Troll, as you well know, you are the childish game player. I started by saying that Obama had not committed an impeachable offense - and he has not. I point to the reason and you respond with a well-thought out "fuck you," while accusing me of polluting the discourse. Look in the mirror, asshole!
I've looked over your posting history and you are apparently a fossil-fuel apologist who denies global warming who only pulls Linus' shit-stained cock out of his mouth long enough to shout "FUCK YOU" at everyone who disagrees with you, especially concerning your beloved bitcoins.
You think you're an expert on everything, saying you've been programming since 1988, yet are only 32. Newsflash: your playing with logo when you were 7 years old is not something to put on your resume, sonny boy.
Shave your neckbeard and move out of your mother's basement, dumbfuck with strong, but uninformed, opinions.
You're saying a president authorizing the killing of American citizens without due process isn't deserving of impeachment. Please defend that position, and be sure to consider how you'd feel if you or a family member were the target of such a killing, along with consideration of the consequences for the foundations of what we consider the core of our nation's principles of justice. Let's see if you can just address the issue straight, without any attempt at bringing up other politicians to deflect attention from it. I doubt you'll be able to.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's legal. Look "here."
You just don't like the other guy using this same power you gave the previous one.
Well, when the intrinsic value of something is lower than its cost to extract or produce it has for any practical effect no value and money paper net value is negative.
Much like gold to you or me. If you wanted to buy some gold for intrinsic purposes (such as making a non-corrodable connector), you'd have to buy it at street cost, which is much more due to everyone thinking shiny metals are great.
You could, but nobody would because it is cheaper to use non money paper even if the money didn't have its added value given by law. But then again most money is bits in bank accounts, paper money isn't going to last long.
I didn't say it was a useful idea, only that it could be done. Much like gold has overinflated value compared to intrinsic value, so does paper. Paper does have some intrinsic value.
If you're BAC was 1.5 or 1.3 you'd be dead.
Your long list of examples omit something important: data. Those examples simply don't have enough impact to trigger laws. You might not like them, but laws like this aren't written to accommodate your dislikes, laws like this are based on data. If putting on make-up was a significant source of accidents, above DWI or cell-phone usage, it would be on the list. It isn't arbitrary that alcohol and cell phone usage are restricted, they cause the most accidents.
Throwing away some mod points here to make a point. The only reason there is more data on DWI/DUI is because it's far easier data to collect. No one actually collects data on people who put their makeup on while driving, or was yelling at their kids; these examples of distracted or impaired driving are equally valid and probably as common if not more, but simply do not lend themselves to simple testing of any kind; what kind of metric would you use? Ergo, little or no data. This is the same reason why speeding is the most common moving violation and has tons of data behind it: it's very simple for a cop to park behind a billboard to measure and record your speed with a radar gun, but much more unlikely for them to catch someone on the road who is tailgating, playing checkers, or just driving dangerously in general, as those things have no real metric.
I'd like to help with your quest for data. I once got a blowjob while driving (on OP's list) and did not crash.
There's no such thing as innate value. Value is context-dependent. All money is funny money. It's just a question of what brand of humor you prefer.
The US Dollar is like Jay Leno. Dull and unimaginative, but shows up for work on time every night.
Bitcoin is like Richard Pryor. Offensive, unstable, unpredictable, implicated in tax-evasion, and prone to setting itself on fire.
So where does the "funny" bit come in for Bitcoin? Only I remember Richard Pryor actually making me laugh.
The "funny" is reading all the bitcoin nutjobs go crazy trying to justify it as legitimate currency and putting down central banks.