Except not because I actually enjoy the things I pay for in the subscriptions. And it's voluntary. Neither of which can be said of taxes. I have Amazon Prime, Hulu/Disney+/ESPN+, Xbox Live, and Spotify for $52 a month/$624 a year. I don't include the internet bill in this because I would have that regardless and I do a lot more than just stream with that (not the least of which is working, which makes money which makes internet an investment not a cost). Other than the Xbox, I can enjoy these services from wherever, whenever I want. I'd say I'm getting tremendous value for what I'm paying. I could never say the same for legalized theft, I mean taxes.

This is probably one of the dumbest password statements I've seen. I utilize "remember my password" all the time because I'm ALSO using "suggest password" in which Google provides a random (no lectures on how computers aren't really random please) string of characters that I'd never be able to remember. This ensures I have good, non-reused passwords for everything. Your comment shows hostility towards password managers which is sheer idiocy in today's world. Password managers are something EVERYONE should be using unless you keep a little black book by your side with all your passwords (I have 392 currently in my Chrome manager...good luck writing that down and keeping it organized as more are added to it). If more people used password managers to keep complex unique passwords then there'd be a lot less impact from breaches.

When your opponent makes an idiotic argument based on faulty data, it's pretty easy to keep pushing an idiotic policy based on faulty data. Actual economists, not these try hards in the Republican party, know two primary things about minimum wage laws: #1 The effects of such laws are mostly unseen as people don't really get fired over the laws. Rather establishments merely hire at a slower rate than they otherwise would have. This unseen effect is even harder to detect in times of prosperity as businesses that grow anyways despite the minimum wage laws are increasing their payrolls. The question has to be "Would they have hired even more if not for the laws?" Leading to.. #2 The effects are usually minimally noticed because a vast majority of workers are already paid above the minimum wage. In 2016, only .08% of the entire hourly paid US workforce was paid at the Federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr. The true effect of minimum wage laws is that they price out the most unskilled labor from even being able to participate in the labor market. Homeless increases, labor participation rates drop, that's the effect of minimum wage laws. It has little impact on employers directly but it does impact wealth equality as those at the very bottom of the economic ladder lose the ability to earn anything for themselves.

I'm going to preface this by saying you're being contradictory for yourself all over and it makes it very difficult to hold a conversation.

#1

Your original analogy was If you spray a machine gun into a crowd, you haven't managed to not commit a crime if you happened to not hit anyone. That is an act of shooting at people which goes far beyond simple negligence and is actually attempted murder. So you are walking back your own analogy by saying "walking into a crowd is a dangerous thing". It's not. If you think the mere act of holding a gun in a crowd is a dangerous act then you don't understand how guns work.

#2

It's not, it's perfectly legal and safe to have a gun, even a machine gun (however you want to define that), around other people. It's when you start shooting that there's likely to be a problem.

#3

On a case by case basis I don't disagree. But blanket arbitrary statements like "at .07 you're not endangering anyone but at .08 holy shit you're a danger to society now" are asinine. It's just as asinine as a zero tolerance policy where .01 is considered a danger. It all depends on the person and the situation. Someone that's impaired and knows they're impaired may drive extra cautious, but according to stupid laws they're still more dangerous than a sober person going 45 through a school zone (as can be judged by the heavier penalty for the DUI over the speeding).

#4

The same with driving while tired, but there's no law saying you need 8 hours of sleep in the last 24 hours before you can drive. There's no specific laws against driving while under the effects of a prescription drug that say "do not operate heavy machinery" on the bottle. What happens if the sleep deprived or medicated harm someone while driving? They receive consequences commensurate with the level of negligence present at the time. DUI's are treated as somehow special because there's a magic meter to measure it, which is now clearly shown to be a crock of shit anyways.

#6

Already said it but probably worth saying again. Holding a gun near others doesn't mean endangerment. If it did, then the mere presence of police or concealed/open carry holders would result in them being guilty of endangering people simply by being around them.

#7

Here you contradict yourself in just a couple of sentences. I agree that anybody's right to swing a fist ends at my nose. This is physical contact, it's an intentional physical and observable effect of a behavior that has a direct and adverse impact on the well being of another person. But then you equate "swinging" to drunk driving. Incorrect. The mere act of driving while impaired, however you wish to define that, is not in and of itself a physical act that has a direct and adverse impact on the well being of others. Once you hit something or someone, now you've had an adverse impact on another person. You could even argue endangerment in lieu of physical impact if the driving was of a reckless nature, for example lane swerving, excessive speeds, etc. but all of these behaviors are already traffic violations regardless of impairment level. This is what makes DUI laws pointless. They are merely tools by which police use to invade privacy and fish for other offenses. And this study of the inefficacy of DUI detection tools proves that police never cared about DUI, they cared about arrests and revenue.

It's all the same pots of money. State police get State money, local cops get left over State money in many occasions and the added bonus of keeping whatever they find in seizures brought about by DUI laws (e.g. asset forfeiture). Licenses are a county level thing, which have their own police force and they benefit from that revenue. No matter where you turn, cops are government agents and they benefit from government revenue. You're delusional if you think they don't have an interest in as much extortion as possible.

I'm all for high punishment if you actually cause harm to someone/property. I won't deny that for some people drinking and driving means taking a huge safety risk with themselves and others around them. For others, having a few beers and driving is inconsequential to their driving ability. DUI makes no distinction, which is the problem. And I can counter your anecdotes with my own...of people that were drunk but sleeping in their cars and were still cited for DUI. Of people that were stopped at DUI checkpoints but harassed for things totally unrelated to drinking (DUI laws are an excuse to circumvent 4th Amendment protections no different than drug laws). And yeah, if your actions of negligence cause harm to someone else or property, you should pay a very high price. The concept at issue here is prior restraint. Enabling prior restraint, i.e. searching and seizing people before any act has actually taken place, is utilized by police and governments the world over as a means to oppress people in ways that were never intended or fathomed by the well-intentioned people that made the law in the first place. I'm in favor rather of allowing innocent people to go about their lives while only going after people that actually cause harm to others.

Your analogy is inaccurate. To be more accurate, the mere act of holding a machine gun would be criminal in the same way as drinking and driving. The point about DUI laws is they don't criminalize bad driving. There's already laws for that, specifically around the concept of reckless driving (not using turn signals, erratic lane changing, etc.) DUI is purely about what's in your blood, not about what actions you've actually taken. Some people are still fantastic drivers at .15 and others can't even drive while completely sober. DUI laws are no different than drug laws and are enforced just as arbitrarily and used just as much to violate privacy (e.g. DUI checkpoints which are usually just excuses to find expired plates, licenses, and "I smell pot" searches).

It's long been known that DUI laws are nothing but revenue generators for local municipalities, criminalizing people for what's in their blood rather than what they've actually done. This just solidifies what was already known, though couldn't be completely proven. That cops aren't interested in safety, they just want their money and will extort whomever they have to in order to get it. In the end this report will likely have little significance as bootlickers will still rush to defend cops and how they didn't know about all this (and ignoring the fact that the cops clearly never cared) and those of us that already knew cops are bullying scum aren't convinced of anything new.

It's almost like the relationship between climate and biology isn't fully understood and outlandish claims about killing the planet in 12 years might actually need to be questioned. Whodathunk?

This is like complaining that 30 seconds of ad time during the Super Bowl is too expensive. If you want prime placement in front of the maximum number of eyes possible, it's going to cost you. That's advertising. Whether it's Google or the Super Bowl doesn't matter.

If people don't want kids to be the targets of this kind of stuff then stop putting your kids on the world stage behind which you hide. They are not your human shields and when you treat them as such you can't complain about the damage. Calling her "mentally ill" is not a jab at her Asbergers. It is a jab at the lunacy she spouted on a world stage, crying about how her childhood has been stolen. Her childhood has indeed been stolen, but by her parents that fed her this doom and gloom crap that has clearly left her traumatized and believing the oceans will rise and drown her any moment now. It takes a special kind of mindset to blame your own choices, like skipping school, on other people. I'll be damned if I'm going to take demands on how I live my life from some bitch in Sweden in high school. These girls don't have a lick of rationality in their statements and merely mouth pieces for a political agenda that's sole interest is control.

Tired of everyone calling it that. It's a memo, a reconstruction. It is NOT a transcript. It is based on the notes and memories of people that witnessed the call. To call it a transcript is a lie.

Of all the things to walk out on...carbon footprint? How much of an ivory tower of privilege must one be in to be able to forego one's salary and potentially job to make a virtue signal on carbon footprint? These people are such caricatures of themselves it's laughable.

There's a game behind Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, Magic The Gathering, and pogs back when those were a thing. How are they different? And just because one industry has not invested the capital to hire said psychologists doesn't mean they can't or wouldn't if they'd had the idea/profit opportunity to do so. Just because one doesn't seize an opportunity that others do doesn't mean the actions are fundamentally any different. As for psychologists themselves and an effort to manipulate people's behaviors, whoo you're gonna flip your shit when you find out what marketers and advertisers do outside the game industry.

All forms of sports cards too. This nanny state nonsense needs to stop. I'm sick and tired of politicians thinking they know better how I want to spend my money.