I don't agree with that, and I've already explained why what I've said is not dead wrong. Further, the First and Second Amendment are still huge issues in American law and American society. We protect speech better than any nation on the planet - even the "regular people" believe in that value, for the most part. And a hell of a lot of people vote on the single issue of gun rights, which, to be fair, does tend to follow a party line as well. I'm well aware that there are serious issues with personality politics, but in general, I think people do try their best (and I certainly know many people who think for themselves - although this could be limited to my social circles, I admit). To the personal issue, like I said, I meant in general. I don't expect people to "sit in awe," and people don't - people I greatly enjoy conversing with. I appreciate that you finally actually wrote a post discussing the real issue, but for the most part, you just act like an ass to me and you're not a pleasant person to converse with. I seem to recall you once being better, but as it currently stands the last few times - I'd rather just not. Perhaps I'm an outlier in this, but so be it.
It's technically not wrong - legal privileges that are not technically constitutional rights are occasionally referred to as rights (I hesitate to say often): they are things you have the right to do under the law as it stands (I actually just read a case referring to it as "driving rights," as it so happens). But I didn't push it because I wanted to argue the actual point - the politics of it: getting it through Congress against lobbying groups like those behind AO's businesses, as well as general Americans. To your second point, I simply disagree. The First and Second Amendments are evidence of the independent mindset of America (our intense capitalism as well), even if only in the aggregate (which this would affect). To go back a touch though, you don't seem interested in much more than gotchas lately (perhaps longer, but I've more recently become very aware of it). You knew what I meant, and this isn't really the first time, so I think going forward I'm just not going to bother speaking with you - though I always try to remain optimistic with people, so perhaps you'll surprise me.
Perhaps so, but if it's a programmed suicide pact, I foresee a lot of people (myself included, probably) lobbying Congress to keep them from ever becoming mandatory, which, as I understand it, defeats the purpose quite a bit. Americans are an independently - minded lot, giving up driving rights would be difficult enough, adding this wrinkle would be the last straw, I think.
I had a feeling the math might work out like this, but I'm terrible at math (and I think some of the articles even worded it so that the math was literally "for every day you ate it, the risk rose 18%.") Not entirely sure if sarcasm, but true enough. Something terrible is going to get me though, looking at the way I live (and my family history of all the diseases), so if it means enjoying bacon, I'll take this deal (hear that, Satan? I'll do a lot for some smoky deliciousness).
It doesn't really work though - I don't think I've ever seen the argument be about reflecting on what they've done. And I don't think it is inherently inhumane to execute, even granting the problems with our current methods.