I don't think it's about budget at all. I think it's about catering to the lowest common denominator. The kind of people who watch America's Got Talent every week or buy Call of Duty ever year. Movie posters use templates because that's the quickest and easiest way to convey a movie's genre, cast and tone to people who don't enjoy thinking.

The problem is that stores promote this nonsense. Instead of making it a chaotic free-for-all, why not require people to reserve what they want to buy and then pick it up at their leisure? You could still give people the satisfaction of believing that they got great deals while avoiding unnecessary violence and destruction.

Then we have the issue of holidays existing solely to promote excessive spending, all because arbitrary dates on a calendar say you should give people gifts and expect to receive them in part.

Somehow I don't think this technique would actually work in a real fight. In a real fight, your opponent will likely just plow into you, not stand at a convenient distance and throw conveniently timed punches.

He sounds so surprised that Democrats are just as hypocritical as Republicans. They are two sides of the same coin. The party system is inherently broken and should be abolished. There should be no party line to toe, only independent and critical thought.

What's the point of due process when it's an irrefutable fact that the suspect was over the BAC limit and driving a vehicle? Why should criminals have any rights at all? If they choose to ignore the law, why should the law respect their rights?

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/by_the_numbers/drunk_driving/index.html

Considering the damage that drunk driving causes, a strip search is a pretty lenient punishment for a DUI arrest. But hey, let's ignore the fact that thousands of people are killed in drunk driving-related incidents. A woman is being embarrassed! This is an outrage!

If the woman wasn't driving drunk, she'd have my sympathy. But I have no sympathy for drunk drivers, male or female. They deserve every punishment they get.

Vader wins. Ultra combo with Boba finisher.

Your argument is purely reactionary. You're essentially saying that we should just let people drive as drunk as they want and only punish them when somebody inevitably gets hurt. Shouldn't we try to prevent people from getting hurt in the first place? Isn't that the whole point of having laws? If laws only matter once the blood is on the floor, why bother having them at all?

There's no reasonable justification for driving drunk. Alcohol impairs your cognitive functions and when driving, you need those functions at their sharpest. There's an established correlation between driving drunk and getting into accidents (often resulting in casualties). Therefore, it is completely reasonable to punish people for driving drunk. It has nothing to do with "disliking personal behaviors" and everything to do with statistical fact. If your personal behavior puts other people at risk, then yes, the law should punish you for it.

That aside, I completely agree that everyone should be punished for causing harm, regardless of their BAC or mental state when doing so.

Wait, so drunk drivers don't do any harm? That's news to me. I guess all those statistics must be wrong.

People who drive drunk deserve far worse than humiliation. The government should be suing them for putting everyone else at risk.

Ideally, a railgun would eliminate recoil, muzzle flash and noise, making it more effective for sniping.

The problem is that getting the railgun to fire bullets faster than combustion-based weapons requires a lot of electricity.

The government's mistake was placing the child in the care of someone not qualified to care for children (or anyone). Taking her away from parents who do drugs was not a mistake. Parents are supposed to be responsible and set an example for their children. They should teach their children to stimulate their minds and find joy in that, not through drugs and alcohol. Yes, being a parent is tough and there's a lot of pressure involved. Deal with it like an adult, don't try to suppress it with a blunt or bottle.

The government clearly needs to review their foster candidates more thoroughly. That's the root of the issue here. Don't make this political and blame it on the "war on drugs."

The driver was stupid to be driving the wrong way but the mother was stupid to assume that people always obey the law. When you're dealing with things that can easily kill you (like cars), you can't afford to be complacent. Always pay attention and never assume anything.

What was brave about this? Can you be arrested for ranting? Moving to a different state certainly isn't exactly brave either.

You can applaud her for being outspoken and passionate (or just sharing your opinion) but you shouldn't mistake that with bravery. That's a disservice to those who put their lives on the line for what they believe in.

More like a reasonable assumption. I'm pretty sure the government wouldn't waste their time and money just grabbing random civilians and putting them in prison. It's a far more reasonable assumption that most of the prisoners have ties to terrorist groups.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, as another poster has suggested. I'd love to hear his argument but it seems he can't be bothered.