[afx114]

[quote=flu]Weight gain wasn’t just because of safety, but a good part of it has to do with it too.[/quote]

Yep. Another big reason for vehicle weight gain is the 6,000lb threshold for a significant tax write-off, as vehicles over 6,000 pounds are not subject to the annual depreciation caps. This is why you’ll find many luxury cars weighing just over 6k. I also wonder how much this contributed to the SUV craze of the last decade.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]Weight gain wasn’t just because of safety, but a good part of it has to do with it too.[/quote]

Yep. Another big reason for vehicle weight gain is the 6,000lb threshold for a significant tax write-off, as vehicles over 6,000 pounds are not subject to the annual depreciation caps. This is why you’ll find many luxury cars weighing just over 6k. I also wonder how much this contributed to the SUV craze of the last decade.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]Weight gain wasn’t just because of safety, but a good part of it has to do with it too.[/quote]

Yep. Another big reason for vehicle weight gain is the 6,000lb threshold for a significant tax write-off, as vehicles over 6,000 pounds are not subject to the annual depreciation caps. This is why you’ll find many luxury cars weighing just over 6k. I also wonder how much this contributed to the SUV craze of the last decade.

[afx114]

[quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?

[afx114]

[quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?

[afx114]

[quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?

[afx114]

[quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?

[afx114]

[quote=Russell]More pragmatism; The war machine folks worry about how a fully open policy would affect recruitment of volunteers. Would they rather have 10 more bible thumping homophobes or one more out homosexual?[/quote]

This is an interesting question. Quantity or quality? Going the other way, we are in dire need of Arabic translators, yet there have been documented cases of dismissals of gay translators because of DADT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html). How is it pragmatic to dismiss badly needed skills because the other soldiers sensibilities were threatened?

Going back to Dan’s point, who decides which sensibilities are ok to use as a basis for dismissal and which sensibilities aren’t? I personally would have no problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with gay soldiers. I personally would have a problem rooming/boarding/foxhole-ing with bible thumbing apocalyptic end-of-timers. Especially if they listen to Nickleback.

Does DADT apply to Nickleback fans as well?

[afx114]

Good post eavesdropper. EOM

[afx114]

Good post eavesdropper. EOM

[afx114]

Good post eavesdropper. EOM

[afx114]

Good post eavesdropper. EOM

[afx114]

Good post eavesdropper. EOM

[afx114]

[quote=flu]For example, the gay-marriage ban in CA. Personally, I had no issues with gay-marriage, but the voters did speak that they wanted the ban. Why should a judge be allowed to overturn what the people wanted? Same thing could be said about the immigration bill in Arizona. And this is also why CA will never do anything to take care of immigration issues/etc.[/quote]

I agree with the gist of your argument, but not necessarily with your specific examples. It’s not so cut and dry as “overturning the will of the people” when it comes to civil rights. I would argue, and I’m guessing the judges you mention would argue as well, that civil rights are not subject to popular vote or legislation. At one time the majority of the people wanted interracial marriage banned, but the will of the majority was overturned for the rights of the minority. In many ways, this is exactly how the system is supposed to work and exactly why the balance of power was designed the way it was.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]For example, the gay-marriage ban in CA. Personally, I had no issues with gay-marriage, but the voters did speak that they wanted the ban. Why should a judge be allowed to overturn what the people wanted? Same thing could be said about the immigration bill in Arizona. And this is also why CA will never do anything to take care of immigration issues/etc.[/quote]

I agree with the gist of your argument, but not necessarily with your specific examples. It’s not so cut and dry as “overturning the will of the people” when it comes to civil rights. I would argue, and I’m guessing the judges you mention would argue as well, that civil rights are not subject to popular vote or legislation. At one time the majority of the people wanted interracial marriage banned, but the will of the majority was overturned for the rights of the minority. In many ways, this is exactly how the system is supposed to work and exactly why the balance of power was designed the way it was.

[Author]

Posts