Most states make you sign a document when you apply for a license that allows them to revoke your license if you refuse, however it is not as black and white as that in practice.
First of all, in most states, the police are required to inform you upon your first refusal to take the breathalyser, that it will result in the revocation of your license. If they do not, it is plain and simple, they cannot revoke your license. So it is always worth refusing, in case they slip up. If they do inform you then you can start worrying. Always refuse field sobriety tests, like walking in a straight line etc.
Additionally, breathalysers that are used for roadside tests cannot be used in court, so you should try to delay it, but ultimately you probably shouldn't refuse to take it if they do tell you it'll get your license revoked after your first refusal. After the roadside test, they will take you back to their station and give you a test there, and this is the one to watch out for. At this point, you can and should ask for an attorney before taking the breathalyser. You do not need to refuse to take it, but you can refuse to take it right away. This is a delaying tactic, and you are trying to buy yourself time here. In most states, you also have the right to have a second test administered by a physician of your choice. If you have one who can cover you, this can actually be the biggest help when you finally arrive in court; depending on the delay, you can test for much lower levels, or your physician friend could outright lie if they like you enough.
Finally, you do not need to take a breathalyser test unless you are extremely, visibly and provably inebriated and there are reasonable grounds for a test. You can argue in court that the officer had no grounds to ask you to take a breathalyser test. This can lead to the court reversing the revocation of your license on procedural grounds.
The best tip, however, is simply to be safe and not drive drunk.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by Dargo
Have you read the Quran? It is not a moderate book. Muslims who don't support jihad and Sharia law are like Christians who support homosexuality, jedis who eat pork, and Buddhists who advocate for war.
And those people exist. The ultimate goal should be to move them towards secularism, not make them turtle back towards extremism and religiosity. The same as it is with "secular jedi" people, who are culturally jedi but have no religious obligations to Judaism. If you're going to force them to choose between abandoning their Islamic heritage and identifying eevn more with it and standing in solidarity because they're under fire as a whole, what do you expect them to pick?
When you use the word "Muslim" in the modern context, you're not referring to only the most strict adherents, the same way when you say "black" you don't only mean gangster rap listening hood thugs rolling around in their El Caminos.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by AltarEgo
Bad faith is better than no faith biiitch. I see you as an idiot since you keep trying to make arguments using "tautology" and philosophic name dropping.
Btw you have been responding to a drunk shitposter who doesnt give a fuck about how structured your argument is. You are a fucking moron for actually responding to me.
Suck my metaphysical dick you dense piece of shit. You are wrong in your assessment of islam and absolutely incoherent in your dissmisal of spiritual thought.
I'm glad you can admit that you're wrong. That's the first step to not being wrong, and possibly to being right.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by AltarEgo
Haha what a fucking mong. Still trying to rationalize. It is obvious to any observer that my point in superior and yours inferior. You cannot separate the spiritual thoughts from other thoughts as spiritual people see thought as inherently spiritual.
If you feel the need to proclaim that you're right rather than letting your points stand for themselves, you are probably wrong. Secondly, the presence of spiritual thought does not mean that the person must view all thoughts through a spiritual lens. There is simply no reason to believe that.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by Nil
Isn't that a bit of a stretch, they're literally called Christians, as in it's Christ and His word that matters. Only some retard creationist piece of shit from like kentucky brings up the old testament to justify some shit that isn't "be good to your neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc etc. Although I don't really know much about this shit and wouldn't claim too.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"
The dismissal of the Old Testament is a giant case of convenient interpretation. As far as I can tell, there is no justification from within real Christian text for ignoring the Old Testament.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
The supposed nullification of old testament doctrine by the New testament is a …Hair bit convenient. I do wonder why so many still then adhere to the advice of the Psalms and the stories of the O.T. while simultaneously disregarding it's importance or relevance in relation to the N.T.'s nullification of it.
I admittedly know very little about the Qur'an but I know a fair deal about the Bible and I have to assume both books are likely heavily combed over, picked through, and interpreted to whoever's own liking, hence the endless amount of Christian denominations.
There is not really any nullification as far my own studies go. As you said, it is used as a convenient out.
Ultimately, there are Muslims who have "interpreted" their religion to be more in line with progressive values, who no longer present a threat to Western society, the same as Christians. It's to our benefit to make them allies and move them out if Islam by transitioning them through secularism.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
