

fvck off
i never said the OP was drunk. save your bullsh#t rants for someone who did say that.

No you never said he was drunk. You did tell the op that his actions were wrong, indirectly link them to drunk driving, and then posted that bullsh!t statement/question.

so you condone popping a top and drinking a beer while driving, too?

I haven't condoned a single thing in this thread. I try not to go around condoning things. It really ain't my place. I don't do like to do illegal things in public because I am pretty paranoid about cops. If I drink non-socially it is usually with a meal or a book, not in my car. I just don't think drinking a single beer is particularly dangerous, or that it deserves all this stupid, self-righteous flaming.

glad you don't condone it. i really wasn't flaming the OP. i just told him i didn't condone it.
Amused is the one who feels drinking in your vehicle is alright (as long as it's "one beer") and we had our rights taken awaken away because we can't do it, and yeh, my argument is with him.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: lancestorm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: vood0g

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: vood0g

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
:::sigh:::

You were free to do it before, and now you are not. I'd call that a loss of freedom.

I think you've confused "right" with "freedom" in this case.

You can thank idiots who drive drunk for the loss of that freedom. IMO I believe the law actually prevents Drunk Driving to some extent and actually saves lives. Argue with me all you want but I think you are just being obstinate. As a Motorcycle Rider I'd think that you would be for this law. One less drunken idiot on the road to run you down because some cop pulled his ass over for driving with an open container. You know the odds are that if a person has an open container in his car, even if it's just one, he's had a few belts before he got behind the well. WTF, what's the problem with waiting to get home to crack one open or to stop at the local watering hole just to have 1 beer?

Well, thats the problem. I do not believe that passing more laws to prevent people from breaking already existing laws have any effect at all, except to rob innocent people of their freedoms.

The person inclined to drive while impaired is ALREADY breaking a law. What makes you, or anyone within reason think that another law will stop them from breaking the first law?

Of COURSE I oppose drunk driving. I just do not believe open container laws do anything to curb it.

of course the open container law does prevent more drunk driving. a reasonable person that likes to follow the law will not drink a six pack that he picked up from a 7-11 on his way to work. if the law wasnt in place, then that person would go ahead and have one, then two then three....

we cant do anything about the ones that like to break the laws and drink anyway, but there are people who will not drink and will wait until they get home because of the laws.

You are saying that without open container laws, people not inclined to drive drunk will suddenly be overwhelmed with stupidity and start drinking all the alcohol in their car as fast as they can because without the law, they have no brain?

What next? A law against untied shoe laces because without it, people will be too stupid to tie them and we'll have a rash of trip and falls?

people not inclined to drive drunk will not do it with or without the laws. the laws will prevent the people who are inclined to drive drunk but wont do it because they may get a ticket. of course it wont stop all of them, but it will stop many people from doing it in the care and have them wait until they get home. all i am saying is that, there will be people that will not drink in the car because there are laws against it. and that is where the law helps in preventing accidents.

why do you think there are fences built around the top of the buildings? to keep the dumbasses from hurting themselves when they get too close to the edge.

The people inclined to obey the OC law will also be inclined to obey the DD laws.

You've stopped nothing but innocent people who were never going to break the DD laws, but now are limited by the OC laws as well.

Again, OC laws are much like gun control laws. Laws created to stop people from breaking already existing laws. Well, just as gun control laws do nothing to curb crime, OC laws do nothing to curb DD.

Now that is b.s. if I've ever heard it. People following the OC law and waiting to get home can be the exact same people who get drunk and then decide to drive home. When you are drunk you are not rational nor able to make good decisions. The law does not just protect just the innocents as you falsely state.

Really? So passing an OC law will suddenley turn law breakers into law abiding citizens?

Wow. now if only we could find a way to do the same thing with violent crimes, eh?

Maybe we could ban guns?

stick to topic.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: vood0g

Originally posted by: Amused

The people inclined to obey the OC law will also be inclined to obey the DD laws.

You've stopped nothing but innocent people who were never going to break the DD laws, but now are limited by the OC laws as well.

Again, OC laws are much like gun control laws. Laws created to stop people from breaking already existing laws. Well, just as gun control laws do nothing to curb crime, OC laws do nothing to curb DD.

i guess that is where we differ in our opinions. people who drink at a bar will be more able to judge how much they can drink and still be able to drive (not all the time). but for some, its easier to pick up a six pack from a gas station and drink it on the way home.

i still think that the open container law will do its part in preventing more cases of drunk driving. i know, in my case, that i will not drink in the car mainly because the laws are against it. if there were no laws against it, what's to stop me from doing it other than the small that i might hurt someone else.

i dont think that you can deny that the law does prevent people from drinking in the car when they might otherwise do it if the law was not in place. i have no hard facts to back that claim, but i guess it reasonable to assume that (since most people do not want to get fined/ticketed). and of the many people that will not drink who might otherwise have, there must be a few cases of accidents that have been prevented.

So wait. Now the claim is a person can't judge how much they've had to drink in a car, but can in a bar?

And you're still holding onto the idea that allowing drinking in a car will suddenly make responsible drinkers irresponsible. They can judge how much they drink at home and the bar, and never drive drunk, but allow it in a car, and suddenly they are ready to break a law (DD) they never would have before?

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

stick to topic.

[/quote]

I am.

 

[lancestorm]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

stick to topic.

I am.[/quote]

You kind of forgot about guns. Guns are bad, mmmmkay?

 

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: SampSon
Drinking and driving laws have done very little to prevent drunken drivers on the road or save lives. Over the past 20 years or so the number of people per 100,000 killed because of drinking and driving has gone down approximately 2-3 (per 100,000 people). Numbers are falsified on both sides of the argument. It is very difficult to accuratly measure the effectiveness of these laws.

In reality no amount of laws is going to stop people from doing what they want to do. People are regularly in court for their third, fourth, fifth DWI charge. So they get heavily fined, have their license suspended eventually and mabey even sent to prison. Well they are still going to drive, possibly after drinking, regardless of what the courts do to them. You can scream until you're blue in the face, but that isn't going to change a damn thing.

On a side note, driving is a privilege because the govt. has decided to levy and collect taxes on the ability to operate a vehicle. Usually that's how a "right" becomes a "privilege".

:|

Don't get mad at reality son, it's not going to do anything for you.

I was in the ghetto in a food lion. The only other singles they had were ice house and malt liquors...as stated by others in the thread. I didn't want to even feel remotely buzzed by the beer. Btw...I'm 230. On a full stomach of crappy cold chicken, it's going to take at least 2 more beers to get me buzzed...maybe 3 since Coors light is so weak.

I hear ya. I go to food stores when I do work in the city of Utica up here in NY and get the best of the ghettofab single selection.
I occasionally pick up a 22oz for my ride home through the ghetto.

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Quiet, you light-beer drinking pantywaist. Now ...

😀

- M4H

Biting my style. This is for you. 😉

 

[TwoBills]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SampSon
Very poor taste in beer.

but the chicken... you thought the chicken was ok?

That's what I want to know.

 

Originally posted by: TwoBills

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SampSon
Very poor taste in beer.

but the chicken... you thought the chicken was ok?

That's what I want to know.

Uh hello, fried chicken in the ghetto.... put 2 and 2 together.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

what the OP did was illegal. do you dispute that?

This argument is the last refuge for assholes and idiots. Things often are made illegal because of hysteria. Add sex, drugs, drunk driving, terrorism, immigration, guns, etc. to any legislative docket and you'll see some fvcked up laws spew forth. If you rely on our legal system for you ethical cues, there's no hope.


The op was impaired by the fact that he was EATING AND DRINKING, not drinking alcohol. The reactionaries on this board get their panties all in a wad about cell phone drivers, but probably don't care about distractions like this one. Of course, he was driving 25 mph, so who cares. Sounds fun.

drinking and driving was not made illegal because of hysteria oh wise one :roll:

it was obviously made illegal because assholes drank too much, drove impaired, and frickin killed themselves and others by getting into auto accidents.

your fancy words aren't worth posting.

I wasn't posting so much about drunk driving. It's a complicated issue, and deserves a complicated response. My problem is with assholes who use the "it's illegal, so it is wrong."

The op was reckless in two ways: 1) He could have been caught by the cops and gotten seriously fvcked over. 2) He was eating and drinking, and therefor distracted. Only one of those was dangerous to others, and only in a minor way.

He was not drunk and he doesn't deserve your self righteous bullsh !t. He broke the law, but that's his decision, not yours.

fvck off
i never said the OP was drunk. save your bullsh#t rants for someone who did say that.

No you never said he was drunk. You did tell the op that his actions were wrong, indirectly link them to drunk driving, and then posted that bullsh!t statement/question.

so you condone popping a top and drinking a beer while driving, too?

I haven't condoned a single thing in this thread. I try not to go around condoning things. It really ain't my place. I don't do like to do illegal things in public because I am pretty paranoid about cops. If I drink non-socially it is usually with a meal or a book, not in my car. I just don't think drinking a single beer is particularly dangerous, or that it deserves all this stupid, self-righteous flaming.

glad you don't condone it. i really wasn't flaming the OP. i just told him i didn't condone it.
Amused is the one who feels drinking in your vehicle is alright (as long as it's "one beer") and we had our rights taken awaken away because we can't do it, and yeh, my argument is with him.

I didn't say that I "don't condone it," either. I don't give a sh!t, either way. If someone does somthing reckless, but benign to the rest of us, I don't generally insert myself into their business.

By the way, you did go a little past "not condoning"

Originally posted by: moshquerade
duuuuude, drinking&driving, your life sucks ass :thumbsdown:

sorry, cannot condone

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: TwoBills

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SampSon
Very poor taste in beer.

but the chicken... you thought the chicken was ok?

That's what I want to know.

Uh hello, fried chicken in the ghetto.... put 2 and 2 together.

The cold chicken was sketch.

 

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: TwoBills

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SampSon
Very poor taste in beer.

but the chicken... you thought the chicken was ok?

That's what I want to know.

Uh hello, fried chicken in the ghetto.... put 2 and 2 together.

The cold chicken was sketch.

But you lapped it up like a starving dog.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

what the OP did was illegal. do you dispute that?

This argument is the last refuge for assholes and idiots. Things often are made illegal because of hysteria. Add sex, drugs, drunk driving, terrorism, immigration, guns, etc. to any legislative docket and you'll see some fvcked up laws spew forth. If you rely on our legal system for you ethical cues, there's no hope.


The op was impaired by the fact that he was EATING AND DRINKING, not drinking alcohol. The reactionaries on this board get their panties all in a wad about cell phone drivers, but probably don't care about distractions like this one. Of course, he was driving 25 mph, so who cares. Sounds fun.

drinking and driving was not made illegal because of hysteria oh wise one :roll:

it was obviously made illegal because assholes drank too much, drove impaired, and frickin killed themselves and others by getting into auto accidents.

your fancy words aren't worth posting.

I wasn't posting so much about drunk driving. It's a complicated issue, and deserves a complicated response. My problem is with assholes who use the "it's illegal, so it is wrong."

The op was reckless in two ways: 1) He could have been caught by the cops and gotten seriously fvcked over. 2) He was eating and drinking, and therefor distracted. Only one of those was dangerous to others, and only in a minor way.

He was not drunk and he doesn't deserve your self righteous bullsh !t. He broke the law, but that's his decision, not yours.

fvck off
i never said the OP was drunk. save your bullsh#t rants for someone who did say that.

No you never said he was drunk. You did tell the op that his actions were wrong, indirectly link them to drunk driving, and then posted that bullsh!t statement/question.

so you condone popping a top and drinking a beer while driving, too?

Wow, you really are a first-class bitch aren't you.

Anyone who remotely disagrees with you on this topic is some sort of child-murdering drunken idiot.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: preslove

what the OP did was illegal. do you dispute that?

This argument is the last refuge for assholes and idiots. Things often are made illegal because of hysteria. Add sex, drugs, drunk driving, terrorism, immigration, guns, etc. to any legislative docket and you'll see some fvcked up laws spew forth. If you rely on our legal system for you ethical cues, there's no hope.


The op was impaired by the fact that he was EATING AND DRINKING, not drinking alcohol. The reactionaries on this board get their panties all in a wad about cell phone drivers, but probably don't care about distractions like this one. Of course, he was driving 25 mph, so who cares. Sounds fun.

drinking and driving was not made illegal because of hysteria oh wise one :roll:

it was obviously made illegal because assholes drank too much, drove impaired, and frickin killed themselves and others by getting into auto accidents.

your fancy words aren't worth posting.

I wasn't posting so much about drunk driving. It's a complicated issue, and deserves a complicated response. My problem is with assholes who use the "it's illegal, so it is wrong."

The op was reckless in two ways: 1) He could have been caught by the cops and gotten seriously fvcked over. 2) He was eating and drinking, and therefor distracted. Only one of those was dangerous to others, and only in a minor way.

He was not drunk and he doesn't deserve your self righteous bullsh !t. He broke the law, but that's his decision, not yours.

fvck off
i never said the OP was drunk. save your bullsh#t rants for someone who did say that.

No you never said he was drunk. You did tell the op that his actions were wrong, indirectly link them to drunk driving, and then posted that bullsh!t statement/question.

so you condone popping a top and drinking a beer while driving, too?

I haven't condoned a single thing in this thread. I try not to go around condoning things. It really ain't my place. I don't do like to do illegal things in public because I am pretty paranoid about cops. If I drink non-socially it is usually with a meal or a book, not in my car. I just don't think drinking a single beer is particularly dangerous, or that it deserves all this stupid, self-righteous flaming.

glad you don't condone it. i really wasn't flaming the OP. i just told him i didn't condone it.
Amused is the one who feels drinking in your vehicle is alright (as long as it's "one beer") and we had our rights taken awaken away because we can't do it, and yeh, my argument is with him.

I didn't say that I "don't condone it," either. I don't give a sh!t, either way. If someone does somthing reckless, but benign to the rest of us, I don't generally insert myself into their business.

By the way, you did go a little past "not condoning"

Originally posted by: moshquerade
duuuuude, drinking&driving, your life sucks ass :thumbsdown:

sorry, cannot condone

ffs, pick my post apart like the he did the chicken bones. :roll:
that is the only post i directed towards the OP in the entire 4 page thread. get real.
telling him drinking and driving sucks ass isn't really "self-righteous bullsh1t" as you claim.

 

Would you people cut out the nested quotes please?

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: lancestorm
I hate to think that it will take one drunk driver with a beer can found in his car for it to change your mind to the opinion of the majority of people who are FOR the open container law. While I hope this doesn't happen to you, I think that would be the only way to open Amused and other's thick skulls.

What makes you think an open container law is going to stop someone already breaking drunk driving laws?

As I said to Red:

The person inclined to drive while impaired is ALREADY breaking a law. What makes you, or anyone within reason think that another law will stop them from breaking the first law?

and what makes you think a person drinking while driving will stop at ONE beer? anyone who is stupid enough to drink while driving has an alcohol dependency. anyoone in their right mind can wait to get home to crank open that can