OT: Edward

On Aug 27, 6:59=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Kennedy's responsibility was much different than the responsibility being
> ascribed to Mary Joe in this discussion. =A0She made no illegal decision =
to
> drive - he did. =A0She did not leave the scene of an accident - he did. =
=A0She
> did not cause the death of another - he did. =A0He made a decision to do
> something that actively required skills he no longer was in possession of=
.
> He, as the driver assumed the responsibility for his passenger - as is
> implied by the laws of every state and demonstrated by the reckless drivi=
ng
> definitions of those states. =A0She assumed no such responsibility.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]

Those are pretty serious errors of judgment. What are more telling to
me and to many others who could never forget that incident are the
character flaws that it showed.

1. He ran and hid while there was still a chance, albeit small, that
immediate reporting and summoning of aid might have saved her life.

2. He tried to get his cousin to take the responsibility for the
accident.

John Martin

On Aug 27, 8:01=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 5:43 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> On Aug 27, 4:12 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 27, 3:12 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 27, 10:59 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 6:39 am, "Mike Marlow"
> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> message
>
> >>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]=
ups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Albeit anecdotal, I have been pretty shit faced before AND
> >>>>>>>>>>> have been
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the passenger of a drunk. I still knew it was wrong and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that I could
>
> >>>>>>>>>> be making a huge mistake (gamble).
>
> >>>>>>>>>> We all have. But we all have lost our inhibitions as well,
> >>>>>>>>>> and done plenty of things we never would have done - even
> >>>>>>>>>> without hitting the point of being that drunk.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Regardless of losing our inhibitions, we still know right from
> >>>>>>>>> wrong when intoxicated. It doesn't change anything.
>
> >>>>>>>> Have you ever once in your life been falling down, can't
> >>>>>>>> remember how to get back to the ship but it doesn't matter
> >>>>>>>> because you can't walk anyway drunk?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not
> >>>>>>>>>>> know that driving with a drunk was a bad decision.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things quite
> >>>>>>>>>> contrary to what they know are right, and what they would
> >>>>>>>>>> normally do.
>
> >>>>>>>>> You hit the nail on the head. Contrary to what they KNOW is
> >>>>>>>>> right. She still would have known driving with a drunk was a
> >>>>>>>>> poor decision. It doesn't get her off the hook with regard to
> >>>>>>>>> partial responsibility.
>
> >>>>>>>> Nope, definitely haven't been drunk. You may _think_ you have
> >>>>>>>> but you haven't if you think that someone who is drunk "would
> >>>>>>>> have known driving with a drunk was a poor decision". If
> >>>>>>>> drunks' decision making is so great then what's the problem
> >>>>>>>> with riding with one?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Even in court is intoxication ever a defense for anything?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Does it ever remove responsibility? I think we still know
> >>>>>>>>>>> right from wrong when intoxicated. In the show cops, the
> >>>>>>>>>>> drunk drivers still try to evade capture (they know they are
> >>>>>>>>>>> doing something wrong).
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I cannot cite a case, so I'll fall back on "I am quite
> >>>>>>>>>> sure..." that there have been cases where a person's
> >>>>>>>>>> inhebriation was used either as a defense, or to place an
> >>>>>>>>>> even greater responsibility on another party. To be fair,
> >>>>>>>>>> the simple case of a drunk driver does demonstrate another
> >>>>>>>>>> side of the law and moral standards, which is quite contrary
> >>>>>>>>>> in that it places even more responsibility in association
> >>>>>>>>>> with inhebriation.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On a totally different note - I would like to ask if you
> >>>>>>>>>> wouldn't mind configuring your news reader to behave in the
> >>>>>>>>>> generally accepted manner of quoting text, so that when we
> >>>>>>>>>> reply to yours, the proper quote characters (such as what I
> >>>>>>>>>> have manually inserted above) appear. It makes replying to,
> >>>>>>>>>> and following threads much easier.
>
> >>>>>>>>> My newsreader is GOOGLE. I am powerless to the google.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Mike-
> >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Mike-
> >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>
> >>>>>>> Ok, I give. When we are intoxicated we are not responsible for
> >>>>>>> our actions or the consequences of said actions because we can
> >>>>>>> not decide right from wrong. Does work like the temporary
> >>>>>>> insanity defense?
>
> >>>>>> The person driving should take measures before he takes his first
> >>>>>> drink of the day to ensure that he will not be driving later in
> >>>>>> an impaired state.
>
> >>>>>> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you don't
> >>>>>> think that that's possible then you haven't hung with the right
> >>>>>> bad crowd) then the responsbility should lie with the person who
> >>>>>> arranged their intoxication.
>
> >>>>> This type of defense would be denied to people experiencing
> >>>>> symptoms of intoxication who continued to consume the spiked
> >>>>> drink because they ought to have known what was happening to them.
> >>>>> (paraphrased from wiki)
>
> >>>> When you have a court case to cite instead of paraphrasing wiki get
> >>>> back to me.
>
> >>> Can you cite one to the contrary?
>
> >> You're the one who started citing things.
>
> > Which for some reason you required another
>
> >>>> And if you are going to to pontificate about what people under the
> >>>> influence of alcohol "should" do you should get some experience
> >>>> instead of going on theory.
>
> >>> She was responsible for her actions. If alcohol excuses her it
> >>> should excuse Ted.
> >>> It doesn't take an experienced drunk to see this logic.
>
> >> Well, there's your problem--you are incapable of seeing the flaw in
> >> your logic because you are making erroneous assumptions.
>
> > You make the biggest erroneous assumption of them all. You claim that
> > she continued to unknowingly ingest alcohol in lieu of any
> > intoxicating effects. And she was so completely involuntarily
> > intoxicated to the point that she didn't know getting in the car of a
> > drunk was a bad idea.
>
> Who is "she"?


From above:

> I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not
> >>>>>>>>>>> know that driving with a drunk was a bad decision.
>=A0
> >>>>>>>>>> Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things quite
> >>>>>>>>>> contrary to what they know are right, and what they would
> >>>>>>>>>> normally do.

She is the passenger above. Are you having trouble following along?



>
>
>
>
> > Wow!

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:41:23 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Bush and Cheney didn't drive off a bridge, kill an innocent person,
>>> and then
>>> run away from the crime, getting away with it because of family
>>> connections.
>>>
>>
>> No they were the cause of thousands of deaths and dozens (if not
>> hundreds) of torture victims (the majority of both groups being
>> innocent) and then just walked away from the crimes. We'll see if they
>> ever answer for those crimes.
>>
>> I'm not saying Ted Kennedy was right all the time, but maybe you ought
>> to pick a better example.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>
>This is a foolish equivocation that doesn't hold up to even a casual
>inspection. Bush's political opponents are using Proof By Repeated
>Assertion to claim they are responsible for these crimes. But
>the evidence, thus far, is nonexistent to support such a claim.
>Yes, he was "in charge" and broadly bears responsibility as CIC,
>but that's a far cry from demonstrating he personally and knowingly
>ordered actions of this sort and degree.

If he didn't know, he wasn't doing his job. It was on his watch. He's
responsible.
>
>And .. your numbers are vastly inflated. What is far more likely is
>that a few people in theater got carried away, were not properly
>prepared for the task at hand, and crossed the line.

On Aug 26, 9:34=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2009 00:57:22 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >No, they killed 4000 american soldiers by invading and occupying a sover=
eign
> >country. =A0Far, far, far worse than a DUI, even with the fatality. =A0T=
hey
> >tortured innocent (and possibly, even a few guilty) individuals. =A0Sena=
tor
> >Kennedy shines like a beacon high above those two clusterfucks.
>
> >scott
>
> You may want to get a little more information before you throw soldier
> death figures around like you know what you're talking about.
>
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=3DPAGE.view&pageId=3D62294
>
> Gordon Shumway

Not really relevant, IMO. Military casualties will always exist if the
level of training is intense enough to be worthwhile. Using those
casualties as an excuse for an invasion and sustained loss of life is
asinine.

Let's also not forget the Iraqi casualties that were created by this
invasion.

Leon wrote:
> "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Love him or hate him, does anyone think Edward Kennedy will get
>> 1\100th the press that Michael Jackson did?
>>
>> RonB
>
>
> The end of an errror.
>
>

+1

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> What did he do? Did he drive off of a bridge again? Anyone killed
>>>> this time?
>>> I'd like to pass a bit of wisdom from one friend to another:
>>>
>>> "Forgiving benefits the forgiver."
>>
>> Mary Jo can't forgive him - she's dead...
>
> Yes, of course, but I've sent all the anger his way that I'm ever going
> to - I have too many other things to do with my life for which I believe
> my attention and energy will be better spent. YMMV.
>

I, for one, have no particular anger toward him, I'm simply glad he
is out of American politics. One less actor for evil in place...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "RonB" wrote:
>
>> Love him or hate him, does anyone think Edward Kennedy will get
>> 1\100th the press that Michael Jackson did?
>
> Probably not; however, his senate career will continue to have an
> impact on the the USA for at least the next 50 years.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
>

We'll be digging out from his insanities for far long than that.
It's possible we'll never recover.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Aug 27, 10:49=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 9:55 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> On Aug 27, 8:01 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 27, 5:43 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 27, 4:12 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 3:12 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 10:59 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 6:39 am, "Mike Marlow"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]=
egroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albeit anecdotal, I have been pretty shit faced before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AND have been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the passenger of a drunk. I still knew it was wrong and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I could
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be making a huge mistake (gamble).
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all have. But we all have lost our inhibitions as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, and done plenty of things we never would have done
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - even without hitting the point of being that drunk.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of losing our inhibitions, we still know right
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from wrong when intoxicated. It doesn't change anything.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever once in your life been falling down, can't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> remember how to get back to the ship but it doesn't matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>> because you can't walk anyway drunk?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not know that driving with a drunk was a bad decision.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite contrary to what they know are right, and what they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would normally do.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You hit the nail on the head. Contrary to what they KNOW
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is right. She still would have known driving with a drunk
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> was a poor decision. It doesn't get her off the hook with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> regard to partial responsibility.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, definitely haven't been drunk. You may _think_ you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have but you haven't if you think that someone who is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> drunk "would have known driving with a drunk was a poor
> >>>>>>>>>>>> decision". If drunks' decision making is so great then
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what's the problem with riding with one?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even in court is intoxication ever a defense for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything? Does it ever remove responsibility? I think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we still know right from wrong when intoxicated. In the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show cops, the drunk drivers still try to evade capture
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (they know they are doing something wrong).
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot cite a case, so I'll fall back on "I am quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure..." that there have been cases where a person's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inhebriation was used either as a defense, or to place an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even greater responsibility on another party. To be fair,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple case of a drunk driver does demonstrate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another side of the law and moral standards, which is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite contrary in that it places even more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility in association with inhebriation.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On a totally different note - I would like to ask if you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't mind configuring your news reader to behave in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the generally accepted manner of quoting text, so that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we reply to yours, the proper quote characters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (such as what I have manually inserted above) appear. It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes replying to, and following threads much easier.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My newsreader is GOOGLE. I am powerless to the google.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mike-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mike-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I give. When we are intoxicated we are not responsible
> >>>>>>>>>>> for our actions or the consequences of said actions because
> >>>>>>>>>>> we can not decide right from wrong. Does work like the
> >>>>>>>>>>> temporary insanity defense?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> The person driving should take measures before he takes his
> >>>>>>>>>> first drink of the day to ensure that he will not be driving
> >>>>>>>>>> later in an impaired state.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you
> >>>>>>>>>> don't think that that's possible then you haven't hung with
> >>>>>>>>>> the right bad crowd) then the responsbility should lie with
> >>>>>>>>>> the person who arranged their intoxication.
>
> >>>>>>>>> This type of defense would be denied to people experiencing
> >>>>>>>>> symptoms of intoxication who continued to consume the spiked
> >>>>>>>>> drink because they ought to have known what was happening to
> >>>>>>>>> them. (paraphrased from wiki)
>
> >>>>>>>> When you have a court case to cite instead of paraphrasing wiki
> >>>>>>>> get back to me.
>
> >>>>>>> Can you cite one to the contrary?
>
> >>>>>> You're the one who started citing things.
>
> >>>>> Which for some reason you required another
>
> >>>>>>>> And if you are going to to pontificate about what people under
> >>>>>>>> the influence of alcohol "should" do you should get some
> >>>>>>>> experience instead of going on theory.
>
> >>>>>>> She was responsible for her actions. If alcohol excuses her it
> >>>>>>> should excuse Ted.
> >>>>>>> It doesn't take an experienced drunk to see this logic.
>
> >>>>>> Well, there's your problem--you are incapable of seeing the flaw
> >>>>>> in your logic because you are making erroneous assumptions.
>
> >>>>> You make the biggest erroneous assumption of them all. You claim
> >>>>> that she continued to unknowingly ingest alcohol in lieu of any
> >>>>> intoxicating effects. And she was so completely involuntarily
> >>>>> intoxicated to the point that she didn't know getting in the car
> >>>>> of a drunk was a bad idea.
>
> >>>> Who is "she"?
>
> >>>>> Wow!
>
> >>> Ok, it looks like I blended your comments with someone elses. 130+
> >>> comments will do that on occassion.
> >>> Mea culpa!
>
> >> Why do you respond to each post twice?
>
> > I'm doing this on an iPhone. =A0It's not easy.
>
> And I bet you're driving too.

Why?

On Aug 28, 4:54=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 3:58 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> On Aug 28, 1:43 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 28, 12:24 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 28, 8:25 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you
> >>>>>>>>>> don't think that that's possible then you haven't hung with
> >>>>>>>>>> the right bad crowd)
>
> >>>>>>>>> I think I finally figured out why you come off as sounding so
> >>>>>>>>> angry. You really are speaking from experience here.
>
> >>>>>>>> Obviously you've never been held down while your unscrupulous
> >>>>>>>> comrades poured that nasty beer down your throat.
>
> >>>>>>> Not exactly where I was going with that.
>
> >>>>>> And now we know that Bub is another teetotaller with unrealistic
> >>>>>> ideas about alcohol.
>
> >>>>>> Both of you, for an exercise, go to a bar and order a "Long
> >>>>>> Island Iced Tea". Have a designated driver.
>
> >>>>> You buying? With out a doubt I would be able to tell that the
> >>>>> drink contained alcohol.
>
> >>>> Have you ever had it?
>
> >>> Yes
>
> >> And you could tell it contained alcohol?
>
> > Yes. I make them strong.
>
> Well, now we know that you have no clue what Long Island Iced Tea is.

Although it is difficult to make a weak one you can make them weaker
by adding more coke and sour mix. My wife does this all the time.



> Since you're bullshitting on that, it's safe to assume that you're just
> bullshitting in general.

> Noting that according to google groups there has never been any woodworki=
ng
> related content posted from your account,

Yeah, I'm a newbie here.

>
> <plonk>

Thank you. You did me a favor.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Therein lies the rub. Is it "reasonable" for a woman to walk
> alone at night in a park? I suppose this depends on the park,
> the likelihood of crime in that area on so.
>
> I asked this because of cases like Mike Tyson where a woman
> accompanies him to his room and later declares rape. He
> is convicted more-or-less only on the basis of this claim
> without any evidence of the act having been forcible.
>
> I happen to share your view that prudence is a reasonable
> expectation. However, I think moral culpability always
> lies with the perpetrator. Mary Jo should have known better.
> But Ted not only is morally responsible for her death - which
> was certainly an accident, but one he set up when he drank
> too much and drove. Moreover, his running away from the even
> is inexcusable.

Another is the Tail-Hook scandal. As you recall, a couple of female Navy
Ensigns got groped at a hotel in Vegas during the Tail-Hook convention. So,
a woman goes to a hotel room with a bunch of drunken sailors should
reasonably expect, when they reach the room, that the Gideon Bible will be
pulled from the nightstand and a scripture reading will be made.

DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>> "Overstated," is that how your dictionary defines something that
>>> doesn't exist? Your logic is bizarre. If enough people believe
>>> something that isn't true then those who promoted the falsehood and
>>> acted on it get a free pass.
>> Decisions are made in a context. The fact that they later turn out to
>> be incorrect doesn't make them bad decisions ... unless you're
>> retroactively grinding an axe.
>
> A decision that requires you to cherry-pick only that information that
> supports making the decision (and reject out of hand any information that
> argues against the decision) should not result in enormous surprise when it
> turns out to have been a bad decision. You keep ignoring that the Bush
> administration did exactly this, at times with data they had been warned was

<SNIP>

In thinking about your (and other Bush-haters') constant venom that old George
concocted the whole business because of his Eeeeeeeeevil motives, I wonder
how you explain this away:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Clearly, to hold your view, the entire far left, center, and far right where
all in cahoots, right? They all conspired to make up a false story just
to let W get away with his malicious actions, right? It was the CFR, the
Bildenbergs, the Illuminati, the <Conspiracy Theory Of The Moment> that all
entered into unholy union to see to it that the US could get some target
practice against poor old innocent Sadaam, right?

Or maybe, just maybe, the people that had access to intel from around the
world - people of all political persuasions - saw a common theme of threat
and real danger. Maybe, just maybe, those stories about Speznaz burying
Sadaam's toys in the Bekaa Valley so they would remain unfound by the
occupying troops have some merit. Maybe, just maybe, when many people,
from many different political persuasions come to more-or-less the
exact same conclusions, there is a significant element of truth to
the business. Naw, The Messiah and his minions have it right after all -
it was a right wing plot so that Bush/Cheney could wantonly invade an
country with lilly white leadership to further their oligarchic goals.
It's good that Our Dear Leader has thus appropriately apologized....


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Aug 28, 12:20=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> >>> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you don't
> >>> think that that's possible then you haven't hung with the right bad
> >>> crowd)
>
> >> I think I finally figured out why you come off as sounding so angry.
> >> You really are speaking from experience here.
>
> > Obviously you've never been held down while your unscrupulous comrades
> > poured that nasty beer down your throat.
>
> It can be done much more subtly than that, and beer is most assuredly not
> the beverage that one would use for such a purpose.

When you apply this to Kennedy et al. you make too many assumptions.

Occam's Razor

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >That's a typical Daneliuk response about anything and everything. Nothing
> >positive to say about anything and we're all doomed to hell in a hand
> >basket. Your world consists of whine, whine, whine where everything is
> >destined to get worse as time goes on.
>
> Oh, the irony.

Speak for yourself hypocritical fool. His posting a flood 24 messages on a
semi political topic within a few days gives me all the license I need to
comment. What's your excuse you lying idiot?

On Aug 27, 9:49=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> Disagree with me if you like, but I have a hard time beleiving this
> involuntary intoxication scenario(s). =A0It's a stretch.
> I think she or he would become aware of any involuntary intoxicating
> effects long before their judgement becomes =A0"significantly" impaired.

I have been here in the cheap seats, munching on my popcorn, taking
some refuge in the fact that bullshit flies around here even without
my participation and/or encouragement. (I was on a beach for the last
week or so and Angela took away my Blackberry...grmphf)

BUT! I'm afraid to have to make you aware of of the involuntary
intoxicating effects' REAL death-trap. There is a transition area on
the time-line where the inexperienced drinker actually feels
'invincible'. LONG before before getting 'drunk'. Mary Joe was being
offered a ride by a man she looked up to as 'invincible'. SHE,
herself, felt 'invincible'.... and what you got is a couple of stupid
drunks out on the road.
Both bent out of shape.
Both invincible.

DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Bush and Cheney didn't drive off a bridge, kill an innocent person,
>> and then run away from the crime, getting away with it because of
>> family connections.
>
> No, they took the country to war at best in error,

An opinion at best (the "in error" part)

> resulting in thousands of
> dead young Americans

That's what happens when people *volunteer* to become soldiers.
They run the risk of being deployed.

and many times that number of Iraqis.

Compared to what? How many died at the hands of Saddam while you
and your ilk sat by silently?

Reasonable people can disagree about the need for the Iraq invasion.
But it is the most puerile of moral equivocations to see such
as worse than a rich drunk driving his date off a bridge and
then fleeing the scene of the crime. A rich drunk who only got away
with it because he is well connected by his family and his fellow
elites that think they're better than the rest of us mere mortals.
I'll take 10 Bush/Cheney's over the execrable political and cultural
left ... and I'm not remotely a rightwinger or Republican...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Aug 27, 11:50=A0am, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Aug 27, 10:59=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > > On Aug 27, 6:39 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:[email protected]=
m...
>
> > >>> Albeit anecdotal, I have been pretty shit faced before AND have bee=
n
> > >>>> the passenger of a drunk. I still knew it was wrong and that I
> > >>>> could
>
> > >> be making a huge mistake (gamble).
>
> > >> We all have. But we all have lost our inhibitions as well, and done
> > >> plenty of things we never would have done - even without hitting the
> > >> point of being that drunk.
>
> > > Regardless of losing our inhibitions, we still know right from wrong
> > > when intoxicated. =A0It doesn't change anything.
>
> > Have you ever once in your life been falling down, can't remember how t=
o get
> > back to the ship but it doesn't matter because you can't walk anyway dr=
unk?
>
> > >>> I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not know tha=
t
> > >>> driving with a drunk was a bad decision.
>
> > >> Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things quite
> > >> contrary to what they know are right, and what they would normally
> > >> do.
>
> > > You hit the nail on the head. =A0Contrary to what they KNOW is right.
> > > She still would have known driving with a drunk was a poor decision.
> > > It doesn't get her off the hook with regard to partial
> > > responsibility.
>
> > Nope, definitely haven't been drunk. =A0You may _think_ you have but yo=
u
> > haven't if you think that someone who is drunk "would have known drivin=
g
> > with a drunk was a poor decision". =A0If drunks' decision making is so =
great
> > then what's the problem with riding with one?
>
> > >>> Even in court is intoxication ever a defense for anything? Does it
> > >>> ever remove responsibility? I think we still know right from wrong
> > >>> when intoxicated. In the show cops, the drunk drivers still try to
> > >>> evade capture (they know they are doing something wrong).
>
> > >> I cannot cite a case, so I'll fall back on "I am quite sure..." that
> > >> there have been cases where a person's inhebriation was used either
> > >> as a defense, or to place an even greater responsibility on another
> > >> party. To be fair, the simple case of a drunk driver does
> > >> demonstrate another side of the law and moral standards, which is
> > >> quite contrary in that it places even more responsibility in
> > >> association with inhebriation.
>
> > >> On a totally different note - I would like to ask if you wouldn't
> > >> mind configuring your news reader to behave in the generally
> > >> accepted manner of quoting text, so that when we reply to yours, the
> > >> proper quote characters (such as what I have manually inserted
> > >> above) appear. It makes replying to, and following threads much
> > >> easier.
>
> > > My newsreader is GOOGLE. =A0I am powerless to the google.
>
> > >> --
>
> > >> -Mike-
> > >> [email protected]
>
> > >>> --
>
> > >>> -Mike-
> > >>> [email protected]
>
> Ok, I give. =A0When we are intoxicated we are not responsible for our
> actions or the consequences of said actions because we can not decide
> right from wrong. =A0Does work like the temporary insanity defense?

Ted is off the hook!!

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 8/26/2009 9:25 PM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:
>
>> The deeper problem is that he (or anyone else) should be able to become
>> a permanent member of the ruling class, having voted some 15,000+ times
>> in the Senate. The U.S., in part, was formed to neuter the pestilence
>> of Monarchy, one of several forms of permanent rulers (the others being
>> Theocracy and Tribal rule). Yet, less than 300 years into this
>> experiment
>> we have these politicians-for-life, a Federal government utterly
>> disconnected
>> from the citizenry, and government as an institution becoming the
>> leviathan that Hobbes and so many of the Enlightenment thinkers railed
>> against. We desperately need a Constitutional amendment to trim the
>> sails of these people and limit the time they can "serve." If Kennedy
>> was a "Lion Of The Senate" as his admirers claim, then We The People
>> were his prey ...
>
> Just to address this small tangential point in this thread (term
> limits): what is it with the right wing and their fanatical interest in
> this cause?[1]

I can't speak for the rightwing insofar as I rarely speak to them.
>
> Think about it; we *already* have term limits.
>
> They're called "elections".
>
> Of course, the same idiots who fulminate about term limits are the same
> ones who steadfastly refuse to consider public financing of election. If
> one is concerned about incumbents wearing out there welcome in office,
> then it would behoove one, as always, to follow the money.

The public funding of elections would simply continue the path of
the execrable "McCain-Feingold" phony finance "reform" bill. These
tactics should be renamed "The Incumbent Reelection Advantage Bill."


>
> Removing the corrupting influence of money from elections would go a
> looong way towards cleaning house in every legislative body. But nooooo,
> can't have that: why, that's creeping socialism.

Money cannot corrupt what it cannot buy. A single term system would
be brilliant on two levels: It would never give any elected official
long enough tenure to have much to sell to the monied interests (like
the AARP - the biggest lobby of all of them) AND It would keep the
government from getting too efficient, wherein all the mischief ensues.
>
>
> [1] Though to be fair, it's not only Repugnocrats who support term
> limits. It's become an article of faith with the
> dumbasses^H^H^H^H^Hvoters as well ...

Anyone who values personal liberty (i.e. not liberals) is likely to
support term limits.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> What's the difference? Two people were out having fun, got in an
> accident, one dies. Kennedy most likely had no intention of killing her,
> she most likely had no intention of dying. It was a FUCKING ACCIDENT.

A fellow at work was in an accident like that. Difference is, he did 5
years in jail and some years of probation and still does not drive. What
did Teddy do for punishment of his drunken accident?

Steve Turner wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> A Fly wrote:
>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> A Fly wrote:
>>>>>> Communists, Marxists, Nazi's, Dictators, Liberals, today's
>>>>>> Democratic and Republican parties are on the left.
>>>>> Apostrohphe's and they're use's, fuck-nozzle.
>>>> Not interested, dick head.
>>>>
>>>> But if I were interested, its uses not use's, Frog bait!
>>>>
>>> Learn to spell it's, fuck-nozzle.
>>
>> His spelling of "its" is correct. Your use of "they're" is wrong.
>
> As Robatoy already pointed out, I'm afraid your correction is
> incorrect. And I believe "A Fly" was being sarcastic and trying to make
> a point by his incorrect use of "they're" and other misplaced
> punctuation, to which you and Jack both fell victim. But what I would
> like to know is whether or not "fuck-nozzle" should be hyphenated; about
> that I'm not sure...

I think it depends on whether you're using it as a proper noun,
a common noun, a countable noun, or a collective noun. Then again,
in certain circumstances, it might also be a verb.

>
>> But don't despair. The law of apostrophes states that "For every
>> inappropriate use of an apostrophe, somewhere in the universe there is
>> another inappropriate use."
>
> In another group that I follow one moron uses apostrophes EVERYWHERE,
> and I finally told him one day that if he were to just stop using them,
> at all, EVER, he would be correct more often than he currently was. I
> think he responded with some apostrophe laden insult and continued to
> utterly ignore my advice. Oh well. :-)
>

You know a thread has a chance of finally dying when people start
correcting grammar and punctuation.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Aug 28, 3:58=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 1:43 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> On Aug 28, 12:24 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 28, 8:25 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you
> >>>>>>>> don't think that that's possible then you haven't hung with
> >>>>>>>> the right bad crowd)
>
> >>>>>>> I think I finally figured out why you come off as sounding so
> >>>>>>> angry. You really are speaking from experience here.
>
> >>>>>> Obviously you've never been held down while your unscrupulous
> >>>>>> comrades poured that nasty beer down your throat.
>
> >>>>> Not exactly where I was going with that.
>
> >>>> And now we know that Bub is another teetotaller with unrealistic
> >>>> ideas about alcohol.
>
> >>>> Both of you, for an exercise, go to a bar and order a "Long Island
> >>>> Iced Tea". Have a designated driver.
>
> >>> You buying? With out a doubt I would be able to tell that the drink
> >>> contained alcohol.
>
> >> Have you ever had it?
>
> > Yes
>
> And you could tell it contained alcohol?

Yes. I make them strong.

> Try seven up in a can with a half a jigger of rum. =A0Can you tell that _=
that_
> contains alcohol?
>

You can continue to present drink scenarios until you are blue in the
face.
One of two things will always be the result before I am too impaired
to decide right from wrong.
A). I will taste it.
B). I will feel the effects of it.


>
>
>
> >>> I would also feel the effects of it before I knew
> >>> it was a bad decision to drive home or get in the car with a drunk.
>
> >> You keep repeating this and every time you do you show your lack of
> >> experience.
>
> > Thanks for the laugh. =A0:^]

On Aug 26, 10:44=A0am, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Love him or hate him, does anyone think Edward Kennedy will get
> >> 1\100th the press that Michael Jackson did?
>
> >> RonB
>
> > What did he do? =A0Did he drive off of a bridge again? =A0Anyone killed=
this
> > time?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/ted.kennedy.world.reax/index.html
>
> --
> Froz...

Another Christian among us.

On Sep 2, 5:03=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> A Fly wrote:
> > "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> A Fly wrote:
> >>>> Communists, Marxists, Nazi's, Dictators, Liberals, today's
> >>>> Democratic and Republican parties are on the left.
>
> >>> Apostrohphe's and they're use's, fuck-nozzle.
>
> >> Not interested, dick head.
>
> >> But if I were interested, its uses not use's, Frog bait!
>
> > Learn to spell it's, fuck-nozzle.
>
> His spelling of "its" is correct. Your use of "they're" is wrong.
>
> But don't despair. The law of apostrophes states that "For every
> inappropriate use of an apostrophe, somewhere in the universe there is
> another inappropriate use."

In the sentence:
> >> But if I were interested, its uses not use's, Frog bait!
its stands for it is in the above sentence... abbreviated that becomes
it's. Its is possessive.
You're best to keep your corrections accurate. There is no way to
change their minds, They're just too ...whatever..

...and I keep on teaching.

On Aug 28, 12:24=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 8:25 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> >>>> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you don't
> >>>> think that that's possible then you haven't hung with the right bad
> >>>> crowd)
>
> >>> I think I finally figured out why you come off as sounding so angry.
> >>> You really are speaking from experience here.
>
> >> Obviously you've never been held down while your unscrupulous
> >> comrades poured that nasty beer down your throat.
>
> > Not exactly where I was going with that.
>
> And now we know that Bub is another teetotaller with unrealistic ideas ab=
out
> alcohol.
>
> Both of you, for an exercise, go to a bar and order a "Long Island Iced
> Tea". =A0Have a designated driver.

You buying? With out a doubt I would be able to tell that the drink
contained alcohol. I would also feel the effects of it before I knew
it was a bad decision to drive home or get in the car with a drunk.

On Aug 26, 6:21=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> She more than likely, knowingly, got into the car with a drunk
> driver. =A0Does she bear any responsibility here? =A0Darwinism?
>
> *************************************************************************=
** ******
>
> She didn't get up and bail out of the scene of a fatality like Teddy did.
> With no consequences.

No she sure didn't. I'm not saying he did nothing wrong, however, if
my assumption is correct (probability is strongly in my favor) then
she bears some responsibility.

Ananolgy: I drive down the road with no seatbelt on and I am struck
by a drunk driver and die. It is later found that I would have
survived had I chosen to wear a seatbelt. Through my failure not to
take a particular (reasonable) action am I not somewhat responsible
for my death?

>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> Wrong. In becoming inebriated *she made an explicit choice*. She is on
> the hook - at least in some degree - for the consequences. If you don't
> think so, then Kennedy bears NO responsibility either. After all, he
> was inebriated as well and his responsibility is equally vacated.

Not at all. You are taking one action to the point of an unintended
consequence and calling that an explicit choice. I realize you are very
much a black and white thinker, so that makes sense to you in a way, but it
is quite wrong to walk backward from a consequence to some previous action,
and draw a line of intent or responsibility simply based on presence or
state. If that were the case, every event in human history could be defined
in terms of responsibility on the part of any one of the players. I get the
point you are trying to make, but your point goes off into the realm of the
impractical.

Kennedy's responsibility was much different than the responsibility being
ascribed to Mary Joe in this discussion. She made no illegal decision to
drive - he did. She did not leave the scene of an accident - he did. She
did not cause the death of another - he did. He made a decision to do
something that actively required skills he no longer was in possession of.
He, as the driver assumed the responsibility for his passenger - as is
implied by the laws of every state and demonstrated by the reckless driving
definitions of those states. She assumed no such responsibility.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:81442270-ab4b-463a-a1ab-9607b0080ed0@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...


IMHO, If you can take "reasonable" measures that would have prevented
your undesired event, then you bear SOME degree of responsibility if
you do not take those measures. It is not unreasonable to wear a
seatbelt. It is not unreasonable to not get in the car with a drunk
driver.

**************************************************************************************

The problem with this is the definition of "reasonable". It is very
subjective. I could easily argue that an impaired young lady is incapable
of reasonable actions, thus is not responsible.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Aug 26, 7:23=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> > Ananolgy: =A0I drive down the road with no seatbelt on and I am struck
> > by a drunk driver and die. =A0It is later found that I would have
> > survived had I chosen to wear a seatbelt. =A0Through my failure not to
> > take a particular (reasonable) action am I not somewhat responsible
> > for my death?
>
> And it's your fault the burglar carted off your stuff as a result of you
> leaving the door unlocked?

From a philosophical standpoint, I would bear SOME responsibility.
Legally I wouldn't bear any because I broke no law by leaving my door
unlocked. (it is however, illegal to drive unbuckled in my state).


>Or maybe the fried mouse with your Big Mac(TM) is
> somehow partially your fault because you decided to eat at McDonalds inst=
ead
> of Burger King?

Your missing the point.


>
> There is a concept in tort law called 'contributory negligence' but it go=
es
> to the act itself, not possible mitigation. In your example, if you had
> provided the drinks to the other driver, any damages would be reduced by =
the
> amount you "contributed" to his actions.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> In my defense, the 17-year-old Mexican girl I hired to do the housework
was
> under my desk at the time, trying to pull down my trousers, and I got
> distracted.

There's dust in your trousers?

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:43:14 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] (Larry W) wrote:

>Are you sure Mary Jo wasn't driving?

Nobody knows that for sure. With Teddy's death the last one who could
have known is gone. There were no other living witnesses.

On 8/26/2009 8:28 AM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:

> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> What did he do? Did he drive off of a bridge again? Anyone killed
>>> this time?
>>
>> I'd like to pass a bit of wisdom from one friend to another:
>>
>> "Forgiving benefits the forgiver."
>
> Mary Jo can't forgive him - she's dead...

Amazing. Just fucking amazing.

People can't even *mention* Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, et al, here without
being slapped down with a "get OVER it! how can you still be so hateful?".

And yet when it comes to a--what, 25-year-old?--incident, for which the
voters of the state of Massachussetts obviously forgave Kennedy many
times over--well, I guess the statute of limitations never runs out on
that one. We'll always have Chappaquiddick.

Sheesh.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 8/26/2009 8:28 AM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:
>>
>>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What did he do? Did he drive off of a bridge again? Anyone killed
>>>>> this time?
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to pass a bit of wisdom from one friend to another:
>>>>
>>>> "Forgiving benefits the forgiver."
>>>
>>> Mary Jo can't forgive him - she's dead...
>>
>> Amazing. Just fucking amazing.
>>
>> People can't even *mention* Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, et al, here without
>> being slapped down with a "get OVER it! how can you still be so hateful?".
>>
>> And yet when it comes to a--what, 25-year-old?--incident, for which the
>> voters of the state of Massachussetts obviously forgave Kennedy many
>> times over--well, I guess the statute of limitations never runs out on
>> that one. We'll always have Chappaquiddick.
>>
>> Sheesh.
>>
>>
>
>Bush and Cheney didn't drive off a bridge, kill an innocent person, and then
>run away from the crime, getting away with it because of family connections.
>

No, they killed 4000 american soldiers by invading and occupying a sovereign
country. Far, far, far worse than a DUI, even with the fatality. They
tortured innocent (and possibly, even a few guilty) individuals. Senator
Kennedy shines like a beacon high above those two clusterfucks.

scott

Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> writes:
>On 27 Aug 2009 18:22:03 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> writes:
>>>On 27 Aug 2009 00:57:22 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, they killed 4000 american soldiers by invading and occupying a sovereign
>>>>country. Far, far, far worse than a DUI, even with the fatality. They
>>>>tortured innocent (and possibly, even a few guilty) individuals. Senator
>>>>Kennedy shines like a beacon high above those two clusterfucks.
>>>>
>>>>scott
>>>
>>>You may want to get a little more information before you throw soldier
>>>death figures around like you know what you're talking about.
>>>
>>>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62294
>>
>>I don't understand your complaint. Your source verifies the 4000 lives
>>lost in Iraq that I mentioned.
>>
>>If you think that training accidents don't occur during wartime, you're
>>sadly mistaken, i.e. apples are not oranges. That 4k is on top of the
>>normal military accident rate.
>>
>>scott
>
>I wasn't disputing your number. I was pointing out that you were
>implying Bush was the only President that had men die during his
>term(s).
>
>It is unfortunate that men and women must give their lives for our
>freedom. However, this is a sad fact of life.
>
>As far as you claiming Kennedy "shines like a beacon" tells me volumes
>about you.

And of course, your final paragraph says a lot about you. Note that I
said "in comparison to".

scott

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 7:37 pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 8/26/2009 8:28 AM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> What did he do? Did he drive off of a bridge again? Anyone killed
>>>>>> this time?
>>>>> I'd like to pass a bit of wisdom from one friend to another:
>>>>> "Forgiving benefits the forgiver."
>>>> Mary Jo can't forgive him - she's dead...
>>> Amazing. Just fucking amazing.
>>>
>>> People can't even *mention* Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, et al, here without
>>> being slapped down with a "get OVER it! how can you still be so hateful?".
>>>
>>> And yet when it comes to a--what, 25-year-old?--incident, for which the
>>> voters of the state of Massachussetts obviously forgave Kennedy many
>>> times over--well, I guess the statute of limitations never runs out on
>>> that one. We'll always have Chappaquiddick.
>>>
>>> Sheesh.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
>>
>> Agreed. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were reponsible for far more deaths than
>> any Kewnnedy, if JFK, ever thought about.
>>
>
>This last statement isn't remotely true. Joe Kennedy actively opposed
>the US getting into WWII. His very effective campaigning to keep us
>out cost many thousands, and perhaps even 10s of thousands of lives
>as the US dawdled while Hitler walked across Europe.

Wholey Shite, this is the most absurd thing you've ever written!

1) Joe wasn't an elected official
2) He was hardly alone in his isolationist views

scott

On 8/28/2009 2:39 PM Morris Dovey spake thus:

> I find your smug sarcasm inappropriate, but I'm willing to ship at
> least an occasional gallon of Titebond to /your/ woodworking school
> anywhere in Afghanistan.

Would you say the same thing if the school was in Gaza?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 8/27/2009 10:14 AM DGDevin spake thus:

> Tim Daneliuk, droplets of foam forming around his lips, spewed:
>
>> [...] We desperately need a Constitutional amendment to trim the
>> sails of these people and limit the time they can "serve." If Kennedy
>> was a "Lion Of The Senate" as his admirers claim, then We The People
>> were his prey ...
>
> Taggart: God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty
> dollar whore.

It's *Hedley*, goddamnit. *Hedley*, not Hedy.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 8/26/2009 9:25 PM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:

> The deeper problem is that he (or anyone else) should be able to become
> a permanent member of the ruling class, having voted some 15,000+ times
> in the Senate. The U.S., in part, was formed to neuter the pestilence
> of Monarchy, one of several forms of permanent rulers (the others being
> Theocracy and Tribal rule). Yet, less than 300 years into this experiment
> we have these politicians-for-life, a Federal government utterly disconnected
> from the citizenry, and government as an institution becoming the
> leviathan that Hobbes and so many of the Enlightenment thinkers railed
> against. We desperately need a Constitutional amendment to trim the
> sails of these people and limit the time they can "serve." If Kennedy
> was a "Lion Of The Senate" as his admirers claim, then We The People
> were his prey ...

Just to address this small tangential point in this thread (term
limits): what is it with the right wing and their fanatical interest in
this cause?[1]

Think about it; we *already* have term limits.

They're called "elections".

Of course, the same idiots who fulminate about term limits are the same
ones who steadfastly refuse to consider public financing of election. If
one is concerned about incumbents wearing out there welcome in office,
then it would behoove one, as always, to follow the money.

Removing the corrupting influence of money from elections would go a
looong way towards cleaning house in every legislative body. But nooooo,
can't have that: why, that's creeping socialism.


[1] Though to be fair, it's not only Repugnocrats who support term
limits. It's become an article of faith with the
dumbasses^H^H^H^H^Hvoters as well ...



--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On Aug 26, 9:51=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Aug 26, 8:27=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > > From a philosophical standpoint, I would bear SOME responsibility.
>
> > I guess it depends on how we define responsible.
>
> > If you define responsible as contributing to the likelihood of an event
> > happening, then maybe.
>
> > If you knowingly parked in a bad neighborhood with your doors unlocked
> > and your car gps and ipod got stolen from the glove box, you're partly
> > responsible for it happening. =A0Yeah, that's a pretty stupid decision =
and
> > it probably wouldn't have happened if the doors were locked.
>
> > If you define responsible as culpable, as in meriting condemnation or
> > blame for an immoral action, then you would not be at all responsible.
>
> I would never "define" the word responsible this way. Just out of
> curiosity where have you?

Should have read: Where have you seen it defined this way?

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>
>>> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you don't
>>> think that that's possible then you haven't hung with the right bad
>>> crowd)
>>
>> I think I finally figured out why you come off as sounding so angry.
>> You really are speaking from experience here.
>>
>
> Obviously you've never been held down while your unscrupulous comrades
> poured that nasty beer down your throat.
>

Defiantly screaming all the while... "I'll give you ten minutes to knock
that off, or I'm gonna get pissed..."

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:df02b7b1-255c-40a4-a392-d2ad30fb9131@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 10:01 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:81442270-ab4b-463a-a1ab-9607b0080ed0@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> IMHO, If you can take "reasonable" measures that would have prevented
> your undesired event, then you bear SOME degree of responsibility if
> you do not take those measures. It is not unreasonable to wear a
> seatbelt. It is not unreasonable to not get in the car with a drunk
> driver.
>
> ***************************************************************************
> ***********
>
> The problem with this is the definition of "reasonable". It is very
> subjective. I could easily argue that an impaired young lady is incapable
> of reasonable actions, thus is not responsible.

Give me a complete hypothetical example.

****************************************************************************************

You have it in this discussion. Mary Joe was intoxicated and thus was
arguably, incapable of reasonable decisions and actions. That would remove
her responsibility for getting into the car.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Aug 28, 8:25=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> >> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you don't
> >> think that that's possible then you haven't hung with the right bad
> >> crowd)
>
> > I think I finally figured out why you come off as sounding so angry.
> > You really are speaking from experience here.
>
> Obviously you've never been held down while your unscrupulous comrades
> poured that nasty beer down your throat.

Not exactly where I was going with that.

On Aug 31, 4:15=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > Jack Stein wrote:
> >> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>> DGDevin wrote:
>
> >>> You and the rest of the Bush-haters *claim* the evidence was "false"
> >>> but no such proof has emerged ... and I read lots of idiots claiming
> >>> otherwise ... they just never quite manage to produce proof that
> >>> would stand up as legal evidence. =A0Why is that, I wonder?
>
> >> I think there were multiple reasons, like 10 of them listed by
> >> Congress, that got Bush to go to war. =A0Non-rational Bush-haters tend
> >> to list just one, and even that one is a bit weak. =A0Personally, I'm
> >> a rational Bush hater, I hate him because he is a government loving,
> >> tax loving, freedom hating fool just like everyone else on the left.
>
> > In his domestic policy, yes. =A0He was a statist like all the rest. =A0=
He
> > was, however, right on the mark with his foreign policy and he - like
> > another wartime president, Truman - will be vindicated in history.
>
> Hardly a statist on domestic policy. Remember his ill-fated attempts at
> Social Security and immigration policy? After those two got slapped down =
he
> probably said: "Gosh darn it, I'll stick with foreign policy." Except for
> the Patriot Act of course.
>
>
>
> > I think you underestimate the degree to which that stuff exists on the
> > right. =A0The right was so worried about things like the definition of
> > marriage, people's drug habits, the role of religion in public life,
> > and so on that they conceded the last election to a raging
> > radical-cum- Marxist. =A0It is pretty much true that we have the right
> > to thank for
> > this vile presidency.
>
> The left, too, has its shibboleths. We on the right object to burning the
> American flag. Our colleagues on the left object to burning crosses. We
> don't like abortions, they don't like capital punishment. We think it's a
> good idea to spit on Iran, they think it's a good idea for Iran to spit o=
n
> us. We are principled, they are insane.
>
> Diametric differences on a number of issues.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/g1_think.jpg

On Aug 26, 11:04 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>=A0
> news:df02b7b1-255c-40a4-a392-d2ad30fb9131@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 26, 10:01 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>=A0
>=A0
>=A0
>=A0
>=A0
> > "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>=A0
> >news:81442270-ab4b-463a-a1ab-9607b0080ed0@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com..=
.
>=A0
> > IMHO, If you can take "reasonable" measures that would have prevented
> > your undesired event, then you bear SOME degree of responsibility if
> > you do not take those measures. It is not unreasonable to wear a
> > seatbelt. It is not unreasonable to not get in the car with a drunk
> > driver.
>=A0
> > ***********************************************************************=
****
> > ***********
>=A0
> > The problem with this is the definition of "reasonable". It is very
> > subjective. I could easily argue that an impaired young lady is incapab=
le
> > of reasonable actions, thus is not responsible.
>=A0
> Give me a complete hypothetical example.
>=A0
> *************************************************************************=
** *************
>=A0
> You have it in this discussion. =A0Mary Joe was intoxicated and thus was
> arguably, incapable of reasonable decisions and actions. =A0That would re=
move
> her responsibility for getting into the car.
>

Albeit anecdotal, I have been pretty shit faced before AND have been
the passenger of a drunk. =A0I still knew it was wrong and that I could
be making a huge mistake (gamble).

I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not know that
driving with a drunk was a bad decision. =A0

Even in court is intoxication ever a defense for anything? Does it
ever remove responsibility? I think we still know right from wrong
when intoxicated. =A0In the show cops, the drunk drivers still try to
evade capture (they know they are doing something wrong).






=A0
> --
>=A0
> -Mike-
> [email protected]

On Aug 27, 12:38=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> >> No, they took the country to war at best in error, resulting in
> >> thousands of dead young Americans and many times that number of
> >> Iraqis.
>
> > Are you saying that's a bad thing?
>
> > This is a woodworking group - you should know you can't build a house
> > without making sawdust.
>
> So when are you planning to volunteer?

He'll be right behind Mr. Dick "I have something better to do" Cheney.

On Aug 29, 7:41=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 9:49=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Disagree with me if you like, but I have a hard time beleiving this
> > involuntary intoxication scenario(s). =A0It's a stretch.
> > I think she or he would become aware of any involuntary intoxicating
> > effects long before their judgement becomes =A0"significantly" impaired=
.
>
> I have been here in the cheap seats, munching on my popcorn, taking
> some refuge in the fact that bullshit flies around here even without
> my participation and/or encouragement. (I was on a beach for the last
> week or so and Angela took away my Blackberry...grmphf)
>
> BUT! I'm afraid to have to make you aware of of the involuntary
> intoxicating effects' REAL death-trap. There is a transition area on
> the time-line where the inexperienced drinker actually feels
> 'invincible'. LONG before before getting 'drunk'.

Let's assume she was drinking (maybe this is public info? And if it
is public info, then others knew she was drinking while she didn't?).
Lets assume she is an inexperienced drinker. Let's assume she was
tricked into drinking alcohol. Let's assume she didn't taste the
alcohol in her drink or was unable to recognize it.

The question becomes: Do we lose our ability to know right from wrong
before feeling ANY intoxicating effects?
I say NO WAY. You might then throw in another assumption: Lets
assume she couldn't recognize intoxicating effects.

At what point have we made too many assumptions for this to float?

See Occam's Razor

>Mary Joe was being
> offered a ride by a man she looked up to as 'invincible'. SHE,
> herself, felt 'invincible'.... and what you got is a couple of stupid
> drunks out on the road.
> Both bent out of shape.
> Both invincible.

"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:51d9c338-b4fb-4da7-9167-6a48fb406444@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...


> Albeit anecdotal, I have been pretty shit faced before AND have been
> > the passenger of a drunk. I still knew it was wrong and that I could
be making a huge mistake (gamble).

We all have. But we all have lost our inhibitions as well, and done plenty
of things we never would have done - even without hitting the point of being
that drunk.

> I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not know that
> driving with a drunk was a bad decision.

Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things quite contrary to
what they know are right, and what they would normally do.

> Even in court is intoxication ever a defense for anything? Does it
> ever remove responsibility? I think we still know right from wrong
> when intoxicated. In the show cops, the drunk drivers still try to
> evade capture (they know they are doing something wrong).

I cannot cite a case, so I'll fall back on "I am quite sure..." that there
have been cases where a person's inhebriation was used either as a defense,
or to place an even greater responsibility on another party. To be fair,
the simple case of a drunk driver does demonstrate another side of the law
and moral standards, which is quite contrary in that it places even more
responsibility in association with inhebriation.

On a totally different note - I would like to ask if you wouldn't mind
configuring your news reader to behave in the generally accepted manner of
quoting text, so that when we reply to yours, the proper quote characters
(such as what I have manually inserted above) appear. It makes replying to,
and following threads much easier.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]







> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]

On Aug 26, 10:44=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >> =A0-MIKE-
> >>> If you define responsible as culpable, as in meriting condemnation or
> >>> blame for an immoral action, then you would not be at all responsible=
.
> >> I would never "define" the word responsible this way. Just out of
> >> curiosity where have you?
>
> > Should have read: Where have you seen it defined this way?
>
> In the dictionary. =A0 :-)
>
> Responsible--
> chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something
> "Termites were responsible for the damage."
>

Same as your definition one and my definition.
Where are your words "meriting condemnation" represented in that
definition?


> Several thesauruses list "culpable" as a synonym for responsible.

Thin, very thin. Nice try. :^]

>
> Culpable--
> responsible for action
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:34:42 -0700 (PDT), RonB <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Love him or hate him, does anyone think Edward Kennedy will get
>1\100th the press that Michael Jackson did?
>
>RonB

Ed who?

Gordon Shumway

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Yes, my views are ENTIRELY predictable.

Yup, your views and actions are entirely predictable, not with who you read
or quote, but by your actions. Or, in your case, your non-actions and
refusing or inability to contribute.

As usual, you sit by the sidelines and stir up controversy, but aren't
willing to do anything else. Coupled with your incessant complaining about
how the powers that be are screwing you out of money and continually whining
about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket, you personify the
epitome of a mouthpiece.

What's entirely ridiculous about your life is that you do absolutely nothing
else. You don't vote, didn't vote, for anybody in the last US election and
you don't give an iota of your time to trying to change any of the things
you complain about. That would involve risk of some type and you're not
capable of putting yourself on the line in any way.

You don't contribute anything in the way of woodworking knowledge, content
or conjecture and so, it all comes down to the same question. What are you
doing here? What kind of man (if you are one) are you? The only time you
appear is when there's more political controversy to stir up. Yup, I've said
all this before, but I say it for the people that get involved in your inane
arguments. If my words can help them remove themselves from your crapola,
then I'm satisfied.

Have a lousy day, you flake.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> A typical Upscale response, nothing positive to say about anything.

Sure, on occasion, I have many, good positive things to say. Just nothing
ever good to say to a confirmed liar like you.

Now, go kiss Daneliuk's ass a little more will you? He likes it and the
brown nosing will give you a little colour.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

>>> Bush and Cheney didn't drive off a bridge, kill an innocent person,
>>> and then run away from the crime, getting away with it because of
>>> family connections.
>>
>> No, they took the country to war at best in error,
>
> An opinion at best (the "in error" part)

Oh, really? Refresh my memory, how many of those oft-threatened WMDs did
they find? I recall speeches about how we couldn't wait for a mushroom
cloud over an American city, so just how many of those almost-finished WMDs
turned up to justify the invasion launched to prevent them from being used?

>> resulting in thousands of
>> dead young Americans
>
> That's what happens when people *volunteer* to become soldiers.
> They run the risk of being deployed.

What a foul statement, to suggest that the lives of volunteers can be thrown
away carelessly because they volunteered.

> and many times that number of Iraqis.
>
> Compared to what? How many died at the hands of Saddam while you
> and your ilk sat by silently?

My ilk? Because I disagree with you, you figure you can drop me into
whatever pigeon-hole you please? Ask anyone who knows me how they would
describe my politics and they'd answer conservative, but you figure I'm a
hand-wringing leftie because I see the invasion of Iraq for the massive
blunder it was--too funny.

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and if you count the
Iran-Iraq war and Desert Storm he was responsible for the deaths of
millions. So does that mean anyone who kills a lesser number of Iraqis get
a free pass? Two wrongs make a right?

And since when is the U.S. in charge of removing every dictator on earth?
The U.S. has cheerfully tolerated or even actively supported a string of
dictators around the world who were useful to U.S. foreign policy. So long
as a dictator claimed to be saving his country from communism (and
especially if he had a valuable natural resource to provide) America managed
to look the other way and not see the death squads, the secret police, the
burned villages and so on. Democracy? America has supported coups that
overthrew democratically elected governments, remember? When Saddam was at
war with Iran his murderous ways didn't seem to be much of a problem for
America. He gassed Kurds because they were supporting Iran, remember? Why
did their lives matter only when it was time to get rid of Saddam?

If Saddam had never invaded Kuwait he'd be in power to this day, a valued
counter-weight to Iran. He wasn't toppled from power because he was a
bloody-handed dictator, but because he stopped being a *useful*
bloody-handed dictator and instead became a pain in the ass.

> Reasonable people can disagree about the need for the Iraq invasion.

When a decision of that magnitude is made in the way it was, with every
scrap of dubious intelligence treated like gold in spite of warnings from
friendly powers that it was unreliable (see: Curveball) while anyone with a
dissenting view is discouraged or even removed from the debate, "reasonable"
doesn't enter into it. The decision to invade was made first, then a case
to support that decision was fabricated from rotten materials using a
massively flawed design. In woodworking terms the invasion of Iraq didn't
pass code, which is why Americans are still dying there (but that's okay
because they volunteered) six years later.

> But it is the most puerile of moral equivocations to see such
> as worse than a rich drunk driving his date off a bridge and
> then fleeing the scene of the crime.

One death vs. many, many thousands. Not to mention a trillion dollars and
the enmity of much of the world. But you figure one drowning caused by a
rich drunk is of greater weight huh? Unbelievable.

> A rich drunk who only got away
> with it because he is well connected by his family and his fellow
> elites that think they're better than the rest of us mere mortals.

Sounds a bit like the guy who occupied the Oval Office for the past eight
years. For that matter it sounds like half the politicians in Washington on
both sides of the aisle.

> I'll take 10 Bush/Cheney's over the execrable political and cultural
> left ... and I'm not remotely a rightwinger or Republican...

You're a pompous blowhard whatever politics you claim, the Usenet equivalent
of the cranky old guy who waves his cane from his porch and yells at those
damn kids to get off his lawn. If you moved a bit further to the right
you'd fall off the edge....

On Aug 27, 10:59=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 6:39 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:51d9c338-b4fb-4da7-9167-6a48fb406444@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> >>> Albeit anecdotal, I have been pretty shit faced before AND have been
> >>>> the passenger of a drunk. I still knew it was wrong and that I
> >>>> could
>
> >> be making a huge mistake (gamble).
>
> >> We all have. But we all have lost our inhibitions as well, and done
> >> plenty of things we never would have done - even without hitting the
> >> point of being that drunk.
>
> > Regardless of losing our inhibitions, we still know right from wrong
> > when intoxicated. =A0It doesn't change anything.
>
> Have you ever once in your life been falling down, can't remember how to =
get
> back to the ship but it doesn't matter because you can't walk anyway drun=
k?
>
> >>> I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not know that
> >>> driving with a drunk was a bad decision.
>
> >> Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things quite
> >> contrary to what they know are right, and what they would normally
> >> do.
>
> > You hit the nail on the head. =A0Contrary to what they KNOW is right.
> > She still would have known driving with a drunk was a poor decision.
> > It doesn't get her off the hook with regard to partial
> > responsibility.
>
> Nope, definitely haven't been drunk. =A0You may _think_ you have but you
> haven't if you think that someone who is drunk "would have known driving
> with a drunk was a poor decision". =A0If drunks' decision making is so gr=
eat
> then what's the problem with riding with one?
>
>
>
> >>> Even in court is intoxication ever a defense for anything? Does it
> >>> ever remove responsibility? I think we still know right from wrong
> >>> when intoxicated. In the show cops, the drunk drivers still try to
> >>> evade capture (they know they are doing something wrong).
>
> >> I cannot cite a case, so I'll fall back on "I am quite sure..." that
> >> there have been cases where a person's inhebriation was used either
> >> as a defense, or to place an even greater responsibility on another
> >> party. To be fair, the simple case of a drunk driver does
> >> demonstrate another side of the law and moral standards, which is
> >> quite contrary in that it places even more responsibility in
> >> association with inhebriation.
>
> >> On a totally different note - I would like to ask if you wouldn't
> >> mind configuring your news reader to behave in the generally
> >> accepted manner of quoting text, so that when we reply to yours, the
> >> proper quote characters (such as what I have manually inserted
> >> above) appear. It makes replying to, and following threads much
> >> easier.
>
> > My newsreader is GOOGLE. =A0I am powerless to the google.
>
> >> --
>
> >> -Mike-
> >> [email protected]
>
> >>> --
>
> >>> -Mike-
> >>> [email protected]


Ok, I give. When we are intoxicated we are not responsible for our
actions or the consequences of said actions because we can not decide
right from wrong. Does work like the temporary insanity defense?

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message > :>
>> : The law was changed so the Republican governor could not make an
>> : appointment. Now the governor is a Democrat so they want to change it
>> back.
>>
>> No, that's incorrect.
>>
>> Go read the actual letter Kennedy wrote to the governor.
>>
>> -- Andy Barss
>
> Yes, that is correct. They did not want Romney to be able to appoint a
> republican senator if Kerry gave up his seat for the Presidency. They felt
> (correctly) that the people should decide, not the governor. Now, they
> don't want the people to decide, they want the Democratic governor, good
> friend of Obama, to make that decision. Politics at it worst.
>
> If anyone things appointment is the proper way, perhaps we should abandon
> elections and have a king rule the country.
>
>

Well, we do have Queen on the Finance Committee - that's a start.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Aug 27, 4:12=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 3:12 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> On Aug 27, 10:59 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 27, 6:39 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>news:[email protected].=
com...
>
> >>>>>>> Albeit anecdotal, I have been pretty shit faced before AND have
> >>>>>>> been
> >>>>>>>> the passenger of a drunk. I still knew it was wrong and that I
> >>>>>>>> could
>
> >>>>>> be making a huge mistake (gamble).
>
> >>>>>> We all have. But we all have lost our inhibitions as well, and
> >>>>>> done plenty of things we never would have done - even without
> >>>>>> hitting the point of being that drunk.
>
> >>>>> Regardless of losing our inhibitions, we still know right from
> >>>>> wrong when intoxicated. It doesn't change anything.
>
> >>>> Have you ever once in your life been falling down, can't remember
> >>>> how to get back to the ship but it doesn't matter because you can't
> >>>> walk anyway drunk?
>
> >>>>>>> I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not know
> >>>>>>> that driving with a drunk was a bad decision.
>
> >>>>>> Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things quite
> >>>>>> contrary to what they know are right, and what they would
> >>>>>> normally do.
>
> >>>>> You hit the nail on the head. Contrary to what they KNOW is right.
> >>>>> She still would have known driving with a drunk was a poor
> >>>>> decision. It doesn't get her off the hook with regard to partial
> >>>>> responsibility.
>
> >>>> Nope, definitely haven't been drunk. You may _think_ you have but
> >>>> you haven't if you think that someone who is drunk "would have
> >>>> known driving with a drunk was a poor decision". If drunks'
> >>>> decision making is so great then what's the problem with riding
> >>>> with one?
>
> >>>>>>> Even in court is intoxication ever a defense for anything? Does
> >>>>>>> it ever remove responsibility? I think we still know right from
> >>>>>>> wrong when intoxicated. In the show cops, the drunk drivers
> >>>>>>> still try to evade capture (they know they are doing something
> >>>>>>> wrong).
>
> >>>>>> I cannot cite a case, so I'll fall back on "I am quite sure..."
> >>>>>> that there have been cases where a person's inhebriation was used
> >>>>>> either as a defense, or to place an even greater responsibility
> >>>>>> on another party. To be fair, the simple case of a drunk driver
> >>>>>> does demonstrate another side of the law and moral standards,
> >>>>>> which is quite contrary in that it places even more
> >>>>>> responsibility in association with inhebriation.
>
> >>>>>> On a totally different note - I would like to ask if you wouldn't
> >>>>>> mind configuring your news reader to behave in the generally
> >>>>>> accepted manner of quoting text, so that when we reply to yours,
> >>>>>> the proper quote characters (such as what I have manually
> >>>>>> inserted above) appear. It makes replying to, and following
> >>>>>> threads much easier.
>
> >>>>> My newsreader is GOOGLE. I am powerless to the google.
>
> >>>>>> --
>
> >>>>>> -Mike-
> >>>>>> [email protected]
>
> >>>>>>> --
>
> >>>>>>> -Mike-
> >>>>>>> [email protected]
>
> >>> Ok, I give. When we are intoxicated we are not responsible for our
> >>> actions or the consequences of said actions because we can not
> >>> decide right from wrong. Does work like the temporary insanity
> >>> defense?
>
> >> The person driving should take measures before he takes his first
> >> drink of the day to ensure that he will not be driving later in an
> >> impaired state.
>
> >> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you don't
> >> think that that's possible then you haven't hung with the right bad
> >> crowd) then the responsbility should lie with the person who
> >> arranged their intoxication.
>
> > This type of defense would be denied to people experiencing symptoms
> > of intoxication who continued to consume the =A0spiked drink because
> > they ought to have known what was happening to them.
> > (paraphrased from wiki)
>
> When you have a court case to cite instead of paraphrasing wiki get back =
to
> me.

Can you cite one to the contrary?

>
> And if you are going to to pontificate about what people under the influe=
nce
> of alcohol "should" do you should get some experience instead of going on
> theory.

She was responsible for her actions. If alcohol excuses her it should
excuse Ted.
It doesn't take an experienced drunk to see this logic.

"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

.
>
> No kidding. One of the best and most accomplished senators
> in US history dies, and that's all the wankers have to say.
> Sheesh indeed.
>

For many, his tenure in the Senate represented years of defining what's
wrong with the political machine. Words like "one of the best" and "most
accomplished" probably are not universally agreed to with respect to Ted
Kennedy.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "RonB" wrote:
>
>> Love him or hate him, does anyone think Edward Kennedy will get
>> 1\100th the press that Michael Jackson did?
>
> Probably not; however, his senate career will continue to have an impact
> on the the USA for at least the next 50 years.
>
> Lew
>

Thankfully for all of us.

Ed

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bush and Cheney didn't drive off a bridge, kill an innocent person, and
> then
> run away from the crime, getting away with it because of family
> connections.
>

No they were the cause of thousands of deaths and dozens (if not hundreds)
of torture victims (the majority of both groups being innocent) and then
just walked away from the crimes. We'll see if they ever answer for those
crimes.

I'm not saying Ted Kennedy was right all the time, but maybe you ought to
pick a better example.

Ed

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Therein lies the rub. Is it "reasonable" for a woman to walk
> alone at night in a park?

Wow. Questions like that make me want to find a calendar to check what year
this is.

Ed

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DGDevin wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> Bush and Cheney didn't drive off a bridge, kill an innocent person,
>>> and then run away from the crime, getting away with it because of
>>> family connections.
>>
>> No, they took the country to war at best in error, resulting in
>> thousands of dead young Americans and many times that number of
>> Iraqis.
>
> Are you saying that's a bad thing?
>

Are you saying it's a good thing?

> This is a woodworking group - you should know you can't build a house
> without making sawdust.

Sure, you need to make sawdust to build a house. You should have a right to
build the house (or a request from those who own the property) before you
start making the sawdust, though. Bush and Cheney had neither.

Ed

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Ed Edelenbos"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Sure, you need to make sawdust to build a house. You should have a right
>>to
>>build the house (or a request from those who own the property) before you
>>start making the sawdust, though. Bush and Cheney had neither.
>
> Coupla questions for you, Ed, mostly just food for thought.
>
> Do you believe that nations have an obligation to comply with the treaties
> they sign?
>

Yes.

> Do you believe that nations have an obligation to comply with resolutions
> of
> the U.N. Security Council?
>

Yes. But only if the resolutions are based on factual and not trumped up
falsified data. And, passage of the resolution should not be forced through
as a result of backroom threats by a large bullying country.

> Do you believe that if a nation fails to do so, it should be compelled to?
>

See above.



None of this has much of anything to do with the death of Mr. Kennedy. He
was a man who did a lot of good for this country, regardless of his personal
life.

When either Bush or Cheney dies, I doubt I'll have the same opinion of their
contributions.

Ed

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> DGDevin wrote:
>>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bush and Cheney didn't drive off a bridge, kill an innocent person,
>>>>> and then run away from the crime, getting away with it because of
>>>>> family connections.
>>>>
>>>> No, they took the country to war at best in error, resulting in
>>>> thousands of dead young Americans and many times that number of
>>>> Iraqis.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that's a bad thing?
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying it's a good thing?
>
> Certainly. Here are some reasons you may not have heard emphasized:
>
> * We need a war every decade or so to keep the tip of the spear sharp. Who
> would ever enlist otherwise? I mean, who would become a firefighter if
> there were never any fires? Sure, you hear reasons for joining the
> military: job security, educational benefits, retirement goodies, and so
> on. These are just PC sops. Most people join up so they can kill others.
> It's what our warrior class is supposed to do.
>
> * Deterrence. Consider old Sadaam: We invaded his country, confiscated his
> fortunes, evicted him from his homes, imprisoned his friends, exiled his
> family, killed his children, and, ultimately had his skanky ass hanged. I
> suggest such actions have SOME sobering effect on despots similarily
> inclined.
>
> * Oil. We (cleverly) don't get any oil from Iraq. Oil, however, is
> fungible. Whatever Iraqi oil gets sold to France lowers the price of the
> oil we buy from Nigeria.
>
> * Experience: I don't think there's a member of the military in a
> leadership role - from sergeant to 4-Star general - who hasn't led troops
> in combat. You can't BUY they level of expertise.
>
>>
>>> This is a woodworking group - you should know you can't build a house
>>> without making sawdust.
>>
>> Sure, you need to make sawdust to build a house. You should have a
>> right to build the house (or a request from those who own the
>> property) before you start making the sawdust, though. Bush and
>> Cheney had neither.
>
> The United States IS the world's policeman and the president IS the top
> cop. One may not like the role or feel it was achieved improperly, but it
> is what it is. We, in general, write the rules then we enforce them.
> Again, it is what it is.

That's just the sort of thinking that brought down the Soviets. It's
working well on us, too.

You're proof we'd all better worry.

Ed

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>>
>>> Someone else (not Ed) wrote:
>>> The United States IS the world's policeman and the president IS the
>>> top cop. One may not like the role or feel it was achieved
>>> improperly, but it is what it is. We, in general, write the rules
>>> then we enforce them. Again, it is what it is.
>>
>> That's just the sort of thinking that brought down the Soviets. It's
>> working well on us, too.
>>
>> You're proof we'd all better worry.
>>
>
> Maybe. But the evidence is it's not US who should worry - it's the
> pissants who think they can fark with us.

It's ok that you think in such a short term manner. You aren't responsible
for or in charge of anything significant. It's when our national leaders
think that way that national security is undermined. After listening to
you, I'm convinced we need to seriously overhaul the education system.

Ed

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DGDevin wrote:
>>
>> BTW sparky, I was pleased at Bush winning the 2000 election and for
>> quite some time I defended his administration because I badly
>> underestimated its capability for corruption and incompetence. But
>> of course you'll continue to paint me as a raving leftist because
>> that's what hopeless ideologues like you do.
>>
>
> Corruption? Exactly ONE Bush admistration official was persecuted in eight
> years, and that involved a non-crime.
>
> I think both Clinton had eight casualties for illegal acts during his
> first month. Obama's had two or three (for tax "irregularities"). Obama
> would possibly have more, but he's still got over 200 policy positions to
> fill, including Secretary of the Army, heads of the TSA and Border
> Security, Director of the BATF, and more.
>
> Incompetence? When Bush came into office, he could rely on the advice of
> his dad, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and others, each with
> decades of experience.
>

Other than Powell, I see little competence to rely on in that group.

Ed

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>> On Aug 26, 7:37 pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/26/2009 8:28 AM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> What did he do? Did he drive off of a bridge again? Anyone
>>>>>>>> killed this time?
>>>>>>> I'd like to pass a bit of wisdom from one friend to another:
>>>>>>> "Forgiving benefits the forgiver."
>>>>>> Mary Jo can't forgive him - she's dead...
>>>>> Amazing. Just fucking amazing.
>>>>>
>>>>> People can't even *mention* Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, et al, here
>>>>> without being slapped down with a "get OVER it! how can you still
>>>>> be so hateful?".
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet when it comes to a--what, 25-year-old?--incident, for
>>>>> which the voters of the state of Massachussetts obviously forgave
>>>>> Kennedy many times over--well, I guess the statute of limitations
>>>>> never runs out on that one. We'll always have Chappaquiddick.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
>>>> Agreed. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were reponsible for far more deaths
>>>> than any Kewnnedy, if JFK, ever thought about.
>>>>
>>> This last statement isn't remotely true. Joe Kennedy actively
>>> opposed the US getting into WWII. His very effective campaigning to
>>> keep us out cost many thousands, and perhaps even 10s of thousands
>>> of lives as the US dawdled while Hitler walked across Europe.
>> Wholey Shite, this is the most absurd thing you've ever written!
>>
>> 1) Joe wasn't an elected official
>> 2) He was hardly alone in his isolationist views
>>
>> scott
>
> Did they not teach history in your high school??????
>
> He was the *US Ambassador to the UK - he operated in an
> official capacity and *influenced US policy*.
>
> One little tidbit:
>
> 'His term as Ambassador and his political ambitions ended abruptly
> during the Battle of Britain in November 1940, with the publishing of
> his controversial remarks suggesting that "Democracy is finished in
> England. It may be here, [in the US]."'
>
> - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.
>
>
> Prescient words considering his politician sons did much to
> "finish Democracy" [in the US].

Oh, and he was a vicious anti-Semite as well ... a real jewel of
a man.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Aug 26, 7:53=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 26, 7:23 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> >>> Ananolgy: =A0I drive down the road with no seatbelt on and I am struc=
k
> >>> by a drunk driver and die. =A0It is later found that I would have
> >>> survived had I chosen to wear a seatbelt. =A0Through my failure not t=
o
> >>> take a particular (reasonable) action am I not somewhat responsible
> >>> for my death?
> >> And it's your fault the burglar carted off your stuff as a result of y=
ou
> >> leaving the door unlocked? Or maybe the fried mouse with your Big Mac(=
TM) is
> >> somehow partially your fault because you decided to eat at McDonalds i=
nstead
> >> of Burger King?
>
> >> There is a concept in tort law called 'contributory negligence' but it=
goes
> >> to the act itself, not possible mitigation. In your example, if you ha=
d
> >> provided the drinks to the other driver, any damages would be reduced =
by the
> >> amount you "contributed" to his actions.
>
> > From your point of view responsibility is only gauged by what is or
> > isn't legal. =A0Are smokers responsible for their smoking induced
> > illness? =A0Smoking is legal.
>
> OK, I'm interested in how you thus handle the following (actually
> interested, not just being argumentative):
>
> By your line of reasoning, is an attractive woman dressed provocatively
> walking by herself in a park at night responsible in any degree if
> she is raped?
>

No. The key word I used above is "reasonable" (go check). It would be
unreasonable to expect her to dress differently to prevent a rape.

I would also not be responsible for my death if I was shot because I
wasn't wearing a bullet proof vest.

IMHO, If you can take "reasonable" measures that would have prevented
your undesired event, then you bear SOME degree of responsibility if
you do not take those measures. It is not unreasonable to wear a
seatbelt. It is not unreasonable to not get in the car with a drunk
driver.




> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Aug 26, 7:23 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> > Ananolgy: I drive down the road with no seatbelt on and I am struck
> > by a drunk driver and die. It is later found that I would have
> > survived had I chosen to wear a seatbelt. Through my failure not to
> > take a particular (reasonable) action am I not somewhat responsible
> > for my death?
>
> And it's your fault the burglar carted off your stuff as a result of you
> leaving the door unlocked? Or maybe the fried mouse with your Big Mac(TM)
> is
> somehow partially your fault because you decided to eat at McDonalds
> instead
> of Burger King?
>
> There is a concept in tort law called 'contributory negligence' but it
> goes
> to the act itself, not possible mitigation. In your example, if you had
> provided the drinks to the other driver, any damages would be reduced by
> the
> amount you "contributed" to his actions.

From your point of view responsibility is only gauged by what is or
isn't legal. Are smokers responsible for their smoking induced
illness? Smoking is legal.

************************************************************************************

I don't care too much for your opinion in this discussion, but I sure do
like the way you explore these things philosophically. Maybe it would be
better to say I disagree with your opinion. I'm the kind of person who can
often take both sides of a discussion from a philosophical standpoint, and
who greatly respects exploration like this. You're dead wrong of course,
but I sure do like the way you go about doing it wrong...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Aug 27, 6:39=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:51d9c338-b4fb-4da7-9167-6a48fb406444@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Albeit anecdotal, I have been pretty shit faced before AND have been
> > > the passenger of a drunk. I still knew it was wrong and that I could
>
> be making a huge mistake (gamble).
>
> We all have. =A0But we all have lost our inhibitions as well, and done pl=
enty
> of things we never would have done - even without hitting the point of be=
ing
> that drunk.

Regardless of losing our inhibitions, we still know right from wrong
when intoxicated. It doesn't change anything.


>
> > I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not know that
> > driving with a drunk was a bad decision.
>
> Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things quite contrary to
> what they know are right, and what they would normally do.


You hit the nail on the head. Contrary to what they KNOW is right.
She still would have known driving with a drunk was a poor decision.
It doesn't get her off the hook with regard to partial
responsibility.


>
> > Even in court is intoxication ever a defense for anything? Does it
> > ever remove responsibility? I think we still know right from wrong
> > when intoxicated. In the show cops, the drunk drivers still try to
> > evade capture (they know they are doing something wrong).
>
> I cannot cite a case, so I'll fall back on "I am quite sure..." that ther=
e
> have been cases where a person's inhebriation was used either as a defens=
e,
> or to place an even greater responsibility on another party. =A0To be fai=
r,
> the simple case of a drunk driver does demonstrate another side of the la=
w
> and moral standards, which is quite contrary in that it places even more
> responsibility in association with inhebriation.
>
> On a totally different note - I would like to ask if you wouldn't mind
> configuring your news reader to behave in the generally accepted manner o=
f
> quoting text, so that when we reply to yours, the proper quote characters
> (such as what I have manually inserted above) appear. =A0It makes replyin=
g to,
> and following threads much easier.


My newsreader is GOOGLE. I am powerless to the google.

>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> > --
>
> > -Mike-
> > [email protected]

On Aug 27, 3:12=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 10:59 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> On Aug 27, 6:39 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:[email protected]=
m...
>
> >>>>> Albeit anecdotal, I have been pretty shit faced before AND have
> >>>>> been
> >>>>>> the passenger of a drunk. I still knew it was wrong and that I
> >>>>>> could
>
> >>>> be making a huge mistake (gamble).
>
> >>>> We all have. But we all have lost our inhibitions as well, and done
> >>>> plenty of things we never would have done - even without hitting
> >>>> the point of being that drunk.
>
> >>> Regardless of losing our inhibitions, we still know right from wrong
> >>> when intoxicated. It doesn't change anything.
>
> >> Have you ever once in your life been falling down, can't remember
> >> how to get back to the ship but it doesn't matter because you can't
> >> walk anyway drunk?
>
> >>>>> I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not know
> >>>>> that driving with a drunk was a bad decision.
>
> >>>> Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things quite
> >>>> contrary to what they know are right, and what they would normally
> >>>> do.
>
> >>> You hit the nail on the head. Contrary to what they KNOW is right.
> >>> She still would have known driving with a drunk was a poor decision.
> >>> It doesn't get her off the hook with regard to partial
> >>> responsibility.
>
> >> Nope, definitely haven't been drunk. You may _think_ you have but you
> >> haven't if you think that someone who is drunk "would have known
> >> driving with a drunk was a poor decision". If drunks' decision
> >> making is so great then what's the problem with riding with one?
>
> >>>>> Even in court is intoxication ever a defense for anything? Does it
> >>>>> ever remove responsibility? I think we still know right from wrong
> >>>>> when intoxicated. In the show cops, the drunk drivers still try to
> >>>>> evade capture (they know they are doing something wrong).
>
> >>>> I cannot cite a case, so I'll fall back on "I am quite sure..."
> >>>> that there have been cases where a person's inhebriation was used
> >>>> either as a defense, or to place an even greater responsibility on
> >>>> another party. To be fair, the simple case of a drunk driver does
> >>>> demonstrate another side of the law and moral standards, which is
> >>>> quite contrary in that it places even more responsibility in
> >>>> association with inhebriation.
>
> >>>> On a totally different note - I would like to ask if you wouldn't
> >>>> mind configuring your news reader to behave in the generally
> >>>> accepted manner of quoting text, so that when we reply to yours,
> >>>> the proper quote characters (such as what I have manually inserted
> >>>> above) appear. It makes replying to, and following threads much
> >>>> easier.
>
> >>> My newsreader is GOOGLE. I am powerless to the google.
>
> >>>> --
>
> >>>> -Mike-
> >>>> [email protected]
>
> >>>>> --
>
> >>>>> -Mike-
> >>>>> [email protected]
>
> > Ok, I give. =A0When we are intoxicated we are not responsible for our
> > actions or the consequences of said actions because we can not decide
> > right from wrong. =A0Does work like the temporary insanity defense?
>
> The person driving should take measures before he takes his first drink o=
f
> the day to ensure that he will not be driving later in an impaired state.
>
> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you don't think th=
at
> that's possible then you haven't hung with the right bad crowd)

I think I finally figured out why you come off as sounding so angry.
You really are speaking from experience here.





>then the
> responsbility should lie with the person who arranged their intoxication.

On Aug 26, 9:37=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 26, 7:53 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> On Aug 26, 7:23 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>> Ananolgy: =A0I drive down the road with no seatbelt on and I am str=
uck
> >>>>> by a drunk driver and die. =A0It is later found that I would have
> >>>>> survived had I chosen to wear a seatbelt. =A0Through my failure not=
to
> >>>>> take a particular (reasonable) action am I not somewhat responsible
> >>>>> for my death?
> >>>> And it's your fault the burglar carted off your stuff as a result of=
you
> >>>> leaving the door unlocked? Or maybe the fried mouse with your Big Ma=
c(TM) is
> >>>> somehow partially your fault because you decided to eat at McDonalds=
instead
> >>>> of Burger King?
> >>>> There is a concept in tort law called 'contributory negligence' but =
it goes
> >>>> to the act itself, not possible mitigation. In your example, if you =
had
> >>>> provided the drinks to the other driver, any damages would be reduce=
d by the
> >>>> amount you "contributed" to his actions.
> >>> From your point of view responsibility is only gauged by what is or
> >>> isn't legal. =A0Are smokers responsible for their smoking induced
> >>> illness? =A0Smoking is legal.
> >> OK, I'm interested in how you thus handle the following (actually
> >> interested, not just being argumentative):
>
> >> By your line of reasoning, is an attractive woman dressed provocativel=
y
> >> walking by herself in a park at night responsible in any degree if
> >> she is raped?
>
> > No. The key word I used above is "reasonable" (go check). =A0It would b=
e
> > unreasonable to expect her to dress differently to prevent a rape.
>
> > I would also not be responsible for my death if I was shot because I
> > wasn't wearing a bullet proof vest.
>
> > IMHO, If you can take "reasonable" measures that would have prevented
> > your undesired event, then you bear SOME degree of responsibility if
> > you do not take those measures. =A0It is not unreasonable to wear a
> > seatbelt. It is not unreasonable to not get in the car with a drunk
> > driver.
>
> Therein lies the rub. =A0Is it "reasonable" for a woman to walk
> alone at night in a park? =A0I suppose this depends on the park,
> the likelihood of crime in that area on so.
>
> I asked this because of cases like Mike Tyson where a woman
> accompanies him to his room and later declares rape. =A0He
> is convicted more-or-less only on the basis of this claim
> without any evidence of the act having been forcible.
>
> I happen to share your view that prudence is a reasonable
> expectation. =A0However, I think moral culpability always
> lies with the perpetrator. =A0Mary Jo should have known better.
> But Ted not only is morally responsible for her death - which
> was certainly an accident, but one he set up when he drank
> too much and drove. =A0Moreover, his running away from the even
> is inexcusable.

I totally agree with you regarding Ted's negligence, actually it
sickens me that some are given a free pass. You and I would have
served a long time for involuntary manslaughter.

Nevertheless, she could have prevented her own death if she didn't get
in the car of a drunk. She should have known better. By default she
bears SOME responsibility for her own death.

>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >Now, go kiss Daneliuk's ass a little more will you? He likes it and the
> >brown nosing will give you a little colour.

> Hypocrite.

If that's the best you can do to troll the thread, then please continue.
It's an apt demonstration of your lack of imagination and laziness.

On Aug 27, 9:05=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 8:01 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> On Aug 27, 5:43 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 27, 4:12 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 27, 3:12 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 10:59 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 6:39 am, "Mike Marlow"
> >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> message
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]=
roups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Albeit anecdotal, I have been pretty shit faced before AND
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the passenger of a drunk. I still knew it was wrong and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I could
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be making a huge mistake (gamble).
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We all have. But we all have lost our inhibitions as well,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and done plenty of things we never would have done - even
> >>>>>>>>>>>> without hitting the point of being that drunk.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of losing our inhibitions, we still know right
> >>>>>>>>>>> from wrong when intoxicated. It doesn't change anything.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Have you ever once in your life been falling down, can't
> >>>>>>>>>> remember how to get back to the ship but it doesn't matter
> >>>>>>>>>> because you can't walk anyway drunk?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> know that driving with a drunk was a bad decision.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things
> >>>>>>>>>>>> quite contrary to what they know are right, and what they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would normally do.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You hit the nail on the head. Contrary to what they KNOW is
> >>>>>>>>>>> right. She still would have known driving with a drunk was a
> >>>>>>>>>>> poor decision. It doesn't get her off the hook with regard
> >>>>>>>>>>> to partial responsibility.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nope, definitely haven't been drunk. You may _think_ you have
> >>>>>>>>>> but you haven't if you think that someone who is drunk "would
> >>>>>>>>>> have known driving with a drunk was a poor decision". If
> >>>>>>>>>> drunks' decision making is so great then what's the problem
> >>>>>>>>>> with riding with one?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Even in court is intoxication ever a defense for anything?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it ever remove responsibility? I think we still know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> right from wrong when intoxicated. In the show cops, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> drunk drivers still try to evade capture (they know they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are doing something wrong).
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot cite a case, so I'll fall back on "I am quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sure..." that there have been cases where a person's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> inhebriation was used either as a defense, or to place an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> even greater responsibility on another party. To be fair,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the simple case of a drunk driver does demonstrate another
> >>>>>>>>>>>> side of the law and moral standards, which is quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>> contrary in that it places even more responsibility in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> association with inhebriation.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On a totally different note - I would like to ask if you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't mind configuring your news reader to behave in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> generally accepted manner of quoting text, so that when we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reply to yours, the proper quote characters (such as what I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have manually inserted above) appear. It makes replying to,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and following threads much easier.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> My newsreader is GOOGLE. I am powerless to the google.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Mike-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mike-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>
> >>>>>>>>> Ok, I give. When we are intoxicated we are not responsible for
> >>>>>>>>> our actions or the consequences of said actions because we can
> >>>>>>>>> not decide right from wrong. Does work like the temporary
> >>>>>>>>> insanity defense?
>
> >>>>>>>> The person driving should take measures before he takes his
> >>>>>>>> first drink of the day to ensure that he will not be driving
> >>>>>>>> later in an impaired state.
>
> >>>>>>>> If the person became intoxicated involuntarily (and if you
> >>>>>>>> don't think that that's possible then you haven't hung with
> >>>>>>>> the right bad crowd) then the responsbility should lie with
> >>>>>>>> the person who arranged their intoxication.
>
> >>>>>>> This type of defense would be denied to people experiencing
> >>>>>>> symptoms of intoxication who continued to consume the spiked
> >>>>>>> drink because they ought to have known what was happening to
> >>>>>>> them. (paraphrased from wiki)
>
> >>>>>> When you have a court case to cite instead of paraphrasing wiki
> >>>>>> get back to me.
>
> >>>>> Can you cite one to the contrary?
>
> >>>> You're the one who started citing things.
>
> >>> Which for some reason you required another
>
> >>>>>> And if you are going to to pontificate about what people under
> >>>>>> the influence of alcohol "should" do you should get some
> >>>>>> experience instead of going on theory.
>
> >>>>> She was responsible for her actions. If alcohol excuses her it
> >>>>> should excuse Ted.
> >>>>> It doesn't take an experienced drunk to see this logic.
>
> >>>> Well, there's your problem--you are incapable of seeing the flaw in
> >>>> your logic because you are making erroneous assumptions.
>
> >>> You make the biggest erroneous assumption of them all. You claim
> >>> that she continued to unknowingly ingest alcohol in lieu of any
> >>> intoxicating effects. And she was so completely involuntarily
> >>> intoxicated to the point that she didn't know getting in the car of
> >>> a drunk was a bad idea.
>
> >> Who is "she"?
>
> > From above:
>
> >> I think that you would have to be pretty darn drunk to not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> know that driving with a drunk was a bad decision.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Probably so, but when people are drunk, they do things
> >>>>>>>>>>>> quite contrary to what they know are right, and what they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would normally do.
>
> > She is the passenger above. =A0Are you having trouble following along?
>
> I am sorry, but the discussion was of whether a person who has become
> intoxicated as a result of being tricked into it by some scoundrel is
> responsible for their actions is independent of the actions of a particul=
ar
> individual. =A0We have no way of knowing if he tricked her into it or she
> tricked him into it or both knew exactly what they were doing.

If you are suggesting intoxication by means other than alcohol
(Mickey?). Then no, I wouldn't say they were responsible (the one that
was drugged). Did they perform an autopsy on her? Did they find
evidence of drugs in her system if she was tricked/drugged?

Morris Dovey wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> What did he do? Did he drive off of a bridge again? Anyone killed
>> this time?
>
> I'd like to pass a bit of wisdom from one friend to another:
>
> "Forgiving benefits the forgiver."
>

Mary Jo can't forgive him - she's dead...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/