I assume actual mental adults can be responsible cell phone users. But it's not the responsible ones this law restricts, is it?

An analogy: I smoke. Personal choice. But I stay well away from others when I light up. Because they didn't choose to, I did. (Hell, I don't like steeping in it either)That's reasonable, isn't it?

But other smokers might insist on otherwise.

That's the bad cell phone users.

Feel better now?

Good, because you've offered no argument but namecalling. And bolstered my argument that libertarians are just insisting on freedom from any responsibility without any consequence going along with it. Thanks!

So where would, in their minds, the money for the military and roads and other infrastructure they haven't thought about come from? Pillage?

I'm glad there are libertarians. Politics needs humor.

Point us at some material on this. I hadn't heard about that.

That's why I'm surprised none of them have expressed approval of my DR200 idea. I mean, come on! Be Homer Simpson! You folks could drive while texting, watching a movie, describing the movie on your phone and brushing your hair drunk. ALL AT ONCE! Even on city streets! And so could EVERYONE ELSE YOU'RE ON THE ROAD WITH.

Doesn't that sound like fun, kids?

So then, the difference between a libertarian and a 2-year-old is...well, probably at least 15 years, but I fail to see any other.

Actually, I probably read that too fast. In any case, fairly retorted.

Fat isn't as likely to cause another person to die a horrible, screaming, flaming death. (Well, unless you light a fat person and push them)

And a side point to address the listening to music thing earlier--we don't absorb music with the same parts of the brain that we do conversation. Not even lyrics.

Though distraction of drivers is always bad to some degree anyway. But music and conversation are not the same in this case.

...the only harm lardasses cause others is the extra space they take up, which could be used to house the needy. Other than that, it's their own problem, and not one that merits legislation in the same way. Being fat is ugly, unhealthy, and so forth, but as long as they sit on no one it's their right and harmless to the rest of us. Not so piloting a big heavy machine while distracted.

Or: Apple, meet orange.

...trying to engage what you said in context of this discussion.

Because otherwise what does that have to do with the price of beans? It's very "Free Mumia" to toss that in when you yourself admit it's irrelevant.

In any case: the reason is because this affects more than that individual. Your rights, end of my nose, taht kind of thing. Fat, though gross, does not place others at risk. So--different criteria.

Hope you get it this time!

What makes you think I was speaking in the singular? There are plural factors involved in both cases. super-genius.

And the kid who uses his little handmade Hummer to basically just cheat? With a VERY road ragey look on his face?

This would be Merry Xmas.

Thank you for doing simple and sensible things that result in people not dying.

How you overcome what others here claim are great inconvenient difficulties is beyond me after hearing their arguments, so your accomplishment is trebled, I guess...

Greenwald, you remind me of Pompey the night before his defeat by Caesar, so confident he'd win that he and his allies celebrated prior to victory.

No, purges, if they have to happen, may occur once the primary goal is reached. That is: defeating the GOP and moving their useless remnants from Congress(at least till they can come up with candidates who are at least competent again).

But to turn around and start striking down those that are nearer, to be that overconfident--well, it's typical of my sad, sad left, and foolish. Sure, it's intensely likely there will be a Democratic blowout in November. But is it necessary to say things like that the Democrats will definitely win when we haven't even had the conventions yet? What can that thinking accomplish but laziness, and increasing the likelihood of defeat?

One thing at a time. This is a foolish article, and makes me continue to wonder if, after losing Clinton as a candidate, Salon is trying to undermine the Democratic party.

A pox on all your houses.

This country deserves everything it's gotten and will get. The Republicans are long since evil scum anyway and the Democratic party has negated itself, and there are no other viable options.

I just wish I didn't have to be here when all finally falls to bits. This country deserves to be ashamed of itself.

And that's an incredible waste.

It's true he's a terrible director of actors. That's why, in accordance with his long-held dream, he's ELIMINATED actors!

"Why is HRC any different than any other candidate? Everyone else dropped out. No one else is making these demands. You don't see Richardson demanding that his votes be counted. Hillary is like the loud, pushy kid at the party who gets more attention than the birthday because she's loud and pushy."

My god, I've got it--HILLARY IS ERIC CARTMAN!