Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

So you're saying there's nothing wrong with learning to use a rocket launcher in a terrorist training cell in Afghanistan so long as you never use one against Americans.

Actually, I'm not. In fact I thought we had taken your thread detour to talk about drunk driving, not terrorist training. Are you saying the two are related?

Originally Posted by joder

I think there have to be consequences for irresponsible actions that are illegal.

Yes, we have consequences. In the case of drunk driving, its called a fine, and suspension of driving privileges, not prison as Learning Newbie is calling for. So we are clear, is that where you are at? Prison for DUI offenses?

Its funny to watch you guys get wound up over this. If Bush didn't have the DUI arrest, you would never take your current position on this subject. Its worth of it's own thread. "What are you willing to do or say on behalf of your political party?". Would you say bad things about the Mother Theresa? Would you call Marine's baby killers? Would you say America is an evil nation? Would you conspire with foreigners to kill members of the senate in the opposing party? Would you sleep with a donkey?

It cracks me up. Its the reason Clinton remains electable while most other Democrats are not. They poll test what they for the "Insanity" factor. For instance, you would never hear them say, "Lets pack first time DUI offenders into our crowded prison system", because if they poll tested the popularity of the idea, it would come back with a 1% approval rating (maybe less). In other words, the vast majority of the country would find that idea insane. It seems like the rest of the liberals don't get that, so they spew this kind of nonsense and act surprised when they loose elections.

I don't want to disparage it too much, because

a) its funny as hell
b) It keeps sane people in the Whitehouse.

Carry on /Salute

Originally Posted by cbwm

If Bush didn't have the DUI arrest, you would never take your current position on this subject.

That's totally false. You have to come up with some excuse since your on the wrong side.

Of course, you need a straw man since that's all you have.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Actually, I'm not. In fact I thought we had taken your thread detour to talk about drunk driving, not terrorist training. Are you saying the two are related?

If you can't see the connection (irresponsible and immoral behavior with intolerable risk to the masses) you really need to excuse yourself from this conversation.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

If you can't see the connection (irresponsible and immoral behavior with intolerable risk to the masses) you really need to excuse yourself from this conversation.

I just... can't..... do it..... I suppose thats why I've missed some of the other vital Ultra Left connections like Bush = Terrorist or Geraldine Ferraro = Racist or Raising Taxes = Good for the economy or .... well you get the picture. I guess I'm just stupid that way.

The parallel makes sense to me. If you're saying DUI isn't a problem unless someone gets hit, being trained as a terrorist by the same logic shouldn't be a problem unless people use that training to injure or kill others. You're trying to distinguish between potentially harmful and actual harm, right? The training camp is an example of that; being at a camp with bin Laden isn't what kills innocent people. But it makes good sense to arrest terrorists-to-be before they kill anybody, just like it makes sense to arrest likely killers-by-vehicular homicide ... your friend Mr Kennedy jumps to mind. Shooting bullets into a city at random is a clearer example, and I don't see you arguing for the second amendment right to do so.

What this has to do with a religious conversion is beyond me.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

If you're saying DUI isn't a problem unless someone gets hit

But I'm not. I'm saying the punishment for DUI shouldn't be prison or jail time even though the punishment for vehicular homicide is. Current U.S. law so happens to agree.

Regarding the drawing of parallels, I'm not trying to argue that driving while impaired is not irresponsible. To compare it to Terrorist training, where there is intent to kill and maim, whether the action is carried out or not is just ridiculous. Intent to commit murder, and murder carry very similar penalties. DWI and vehicular homicide do not, and for good reason.

I think the parallels I presented earlier have every bit as much of a connection. If we are going to start calling people who have behaved/continue to behave irresponsibly criminals, we need to start arresting those who work for Big Tobacco.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

What this has to do with a religious conversion is beyond me.

Amen to that.

I don't buy the intent thing with DUI's and terrorism. Being drunk, or at least really drunk, shields a person from having any intent. Allowing oneself to get into that state before committing a crime shouldn't let them off. Two of the people in my class when I went to high school were killed before the ripe age of twenty by a drunk driver. That the man didn't intend to kill them doesn't change that they're under the ground. He didn't intend to kill two of my contemporaries, but he did make a choice to put their lives in danger for his convenience.

Having said my peace, I'm going to let the issue rest.

A sad story to be sure. I've lost several acquaintances to drunk driving as well. It makes me happy that we have aggressive laws in place that are seriously aimed at bringing the incidences of tragic stories such as these down.

Nevertheless, the logic required to equate irresponsible behavior to the desire to learn how to kill and maim still escapes me. Drawing a parallel between someone who kills or maims via terrorism and someone who kills and maims while drunk driving at least has the killing and maiming in common, regardless of intent. Still, in the eyes of the law, intent would be one of the major determining factors in sentencing, and rightly so. The comparison remains ridiculous to the extreme.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Drawing a parallel between someone who kills or maims via terrorism and someone who kills and maims while drunk driving at least has the killing and maiming in common, regardless of intent.

I did no such thing. I simply took your logic and applied it to other crimes besides drunk driving. In particular, you said driving you know what faced should be decriminalized (*), specifically that until you actually run someone over it's not a bad thing. And I pointed out how you can switch out drunk driving for being at a terrorist camp - until those Saudis hijack a plane and crash it into New York City, just being at a camp isn't a bad thing, by your logic. You seem not to agree with your own logic.

* Why is it that Republicans always scream and moan about being "tough on crime" until it stops suiting them? The extreme right loony brigade (80 % of the party) went nuts when Democrats passed a law that terror suspects, like anyone on trial, must be able to face their accuser in court. The Republicans said "Democrats are encouraging terrorism." Any time Democrats propose to reduce any criminal penalty (almost always with regard to drug possession) the shrill cry of the Republicans is that Democrats are "encouraging" crime. Now you want to change the risks associated with drunken driving from time behind bars to a slap on the wrist. By the standard set by Republicans over the past 30 years, you want to encourage drunken driving. End of story.

And since Forrest asked, this came up because you asked why people who aren't Christians want to convince anybody of anything - I'm asking why you want to convince people to encourage DWI's? Your crusade makes a lot less sense than that of a Mormon or even an Atheist.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I'm asking why you want to convince people to encourage DWI's? Your crusade makes a lot less sense than that of a Mormon or even an Atheist.

The answers you seek are in my posts on this thread. You just need to read them. I'll post the cliff notes version here.

I don't want to convince people to encourage DWIs. That is the position you have assigned to me via your elaborate straw man argument.

There. Straight forward. To the point. Back to where we were in the thread, you certainly did draw a comparison between drunk driving and terrorist training.

Maybe I can simplify this for you. We have these things called laws. They apply to all kinds of situations. They carry penalties ranging from fines, to jail time, to death, depending on the law broken. Some laws, many (often the majority) of us break almost daily, such as J-walking, littering, speeding, or smoking pot. Since they are so commonly broken, these laws usually fall into the category of "Infraction", or sometimes "Misdemeanor" and carry a fine as the penalty. Other laws when broken, fall into the category of a "Felony" and carry a jail sentence. These crimes include Grand Theft, Armed Robbery, Murder, and yes, Conspiracy to
Commit Murder.

It is you who is somehow trying to equate drunk driving to attendance of a Terrorist Training camp, when the only thing they have in common is, they are both against the law, like littering and arson. If you think the two are somehow otherwise equivalent, perhaps you should consult your District Attorney and ask his opinion.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Now you want to change the risks associated with drunken driving from time behind bars to a slap on the wrist.

Maybe you should dig up the quote where I said this to back your claim. Maybe you should dig up the law book that says first time offenders for DWI get jail time. Maybe you should look at what the DWI penalties where when Dubya got one. When you realize there are no facts backing your argument, you'll realize you are somehow arguing that first time DWI offenders should get jail time. You are likely only arguing this because Dubya got one. Doesn't that seem silly to you?

I thought this thread was about religion...

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

I thought this thread was about religion...

yes it is. read all the members ideas and you'll get it.