But deterrents aren't effective, @Shepppard. If harsher penalties were deterrents, then we'd not have murder because of the death penalty. But that hasn't worked as a deterrent so why would you think DUI laws would? Let's look at the numbers:

15,000 deaths in the US related to drunk driving, you say? My numbers say it's more like 11,000, but whatever. According to the Department of Health's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (that's a bureaucratic mouthful, ain't it?), "1.2 million adults aged 21 or older" were arrested for DUIs during the past year.

So, for 15,000 (or 11,000) deaths we're preemptively locking up 1.2 million people. That's a deterrent? My numbers say that automotive fatalities are estimated around 33,963 a year with 1/3 being from DUIs. Shouldn't we just outlaw driving altogether with such high numbers? 3/4 of the deaths are male, which is a higher amount of crashes than caused by DUIs so maybe we should ban men from driving?

If the numbers add up, then men should be banned before those driving with a BAC of .08 or higher.

And of those 15,000 (11,000?) is it proven that driving under the influence caused the wrecks? Probably not. From what I've learned (unless the information received was bogus), if you're in an accident in California and it's the other guy's fault but your BAC is above .08, then it becomes your fault and you're charged with a felony. That could easily skew numbers in any statistic.

A lot of things haven't existed until very recently. In this case it's called progress.

Oh is that what you call it? Progress? Well, if gay "marriage" is such a capital idea, why was it until 50 years ago virtually unheard of in almost every society? And in those ancient, wizened societies that threw off the shackles of Christian oppression, why did it not return right away? Gay "marriage" throughout history has been less than a footnote. Polygamy at least has a long and varied history.

Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.

Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is a straw man fallacy. Denying polygamy does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

But I'm not comparing gay marriage to polygamy, except to point out that both are less desirable to a society that plans on surviving. And if gays can argue that the State discriminates against them because of sexual orientation, then the polygamist can argue that the State discriminates on the basis of numbers.

Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.

How does a gay marriage have any more rights than a straight one? They're fighting for the SAME rights that are given to straight couples. If this was 60 years ago you'd be arguing against giving black people the "special" right to use the same water fountain as you.

A "How DARE you!" would be an appropriate response for making such a blanket accusation, but I can't get the proper English accent for it. So I'll just add you're going to have to do better than crying racism or raising taxes, the only tricks lefties know if you don't count surrendering to America's enemies.

You call it tyranny if you're forced to accept that a minority has access to the same rights as you do? You playing the victim here is moronic and laughable.

Society is the victim and decadence is the poison. As the "evil" conservative I'm as valuable or more so than the "good" liberal who always demands CHANGE for the sake of change, since 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail. Thousands of years of trial and error have brought us here and now. And none of us are smarter than those thousands of years of trial and error.

Although I still disagree with you I appreciate your view and taking the time to post it.

It's really hard for me to understand how we're allowed to let fear-mongering and propaganda continue to run the American people. You and I both know that any claim that gay marriage will destroy family values, etc. is bullshit. But I also am aware that it's a slippery slope when a judge overturns the popular vote. It is a scary government action and to say that it's ok in certain instances means "it's ok when I'm ok with it". I do understand that. But civil liberties is one of those instances where, at the end of the decade, maybe two, we'll look back and say "damn I can't believe how barbaric we were".

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
I have written additional words at this sift, if you are interested.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
HAHAHA! Yea being gay is the new "hip" thing that all the young kids are doing these days. Grandpa, is that you?

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.
Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.
Olson can obfuscate however he wants, the fact is this GAY judge was acting as an activist, and had NO precedent for his decision to overturn the will of the people. Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.
Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.

I have written additional stuff at this sift, if you're interested.

In reply to this comment by mentality:
Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.


A lot of things haven't existed until very recently. In this case it's called progress.

Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.


Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is a straw man fallacy. Denying polygamy does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.

How does a gay marriage have any more rights than a straight one? They're fighting for the SAME rights that are given to straight couples. If this was 60 years ago you'd be arguing against giving black people the "special" right to use the same water fountain as you.

Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.



You call it tyranny if you're forced to accept that a minority has access to the same rights as you do? You playing the victim here is moronic and laughable.

I have written additional words at this sift, if you are interested.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
HAHAHA! Yea being gay is the new "hip" thing that all the young kids are doing these days. Grandpa, is that you?

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.
Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.
Olson can obfuscate however he wants, the fact is this GAY judge was acting as an activist, and had NO precedent for his decision to overturn the will of the people. Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.
Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.

HAHAHA! Yea being gay is the new "hip" thing that all the young kids are doing these days. Grandpa, is that you?

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.
Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.
Olson can obfuscate however he wants, the fact is this GAY judge was acting as an activist, and had NO precedent for his decision to overturn the will of the people. Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.
Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.


A lot of things haven't existed until very recently. In this case it's called progress.

Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.


Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is a straw man fallacy. Denying polygamy does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.

How does a gay marriage have any more rights than a straight one? They're fighting for the SAME rights that are given to straight couples. If this was 60 years ago you'd be arguing against giving black people the "special" right to use the same water fountain as you.

Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.



You call it tyranny if you're forced to accept that a minority has access to the same rights as you do? You playing the victim here is moronic and laughable.

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.

Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.

Olson can obfuscate however he wants, the fact is this GAY judge was acting as an activist, and had NO precedent for his decision to overturn the will of the people. Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.

Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.

HI! your wardrobe is fucking bogus!

@NordlichReiter it's always amazing to me how many things right-wing people (and like it or not, you're definitely one!) try to blame Obama for that originates from Bush and conservatives generally.

Case in point: indefinite detention.

I'm annoyed that Obama and the Democrats haven't made this a big front-burner issue. But honestly, I'm annoyed that Obama and the Democrats don't seem to understand how to really drive the national conversation about public policy at all. Their big victories (outlined by Rachel), were all the result of Democrats focusing on inside-the-beltway posturing and maneuvering, with little or no salesmanship aimed at the American people.

That said, here's the state of play: the Constitution says you can't do what Bush did, the legislature hasn't ratified what Bush did, and the case that went before the Supreme Court was ruled narrowly, rather than broadly striking down the Bush legal justification for indefinite detention.

Now, suppose Obama really believes it's best that we try to not get into a nasty partisan game of finger pointing game over this issue, but also wants to close the door on this sort of thing permanently.

In that situation, would he a) talk to every journalist he could about this, and give speech after speech about this, b) seek some sort of toothless legislative remedy to a non-legislative issue c) promise not to do it while he's President, and pretend that's good enough, or d) keep making the legal arguments of the Bush administration in court until some judge somewhere actually reads the Constitution before making a decision?

He seems to have chosen a mixture of C and D.

For example, this case has nowhere to go but the Supreme Court, and it will be forced to respond to the claim that Boumedine doesn't apply to Bagram.

As far as I'm concerned, the only mistake Obama is making about this is that he isn't using this as a political weapon to destroy the Republican party. Instead he's giving them a bailout, by trying to quietly clean up their mess, without drawing attention to just how big a mess it really was.

I'm kinda puzzled that civil libertarians are giving the Obama camp such a bum rap for testing the Bush legal theories in court. Do they believe the Bush legal theories will win the day? Do they believe if they aren't unequivocally struck down by a court, that President Palin won't resurrect them? In short, are they now putting forward the bogus idea that simply kicking Bush out of the White House was all we needed to do, and that no one will vote for a maniacal President again?

I would love him to say it officially, publicly too. It would be true - scientology is sinister, evil and bogus. *Cults are dangerous, scientology is nothing more than a cult of money and stupidity.

Bananafone - there are many ways in which parents paint over the opinions/beliefs of a child, this is only different because we see it as a sensitive issue in adults.

Do we try to place ourselves in the position of a child raised as a fundaMENTAList christian, and consider what THEIR feelings might be? Let's be honest, we don't - certainly not in the way we do in cases like this. The parents of my hypothetical child just raise their child to the best standard they know of, they do what they consider their best by their child. If that child suddenly decided "Hey, religion is bogus, i don't want this anymore!" I highly doubt the parents will say "Ok, i'll get a babysitter for sunday mornings. You can stay home."

My point here is that people raise their children to what they consider their is in the child's best interest. The child doesn't get the option.

So, for me, the question should be "Is it wise to let a child dictate his own upbringing?" Because i'm sure if you start doing this for EVERY child (not just the children who walk a line along modern society's sensitive topics that will guarantee an outcry), then we'll end up having children dictating that every meal must be chocolate and cream with milkshake.

Don't mind me, i just find it interesting how people (as a whole) change their behaviour based on how "sensitive" the topic is supposed to be. If this was a child who decided they wanted to join a "in 5 years we all drink poison" cult, you'd be saying oh the mother should just over ride the silly child's whimsy. But because it's the buzz-topic of sexuality, everyone's pro choice for the evidently mature child. I'm not being facetious either, i genuinely find it interesting how easily we can draw a line and consider the same philosophy sensible and another thing insane just by hitting a sensitive topic. It doesn't have to be deadly poison either, it could be poison to make your arm fall off - i suppose that would be similarly life-changing as realising you'd made a mistake 10 years ago about wanting to be a woman.

Personally, i take the mother-of-rottenseed (rottenapple?) approach - i'm fine with a child of mine being whatever they want to be, but i certainly wouldn't raise with a direction/destination in mind until they were old enough to have a reasonable and intelligent input.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I tend to agree on calling the GOP out for flip-flopping on this. Obama's 20 billion cash escrow account IS a 'shakedown' and there is nothing wrong calling him out on it. The GOP should have had the stones to oppose it more. There is no legal justification for the Executive Branch to assume this kind of power. It is unconstitutional, illegal, and inappropriate. Putting unsupervised Executive branch 'czars' like Fienberg in charge of 20 billion dollars to hand out to whoever he wants is a terrible idea.
Barton was 100% correct in everything he said. It is shameful for the US to have anything to do with this kind of garbage. This is the stuff that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or other bananna republic dictators do. Boo - hiss on Obama for doing it, and double boo-hiss on the GOP for not giving Obama both barrels. When will the GOP get a backbone and stand up for what's constitutional rather than what is politically convenient? All it takes is one bogus whine from democrats about being 'opposed to helping Gulf victims' and they fold like cheap umbrellas. The leftist position on this issue is laughable on its face, and they knuckle under to the rhetoric every time. Bah.


Sadly, the courts now seem to be owning their elections to corporate America more and more these days (Like every other elected official.) If this is the case, soon the courts will owe their alliance to the same... and then who do we have to petition to?

I am not worried of excecutive powers here; I am worried of corporate powers. What if the spill costs 100 billion or more? The courts would probably never agree to force the oil companies to pay that amount in the name of "jobs" or "unfairness." What if it costs 200-500 billion? Who pays the legally required payments? What if the spill had been far worse?


I am not saying you are wrong---the president has no means to force a company to do right. It is the actual consumer who has that power (Consider the consumer a Veto-man.) Then, it is the courts that have that power. However, when everything fails? Then what?

Oh, and BP did this for public image--not because the president shook any one down. You give the president too much here---it was the consumer's veto that won that battle... certainly not Bp's moral standards...

I can see how you could misunderstand, because the president has blue balls and not red ones.

Ya, it is politics as its finest really. Thanks to some others providing me links and what not, I was able to fine lots of information out on this. It seems the district courts are the ones that should be handling stuff like that. Obama has the power of Moratorium, but state still have a certain level of veto power. It is all super crazy tangled web. I think most would agree with the settlement being needed, as for me, I worry like yourself about federal 'Carz' of wealth distribution. The courts are one of the last places were we as citizens can make judgments against large corporations. We do get stabbed in the back at times, like with the huge reductions in the fines for exxon; bastards. I think we need to rethink corporate charters and how they exist in this country. They are far to sheltered from the risk normal people take. I don't have a solution atm, just thinking out loud.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I tend to agree on calling the GOP out for flip-flopping on this. Obama's 20 billion cash escrow account IS a 'shakedown' and there is nothing wrong calling him out on it. The GOP should have had the stones to oppose it more. There is no legal justification for the Executive Branch to assume this kind of power. It is unconstitutional, illegal, and inappropriate. Putting unsupervised Executive branch 'czars' like Fienberg in charge of 20 billion dollars to hand out to whoever he wants is a terrible idea.
Barton was 100% correct in everything he said. It is shameful for the US to have anything to do with this kind of garbage. This is the stuff that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or other bananna republic dictators do. Boo - hiss on Obama for doing it, and double boo-hiss on the GOP for not giving Obama both barrels. When will the GOP get a backbone and stand up for what's constitutional rather than what is politically convenient? All it takes is one bogus whine from democrats about being 'opposed to helping Gulf victims' and they fold like cheap umbrellas. The leftist position on this issue is laughable on its face, and they knuckle under to the rhetoric every time. Bah.

I tend to agree on calling the GOP out for flip-flopping on this. Obama's 20 billion cash escrow account IS a 'shakedown' and there is nothing wrong calling him out on it. The GOP should have had the stones to oppose it more. There is no legal justification for the Executive Branch to assume this kind of power. It is unconstitutional, illegal, and inappropriate. Putting unsupervised Executive branch 'czars' like Fienberg in charge of 20 billion dollars to hand out to whoever he wants is a terrible idea.

Barton was 100% correct in everything he said. It is shameful for the US to have anything to do with this kind of garbage. This is the stuff that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or other bananna republic dictators do. Boo - hiss on Obama for doing it, and double boo-hiss on the GOP for not giving Obama both barrels. When will the GOP get a backbone and stand up for what's constitutional rather than what is politically convenient? All it takes is one bogus whine from democrats about being 'opposed to helping Gulf victims' and they fold like cheap umbrellas. The leftist position on this issue is laughable on its face, and they knuckle under to the rhetoric every time. Bah.