Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Of course they do, they're easy targets. Its like targeting pedophiles. Going on a generally ironclad moral crusade is an easy way to make a political career at the state level.

Wouldn't want to appear soft on crime. If they didn't personally go down to the prison and beat a drunk driver with their shoe, how would the populace know they do not like it?

dogma wrote:Of course they do, they're easy targets. Its like targeting pedophiles. Going on a generally ironclad moral crusade is an easy way to make a political career at the state level.

Especially in a Republican state, yes.

Ahtman wrote:Wouldn't want to appear soft on crime. If they didn't personally go down to the prison and beat a drunk driver with their shoe, how would the populace know they do not like it?

And God help them if that shoe is anything less than wingtip.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Wouldn't want to appear soft on crime. If they didn't personally go down to the prison and beat a drunk driver with their shoe, how would the populace know they do not like it?

And God help them if that shoe is anything less than wingtip.

Cleats are usually the preferred shoe for beating people with.

Please tell me you guys didn't just compare pedophilia to drunk driving (or for that matter insinuate that pedophilia and its often associated acts are not really crimes worth prosecuting)...

chaos0xomega wrote:Please tell me you guys didn't just compare pedophilia to drunk driving (or for that matter insinuate that pedophilia and its often associated acts are not really crimes worth prosecuting)...

There's an argument to be made that pedophilia is less deplorable than drunk driving, given that pedophilia is based on sexual attraction (as opposed to a desire to drive while intoxicated), and does not place undue risk on the life of the child (whereas driving drunk places undue risk on everyone else driving around you).

Chowderhead wrote:Don't care. Why should I? If he's an illegal, Obama will deport him. He has no choice.

It's a clear cut decision.

The DHS/ICE won't deport any illegal immigrant unless they break laws. That just came down Napolitano a couple weeks ago.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/18/new-dhs-rules-cancel-deportations/

This is obvious pandering to the Latin vote. He's got the Black vote sewn up (80%+) and is struggling to keep white independents. His numbers with Latin voters aren't great either. He's not above not enforcing the law either (DOMA?). Whether he agrees with it or not, his branch's responsibility is to enforce laws.

Chowderhead wrote:Don't care. Why should I? If he's an illegal, Obama will deport him. He has no choice.

It's a clear cut decision.

A White House spokesman can/should say that it would be inappropriate for the President to interfere in an individual procedure of justice. It need not have Obama's hand on the issue at all.

Orlanth wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Don't care. Why should I? If he's an illegal, Obama will deport him. He has no choice.

It's a clear cut decision.

A White House spokesman can/should say that it would be inappropriate for the President to interfere in an individual procedure of justice. It need not have Obama's hand on the issue at all.

Unfortunately, the feds have all jurisdiction regarding deportations, states and municipalities can bring people to ICE, but ICE has all of the authority to deport.

Obama should just refuse to speak with or have anything to do with the guy. No way people can claim bias then.

Da Boss wrote:No way people can claim bias then.

You must not have much experience with US politics.

Slarg232 wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Don't care. Why should I? If he's an illegal, Obama will deport him. He has no choice.

It's a clear cut decision.

Your young, you don't know how politics works.

Nore, I think, how corrupt some politicians are.

Obama was an Illinois politician, corruption seems to be a requirement for any elected position there. As far as the penalty given, its says that its almost always available for plea bargainers so its too bad he pleaded not guilty.

Corruption is present in American politics period, not just Illinois.

It's pure idiocy to believe otherwise, and even more idiocy to assume that just because a politician is from a specific region that they are subject to the 'stereotypes' of those regions.
New York politicians are stereotypically 'corrupt', Catholic, and opposed to change. Yet who okayed same-sex marriages?

What are the odds he doesn't even really know the guy? Either way the administration shouldn't say anything, or at best if specifically asked about it refer reporters to the local authorities or ICE if/when it comes to that. The Presidency doesn't deal with local matters this far below them. A quirk of genetics doesn't change anything.

dogma wrote:Of course they do, they're easy targets. Its like targeting pedophiles. Going on a generally ironclad moral crusade is an easy way to make a political career at the state level.

Plus they have that whole tendency to have accidents and kill people.

Kanluwen wrote:Corruption is present in American politics period, not just Illinois.

It's pure idiocy to believe otherwise, and even more idiocy to assume that just because a politician is from a specific region that they are subject to the 'stereotypes' of those regions.
New York politicians are stereotypically 'corrupt', Catholic, and opposed to change. Yet who okayed same-sex marriages?

halonachos wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Don't care. Why should I? If he's an illegal, Obama will deport him. He has no choice.

It's a clear cut decision.

Your young, you don't know how politics works.

Nore, I think, how corrupt some politicians are.

Obama was an Illinois politician, corruption seems to be a requirement for any elected position there. As far as the penalty given, its says that its almost always available for plea bargainers so its too bad he pleaded not guilty.

This thread just got great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Troy wrote:

dogma wrote:Of course they do, they're easy targets. Its like targeting pedophiles. Going on a generally ironclad moral crusade is an easy way to make a political career at the state level.

Plus they have that whole tendency to have accidents and kill people.

So do teenage cellphone users.

ShumaGorath wrote:So do teenage cellphone users.

Thats illegal too. It would be nice if you had a point worth having.

Troy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:So do teenage cellphone users.

Thats illegal too. It would be nice if you had a point worth having.

That's not illegal in every state and certainly not every country, nor does it have the stigma thats attached to drunk driving. Drunk driving is treated so harshly because of the moralistic intonations involved in being drunk. People driving under prescriptions or without glasses aren't treated like leprous pariahs in the same way.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Troy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:So do teenage cellphone users.

Thats illegal too. It would be nice if you had a point worth having.

That's not illegal in every state, nor does it have the stigma attached to drunk driving. Drunk driving is treated so harshly because of the moralistic intonations involved in being drunk. People driving under prescriptions or without glasses aren't treated like leprous pariahs in the same way.

Incorrect.

Drunk driving is treated more harshly because: 1) cellphone use by teenagers is a new phenomena that is now beig addressed whereas drunk driving goes back to the first Model T.; 2) far more fatalities result from drunk driving.

Troy wrote:

dogma wrote:Of course they do, they're easy targets. Its like targeting pedophiles. Going on a generally ironclad moral crusade is an easy way to make a political career at the state level.

Plus they have that whole tendency to have accidents and kill people.

Not relevant to my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Troy wrote:
Incorrect.

Drunk driving is treated more harshly because: 1) cellphone use by teenagers is a new phenomena that is now beig addressed whereas drunk driving goes back to the first Model T.; 2) far more fatalities result from drunk driving.

If you look at statistics, it works out to be about 6-1 in favor of drunk driving regarding fatalities, yet the punishment for driving and using a cell phone is certainly not 1/6 of the punishment for driving while drunk.

dogma wrote:If you look at statistics, it works out to be about 6-1 in favor of drunk driving regarding fatalities, yet the punishment for driving and using a cell phone is certainly not 1/6 of the punishment for driving while drunk.

I have no problem upping the punishment. If you drink and drive we shoot you in the city square. Charge for tickets and tomatoes.

Troy wrote:

dogma wrote:If you look at statistics, it works out to be about 6-1 in favor of drunk driving regarding fatalities, yet the punishment for driving and using a cell phone is certainly not 1/6 of the punishment for driving while drunk.

I have no problem upping the punishment. If you drink and drive we shoot you in the city square. Charge for tickets and tomatoes.

I think that's actually the law in El Salvador.


Caught driving drunk? Firing squad time.

Troy wrote:

dogma wrote:If you look at statistics, it works out to be about 6-1 in favor of drunk driving regarding fatalities, yet the punishment for driving and using a cell phone is certainly not 1/6 of the punishment for driving while drunk.

I have no problem upping the punishment. If you drink and drive we shoot you in the city square. Charge for tickets and tomatoes.

The point is that, compared to the punishment DUI, driving while using a cell phone is a regarded as significantly less severe than the number of deaths it ostensibly causes might indicate.

Of course, if all you want to do is take a "hard" stand on crime, as all internet tough guys seem wont to do, then I can see how you have misconstrued my position.

RatBot wrote:

Troy wrote:

dogma wrote:If you look at statistics, it works out to be about 6-1 in favor of drunk driving regarding fatalities, yet the punishment for driving and using a cell phone is certainly not 1/6 of the punishment for driving while drunk.

I have no problem upping the punishment. If you drink and drive we shoot you in the city square. Charge for tickets and tomatoes.

I think that's actually the law in El Salvador.


Caught driving drunk? Firing squad time.

My best friend's mother was from San Salvador. She could cook, but man it was spicy.

RatBot wrote:
I think that's actually the law in El Salvador.


Caught driving drunk? Firing squad time.

Why stop there?

Involved in an accident in which someone is killed? Firing squad.

dogma wrote:

Troy wrote:

dogma wrote:If you look at statistics, it works out to be about 6-1 in favor of drunk driving regarding fatalities, yet the punishment for driving and using a cell phone is certainly not 1/6 of the punishment for driving while drunk.

I have no problem upping the punishment. If you drink and drive we shoot you in the city square. Charge for tickets and tomatoes.

The point is that, compared to the punishment DUI, driving while using a cell phone is a regarded as significantly less severe than the number of deaths it ostensibly causes might indicate.

Of course, if all you want to do is take a "hard" stand on crime, as all internet tough guys seem wont to do, then I can see how you have misconstrued my position.

Nope. Now that you brought it up I am in complete agreement that crime penalties need to be ratcheted up accordingly.

Troy wrote:
Nope. Now that you brought it up I am in complete agreement that crime penalties need to be ratcheted up accordingly.

They won't be, of course, just as we aren't going to ratchet up the penalties for incidental fatalities in auto accidents.

Why? Because, like automobiles, cell phones are necessary to daily life. Compare this to a non-essential (arguably) like alcohol, or at least driving while under the influence of it, and you see why the punishment varies significantly.

Punishment isn't just calculated according to putting others in danger, or causing fatalities, if it were then we simply would punish the operation of automobiles.

dogma wrote:

RatBot wrote:
I think that's actually the law in El Salvador.


Caught driving drunk? Firing squad time.

Why stop there?

Involved in an accident in which someone is killed? Firing squad.

I didn't say that's what should be done, I was merely commenting on the quoted post. I do think penalties for drunk driving should be severe; you can try to justify stealing or even assault or killing someone ("try" being the key word there) but I can't think of anything that justifies driving drunk. I do not, however, think they should be so severe as to include execution.

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Obama was an Illinois politician, corruption seems to be a requirement for any elected position there. As far as the penalty given, its says that its almost always available for plea bargainers so its too bad he pleaded not guilty.

This thread just got great.

I would ask you what you meant by that, but seeing as though I was just messing around using a stereotype of the Illinois politician(the guy who removed the death penalty was arrested for some kind of crime and Blagoyevich(however you spell it) was also sentenced for corruption recently) and I am currently having my snark suit patched up, I won't ask.