And Fox News is fair and balanced right?
Is that your stance?
Here I am telling people not to believe everything that they hear, read, and see without getting informed about it and you ask me a question like that?
Last edited:
And Fox News is fair and balanced right?
I read a few pages of the report you linked.
Which pages? Please be specific...
Basically, they used the implied authority of LEO to stop unsuspecting motorists, who were minding their own business.
Yep but again, given the methodology of the survey, what other way of even attempting to stop a given number of cars on the road [for a survey] would be better?
What happens after that is all well and good. But stopping me (and as far as I could tell, the motorists had no way to know if the stop was required or not)
Obviously, slowing down for a cop in the road is probably required but according to the report, they could turn around, drive through, or participate without fear of retaliation. They were told when stopped that they didn't have to participate.
just so you can ask me if I would participate some scientific experiment of yours is abuse of authority.
Noted.
Who should have been trying to stop the cars?
That's fine. That's different from "off duty" though. They're not just volunteer survey takers. They are representing the government in uniform.So...? I like me some overtime too.
A safer method would be in a clinic.Given the goal of the survey, that's arguably the safest method...
So many reasons are coming to mind. I'll start with the fact that the country is running trillion dollar deficits annually. Its safe to say I would close this program without hesitation.The survey is in conjunction with the NHTSA, why wouldn't they get federal funds?
Eh. Not really what I said. To me, a self-reporting survey would be something that people do without reward. Perhaps on a website. This is not self-reporting, this is paid. Paid by me.Ok, so you just invalidated every survey that encourages participation for a reward. (edited to add: That's, more or less, every successful survey conducted in the history of surveys)
In your last reply you said you did not argue the fact that people with something to hide would mostly be driving away. That tells me that the data is excluding most of the impaired drivers. The survey is pretty uninteresting without all those drivers being tested. Its useless data. To me that is not 'good.'According to the report, this sample (only 600 participants) wasn't enough to draw any conclusions about the country as a whole. It did prove that their method of obtaining data was good.
*hangs head*If the people running this survey follow through with their plans, This will be done on a larger scale nationwide in the future.
Nobody.
Nobody that was implying police authority in the eyes of the motorists that did not want to be detained. In my view the ends do justify the means. Had there been "some guy" that just held up a sign, on the side of the road imploring people to stop, do you think anybody would have stopped? There would have been a few, probably. But it probably would have ruined their quasi-random methodology, so they used "off-duy" cops. They used them because they knew they could defraud the people into stopping that may not have wanted to.
actually, it's up for debate that this is more intrusive than stopping a person on a sidewalk. Now, I don't like this tactic one bit, but as long as people were forced to submit a sample nor compelled to identify themselves, this is well within the law.
You presume you have a right to said data in the first place. In the second place, there are plenty of instances where your statement is false.No see, in order for data to be useful, you have to compare it to other data.
Do you not know the difference between methodology and justification? Telling me how something is done is just a fact. You went a step farther and attempted to attach a justification to it because it was done a certain way. Justification = excuse.Those aren't excuses. That's how the survey went down.
Stunning rebuttal. What other tripe do you have up your sleeve?Ok, whatevs. Like...that's your opinion man.
How is it not clear to you that the issue is bigger than the single tree you so adamantly insist I focus on?How is it not clear that no one was unwillingly detained?
It has nothing to do with the amount of time someone was detained. Another logical fallacy on your part.If you want to call the amount of time it would have taken for a cop to explain the survey "detainment" then I would assume you get upset for being detained at stop lights as well. Do you also get upset for being detained by road work? How about rail road crossings?
Besides, no one was stopped to be asked if they wanted to participate, [unless a spot in the que was empty].
CLAIR COUNTY & BIBB COUNTY, AL -- Over the past weekend, police set up roadblocks where they would stop drivers and request that they submit a DNA sample. They had the option of submitting blood or saliva.
The roadblocks were part of a study conducted by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, working with the National Highway Safety Administration. The samples were voluntary.
"Although this was voluntary it was not voluntary that you stop and hear the DNA for CASH pitch," said Alabama resident 'jbosey.'
Drivers were offered $10 for a mouth swab, and $50 for a blood test. Surely this is a worthy expenditure of stolen tax dollars.
We have no indication about what purpose the DNA collection might serve, or why it was done using police roadblocks instead of something more conventional, like an ad in the newspaper.
Why were roadblocks in St. Clair and Bibb counties asking for blood and DNA samples this weekend?
Roadblocks in Alabama - DNA Collection!
-Average participant waiting times:
-Written Survey and BAC: 5-7 Minutes
-Written Survey, BAC, and one Oral Fluid Sample: 10-12 Minutes
-Written Survey, BAC, Oral Fluid Sample, and Blood Sample: 20-25 Minutes
How long was the wait for s stool sample?
Yes but I heard that alot of Conservatives and Republicans live in houses. Houses suck.Wrong...........they all suck at some level, not just conservatives.