Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 121
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    did Joe Biden apologize for the 2 lies to the truck driver's family?
    I don't think Biden needs to apologize. For all we know an investigator might have informally told him that the truck driver had a beer at lunch before hand but would not have been judged impaired at the time because one or two beers in the early 1970's was not considered drunk -- or even impaired. I worked in a small restaurant through early undergraduate and we very very commonly sold a sandwich and a can of Schlitz to working guys including truckers for lunch. They got into their vehicles and drove away afterwords because in the late 1960's and early 1970s this was not covered by any law. In fact as anyone who grew up in the time can tell you if you got pulled over drinking a beer you were asked simply to pour it out. IN my state the average guy needed ot have three beers to get a driving while impaired and about five to get driving while intoxicated.

    The fact that about twice as many accidents were attributed to alcohol in the 1980s then the early 1970's did not come from more people drinking and driving, it came from lower legal thresholds.

    From what I understand Biden has brought this up just a couple of times and to college audiences in the context of warning against driving and drinking. I don't think he is wearing it on his sleeve or slandering anyone.
  2. #62  
    There is nothing in the record to support Biden's statement and that is what we go by - the record. Biden has made 2 unsupported statements and those statements have done harm. You demand apologies from others, why not your Democrat leaders?
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    I don't think Biden needs to apologize. For all we know an investigator might have informally told him that the truck driver had a beer at lunch before hand but would not have been judged impaired at the time because one or two beers in the early 1970's was not considered drunk -- or even impaired. I worked in a small restaurant through early undergraduate and we very very commonly sold a sandwich and a can of Schlitz to working guys including truckers for lunch. They got into their vehicles and drove away afterwords because in the late 1960's and early 1970s this was not covered by any law. In fact as anyone who grew up in the time can tell you if you got pulled over drinking a beer you were asked simply to pour it out. IN my state the average guy needed ot have three beers to get a driving while impaired and about five to get driving while intoxicated.

    The fact that about twice as many accidents were attributed to alcohol in the 1980s then the early 1970's did not come from more people drinking and driving, it came from lower legal thresholds.

    From what I understand Biden has brought this up just a couple of times and to college audiences in the context of warning against driving and drinking. I don't think he is wearing it on his sleeve or slandering anyone.

    Good post...

    Nail - on - head
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  4.    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Good post...

    Nail - on - head
    Much better said than my poor attempt.
  5. #65  
    Ok, then if it were to happen to you, you would not expect an apology? Put yourself in the position of the family and tell us that again. If you do, then you are just repeating the party line.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Ok, then if it were to happen to you, you would not expect an apology? Put yourself in the position of the family and tell us that again. If you do, then you are just repeating the party line.
    If I were the driver and had been drinking but below the legal limit (as is quite likely in this case), then I would be far too ashamed and remorseful to demand an apology.

    The fact that you are so strident about Biden's "lie" about the accident that killed his wife and child is a bit disturbing. It's more of the policy of distraction.

    I'll paraphrase a politician I respected once: If you have to engage in negative campaigning, it just shows that you don't have a vision or a plan of your own. The speaker: John McCain.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  7. #67  


    How come I never see any Biden cartoons? arent there any? or is Palin just too easy an target for cartoonists?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  8. #68  
    Well, you know little boys. They always pick on the girls they have a crush on.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post


    How come I never see any Biden cartoons? arent there any? or is Palin just too easy an target for cartoonists?
    That is not a cartoon, but it is funny as heck....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    That is not a cartoon, but it is funny as heck....
    FAH, but also dead on in pointing out the parallel absurdity of palin's original claim.
  11. #71  
    Quite likely the case? No, most truck drivers do not drink when driving. Please note in my above statement there was no indication of alcohol - so that being the case, if YOU do not drink at all, never had a drop (my situation), and somebody claims YOU were drunk or drinking, though did not cause the accident, then where would that put you?

    We are listening for another excuse that really bites.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    If I were the driver and had been drinking but below the legal limit (as is quite likely in this case), then I would be far too ashamed and remorseful to demand an apology.

    The fact that you are so strident about Biden's "lie" about the accident that killed his wife and child is a bit disturbing. It's more of the policy of distraction.

    I'll paraphrase a politician I respected once: If you have to engage in negative campaigning, it just shows that you don't have a vision or a plan of your own. The speaker: John McCain.
  12.    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Quite likely the case? No, most truck drivers do not drink when driving. Please note in my above statement there was no indication of alcohol - so that being the case, if YOU do not drink at all, never had a drop (my situation), and somebody claims YOU were drunk or drinking, though did not cause the accident, then where would that put you?

    We are listening for another excuse that really bites.
    Enough of this crap Ben - do you have a link to the police report? Do you know if there was any test done to detect alcohol use? Do you know what the legal limits were back then? Do you know what the Police training was back then, in that Police district, to detect drunk driving?

    Even though I've already said that Biden's comments would go in my negative column IF they were proven to be used for political gain - I am still very interested in the FACTS of this case. And since you seem to be the expert, please provide back up to your claims. I want to read the police report and detailed accident investigation report.
  13. #73  
    What crap? The question is very simply put - a person not drinking, driving a truck, is struck by a person who is not drinking, but is killed. The spouse of that person publicly states 2 times that the truck driver was drinking - what can be more simple than that?

    If you want to read the crash report, then write the police department and ask for a copy. It is public record and should involve nothing more than a duplication fee. After you get it, please let us know what it says.

    Nothing more simple than that.
  14.    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    If you want to read the crash report, then write the police department and ask for a copy. It is public record and should involve nothing more than a duplication fee. After you get it, please let us know what it says.

    Nothing more simple than that.
    Then you should have no problem getting a copy. You're the one reaching to make this some sleazy attack by Biden so you ought to be the one to back up your theories. I'm on record with the following:

    1. that the guy lost his wife and daughter and almost his son. He is human, and humans deal with death in many different ways....denial as to HOW loved ones die is VERY common.
    2. that the accident happened so long ago that there may well have been drinking involved - but the guy may have been under the legal limits (which were much higher back then) OR the guy may not have been tested by techniques used today such as breathalyzers since they were rare back then.
    3. that his reference to "some drunk" may still be a combination of the above and not as insidious as you claim.
    4. and that IF...IF he did use this for poltical gain, then yes, it was not a nice thing to do at all. Even IF he did it to make a point about drunk driving to some high school kids...it wasn't something he should have said. But again...I stress the conditional in this bullet point...IF.

    Now if you'd like to prove me wrong, then YOU go pull the police report and read it. Otherwise, your opinion is no better than mine...albeit I think mine is more rational than your attempt to stir up controversy as yet another way to divert attention away from McShame's pathetic campaign.
  15. #75  
    Once again, it is you that the question is pointed toward. You do not drink and drive. You have never ever done such a dastardly deed. How would you feel if you were accused of DWI? You are not being honest with yourself and it is very plain to everyone here that it is being dodged.
  16. #76  
    You speak of your answer as being more rational? Not at all. A normal person (you) would not take such an attack, as evidenced very openly in these forums.
  17.    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    You speak of your answer as being more rational? Not at all. A normal person (you) would not take such an attack, as evidenced very openly in these forums.
    Ben...either my coffee hasn't kicked in yet or you're speaking in parables again. I think I've articulated my point about Biden's drunk driver comments pretty clearly. On the other hand, I don't think I understand what your point is other than you think Biden is a bad guy. I'm asking you to substantiate your thought processes - how did you arrive at the conclusion that you know enough about the case to determine that Biden's comments were vicious attacks on the driver?
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/09/2008 at 11:59 AM.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post

    I'll paraphrase a politician I respected once: If you have to engage in negative campaigning, it just shows that you don't have a vision or a plan of your own. The speaker: John McCain.
    are you talking about this?

    SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R-AZ) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Sooner or later, people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads, you don`t have a vision for the future or you`re running to articulate it.

    http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...793808&start=1

    ---

    I guess a republican would say that McCain has a mix of good ads and attack ads. lol
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  19. #79  
    Alaska court refuses to shut down Palin probe
    Decision sets the stage for lawmakers to release investigation report Friday

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska's Supreme Court has refused to shut down an ethics investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee.

    The decision Thursday sets the stage for state lawmakers to release a report on their investigation Friday. The report could prove to be an embarrassment for Palin and a distraction for John McCain's presidential campaign in the final weeks of the race.
    I guess Friday will be very telling...

    Either this will be something or a bunch of nothing.

    Republican lawmakers had sued to block the report, saying it had become politicized.
    No, crap... I mean, you know someone is under investigation but you still add them to your campaign? Did the GOP really expect they could "sue" this away?

    Is the report "that" bad? Comes at a bad time though. But McCain known this going in.... bad judgment on McCain's part....


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27105917/
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Alaska court refuses to shut down Palin probe
    Decision sets the stage for lawmakers to release investigation report Friday
    Karma is a BlTCH. Or is it the lord working in a mysterious way?
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions