Support NeoGAF

[jamesinclair]

Car murder problem? How do you propose they prove speeding beyond a reasonable doubt? There is the presumption of innocence. Cant they get a civil suit anyways?

Its a horrible crime but I dont see what the nypd can do.

They could look at the black box. They could look at phone records. They could do a blood test for medications. They could speak to the witnesses who say the driver ran a light. They could pull cameras.

They could, you know, investigate.

Also, you may not know this, but the speed limit in NYC is 30mph. It shouldnt take much investigation to find out if the driver was speeding.

Never mind the fact that the law states that if you lose control, you were driving too fast for conditions.

We should definitely be more liberal with lifetime driving bans to people who have demonstrated that they can't operate a car without harming their fellow citizens, but what does jail time suppose to achieve?
Do you really think it does anything for deterrence?

I said nothing about jail time.

But the penalty is nothing. No fine. No license suspension. No community service.


And you know what jail time would achieve? It absolute would help deterrence.

Knowing you can speed in NYC and destroy the lives of 10 people, and get off scott free, why bother obeying the speed limit?

If the driver got 25 years, you bet people might start paying more attention to their driving.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

They could look at the black box. They could look at phone records. They could do a blood test for medications. They could speak to the witnesses who say the driver ran a light. They could pull cameras.

They could, you know, investigate.

Also, you may not know this, but the speed limit in NYC is 30mph. It shouldnt take much investigation to find out if the driver was speeding.

Never mind the fact that the law states that if you lose control, you were driving too fast for conditions.



I said nothing about jail time.

But the penalty is nothing. No fine. No license suspension. No community service.


And you know what jail time would achieve? It absolute would help deterrence.

Knowing you can speed in NYC and destroy the lives of 10 people, and get off scott free, why bother obeying the speed limit?

If the driver got 25 years, you bet people might start paying more attention to their driving.

No it wouldn't. Just as putting people in prison for drugs hasnt stopped or significantly decreased drug use.

 

[Chichikov]

I said nothing about jail time.

But the penalty is nothing. No fine. No license suspension. No community service.


And you know what jail time would achieve? It absolute would help deterrence.

Knowing you can speed in NYC and destroy the lives of 10 people, and get off scott free, why bother obeying the speed limit?

If the driver got 25 years, you bet people might start paying more attention to their driving.

You honestly think someone would go "well, I was gonna dick around with my cellphone, fuck if some people die, but a fine? oh hell no, both hands on the steering wheel"?

The only punishment that made sense to me is revoking your driver license.

 

[RoninChaos]

No you are exactly right. Point your friend toward the Time Magazine article on the issue. I think he's misguided on his conclusions, but the reporting (why prices are the way they are) is really solid. The whole system needs an overhaul.

Do you know what issue this is in? Or do you have a link?

 

[B-Dubs]

Do you know what issue this is in? Or do you have a link?

Unfortunately you need a subscription from the looks of it, the article was the US cover story from the beginning of March.

 

[789shadow]

Listening to Huckabee today and he was arguing that regulation isn't needed in business since without regulation companies would simply do the right thing. They would do the moral thing, the honorable thing, be good stewards of their finances, be fair, just, and moral.

...
..
.

yea...

Said Huckabee, with an enormous troll smile.

 

[speculawyer]

I think this is a bigger problem than the gun thing because 30,000 americans are killed every year, and the police can't be bothered to even issue a speeding ticket when a group of people is plowed down.

Nearly 30,000 people are killed with guns too.


Just because there may be no criminal prosecution, that doesn't mean the guy gets off with nothing. He is going to be sued, lose a lot of money, will have to pay really high insurance, etc.

If the driver was reckless, they may have gone after him. But if it was just negligence . . . well, it is not really a crime. Do you think he wanted to kill people? Would imprisoning this person protect others or just waste the state's money?

 

[Piecake]

Do you know what issue this is in? Or do you have a link?

http://minnesota.quaprod.publicradi...daily-circuit-friday-roundtable-medical-costs

Minnesota Public radio program where they get 3 doctors in to discuss the article. Obviously not the same, but its intersting, gets across most of the info, and gives you multiple perspectives. Also, its free

 

[el retorno]

They could look at the black box. They could look at phone records. They could do a blood test for medications. They could speak to the witnesses who say the driver ran a light. They could pull cameras.

They could, you know, investigate.

Also, you may not know this, but the speed limit in NYC is 30mph. It shouldnt take much investigation to find out if the driver was speeding.

Never mind the fact that the law states that if you lose control, you were driving too fast for conditions.

Im gonna guess that they did somw of that work and determined they woulnt get a conviction. The horribleness of the crime doesnt make it any easier. Im not a lawyer but I think half the stuff you mentioned isn't either admissible or going to advance the case he was speeding as it would be circumstantial.

And I still dont know what your proposing to fix this besided the flawed idea of punishment being a deterrence. Its already against the law and people dont think this stuff is ever going to happen to them. I think the envitable civil suit will be punishment enough

Nearly 30,000 people are killed with guns too.


Just because there may be no criminal prosecution, that doesn't mean the guy gets off with nothing. He is going to be sued, lose a lot of money, will have to pay really high insurance, etc.

If the driver was reckless, they may have gone after him. But if it was just negligence . . . well, it is not really a crime. Do you think he wanted to kill people? Would imprisoning this person protect others or just waste the state's money?

Deja vu.

 

[jamesinclair]

You honestly think someone would go "well, I was gonna dick around with my cellphone, fuck if some people die, but a fine? oh hell no, both hands on the steering wheel"?

The only punishment that made sense to me is revoking your driver license.

I think if you look around when driving, its very clear that the current laws and/or enforcement against cell phone use when driving is not working.

 

[Chichikov]

I think if you look around when driving, its very clear that the current laws and/or enforcement against cell phone use when driving is not working.

Two different things, fines to deter unwanted behavior like cellphone use is perfectly fine and in fact necessary.
But you were talking about harsher penalties for accidents based on outcome, and I just don't think you can deter accidents like that.

 

[Amir0x]

Sen Casey Backs Gay Marriage

http://www.epgn.com/view/full_story...iage-equality--DOMA-repeal?instance=top_story

go Casey

amazing how fast this has all started happening since Joe biden opened his mouth. Joe Biden is a true American patriot and hero

back in the day everyone was all "Joe Biden is a liability, he will put his foot in his mouth". I guess nobody expected the foot in the mouth to be a positive thing. Those were good times, good times.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

I think if you look around when driving, its very clear that the current laws and/or enforcement against cell phone use when driving is not working.

It's really tough...Not sure how you fight it.

 

[Gotchaye]

I think if you look around when driving, its very clear that the current laws and/or enforcement against cell phone use when driving is not working.

But the whole problem is that you're not likely to see any negative consequences from doing that, not that, when there are negative consequences, they aren't bad enough. You could hang, draw, and quarter people who talk on their cell phones and get into wrecks, but that wouldn't actually do a whole lot to get people to not talk on their cell phones while driving. It would do something, but we're talking about a pretty extreme measure here.

If this is something you're really concerned about, you need to be figuring out a way to punish people for using their cell phones while driving even when they don't cause wrecks. Probably you could do a decent job with cameras similar to the ones already in use to catch people going through red lights or speeding. A major problem is that people don't actually want to ban all cell phone use while driving - they just want to ban "unsafe" use, where "unsafe" is how lots of other people drive when using cell phones.

 

[jamesinclair]

This popped up on Yahoo just now....

A car plowed through a restaurant's patio during the lunch hour Monday, injuring 10 people before it came to rest with its engine revving and its hood inside a shattered plate glass window, authorities said.

Firefighters had to extricate four people from beneath the vehicle, including a boy, after the 12:30 p.m. crash at the Egg & I restaurant on Sahara Avenue, several blocks west of the Las Vegas Strip, witnesses said.

Police said the driver would probably face felony reckless driving charges.

http://news.yahoo.com/10-seriously-hurt-car-hits-vegas-restaurant-220457319.html

What was the difference?

Two men inside the Lexus sedan sat for a moment and then tried to run, McDonald said. Several men jumped over a short wrought-iron fence and caught them to hold them until police arrived.

They tried to run.

But why not use the same charges in the NYC case? Why isnt the NYC case felony reckless driving?

But the whole problem is that you're not likely to see any negative consequences from doing that, not that, when there are negative consequences, they aren't bad enough. You could hang, draw, and quarter people who talk on their cell phones and get into wrecks, but that wouldn't actually do a whole lot to get people to not talk on their cell phones while driving. It would do something, but we're talking about a pretty extreme measure here.

If this is something you're really concerned about, you need to be figuring out a way to punish people for using their cell phones while driving even when they don't cause wrecks. Probably you could do a decent job with cameras similar to the ones already in use to catch people going through red lights or speeding. A major problem is that people don't actually want to ban all cell phone use while driving - they just want to ban "unsafe" use, where "unsafe" is how lots of other people drive when using cell phones.

I think the best solution has two prongs:

1) Suspension of license
2) Requiring a license for a vehicle to start.

Ie, have every car have a slot that reads a license. No license in the slot, no ignition.

"Thatll never happen"

I know, because "omg the privacy" and " itll add $57 to every new car!" but I think it would save lives.

 

[789shadow]

This popped up on Yahoo just now....


http://news.yahoo.com/10-seriously-h...220457319.html

Damn, there was a Season 3 CSI episode that was basically this. Fucking predicting the future of Las Vegas.

 

[Gotchaye]

I think the best solution has two prongs:

1) Suspension of license
2) Requiring a license for a vehicle to start.

Ie, have every car have a slot that reads a license. No license in the slot, no ignition.

"Thatll never happen"

I know, because "omg the privacy" and " itll add $57 to every new car!" but I think it would save lives.

This is missing the point. If you're only suspending the licenses of people who have already caused a serious wreck, you're probably not reducing the number of serious wrecks by much. I don't have numbers handy, but what percentage of fatal wrecks do you think are avoidable in the sense that the drivers would not have been able to drive at the time under the sort of system you're describing due to their licenses being suspended?

If you want people to not talk on their phones while driving, you need to punish people for talking on a phone while driving. Punishing people for getting into wrecks isn't going to change their behavior all that much; people already try to avoid that.

 

[zero shift]

While I was on vacation from posting on GAF I noticed the thread about should genetically engineered babies should be banned. What bothered me wasn't the fact that people said that research shouldn't be banned (it shouldn't) but that the majority of posters in the thread saw no problem that people could essentially buy "intelligence". It just blew my mind as I couldn't imagine so many of those people supporting a non-public school system which could potentially be less effective when it comes to IQ.

 

[789shadow]

While I was on vacation from posting on GAF I noticed the thread about should genetically engineered babies should be banned. What bothered me wasn't the fact that people said that research shouldn't be banned (it shouldn't) but that the majority of posters in the thread saw no problem that people could essentially buy "intelligence". It just blew my mind as I couldn't imagine so many of those people supporting a non-public school system which could potentially be less effective when it comes to IQ.

I guess people liked Human Revolution's dystopia a little too much.

 

[Trurl]

While I was on vacation from posting on GAF I noticed the thread about should genetically engineered babies should be banned. What bothered me wasn't the fact that people said that research shouldn't be banned (it shouldn't) but that the majority of posters in the thread saw no problem that people could essentially buy "intelligence". It just blew my mind as I couldn't imagine so many of those people supporting a non-public school system which could potentially be less effective when it comes to IQ.

I don't follow what you mean in the bolded sentence.

 

[zero shift]

I guess people liked Human Revolution's dystopia a little too much.

I mean who the fuck was that guy comparing such a thing to fucking cars!? The best example would be...well health care. How's the working out? My INSURANCE COVERED $1,200 bill to get my wisdom teeth pulled out using technology available and used since the adoption of electricity.

Shit like this is what scares me about the future. It isn't the technology that scares me, I embrace it, its how it will be used in this neoliberal world. Everyday workers matter less with robots taking virtually every job sectors (3D printers with manufacturing, self-driving cars for transportation, self-checkout and online shopping for services, etc.) I fear what's going to become of the nation as people become so expendable and can't find work.

I don't follow what you mean in the bolded sentence.

That if we adopted a system in which everyone would have to pay for their own schooling, the difference in "intelligence" (whatever it is that IQ scores measure), could show less of a big gap than genetically engineered children. This is ironic to me because I assume most of those people who defend having genetically engineered children for sale wouldn't support such a schooling system. I don't think people realize how radical some outliers can be. I know closely related family members that have an IQ difference of 30+. This doesn't even include environmental factors.

 

[Aaron Strife]

go Casey

amazing how fast this has all started happening since Joe biden opened his mouth. Joe Biden is a true American patriot and hero

back in the day everyone was all "Joe Biden is a liability, he will put his foot in his mouth". I guess nobody expected the foot in the mouth to be a positive thing. Those were good times, good times.

Erick Erickson: "May 2012 is the moment Obama lost the election! Well actually it was August 2008 when he picked Biden, we all knew he was a loose cannon!"

In other news Stephen Colbert's sister is leading in SC-01 in a new poll, 3 over Mark Sanford and 9 (i believe) over the other Republican, Curtis Bostic. Democratic pickup ahoy... in a seat that Romney won by 18 points.

 

[jamesinclair]

This is missing the point. If you're only suspending the licenses of people who have already caused a serious wreck, you're probably not reducing the number of serious wrecks by much. I don't have numbers handy, but what percentage of fatal wrecks do you think are avoidable in the sense that the drivers would not have been able to drive at the time under the sort of system you're describing due to their licenses being suspended?

If you want people to not talk on their phones while driving, you need to punish people for talking on a phone while driving. Punishing people for getting into wrecks isn't going to change their behavior all that much; people already try to avoid that.

I think both. Greater enforcement of unsafe driving, and then serious penalties when the unsafe driving has consequences.

Like with guns...

More background checks, and your ass in jail if not storing the gun in a safe means a 4 year old blows herself up.

 

[Gotchaye]

I think both. Greater enforcement of unsafe driving, and then serious penalties when the unsafe driving has consequences.

Like with guns...

More background checks, and your ass in jail if not storing the gun in a safe means a 4 year old blows herself up.

But you're not doing both! You're not actually enforcing laws about unsafe driving or gun ownership. Background checks aren't about that; like driving tests, they're about weeding out people to whom you don't even want to give the opportunity to unsafely use a gun. You're still going to end up with a lot of gun owners who can do fine in a background check and who can pass a test where they demonstrate knowledge of how to safely store and use a gun but who get sloppy when you're not actively testing them because they think of themselves as careful and responsible - they think you're just being paranoid. You can't honestly think that threatening to punish people with jail time if they get a child killed is going to have a big impact on the rate at which people accidentally cause children to be killed.

Much more good would come of actually trying to catch people who are using guns (or driving cars) in an unsafe way even when that doesn't produce negative consequences. That's what you should be brainstorming if you care about this issue.

 

[isoquant]

go Casey

amazing how fast this has all started happening since Joe biden opened his mouth. Joe Biden is a true American patriot and hero

back in the day everyone was all "Joe Biden is a liability, he will put his foot in his mouth". I guess nobody expected the foot in the mouth to be a positive thing. Those were good times, good times.

I think it's pretty clear that was all planned - a trial balloon, if you will.

Obama didn't suddenly decide to announce his support for gay marriage because Biden ran his mouth off.

Still, Biden is awesome and played a pretty important role in making it all happen.

 

[Oblivion]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-comforts-crying-child-at-easter-egg-roll

and yet for some reason he can't do the same with Boehner

 

[Oblivion]

Haha, Ari Flescher's getting shredded in his twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/AriFleischer/status/317802476550098944

 

[Black Republican]

Ok this is good

Mitch Mcconnell's: Remembering...The Campaigns that Never Were

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUZJQVy_tJI

 

[PhoenixDark]

Haha, Ari Flescher's getting shredded in his twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/AriFleischer/status/317802476550098944

The only worthwhile way to respond is a simple "this is why you keep losing elections."

God forbid of course, but if North Korea were to attack SK with a nuclear weapon, I could imagine the US not responding with a nuke and instead bombing the shit out of the country with MOAB type artillery; a US nuclear strike would lead to unpredictable radiation fallout and break a long history of non-proliferation attacks. Point being if that scenario played out I can already imagine the entire right accusing Obama of cowardice for not using a nuke.

What would you do in that situation? Would it be more important to send a clear message that nuking an ally of the US would result in your country's complete annihilation, or would you use powerful but conventional bombs (in part to lower the casualty number)?

 

[RustyNails]

Ashley Judd's people are claiming sabotage

But Judd decided not to launch a campaign for the Democratic nomination, and her top adviser explained why on Monday: sabotage.

"Really the establishment on both sides turned against Judd," Jonathan Miller said on CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, clearing the way for another Democratic candidate.

"Some of them wanted another candidate, (Kentucky) Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, some for good reasons … they thought she'd be a stronger candidate, but others sought to either profit from her, working on her campaigns, or would love to have a friend in the U.S. Senate," Miller claimed.

Also working against Judd were "people who weren't friends of Secretary Grimes, who wanted to push her into the Senate race so she wouldn't be running for governor or lieutenant governor back home because she might be a rival of one of their preferred candidates," he continued.

Miller wrote an op-ed for The Daily Beast Monday that also claimed that Democrats circulated lies about statements Judd had made or former President Bill Clinton's involvement in the race.

Although Judd cited her family, Miller suggested that if not for the sabotage, Judd could have been a viable candidate.

Chicago thuggery! How many Black Panthers did Obama send there to twist Ashley Judd's arms?

 

[LosDaddie]

The funny thing is that I honestly can't think of a demographic that would fit more in with the GOP than Muslims. They are the absolute epitome of conservatism. Not just social, but fiscal as well. Virtually every Muslim either came here as an immigrant or the son/daughter of an immigrant. And virtually every Muslim came here with their family in which all of them started their own businesses and pooled their money together. Because of this it isn't uncommon for them to view anybody who is poor is deserving to be so. "I started my own business, why couldn't they?" My father hardly ever gave me advice as a child, but one thing he told me was this "If you're smart you will be rich, if you are stupid you will be poor." Yet despite this when talk about American politics, they have little positive to say about the Republicans. They keep going back to Israel (especially my father's side since they are all Palestinian) and the war in Iraq. They don't vote Democrat because they like progressivism and social welfare, far from it, they vote Democrat because that isn't the party that started wars in the Middle East and isn't overwhelming supportive of Israel.

Edit: And as you can imagine just like many "conservatives" that take out a shit ton of welfare, Muslims aren't alone in that either. My dad's brother has 6 to 8 kids and lives in a upper middle class home in the suburbs of Buffalo Grove. Despite that my family strongly believes that he was getting welfare for the children for quite some time despite him making bank.

I'd imagine the main reason why muslims have abandoned the GOP is because of the constant bashing they receive from them.

 

[Black Republican]

Ashley Judd's people are claiming sabotage

Chicago thuggery! How many Black Panthers did Obama send there to twist Ashley Judd's arms?

sometimes id wish one of the new black panthers would come up toa gop rep to see how they react

 

[Hitokage]

I'd imagine the main reason why muslims have abandoned the GOP is because of the constant bashing they receive from them.

Just like how Hoover, Nixon, and Reagan pushed Black Americans out of the GOP.

 

[KtSlime]

Ashley Judd's people are claiming sabotage

Chicago thuggery! How many Black Panthers did Obama send there to twist Ashley Judd's arms?

Isn't this pretty much what happened (I don't know why you are bringing GOP anti-Obama nonsense into it though, didn't see that in the article, unless you mean to call Judd a racist)? The party wanted to install their own aristocratic candidate so they used the press and intimidated Judd into not running. I'm not saying Judd would have been a particularly great candidate, or that she would have won, but I'm not above believing that the Democrats would bully some people to keep power in the family.

 

[gcubed]

The only worthwhile way to respond is a simple "this is why you keep losing elections."

God forbid of course, but if North Korea were to attack SK with a nuclear weapon, I could imagine the US not responding with a nuke and instead bombing the shit out of the country with MOAB type artillery; a US nuclear strike would lead to unpredictable radiation fallout and break a long history of non-proliferation attacks. Point being if that scenario played out I can already imagine the entire right accusing Obama of cowardice for not using a nuke.

What would you do in that situation? Would it be more important to send a clear message that nuking an ally of the US would result in your country's complete annihilation, or would you use powerful but conventional bombs (in part to lower the casualty number)?

myself, i would only reserve a nuclear counterattack for a direct nuclear attack on the US. For North Korea, i don't even know that much about the politics there. Are the people complicit? I'd remove the government and destroy all military installations.

 

[Hitokage]

Oh my god, I turn to MSNBC and the shirt the woman is wearing is exploding onscreen with moire patterns.

Edit: LOL they told her to put on a jacket.

 

[TacticalFox88]

To offset depressing here's a vid to watch to make all the right feels: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_TBd-UCwVAY

;__;

 

[pigeon]

Isn't this pretty much what happened (I don't know why you are bringing GOP anti-Obama nonsense into it though, didn't see that in the article, unless you mean to call Judd a racist)? The party wanted to install their own aristocratic candidate so they used the press and intimidated Judd into not running. I'm not saying Judd would have been a particularly great candidate, or that she would have won, but I'm not above believing that the Democrats would bully some people to keep power in the family.

I mean, I don't think you need to assume this level of internecine trickery. If Judd would have been a lousy candidate that would've lost, and the Dems believe it's a winnable seat otherwise, that's actually plenty of reason to try to stop her from running. I don't see any reason to suspect any sort of machine politics here besides the basic desire to win elections.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Maybe they felt Judd would hurt other races, similar to Christine O'Donnell, or maybe the local dem party was simply too disgusted with her carpet bagging out of touch ways (similar to what NY dems did to Harold Ford). I doubt anyone truly believes Mitch McConnell, who is sitting on a 20m war chest, is going to lose. Perhaps dems would rather lose the race quietly than have Judd's (alleged) comments spread around the airwaves, and I'm guessing they also weren't impressed with her behind doors performances so far.

I don't think it's far fetched to assume she isn't well versed on many issues Kentucky cares about, plus she is more liberal than most democrats in the state.

 

[mckmas8808]

But it is mostly a celebratory myth on the right. So much of the Reagan mythology can be shot down with facts, some good some bad.
-Reagan gave us amnesty of illegal aliens
-Reagan negotiated with terrorists
-Reagan wanted to get rid of all nuclear weapons
-Fiscal conservatism? Reagan ran up a bigger debt than EVERY PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM COMBINED.
-Reagan banned publicly carrying loaded weapons
-Reagan didn't kill the Soviet Union, it largely collapsed on its own because its economic system sucked and the late 80's drop in oil prices killed their best source of hard currency.

How true is the bold really?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Tom Carper (D-DE) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) now both support gay marriage, bringing the total number of senators in support to 50. A DOMA repeal could pass the Senate probably.

We're through the looking glass, people.

 

[_dazed]

What would you do in that situation? Would it be more important to send a clear message that nuking an ally of the US would result in your country's complete annihilation, or would you use powerful but conventional bombs (in part to lower the casualty number)?

It's real easy to say screw it and blow up everything. The best approach would be what the allies did following ww2. Document in depth all the atrocities, put it on display everywhere, Nuremberg like trials, public execution of the kim family by firing squad, marshall plan, etc etc.

There is a great advantage to appearing morally superior I think.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Tom Carper (D-DE) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) now both support gay marriage, bringing the total number of senators in support to 50. A DOMA repeal could pass the Senate probably.

We're through the looking glass, people.

2nd GOP Senator, with Johnson, correct?

DOMA repeal would need 60 votes, it's not there yet. Getting there fast, though.

 

[The Librarian]

Tom Carper (D-DE) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) now both support gay marriage, bringing the total number of senators in support to 50. A DOMA repeal could pass the Senate probably.

We're through the looking glass, people.

That's great!

...

Still want him gone come 2016.

 

[GhaleonEB]

That's great!

...

Still want him gone come 2016.

Edit: NM, you're right.

 

[Hitokage]

How true is the bold really?

Gorbachev criticized his predecessor Brezhnev as being the "era of stagnation", but while he made important political reforms his efforts to reform the economy weren't successful. The resulting increase in both openness and economic strain was a powerful mix with the latent nationalism of soviet bloc states.

 

[The Librarian]

Edit: NM, you're right.

I'm always right, Ghaleon.

 

[RustyNails]

I'd imagine the main reason why muslims have abandoned the GOP is because of the constant bashing they receive from them.

LOL

they don't get bashing from liberals? go to the dawkins thread. I hope Muslims don't form a permanent democratic voting bloc. Both sides are equally bloodthirsty.

Tom Carper (D-DE) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) now both support gay marriage, bringing the total number of senators in support to 50. A DOMA repeal could pass the Senate probably.

We're through the looking glass, people.

dat portman effect

 

[el retorno]

Awesome news about Kirk.

Hope to see more blue state Republicans come out for it (collins, ). I'd love to see Mccain support it.

If they do try to push DOMA repeal, the issue of full faith and credit is going to be hard to overcome. If they just repeal it than the courts are probably going to force states to recognize gay marriages and if they try to institute a similar requirement that states can ignore other states marriages its gonna look mighty hypocritical.

I can actually see this being a voting issue in 2014. Imagine that 10 years after the Republicans used gay marriage bans to hurt democratic chances the roles will be reversed.

 

[PhoenixDark]

It's real easy to say screw it and blow up everything. The best approach would be what the allies did following ww2. Document in depth all the atrocities, put it on display everywhere, Nuremberg like trials, public execution of the kim family by firing squad, marshall plan, etc etc.

There is a great advantage to appearing morally superior I think.

I don't want to sound like Jack Bauer but there wouldn't be time for that if North Korea nuked SK. The US would have to respond immediately and try to take out NK's nuclear and artillery sites. Some might argue responding with a US nuke would be essential to send a message not just to NK but other countries; there was a 2005 war game that basically came to that conclusion. Personally I would rather just bomb the country conventionally, focusing on disabling them from attacking the south again. I don't think nukes should be used (today) unless in retaliation to a nuclear strike on the US.

Kim and his generals would be killed by the bombing most likely; most of their nuclear tech is underground, the US would use bunker busting bombs.