I see all of your points, but I have to say I'm against the death penalty. I have many reasons for this, but I'll tell you the main one.

Many convicted people on death row have been later found innocent and exonerated due to newly found evidence, or after discovering prosecutorial misconduct or whatever. These are innocent people that all of us, as members of this club called the United States, who allow the death penalty, would have murdered. If we haven't done this already, which we almost certainly have, we will, at some point, know for a fact that we murdered an innocent person. At that point, we are all murders. And we, in turn, deserve to die.

That's the paradox of the death penalty. Lock the murderers up forever, definitely. But if we kill people that we're "pretty sure" killed someone else, even if the evidence seems terribly conclusive and emotions run high, it remains an incredibly dangerous legal environment. And if you don't think it happens, it does: http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/innocent-north-carolina-man-exonerated-after-14-years-death-row

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeWQxI15aaw When people in martial arts classes break 3 and 4 boards at a time, they use something to separate the boards at the edges - usually chopsticks or pencils.
This space makes it so you're only breaking one at a time, and each one actually helps to break the one below it. The "Iron Man" suit here is actually shown without anything separating the boards. You don't see martial arts teachers or students doing anything like that.
Checkout the Bullshit episode on martial arts for more info too. I'd provide a link to that on YouTube, but want to avoid linking to copyrighted stuff.

We seem to want to look toward space, toward distant planets trying to find even scant evidence of strange, spectacular creatures. And yet ones as strange and spectacular as you can imagine remain undiscovered right here at home.

From the general feel of the comments so far, it looks like my opinion will be pretty unpopular, which makes me a bit scared to post this, but I really don't like this law.

Things can sound like a good idea on paper, and often have positive intentions, but when you make a law out of every good idea it can create problems. Every law we make takes away just a little of our freedom (in many cases, a lot). Make murder against the law, I lose the freedom to murder you, and vice versa. That's well worth the cost. But all the little laws like this stack up.

I mean in this case, sure, having a commercial that's loud could inconvenience people, maybe annoy people. And I'm sure it'll make a lot of people happy to not have to deal with it. But as Americans, we don't have a right to not be inconvenienced, to not be annoyed. Of course quieter commercials isn't a really a big deal to us. Maybe it will be more "pleasant." But having a loud commercial be a crime? Really?

Usually when someone says, "You know, there oughta be a law," there shouldn't be.

I might not fail to take the opposite a short amount of time to not quite understand your non-lack of negatives.

Thank you. I think this is the point that a lot of people miss completely. And I haven't heard it said better than from the gun-control episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit:

"The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,' it says, 'the right of the PEOPLE.' Now, why the word 'People'? Because the PEOPLE who wrote this thing had just fought a war for two years against a tyrannical state MILITIA. They knew the time might come when they might have to do that again. So they made owning weapons a right that the government militia couldn't take away.

You can call the police against a gang-banger. But who do you call against the police?

I think I might have seen this kind of futuristic technology somewhere... http://www.google.com/products?q=cell+phone+car+charger&hl=en&aq=f

The guy who said, "Drill right here."

Clearly, he picked a pretty good spot.

Ok, recently I've been hearing quite a bit of people calling to have the government take money from people who do quite well for themselves, and give it to people not making as much. Trying to do this really does just destroy economies.

Let me give you an example. My girlfriend's parents are very well-off. Her father is a dentist who owns his own practice, which employs about 30 other people. It's taken him years of hard work to accomplish this. He didn't start off well-off, he worked his ass off, took risks, and today does very well, and provides a decent living and health insurance for many employees. If you took the money he worked so hard to make to give it to others who did not earn it, he wouldn't be able to help those he helps with a competitive practice and good stable jobs. Have you ever gotten a job where you boss was dirt poor? If they don't have money, they can't hire other people and create more jobs.

Giving people money who don't earn it makes no one want to do the work to earn it. What's the incentive to work hard, build a good business that provides jobs and innovates, and make plenty of money for yourself when 90% of that wealth you work so hard for is just going to be forcefully taken from you, and given to people who don't earn it?

It's probably morally good to give your excess money to those who might need it. But legislating generosity doesn't work. It leads to everyone wanting to take from the pot instead of working their asses off just to have it taken from them anyway.

Seriously?

It's hard to be more of a picker of nits than that.

It's not that $105,000 hybrid Mercedes saves you money over an $8,000 Chevy Aveo, it's that it ultimately saves you money over the same model non-hybrid Mercedes.

From TFA (I know, silly to even mention such an odd source):
"It cost about $5,000 less over five years than its counterpart with a gasoline engine."

Things like sprinting a mile or going through a rigorous workout are also stressful, usually in a not-unpleasant manner. Stress isn't always just an uncomfortable, twitchy, sweaty-palms experience, constantly being nervous about everything.

Although I do suppose that could describe some sexual experiences fairly accurately.

No, he's actually right.

Here's the thing: The First Amendment says the government can't restrict speech, but a private company is not subject to those restrictions.

As a consumer, I do indeed want my access to the Internet to not be throttled by the company I get my access from. However, that private company, being not part of the government, has every right to do that. It may not be "right" for them to do that, and perhaps unethical, but that's not the issue. If one company doesn't give me the access I want as a consumer, then I don't have to give that company my money. Another company will take my money to give me the unrestricted access I want. But they have the right to refuse (or throttle I suppose) service to anyone. They might abuse that right, but once they do, angry consumers will flock to where they can get what they want.