Joe Blow

No... don't mention that name around here unless you want a disciplinary indian burn

While I understand what you're saying, this sentiment can sometimes be a slippery slope. I mean, imagine how much insurance rates would drop if they dropped all smokers. That's only the start though. Overweight? No insurance for you. After all, heart disease probably has more insurance money thrown at it than anything else.

You are absolutely right. It would be something to craft carefully, but it could be done, I think, since it is an auto insurance policy and not a general medical one.

*** Warhawk ***

We came here to rob them and that's what we're gonna do - beat their heads in, gouge their eyes out, slash their throats. Soon as we wash the dishes.

Glad to know you feel it is important for everyone else to pay for someone's medical bills because they were too f*****g "cool" to wear a helmet on a motorcycle. I'll tell you what - why doesn't everyone who feels this way start writing checks to a designated fund to pay for the bills and the rest of us (the responsible ones) can have our insurance rates and taxes reduced - yeah, that's what I thought....

Put your $$$ where your mouth is, then tell us why we should pay for stupid people's medical bills.

While I understand what you're saying, this sentiment can sometimes be a slippery slope. I mean, imagine how much insurance rates would drop if they dropped all smokers. That's only the start though. Overweight? No insurance for you. After all, heart disease probably has more insurance money thrown at it than anything else.


-------------------------------------------------------
"We're innocent critters squashed on the highway of life!"

I am undecided on this topic. I am trying to extrapolate her running into a crowd and killing a dozen people. Whether it is 3 or 12 people dead, her actual act (and thus crime)is the same, so my initial opinion is she should be punished according to only killing one. Now, if she were to kill the 3 boys on 3 separate occasions, that is a far worse situation and pathology. I am not defending her actions, of course (you alluded to that in a previous post) but trying to form my own opinion on how justice is best meted out to people such as her.

According to your logic, someone who plants a bomb on a cargo plane and blows it up over, say, Chicago, should only be held responsible for the death to the pilot(s) and not for the 100's of people on the ground also killed. Is that really your opinion? Actions have consequences - wishing they didn't or trying to rationalize them away doesn't mean that the kids were not killed or that she should not be punished for her actions.

Interesting, your comment about asking to pay extra for someone else's behaviors. Riding motorcycles in general is an order of magnitude more likely to result in serious injury or death, over cars -- whether you are wearing a helmet or not. Honestly, I would outlaw motorcycling altogether. But to me, infringing on people's freedoms is a bigger evil, so I would never pass that law--just because I don't agree with people's decision to ride them.

Actually, then, according to your reasoning, since driving cars is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than walking, cars should be banned as well.

I say let them drive/ride, but have the person driving cover the insurance/medical costs associated with their actions and follow some basic laws enforced for public safety (including licensing, speed limits, rules of the road, seatbelts, helmets, vehicle maintenance, etc.). What is wrong with that? Why should I pay more because Joe Blow decides to do stupid things? That is the premise of freedom - mine and yours. I have the freedom not to have my $$$ forcibly taken from me to cover Joe Blows lapses in judgement or lack of insurance to cover his actions, don't I? Or does your freedom only work one way?


*** Warhawk ***

We came here to rob them and that's what we're gonna do - beat their heads in, gouge their eyes out, slash their throats. Soon as we wash the dishes.

I apologize for the multiple posts. I am seemingly not able to edit or delete previous posts, to figure out why the quoting isn't working.

Your quote: OK, let me rephrase my response: I feel that the penalties for deaths caused by DUI should be the same as for premeditated murder.

I see. Phrased that way I understand your point. However, I still feel that manslaughter is [still only] manslaughter, regardless if drinking alcohol is an easily accessible way for most people to get into a terrible situation such as that. On this point we disagree.

Your quote: Her repeated DUI behavior and killing of innocent people, to me, justifies a much harsher punishment.

I am undecided on this topic. I am trying to extrapolate her running into a crowd and killing a dozen people. Whether it is 3 or 12 people dead, her actual act (and thus crime)is the same, so my initial opinion is she should be punished according to only killing one. Now, if she were to kill the 3 boys on 3 separate occasions, that is a far worse situation and pathology. I am not defending her actions, of course (you alluded to that in a previous post) but trying to form my own opinion on how justice is best meted out to people such as her.

Your quote: That is kinda the point - to protect the public from menaces like this woman as well as punishment - isn't it?

Very true. I was thinking the point of prison is 'rehabilitation' in the most idealistic sense, 'deterrance' with a more pragmatic view. Otherwise, why would you ever let anyone out? But in fact, your interpretation is often the actual outcome (especially in the case of this woman); that it had no effect on her and she was conducting exactly the same behaviour upon release.

I do not know how to best phrase the response to your question about how I characterize which laws I feel should be in place or not. I do wear my seatbelt; I do not agree that there should be a law requiring me to do so. I do agree with driver's ed classes. Do I feel there should be a law requiring car manufacturers to install airbags on all cars? That is a good question; I am undecided. One of my friends in college got a ticket from a cop for jogging while wearing headphones. I (and he) did not feel that such a law should be in place.


Your quote: I do not "gladly pay the extra in insurance and taxes"

I didn't say you did. I said I did. My example was that some laws are passed you agree with, while others you do not agree with. In many cases some of these laws cost you money ("taxpayer's dollars") you don't want to pay. But the way to change that is to change the representatives passing the laws for you.

Interesting, your comment about asking to pay extra for someone else's behaviors. Riding motorcycles in general is an order of magnitude more likely to result in serious injury or death, over cars -- whether you are wearing a helmet or not. Honestly, I would outlaw motorcycling altogether. But to me, infringing on people's freedoms is a bigger evil, so I would never pass that law--just because I don't agree with people's decision to ride them.

Injury is a learning experience. Touch the stove, burn your hand. Children who never experience it while growing up simply won't have learned as well that they can be hurt. They are more likely to assume they are invincible, which is a common belief amongst teenagers. I was not attempting to claim that it keeps all people from drinking and driving. But it undoubtedly would affect the behavior of some.

OK, let me rephrase my response: I feel that the penalties for deaths caused by DUI should be the same as for premeditated murder.

I see. Phrased that way I understand your point. However, I still feel that manslaughter is [still only] manslaughter, regardless if drinking alcohol is an easily accessible way for most people to get into a terrible situation such as that. On this point we disagree.

Her repeated DUI behavior and killing of innocent people, to me, justifies a much harsher punishment.] I am undecided on this topic. I am trying to extrapolate her running into a crowd and killing a dozen people. Whether it is 3 or 12 people dead, her actual act (and thus crime)is the same, so my initial opinion is she should be punished according to only killing one. Now, if she were to kill the 3 boys on 3 separate occasions, that is a far worse situation and pathology. I am not defending her actions, of course (you alluded to that in a previous post) but trying to form my own opinion on how justice is best meted out to people such as her.

q[That is kinda the point - to protect the public from menaces like this woman as well as punishment - isn't it? ]
Very true. I was thinking the point of prison is 'rehabilitation' in the most idealistic sense, 'deterrance' with a more pragmatic view. Otherwise, why would you ever let anyone out? But in fact, your interpretation is often the actual outcome (especially in the case of this woman); that it had no effect on her and she was conducting exactly the same behaviour upon release.

I do not know how to best phrase the response to your question about how I characterize which laws I feel should be in place or not. I do wear my seatbelt; I do not agree that there should be a law requiring me to do so. I do agree with driver's ed classes. Do I feel there should be a law requiring car manufacturers to install airbags on all cars? That is a good question; I am undecided. One of my friends in college got a ticket from a cop for jogging while wearing headphones. I (and he) did not feel that such a law should be in place.


I do not "gladly pay the extra in insurance and taxes" ]
I didn't say you did. I said I did. My example was that some laws are passed you agree with, while others you do not agree with. In many cases some of these laws cost you money ("taxpayer's dollars") you don't want to pay. But the way to change that is to change the representatives passing the laws for you.

Interesting, your comment about asking to pay extra for someone else's behaviors. Riding motorcycles in general is an order of magnitude more likely to result in serious injury or death, over cars -- whether you are wearing a helmet or not. Honestly, I would outlaw motorcycling altogether. But to me, infringing on people's freedoms is a bigger evil, so I would never pass that law--just because I don't agree with people's decision to ride them.

Injury is a learning experience. Touch the stove, burn your hand. Children who never experience it while growing up simply won't have learned as well that they can be hurt. They are more likely to assume they are invincible, which is a common belief amongst teenagers. I was not attempting to claim that it keeps all people from drinking and driving. But it undoubtedly would affect the behavior of some.

q[OK, let me rephrase my response: I feel that the penalties for deaths caused by DUI should be the same as for premeditated murder.]
I see. Phrased that way I understand your point. However, I still feel that manslaughter is [still only] manslaughter, regardless if drinking alcohol is an easily accessible way for most people to get into a terrible situation such as that. On this point we disagree.
q[Her repeated DUI behavior and killing of innocent people, to me, justifies a much harsher punishment.] I am undecided on this topic. I am trying to extrapolate her running into a crowd and killing a dozen people. Whether it is 3 or 12 people dead, her actual act (and thus crime)is the same, so my initial opinion is she should be punished according to only killing one. Now, if she were to kill the 3 boys on 3 separate occasions, that is a far worse situation and pathology. I am not defending her actions, of course (you alluded to that in a previous post) but trying to form my own opinion on how justice is best meted out to people such as her.
q[That is kinda the point - to protect the public from menaces like this woman as well as punishment - isn't it? ]
Very true. I was thinking the point of prison is 'rehabilitation' in the most idealistic sense, 'deterrance' with a more pragmatic view. Otherwise, why would you ever let anyone out? But in fact, your interpretation is often the actual outcome (especially in the case of this woman); that it had no effect on her and she was conducting exactly the same behaviour upon release.

I do not know how to best phrase the response to your question about how I characterize which laws I feel should be in place or not. I do wear my seatbelt; I do not agree that there should be a law requiring me to do so. I do agree with driver's ed classes. Do I feel there should be a law requiring car manufacturers to install airbags on all cars? That is a good question; I am undecided. One of my friends in college got a ticket from a cop for jogging while wearing headphones. I (and he) did not feel that such a law should be in place.

q[I do not "gladly pay the extra in insurance and taxes" ]
I didn't say you did. I said I did. My example was that some laws are passed you agree with, while others you do not agree with. In many cases some of these laws cost you money ("taxpayer's dollars") you don't want to pay. But the way to change that is to change the representatives passing the laws for you.

Interesting, your comment about asking to pay extra for someone else's behaviors. Riding motorcycles in general is an order of magnitude more likely to result in serious injury or death, over cars -- whether you are wearing a helmet or not. Honestly, I would outlaw motorcycling altogether. But to me, infringing on people's freedoms is a bigger evil, so I would never pass that law--just because I don't agree with people's decision to ride them.

Injury is a learning experience. Touch the stove, burn your hand. Children who never experience it while growing up simply won't have learned as well that they can be hurt. They are more likely to assume they are invincible, which is a common belief amongst teenagers. I was not attempting to claim that it keeps all people from drinking and driving. But it undoubtedly would affect the behavior of some.

f you feel the sentences for unpremeditated murders (i.e., manslaughter) are too lenient, that is a different issue

I disagree that murder while drunk should be classified as manslaughter (or, more often, vehicular manslaughter -- which is generally a "lesser" offense than just plain manslaughter). It should be at least 2nd degree murder. Read http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html for a definition, and explain how willingly driving while drunk doesn't fall into the "lack of concern for human life" category.

And sorry, but killing 3 kids should get you a lot more than 4 years in prison and a few years of probation (with repeated violations at that -- and I'm going to guess that those violations were alcohol related). We're no longer simply talking about some idiot that got sloshed and was pulled over by police. She ran over five people first.

My point was that the monetary cost to society due to cranial or similar injuries is not worth the loss of freedom associated with instituting forced behavior on people by passing laws to protect themselves from hazardous behaviour

So where do you draw the line? Seat belt laws? Mandatory safety equipment? Building codes? Zoning laws? All of those trade some degree of freedom for economic benefit.

I was attacking the proposition that DUI related deaths be charged as premedited murder. People who get into cars and drive after drinking, are not intending to go out and kill someone else. That is what premeditated murder is. They obviously are guilty of premeditated drunk driving, but there is no prior planning or intent to kill another human being.

OK, let me rephrase my response: I feel that the penalties for deaths caused by DUI should be the same as for premeditated murder. You are correct - I should have put a little more effort into phrasing my opinion regarding penalties.

I do not see why you are equating 4 years in state prison (that the woman received in your example) to 'tongue lashings and 20 Hail Marys.'

If 4 years in the pen isn't effectively a "tongue lashings and 20 Hail Marys" for killing 3 people, what is? Her repeated DUI behavior and killing of innocent people, to me, justifies a much harsher punishment.

Clearly in this example the woman had alcohol abuse problems that were not 'cured' by locking her up, whether it was 4 years or 15.

No, but she didn't kill or endanger anyone else while she was locked up, did she? That is kinda the point - to protect the public from menaces like this woman as well as punishment - isn't it?

I did not say I 'feel it is important for everyone else to pay for someone's medical bills because they were too f*****g "cool" to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.' My point was that the monetary cost to society due to cranial or similar injuries is not worth the loss of freedom associated with instituting forced behavior on people by passing laws to protect themselves from hazardous behaviour.

Actually, that is exactly the point you are making. We have all kinds of laws forcing behavior on people. Why is this one so different to you? There are seatbelt laws. Are these OK to you? You have to take a driving class and pass tests before getting a license - do you oppose this "forced behavior" as well? Exactly which behavior laws do you want to get rid of?

I do put my money where my mouth is, by gladly paying the extra in insurance and taxes (a very small percentage, btw) which helps keep such freedoms available to me. Surely you know this is how our society works. You pay for something I believe in and you don't, and I do the same. The difference is in who we both decide to vote into office to pass the budget and laws for us. Not to start separate funds for small cases.

I do not "gladly pay the extra in insurance and taxes" because some schmuck wants to swerve through traffic on a bike without a brain bucket. It is paid because I have to pay it. The law in CA is that you have to wear a helmet, which I support and I wear one every time I ride a motorcycle. I would be OK with riders not wearing a helmet if they signed a release from public funds from being spent on their care in case of an injury and they paid additional insurance to cover the additional risks they are voluntarily partaking in. That is how this society works (or should, anyways). I pay car insurance because I drive a car, and the amount is based on the type of car and my driving history among other things. I do not pay doctor's malpractice insurace because I do not operate on people, nor should I have to pay it. You are asking me to pay extra for someone else's voluntary behaviors. In no way should I have to pay for some idiots' poor choices. I really don't want to. Is that such a hard concept?

A few years ago they took all the playground equipment out of my elementary school playground, not because someone was hurt, but because a child might someday get hurt. Now the kids enjoy nothing more than a flat field to run around in. I do not call this progress. Broken bones and chipped teeth are not excessive prices to pay in childhood for learning the limits of your body, and are in fact important so that when you are older and driving around a car, intoxicated, you realize that you can in fact get hurt.

I don't call it progress either. That is what medical coverage is for. I disagree that a kid who chipped a tooth on the monkey bars won't necessarily drink and drive, however....


*** Warhawk ***

We came here to rob them and that's what we're gonna do - beat their heads in, gouge their eyes out, slash their throats. Soon as we wash the dishes.

Actually, sentencing the woman to requiring an interlock device on vehicles she owns and operates for the rest of her life is something that absolutely should be done. That would not restrict her ability to get to work, but would ensure that she is not intoxicated. Clearly she has a long term abusive relationship with alcohol.

I was not aware of the history of Halsy on this board, though clearly his arguments did not support the accusation.

In response to Warhawk's comments:
You are misinterpreting what I posted, and/or 'putting words in my mouth,' as they say. I was attacking the proposition that DUI related deaths be charged as premedited murder. People who get into cars and drive after drinking, are not intending to go out and kill someone else. That is what premeditated murder is. They obviously are guilty of premeditated drunk driving, but there is no prior planning or intent to kill another human being. If you feel the sentences for unpremeditated murders (i.e., manslaughter) are too lenient, that is a different issue. But they are not guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder, as the laws are written. There are many other ways to manslaughter people than driving a car into them, and I'm sure many of the victim's families in those cases also would seek harsher punishments.

I do not see why you are equating 4 years in state prison (that the woman received in your example) to 'tongue lashings and 20 Hail Marys.' Clearly in this example the woman had alcohol abuse problems that were not 'cured' by locking her up, whether it was 4 years or 15. I do not believe that locking people up is an effective way of changing behavioral patterns. But it is an easy way to address breaches of societal protocol, and the idea is that it will deter people from committing future crimes. Alternative punishments in DUI related deaths, for example, could be permanent loss of license for life. But not life in prison.

With regard to the helmet law, you misrepresented what I said. I did not say I 'feel it is important for everyone else to pay for someone's medical bills because they were too f*****g "cool" to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.' My point was that the monetary cost to society due to cranial or similar injuries is not worth the loss of freedom associated with instituting forced behavior on people by passing laws to protect themselves from hazardous behaviour. I do put my money where my mouth is, by gladly paying the extra in insurance and taxes (a very small percentage, btw) which helps keep such freedoms available to me. Surely you know this is how our society works. You pay for something I believe in and you don't, and I do the same. The difference is in who we both decide to vote into office to pass the budget and laws for us. Not to start separate funds for small cases.

A few years ago they took all the playground equipment out of my elementary school playground, not because someone was hurt, but because a child might someday get hurt. Now the kids enjoy nothing more than a flat field to run around in. I do not call this progress. Broken bones and chipped teeth are not excessive prices to pay in childhood for learning the limits of your body, and are in fact important so that when you are older and driving around a car, intoxicated, you realize that you can in fact get hurt.

Well, why not just put prohibition back on the books? Idiots.

I, like most others, have no problems with people drinking - I just don't want them driving (or piloting a plane, etc) afterwards. Banning alcohol (or trying to do something like this) will never work. Dumb move.


*** Warhawk ***

We came here to rob them and that's what we're gonna do - beat their heads in, gouge their eyes out, slash their throats. Soon as we wash the dishes.

You forgot:

"He does everything the "Left" abhors."

This is the same person that when you argue with him here and prove him wrong on a point he resorts to pointing out grammatical errors you make in your comments and starts the personal attacks and calls you profane names and labels you in derogatory terms.

Yawn, I imagine I speak for 99% of this board when I suggest we do not start this again.

Drunk driving related deaths premeditated murder? Look up the definition of premeditated. High risk and preventable, yes, which is why they are charged with manslaughter (3rd degree murder). If you are not drunk and kill someone while driving, you are not charged with manslaughter. Don't pretend that manslaughter is an insignificant crime to be charged with.

If you choose to drink and drive (it is a choice, not a disease or an "accident" that causes you to be intoxicated behind the wheel), you accept the consequence that any deaths you cause because of your condition will be premeditated. That is just how I feel about the ****tards who drive drunk. Obviously some don't feel that it's that big of a deal.

Manslaughter? What do you get for that? A tongue-lashing and 20 Hail Marys? Give me a break. We all know that an awful lot of drivers get off relatively easy for the crimes they commit because they are "sorry" or "remorseful" at the sentencing hearings. WTF is that? If they really cared, they wouldn't have done it to begin with.

Look here:

http://www.california-dui-attorneys.com/alternative_sentencing.shtml

Lawrence Wolf has been a pioneer in developing all forms of alternative sentencing such as house arrest and diversionary programs. He has established relationships with Judges and District Attorneys throughout Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties.

Your arrest depends on what the police see, hear and do but your freedom can depend on your attorney.

Jail time is not always the right sentence and many judges will agree that alternative methods of punishment will benefit all concerned far more than traditional methods of incarceration. There are some alternative forms of punishment that an attorney experienced in DUI law will recommend. Some examples of alternative sentencing are as follows:

http://www.madd.org/news/1,1056,4806,00.html

Sacramento, CA – Governor Gray Davis signed into law on October 13, 2001 Assembly Bill-1078. This new law, named Joshua’s Law, stops the effective removal of felony vehicular manslaughter convictions from the records of drunk drivers.

The motivation for Joshua’s Law was found in the outrage and disbelief that someone could be sentenced as a first-time offender when he or she had previously been convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter in connection with driving under the influence (DUI). This was the case for a Ventura County woman who in 1989, with a blood alcohol content later measured at .20 (twice the legal limit at the time), swerved off the road killing Joshua Oxenreider, Scott Mullins and Jacob Boyd. The issue with the former law surfaced in August of 2000 when Linda Oxenreider, Joshua’s mother, was notified by Michael Bradbury and Gregory Totten of the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office that the woman who had killed her son had been arrested again for DUI. Bradbury and Totten explained that because the recent offense had occurred ten years after Joshua was killed, the offender would be sentenced as if she had never previously been convicted of DUI and had never killed the three boys. Linda Oxenreider was outraged that the judicial system would not recognize and consider the life and death of her son. Bradbury and Totten, as well, were troubled that the law would treat people who drive drunk and kill, and then drive drunk again, the same as a first-time DUI offender. Together, Oxenreider, Bradbury and Totten urged California State Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson, to author a bill that would change the law and eliminate the 10-year "washout" period.

The case prompting "Joshua’s Law" began with a drunken driving crash on March 31, 1989 in Ventura County. After being arrested the previous day for drunk driving, Diane Mannes was released. She borrowed a car and continued drinking. With a blood alcohol content (BAC) later measured at .20 she veered off the road striking five teenage boys, killing three of them and critically injuring the other two. A small plastic sign with the inscription "I swerve and hit people at random" was in the window of the car Mannes was driving.

Convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter, Mannes served four years in state prison before being released in September of 1996. Mannes was in and out of jail for probation violations. She was discharged from parole in June 1999. On August 11, 2000 Mannes was again arrested for drunk driving, this time with a BAC of .28. The 1989 offense, having occurred 10 years before the current case, could not be considered when prosecuting under current law. Mannes was therefore sentenced as if she were a first-time offender.

Nice, until recently you can mow down people in CA while blitzed and a few years later they act like it never happened. Yeah, real harsh sentencing for killing 3 boys. How "insignificant" do you think the parents of those boys felt when their deaths were essentially "forgotten"?

Quit trying to defend these a******s.

When I was in college Colorado passed a law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. It has since been repealed. What about society paying for medical costs associated with helmetless motorcyclists braining themselves, you ask? The monetary cost is not worth the loss of freedom to make decisions, good or bad, and take responsibility thereof, of members of this society, I say. I do not ride motorcycles and would absolutely wear a helmet if I did, but do not want the gov't legislating into my life anymore than is necessary to protect the Earth.

Glad to know you feel it is important for everyone else to pay for someone's medical bills because they were too f*****g "cool" to wear a helmet on a motorcycle. I'll tell you what - why doesn't everyone who feels this way start writing checks to a designated fund to pay for the bills and the rest of us (the responsible ones) can have our insurance rates and taxes reduced - yeah, that's what I thought....

Put your $$$ where your mouth is, then tell us why we should pay for stupid people's medical bills.




*** Warhawk ***

We came here to rob them and that's what we're gonna do - beat their heads in, gouge their eyes out, slash their throats. Soon as we wash the dishes.

# For fatal crashes occurring from midnight to 3:00 AM, 77 percent involved alcohol in 2003. The next most dangerous time period for alcohol-related crash deaths were 9 PM to midnight (64 percent of fatal crashes involved alcohol), followed by 3 AM to 6 AM (60 percent of fatal crashes involved alcohol). (NHTSA, 2004)

There are some stats that just don't make sense. Of course there is a probability that more people on the road during evening rush hour are more intoxicated than those during morning rush hour.

I don't disagree with you Blue, but MADD is one of those organizations that has lost it's focus and now is just a reckless lawsuit bandwagon.

There is some information here in MN that MADD wants to take alcohol out of every establishment that has food. Therefore, you couldn't drink at all when you went out to eat. Well, why not just put prohibition back on the books? Idiots.

xXBatmanXx - fka BatmanX & Batman

Just say NO to drugs propaganda.

I don't find it a reasonable assumption that such a straightforward question of blood-alcohol content would be so difficult to test for. A quick search on breathalizer accuracy came up with no results suggesting that these tests are ever innaccurate. One legal forum I read suggested that the only legal way to beat the rap if you failed a breathalizer test is if you can prove there was no implied consent to submit to the test... the basic sentiment was that you were screwed, not that there was a chance the test was faulty.

In the state of Minnesota this is not true. Field test results are not admissible in court. That is why they take you back to the station even though the field test may be positive or negative.

xXBatmanXx - fka BatmanX & Batman

Just say NO to drugs propaganda.

About the Halsy comment in reference to the Pope being a mass murderer, you have to realize that this is the same person that referred to former President Reagan as a "prick" after his death.

After reading his posts here for awhile, I've realized that Halsy has such blind hate for anything & anyone that he disagrees with that he makes baseless comments like this and obviously needs professional psychiatric help.

This is the same person that when you argue with him here and prove him wrong on a point he resorts to pointing out grammatical errors you make in your comments and starts the personal attacks and calls you profane names and labels you in derogatory terms. He does everything the "Left" abhors.

This comment was edited on Apr 8, 11:00.

Pope:
I read Halsy's comments; again I'm not religious so I'm not defending from an emotional standpoint, but the arguments given in no way support the accusation of being a mass-murderer. Does the church show intolerance towards homosexuals (and women too)? Absolutely. Is it quite wealthy? Absolutely. Does it scorn contraceptive methods? Again, yes. But this is nothing to do with supporting Pope John Paul II as a 'mass-murderer.' And to bring up the Catholic religion's behavior from centuries ago (e.g., Crusades or Inquisition), is completely irrelevant.

DUI interlocks in all vehicles:
To hell with that! I don't drink, and damn well am not going to blow into my car to get it started every time I drive. I put on ~40,000-50,000 miles per year and have never been in a dangerous situation due to a drunk driver on the road. I agree that it would help prevent drunk driving, and feel for people with loved ones injured or killed by drunk drivers, but the loss of my liberty is a far greater threat to society.

The guy who posted about the drunk driver killing the two people and getting off scot-free - clearly if the prosecution could show the drunk driver was at fault, they would have. Apparently in this case the two others blew through a stop sign, didn't look, or whatever, and caused their own demise. Sad, but the blame was theirs.

Drunk driving related deaths premeditated murder? Look up the definition of premeditated. High risk and preventable, yes, which is why they are charged with manslaughter (3rd degree murder). If you are not drunk and kill someone while driving, you are not charged with manslaughter. Don't pretend that manslaughter is an insignificant crime to be charged with.

When I was in college Colorado passed a law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. It has since been repealed. What about society paying for medical costs associated with helmetless motorcyclists braining themselves, you ask? The monetary cost is not worth the loss of freedom to make decisions, good or bad, and take responsibility thereof, of members of this society, I say. I do not ride motorcycles and would absolutely wear a helmet if I did, but do not want the gov't legislating into my life anymore than is necessary to protect the Earth.

It is always a tradeoff between freedom (and anarchy) and a totalitarian régime. Read George Orwell's 1984. In his novel the government uses the excuse of constant war to permit police and security cameras to keep constant watch on the entire population. Now how many people here are in support of the Patriot Act, and think it's really in our best interests?

Going to Vegas for a couple of days...back Sunday night. See ya guys!

Good luck