16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[gmgraves]

18 minutes ago, new_media said:

 

FWIW, the two times I recall having to stop at sobriety checkpoints were in Virginia and Louisiana.

I've never driven in Louisiana, but I'm originally from Virgina and I recall that the State Troopers there are really strict.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Well since no one wishes to get on topic.

 

It is established in most states that sobriety checkpoints are okay whether you think them legal or not.  Lots of things are that way.  We don't generally allow every citizen their own interpretation of what is legally allowed.

 

I do wonder about one version I've seen where I live. A disguised sobriety checkpoint. 

 

On a long stretch with no side roads nearby, the police setup a fake wreck scene.  Run a truck off in a ditch, and another car stashed sideways to block a lane.  A wrecker with spotlights aimed to blind oncoming traffic. Have a rollback with flashing yellow lights with cable attached to truck in ditch appearing to be pulling it out. Would appear you have to slow nearly to a stop and weave around the stopped car, wrecker and rollback to continue. They've hidden a police car when you get right to it and have a couple cops standing there between all this so you can't see them until you're between the vehicles.  Where upon he'll ask you to roll down your window.  And speak to you a minute.  If you don't appear intoxicated,  he let's you go thru.  I'm guessing this is to prevent people seeing an obvious sobriety checkpoint and turning around.  

 

I'm no lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were challenged in court that it might be thrown out.  Then again maybe not. 

That is disgusting. Even if it is legal, it's downright dishonest and immoral. Like I said, you have to watch out for your rights, and stand up to them. The Democracy that this country was founded on is disappearing quickly enough without the citizenry letting it go because of complacency. The bill of rights is under constant attack (especially the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments) if we don't fight for them, we'll lose them. Eschew the notion of Political Correctness. Every time somebody brings it up, shut 'em down and remind them that this country has freedom of speech. 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=2814.2.

 

 

Added by Stats. 2011, Ch. 653, Sec. 2. (AB 353) Effective January 1, 2012. Like I said, This type of lawmaking simply shows that those in authority can do as they please. If what they please to do is against their own rules and laws, they simply change the laws and rules to allow it. It wouldn't surprise me to find them changing the penal code to allow the cops to break into one's home if they are suspicious of wrongdoing without a warrant. I tell you, "the land of the free" has less meaning every year.

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

Well when stopped they wanted license and proof of insurance which I provided.  They then started asking "where are you going?".  I pointed forward and said, "that away".  Then was asked "where are you headed from?" to which I pointed backwards with a thumb and said, "that away".  The officer sort of laughed. Then asked, "so what are you doing out here at night?".  I said something like "nothing bad, so does it matter?"  He said "have good evening go on ahead." 

Nosy so-'n-so wasn't he?

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Move to Belgium ?

Why? I don't live where Eslude lives!

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, esldude said:

 

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

I agree with ole Ben.  

 

Besides, a pistol really isn't all that good.  Hard to aim under stress and not very effective.  If you need a firearm, this calls for a good rifle.  

Shotgun! You don't have aim.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

I am very much for people watching out for their rights etc. but I am also even more for the police making sure that fellow citizens abide to the laws and regulations; many fellow citizens in many parts of the world are unfortunatelly unable to do it all by themselves.

According to the news drink-drive related incidents are on the rise here in the UK...

My freedom ends where my fellow citizen's starts and vice versa.

Agreed. No one should be allowed to drive while intoxicated. I think the law (at least here in the USA) is too lenient on them. A night in the drunk tank and heavy fines are not enough. Even a first violation should carry a penalty of serious prison time and if one's drunk driving results in an accident with fatalities, it should be a capital offense. It might not deter anyone, from drunk driving, but it would take them off the street for a long time.

I just don't like the idea of roadblocks. Even the police say it doesn't yield very good results, they just believe that if people know that random road-blocks are out there, that it will make people think twice before driving while under the influence. In my experience, very few inebriates are aware of how impaired they are. You tell 'em that they shouldn't drive and they should take a cab, and they will invariably respond with "I'm OK. I can drive" - they just can't walk, that's all. Since that seems to be the prevailing attitude (especially among men), I doubt that the possibility of a road block would deter them, or if they would ever even think about it while intoxicated.

[gmgraves]

27 minutes ago, mansr said:

Note that it only bans "unreasonable" searches. Do you really think checking for drunk drivers is unreasonable?  As drunk driving is fairly common and poses a threat to public safety, I would say such checks are perfectly reasonable. If you are so deeply bothered by them, don't drive a car.

See, here we have the crux of the problem. Whether stopping people at random to check for drunk drivers is unreasonable or not is a matter for individual interpretation. If one is politically on the left, one probably thinks that such an action is perfectly all right. Most people who consider themselves "liberal" are generally in favor of big government with broad powers and limited rights for the individual. These people would not consider stopping people at random to check for drunk drivers unreasonable. On the other hand, someone on the right, who believes that big government at any level, Federal, state (or territorial), or at a local level is antithetical to personal liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness will find stopping people at random to check for drunk drivers unreasonable. As long as the question is open to interpretation the question of what constitutes an unreasonable search remains open to individual interpretation.

 

You will also note that the 4th Amendment also says that reasonable searches and seizures are based upon PROBABLE CAUSE supported by oath or affirmation. This brings us back to the original question what is the probable cause for interfering with the conduct of the average citizen in pursuit of his orderly and legal progression from one place to another? Was he stopped because he was weaving and otherwise driving erratically? No. Was he stopped because the police have prior knowledge of his activities before he reached the check-point? NO. Was he stopped because he looked like the type that might have been drinking or who has a record for driving under the influence? Again no. He is being stopped along with everyone else on the off chance that he might be committing an illegal act while behind the wheel of motor vehicle. I don't see how anyone, no matter how committed to law-and-order, can believe that such action constitutes probable cause for a general check point. 

 

I was traveling one time on a B-road between Munich, Germany, and lake Constance when a German policeman, standing in the middle of the thoroughfare waved me into a turn-out by the side of the road. He wasn't stopping everybody, but he did stop me and my traveling companion. As soon as I stopped, another policeman come up to my window and asked to see my European driver's license and my registration information. I showed him my DR, and the paper work from Maserati swearing, in Italian, that I was fully authorized by Automobile´ Maserati SpA to be in possession of said GT car. While he was trying to make heads or tails from the Italian document, I asked the cop why I was stopped. He said that they were looking for a pair of smugglers who were driving an upscale automobile, and were stopping all motorists answering that description. He then handed me back the documents and waved me on. Do you think that he had probable cause to stop me? This is something that I would expect in an uber-lberal state like Germany, but not in the USA!

 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Do you believe the requirement for a licence to drive a car is also unconstitutional?

I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. A driver's license simply means that you have been tested by a state and deemed competent to operate a motor vehicle; and of course, it is a means of identification. There is, to my knowledge, no corollary in the Constitution to either the permit or the identification portions of a driver's license.

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

Here in the States, it means a left-wing Democrat. In today's parlance, it usually refers to someone who considers themselves a "Social Justice Warrior", a fan of more restrictions on personal freedoms,  an advocate for banning of private firearms ownership, big government, big entitlements, over the top feminism, higher taxes, smaller armed forces, large-scale immigration (especially from third-world nations. Often, those on the extreme left advocate totally open borders) and socialism. 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Yes, I think that would qualify as probable cause. Especially as he apparently letting most of the cars pass by. 
Not sure why you say it has something to do with being uber-liberal. Don't think there is any connection, except in your mind. 

I'd guess that such a stop and search would hold up in US courts also. The courts generally make the threshold for probable cause very low. The police can legally justify a search with pretty much any valid excuse. 

You may not like it, but that's the law. 

US Liberals are generally in favor of of restricted freedoms ("for the common good"). And the restricted freedoms one finds in a police state are right-up the lefty's street and we all know that police-state tactics are something that Germans seem like. 

[gmgraves]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

None of those things have anything to do with the actual meaning of the word liberal. Also, in the US, there is no left-wing anything.

That's what you think! But, luckily, there are enough Conservatives in this country to keep the left from attaining their Socialist Utopia – so far. But that's changing with the US demographic. 

The word Liberal has different meanings in different societies. I merely gave you the accepted definition of an American liberal. Of course within that broad definition, there people at each end of that spectrum as well as in the middle.  

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

For all purposes other than driving a motor vehicle, any approved form of ID, such as a passport, will do just fine. It is the most common form of ID simply because almost everybody has one. Having your picture on the licence is a convenient way of proving that you are the one it was issued to.

 

British driving licences follow the EU standard and are valid as photo ID.

 

They do not have that right. If they knock on your door (never happened to me, and I don't pay the TV fee), you can simply tell them to go away.

One thing that you Brits do allow is to let your government put up speed cameras all over the country. I don't think we "Colonials"would put up with that. We barely tolerate stop-light cameras (although I have no problem with them). 

[gmgraves]

Just now, mansr said:

Socialism is not in any way liberal.

But US liberals are Socialists. Why don't you give us your definition of a Liberal?

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

That is the opposite of what liberal means. Do you people have dictionaries?

 

Germany is not left. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, is the leader of the moderately conservative, somewhat right-wing Christian Democratic Union party. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Angela Merkel is a Conservative? She's a virtual Communist! Boy, if you think Merkel is Conservative, I hate to think how left-wing you are Mansr! But that's OK, I like you anyway.

[gmgraves]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal

 

See. In American politics that definition fits a Conservative, not a liberal. Here the 'L-word' means what I said above. The English language here and in the UK are similar, but not exactly alike. This is one place where the words are the same but the meanings are different.

 To get a better feel for American Liberalism and how it differs from the European meaning of the word, go to Wikipedia:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[gmgraves]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

If people obeyed posted speed limits, the cameras would come down. Simple as that.

Here they would never go up. Your country once had NO speed limits. That's the kind of Liberal, freedom loving thinking that I could get behind!

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

When you also say "brass band" when you mean "string quartet"?

Sorry, that makes no sense. See, in politics, platforms change. Over the last half-century the Democratic Party here in the USA has migrated strongly to the left. Democrats are referred to as "liberals" so, in the context of politics, the definition of the word liberal has changed. Many have opined that if John F. Kennedy were alive today, he would likely no longer be a Democrat. He was moderate and today, his views more strongly align with the Republican (Conservative Party) than with the left-wing Democrats. 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Do any words still have a meaning?

In "living languages" meanings change as time goes on. Now in Latin, meanings don't change, but then, nobody speaks Latin as an everyday language anymore so it doesn't change meanings.

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, firedog said:

In the US the meaning of the terms has been mangled. George is reflecting the common usage in the US, which makes "liberal" the opposite of "conservative". That's as opposed to the meaning in the classic understanding, in which a liberal is in favor of free markets, etc.: as in the term "liberal economics" which means pro-market economics. 

In addition, George, like most Americans, doesn't have a clue what the word "socialism" means in most of the world. So they classify all "social democratic" ideas as "Socialism" - even if they take place in an economic system that promotes profit and private enterprise. 

Thanks for deciding for me what I do not know!. I know what classical Socialism is. I am, after all, a fairly well educated person. Socialism as an economic system is a system whereby the economy is in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of entrepreneurs and capitalists. Many authoritarian regimes pretend to be socialist when they are not. In these cases, the "people" really mean the government. Nazism (National Socialism) pretended to be a Socialistic state. But like most so called Socialist states, some portions of the economy were nationalized, while others (like I.G. Farben, Telefunken, Agfa Gavert, Mercedes Benz, etc,) remained in the hands of Capitalists. The Soviet system was more like true Socialism, but again, it was the authoritarian government, not the people who controlled the economy. Look how successful THAT was. Want to see Soviet style "Socialist economy" in action? Go to Cuba!  

In the US, Socialism has been perverted to mean government control of "entitlements" such as welfare, Federally managed pensions (Social Security), and Federally administered national health-care systems. Many Americans are dead-set against all of these, and for various reasons. Some merely feel that the government seems so inept at running such institutions as the Postal Service, and that giving them domain over health care would tantamount to failure, while others are against Socialism because it seems to be associated with the Democratic Party (Since FDR, anyway) and therefore anything that Democrats are for, they are against. Me? I think any successful society needs some Socialism, even hard-core Capitalist societies like the United States. This is especially true when necessary services are withheld from portions of the society due to the private sector involvement being profit driven.

Now, would you like to tell me what else I don't know? When I use terms like Socialism, Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian, I'm obviously using them in the parlance of the United States' political system; not in the classical definition of these terms. I've stated that several times. But those who seize every opportunity to be contentious overlook such caveats in order to argue endlessly over such trivia.   

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, firedog said:

Well George, if you know all that you need to stop using the word “socialist” like a right wing dog whistle - which is a misuse of the term. It’s simply an adoption of a politically charged distorted meaning of the term for propaganda purposes.

Let me reiterate:  When I use terms like Socialism, Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian, I'm obviously using them in the parlance of the United States' political system; not in the classical definition of these terms. I've stated that several times. But those who seize every opportunity to be contentious overlook such caveats in order to argue endlessly over such trivia.   

 

13 hours ago, firedog said:

If you use it correctly, the rest of us can’t misunderstand you. Don’t blame others for misunderstanding you when you use the term incorrectly and specifically in the “contentious” way it is used by many in the US. 

When I explain why I use the words in the context that I am using them, nobody should be able to misunderstand. If I tell you that I mean the terms as they apply to the US political landscape, and you are still confused.... well, that's on you. Not me.

 

And while we're on the subject, why hasn't Chris shut this topic down long since? 

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, wgscott said:

Similarly with the Media.  Despite the claims of "Liberal media bias," there is no liberal media.  (Check the NYT, Wash Post, Wall Street Journal for their extensive Labor section. The idea is absolutely comical.)  There is no Guardian or Independent in this country. (Thanks to the internet, at least we can now access these.)

I suggest you read the book "Bias" by former CBS/NBC/ABC newsman and news producer Bernard Goldberg. In his book he says that the media is so left-biased that they actually have a meeting every day before the news casts or before they make-up the news paper to decide what stories make the left look bad so that they can kill them and they look for stories that make the right look bad so that they can make sure they get highlighted. He states specific examples from CBS, NBC and the NYT. When the book came out, CBS fired him for letting the cat out of the bag and blackballed him. He'll never work in a newsroom again.The ironic part is that Goldberg himself is a self-prolcaimed left-wing radical. He blew the whistle because he "woke up" one day and realized that Democracy cannot stand when the citizenry is being fed incomplete and/or biased information and is being "led by the nose in only one political direction". This is his stated purpose for writing the book, not my interpretation of it. He is in favor of balanced reporting and he says that Americans aren't getting it. So, as a man who spent 40-some years in the newsrooms of major networks and newspapers, I think that he is in a better position than any of us to decide whether there is any "Liberal Media Bias". Of course, Some of us have guessed that this was what is going on for years before Goldberg's book came out. For me, Goldberg merely confirmed what I and many others had long suspected. It's still going on, every day.