I think you need to look at my entire post and come up with something better than an explanation of your where you bias comes from. Try something along the lines of a...hmm...rational argument?

I read your anecdote just fine. What's your point? That because your father couldn't hold his drink and fucked up, that everyone else will also? Here's my anecdote: I know plenty of people who have driven drunk just fine and have never been in accidents. They have been in accidents sober, however. So, using your superb reasoning, that must mean drinking makes you so good at driving that you cannot crash, right?

I suggest you address the argument in post #44 before you come back with another gem like the one I quoted here.

It increases the risk. If I shoot a gun at someone and miss does that make it okay? This is your reasoning. No one was hurt. Drinking and driving is A okay as long as attempted murder is too.

__________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
~ Oscar Wilde

So do the things I mentioned earlier (eating, talking, etc...). You should read it the first time I post it to avoid repeating yourself and make me do the same.Depends. Were you trying to hit them? Were you shooting in their general direction to threaten them? Was it an accident that you shot in their general direction?Uh, dude, attempted murder means you have intent to kill someone, but fail. Are you saying people get drunk because they are trying to kill someone?

Drunk driving would be equivalent to possibly shooting targets in a slightly less careful manner and almost hitting someone. Hardly attempted murder.

Unless of course you want to add playing with your radio while driving to the list of "attempted murder."

Politics is really the reason and it is absolutely a great idea.

A political advisor has one primary job, make their candidate look good. Getting loaded, driving 40 mph over the speed limit and getting caught does not exactly help their candidate.

The Advisor acted stupidly. He also should and probably does understand the costs of this actions in the world of politics. Hillary clearly does not need this kind of press.

Well, it's not like the adviser is Hillary's slave or anything. Just because he does something illegal doesn't mean Hillary is all of a sudden a poor choice for a candidate. Still, I guess the assholes who vote based on what this guy did probably don't care about policy anyway. And since Hillary is retarded when it comes to policies, I guess it all balances out.

You?




Damn, I just shit myself.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

IT IS TIME for Americans to take back the country and start a new government.

Less pant-shitting, more rational thought-adding, please.

I would, but the discussion is referred to you.


Sorry, but anyone that thinks a 3 to 5 yr old is responsible for actions thrust upon themselves, is NOT being rational IMO.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

IT IS TIME for Americans to take back the country and start a new government.

Why are you posting off-topic with no relevant content in your post?

Aside from the frequency that one, and not the other, is used in commercials and public awareness campaigns, what is the difference?

If I'm looking at the radio in my car for 10 seconds and not at the road while tooling along at 70 miles an hour, would you seriously contend that I'm less of a threat than a guy with hands at 10 and 2 who has had four or five beers? What about when I'm 80 years old and my reflexes and vision are literally worse than the 25 year old version of me after 4 or 5 beers?

Generally speaking, I think there's some interesting discussion fodder for DUI policy and societal reaction. Not so much the laws - driving while intoxicated is certainly unnecessary and dangerous when compared with not driving intoxicated (all other things being equal). But I always wonder at the villainization of drunk drivers compared to, say, other people driving with distractions (screaming kids, food that they're eating, newspapers that they're reading, etc). All of those things significantly impair someone's ability to drive and make people significantly more dangerous - arguably easily as much as driving while moderately intoxicated. I think that eating McDonald's with the family on a car trip (kids throwing french fries, burger and drink in your hands, etc) is probably not a lot different than throwing back seven or eight beers and driving home, when it comes to "impairment".

I read an interesting article today ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/ma...ei=5087%0A ) that talked about a variety of topics relating to society and morality, and how things come to be "taboo" simply by convention, and for no particularly logical, or even explainable reason. I think the demonization of DUI is a good example. It can easily be demonstrated that other driving distractions are just as detrimental as DUI, and yet society clamors for people to be incarcerated for lengthy periods of time for DUI and not for the rest of these things. I see this as the product of two factors: (1) The aggressive campaign of appeal to emotion and vividness over the years (throughout our lives, we're constantly shown gruesome pictures of DUI victims and not victims of some guy eating McDonald's and turning around to yell at his kids) and (2) the general moralizing that goes on against vice behaviors. Even though alcohol is woven into the fabric of our society, it still makes a great scapegoat - "sure, I drink myself stupid, but I'd never do that".

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Because I'm feeling damn good right now.

Besides, I wasn't off topic.......I answered your question, nothing more.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

IT IS TIME for Americans to take back the country and start a new government.

What question was that? I am looking at your off-topic post and you quoted me when I said:

"Less pant-shitting, more rational thought-adding, please."

I don't see a question in there. Can you find it for me?

As an example of my previous post, let's consider the driving practice of "tailgating". For anyone not aware of the term (perhaps those in Europe), this is when you drive extremely close to the person in front of you at a high speed. Like driving while intoxicated, this is (1) extremely dangerous and (2) completely unnecessary. Yet, people do it all the time, and no one is pulled over for it. In fact, I've never even really heard of anyone being prosecuted for it when it's the cause of an accident.

Some years back, an ex girlfriend of mine had a friend that was driving along in a 40 mph zone. Approaching her, coming the other way, a woman was tailgating the car in front of her very closely. The car in front stopped short, and the woman swerved into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting the stopping car. She hit this girl instead in a head on collision. Both of her legs were shattered, and, to this day, she walks with a limp and a great deal of pain. I saw her legs after the surgeries necessary to put all the pieces back together, and it wasn't pretty.

The tailgating woman's insurance company was sued and the girl received a substantial settlement. The woman responsible for this accident via dangerous and completely unnecessary behavior received a traffic ticket. And, I should point out, it wasn't the girl's claim that the person was tailgating (she couldn't see this) - it was in the police reports as per witnesses. So, it was officially on record. No reckless driving. No societal outrage. No 10 years in jail for reckless endangerment or assault or whatever would have happened if the woman had drank a couple of glasses of wine instead of driving like a maniac.

So, what's the difference? Where is the moral crusade and outrage? We have everything here - dangerous and unnecessary behavior, a sob story, all requisite documentation of what happened... wheres MATT (Mother's Against Terrible Tailgaters)? Where are the demands for harsher sentences, cameras to monitor tailgating, tailgating checkpoints, federal extortion of states to raise the driving age, and everything for which there-oughta-be-a-law?!??!

Oh, by the way, before anyone treats me to tragic tales of DUI by way of argument, I'd like to point out that I've had friends (more than one) killed in alcohol related car accidents. I'm neither endorsing DUI nor am I claiming that it doesn't cause tragic accidents (because, after all, emotions aside, that's what they are) - it does, as do a lot of things, many of them avoidable (such as driving cars in the first place). I just don't think that laws should be passed on the basis of sob stories and gruesome images.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

It was in form of a question ???????? Maybe/perhaps.

I mean, you said more thought please.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

IT IS TIME for Americans to take back the country and start a new government.