What person, arguing in good faith, could state that they believe driving while drunk, at high speeds, while operating a cell phone, would likely not result in an accident? I’d love to see the train of thought laid out for that argument.

This was no accident.

He drove while drunk. He made a decision to become impaired. While impaired, he decided to get behind the wheel of a vehicle. He made a decision to drive unreasonably fast, beyond the speed limit and beyond his ability to safely operate the vehicle. He further made a decision to take a photo while operating his vehicle.

All were his choice to make, and thus the repercussions of his choices were no accident.

Does society want a person inclined to make such decisions roaming about freely? How many years of incarceration are likely to eliminate his continuation of such behavior?

Back in the late 80’s, my dad was a trucker, hauling asphalt. Pulled into the depot on a Friday night expecting to go home (he was already over hours and cooking the log book). Dispatcher told him to take another load out. Dad pointed at the five fresh drivers playing poker around a table, told the dispatcher to send one of them.

Monday morning, they fired him, and told him why, straight to his face and the voice recorder sitting in his pocket.

According to OSHA and Dad’s lawyer, it was an open and shut case. While the case was pending, the company blackballed Dad from the trucking industry. Being in St. Lawrence County of Upstate NY, he wasn’t able to find a job elsewhere either. They buried us in paperwork, delayed the court case, and starved us out. Two years later, Dad settled. After the lawyer, he got a measely $12k.

Trump and the judiciary are going to do the same damn thing to this country. Doesn’t matter whether he’s guilty. They’re gonna delay and stall and bury us in paperwork until we starve and settle for table scraps.

Rather apparent that you don’t.

… You won’t have a name when you ride the big airplane All they will call you will be “deportee”… https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=awKLW7WgGB8&si=uknAHeB2oFiVV5Fv

Skip the toilet paper and install a bidet.

My guess is yes, on account of me living in the Capital District for two decades and never heard hamburgers referred to as steamed ham. I rarely watch the Simpson’s, so it all makes sense now.

I’ve got several years of experience riding motorcycles. It’s taught me to read traffic. I see a gap in a line of traffic like that, it’s either a driver who’s smart enough not to block an intersection (rare), or someone letting another someone out.

Your boy’s chances are slimmer than your account’s age.

deleted by creator

Gonna need to put more effort in beyond kindergarten name calling if you’re going to want an actual debate.

By your logic, Israel’s government is just as culpable: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

The IDF claims that the children would have been Hamas operatives, on account of who their parents were. It’s not hard to extend that reasoning to the grandchildren. After all, their parents were likely to be Hamas operatives as well.

No judge, no jury, just an executioner, based solely upon the IDFs word that they’re likely to become future terrorists. One might apply that same logic to the whole of Palestine.

No, I think I read you perfectly.

If your society is content with murdering children based on your belief of what they will grow up to be, it’s not a society I’d be comfortable being part of, associating with, or existing alongside.

May you be judged accordingly.

https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/a-guide-to-garbage-collection-in-programming/

Took a look myself: those are the “price per month” financed. The asking price is still a $1,000 an acre or more.

Might want to spend more than a minute searching.

They’re not supposed to answer to the DOJ.

Seems that whenever Trump is involved, a lot of things that aren’t supposed to happen keep happening.

The legal system can piss on a person and tell them it’s raining, and you’d be willing to drink it.

How do you define “everyone”, though?

Buddy of mine and I were discussing the word “buoy” a while back. His “everyone” is UK based, and pronounce it “boy”. My “everyone”, being in the Northeast US, pronounce it “booee”. Who’s correct? I’d rather use the pronunciation that doesn’t make me sound like a pedophile, depending on the content in the rest of the sentence: “I took the boat out to the end of the bay and picked up the buoy… That was quite a rough ride.”

Stomping your foot and demanding the other person stick to your pronunciation is a bit unreasonable in that situation, ain’t it?

There is no better way to come off as a pretentious asshat in my mind than to stubbornly stomp a foot and declare “my way of pronouncing this word is correct and everyone else is wrong.”

Language evolves, and some folk can’t handle it.