A well-meaning idea, but I would think that such a law would tempt most convicted drunk drivers to drink all the harder and earn less. So, what good would it do?

Anyway, while this short thread has harsh language (as usual, for this site), it raises some very important questions about life insurance. Especially the demands that potential guardians of orphans need to make in advance.

(The MSN link about the bill is included.)

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,443162

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 9:33:42 AM UTC-6, Lenona wrote:
> A well-meaning idea, but I would think that such a law would tempt most convicted drunk drivers to drink all the harder and earn less.

Probably reform them for No more than two weeks

mk5000

And there is no getting away from the fact - and this is a key point of discontent among many who are upset with the health care reform bill is it didn't go far enough. They say why isn't it in place now? Why don't I see some benefits now? All I see is the potential for losing insurance coverage, for premiums going up. That's hurting Obama.

Juan Williams

In article <ef70041b-238a-4686-be68-fcd7d17cdfeen@googlegroups.com>,
M Kfivethousand <marika5000@gmail.com> wrote:
....
>And there is no getting away from the fact - and this is a key point of
>discontent among many who are upset with the health care reform bill
>is it didn't go far enough. They say why isn't it in place now? Why
>don't I see some benefits now? All I see is the potential for losing
>insurance coverage, for premiums going up. That's hurting Obama.
>
>Juan Williams

Obama? In which year are you posting this?

Hold on. Let me check my calendar. Oh, yes. I am posting in the year 2021.

But, that all said, you're right. Republicans have this nasty habit of
tearing bills to shreds, and then, rightly, saying that they don't work.
The reason they don't work, is because THEY broke them.

We're seeing this now with the two infrastructure bills.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/FreeCollege

Check out the more recent posts.

(I have to say, MAYBE it could help reduce deaths, if sober killers were punished just as harshly? After all, since I've never seen a drunk driver break down in tears, that would suggest that almost nothing would make them think twice before drinking and driving.)

cfuter:
"why only drunk drivers then, how about any driving negligence? I hate these laws that vilify certain things. Not a fan of Drunk Driving, but lets put in texting and driving, any distracted driving in this catagory, and then lets lob in speeding and driving, blowing red lights, dodging in and out of traffic lanes, we can go on and on. And why are only brats protected, what if deceased is taking care of elderly parent, someone else including his/her spouse?"

craftyzits:
"Brats are protected because they are considered the property of the military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex will call in their loans when the Brats turn 18, then the breeder will get the brat back in a box... literally."

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 09:20:13 -0800 (PST), Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"why only drunk drivers then, how about any driving negligence? I hate these
>laws that vilify certain things. Not a fan of Drunk Driving, but lets put in texting
>and driving, any distracted driving in this catagory

I don't necessarily disagree, but having been stupid enough to leave
the house yesterday I was again reminded how the regime (rightly)
rails against distracted driving while at the same time profiting from
those stupid, constantly-changing electronic billboards that *always*
make me take my eyes off the road before I even consciously realize
it.

"Yes, your 'honor', I did in fact take out that busload of orphans,
but I was distracted by the flashing billboard that was telling me not
to drive while distracted."

>"Brats are protected because they are considered the property of the
>military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex will call in
>their loans when the Brats turn 18, then the breeder will get the brat
>back in a box... literally."

I think I'm in love.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 07:33:41 -0800 (PST), Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>A well-meaning idea, but I would think that such a law would tempt most convicted drunk drivers to drink all the harder and earn less. So, what good would it do?
>
>Anyway, while this short thread has harsh language (as usual, for this site), it raises some very important questions about life insurance. Especially the demands that potential guardians of orphans need to make in advance.
>
>(The MSN link about the bill is included.)
>
>http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,443162

If someone was killed wouldn't the drunk driver responsible more than
likely be in jail unable to pay child support?

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 07:33:41 -0800 (PST), Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com>
wrote:

A well-meaning idea, but I would think that such a law would tempt
most convicted drunk drivers to drink all the harder and earn less.
So, what good would it do?

Anyway, while this short thread has harsh language (as usual, for this
site), it raises some very important questions about life insurance.
Especially the demands that potential guardians of orphans need to
make in advance.

(The MSN link about the bill is included.)

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,443162

(reformatted for legibility)

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk