Yes, but in the past few years the voters also voted in favor of amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

How does a political exemption get the Do Not Call law past the Constitution? One's right to free speech doesn't obligate me to listen to it.

Hear hear!

Long gone are the days of civil disagreement, now it's "go against anything that my opponent is in favor of, even if I was in favor of it yesterday."

In a supposedly free country (yeah, I know, who am I kidding?), shouldn't we always err on the side of liberty instead of trying to "pre-regulate" criminal activity?

Precisely! That goes with a lot of issues lately...gun control, gay marriage, etc...why do so many look for ways to reduce liberty just because they disagree with something? That's a byproduct of freedom, get used to it.

Can you give me a legitimate reason why any intelligent, law-abiding person would constantly wear his or her jeans several sizes too large, so that the waist sits on his or her thighs?

Can you give me a legitimate reason why any intelligent, law-abiding person would constantly wear a baseball cap with the price tag or other stickers still on it solely to make it look like it was stolen?

Freedom of expression. Personal preference. Thanks to the Constitution, I don't need a legitimate reason to do these things if I so choose to do so.

I thought that was Senator William Proxmire.

Aren't SEC filings like this public documents?

Oh I like that. I'm going to shamelessly plagiarize it.

Yes, and that is why it's a bad design.

I've taken to writing my state and Congressional representation every time I get one of these calls to ask when they will introduce legislation closing these loopholes. Curiously, I haven't received any replies. Hmm, I wonder why.

I get politically-oriented robo calls to my cellphone. Political and charitable organizations are exempt from honoring the Do Not Call list.

So no, it does not work pretty well, even though it works as designed. A bad design is a bad design, no matter how well it works.

Visibility is only a part of defensive driving. As I stated previously, visibility helps in defensive driving, but it is not the be all and end all. I can compensate for the handling characteristics of the SUV by altering my driving habits. I think that would also come under "defensive" driving as well.

Yes, short nearby objects are harder to see, but I was considering the visibility around other vehicles, not over distance. A prime example of this is making a right turn and having your vision blocked to the left by the vehicle next to you.

I agree that defensive driving is a must, but it only goes so far...sometimes you can be as careful as can be, but the inattentive driver that doesn't see the red light and rear ends your car is still going to hit you. That is where the larger vehicle size comes into play, in situations where you cannot avoid the collision.

Yes, but note that I addressed that point in my post. I can compensate for the SUV's handling by changing my driving habits.

And also as a point of information, I don't own a SUV.

To play Devil's Advocate, there is a rational reason for doing so.

There is an elevated risk of rollover with an SUV, which I can mitigate as a driver by changing my driving style, and driving more defensively. A SUV helps me drive defensively by increasing visibility around me. Those are factors that I, as a driver, can control. However, I can't control what other drivers will do or the type of vehicle that will hit mine in an accident. Therefore, to mitigate that risk, I'll drive a larger vehicle that will provide more protection in an accident. Two problems are solved here.

To go the opposite, way, driving a smaller car to manage the rollover risk decreases my ability to drive defensively (lower visibility) and decreases my chances of survival in a collision. One problem is solved, and another made potentially worse.