do as I say not as I do Democrats
This has a nice picture: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/ or the story: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/8301851.htm?1c STATE TROOPERS on the Pennsylvania Turnpike have clocked Gov. Rendell's Cadillac limo at more than 100 mph at least nine times since November, according to sources. Turnpike cops running radar say they've repeatedly caught the governor's limo cruising at the extraordinary speeds in the left lane, with its emergency lights flashing and siren wailing to shoo other motorists out of the way, the sources said. Rendell's state-owned Cadillac DeVille DHS is driven by state troopers assigned to his security detail. Turnpike cops have never ticketed the governor's drivers. Rendell declined to be interviewed for this story. His spokeswoman, Kate Philips, denied that the governor orders his drivers to go fast. The governor would never ask someone to break the law, she said, adding that Rendell has no idea how fast his car is going. Me: I know he isn't driving. He isn't asking someone to break the law, he's ordering them to. Kevin T. - VRWLC OTOH Bill Janklow is an Repub and killed someone, while driving ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: do as I say not as I do Democrats
Me: I know he isn't driving. He isn't asking someone to break the law, he's ordering them to. Ah but that's our governor. Doesn't he have an obcene food bill too? All at the public expense... Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
Julia Thompson wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Some people on this list consider drunk driving to be a horrible crime that isn't punished harshly enough. (I'm not one of them.) At least he wasn't caught legally gambling, the republicans would really howl over that! IMO, it isn't punished harshly enough when it leads to death, dismemberment or disfigurement. I must disagree somewhat with this view. I have never understood why people advocate much harsher penalties when this happens. Two drivers equally under the influence (all other factors being equal) should face the same penalty. Just because one is unlucky to have a bad accident, he should be hammered, whereas the one not involved should get off lightly? To me, they appear equally culpable. If anything, the killer is worse off because he has to live with what he did. Regards, Ray. PS: By same penalty, I mean they both should be hammered. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DUI (was: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats)
At 11:33 PM 3/12/2004, you wrote: At 07:42 PM 3/12/04, Kevin Tarr wrote: I've heard (maybe you can confirm or correct this) that many times the drunk driver is so relaxed that he is less injured while the sober person he hits is wide awake and frantically trying to do something to avoid the accident and so is tensed up and likely to be more seriously injured . . . -- Ronn! :) I didn't answer the way I wanted to. (Damn this racing brain!) I meant: you will hear more anecdotal stories about someone walking away from an accident, whether drunk or not, then ones with an injury. You will more easily remember the no-one-was-hurt reports. It's the way the brain works. If I (accidentally) recall a bad memory it feels like a blow to the head; sometimes I'll have a physically reaction. But good memories are easy to recall, are brought back just to savor the experience. I've heard it from sources in the medical field, which was why I wondered if Debbi (or any of the other list members with medical connections) had heard the same thing. From her answer, it still seems possible that it is anecdotal or a selection effect or that it is a real effect . . . -- Ronn! :) Some thing happened to my one e-mail. 'Relaxed' drunk is a myth since imbibers are more injury prone By Dr. ROBERT WALLACE Dr. Wallace: Why is it when drunk people are involved in an automobile accident, they rarely get seriously injured while the sober people get killed or maimed? Is it possible that the alcohol makes a person less tense, which could result in less injuries? -- David, Crown Point, Ind. David: It's a myth that drunks are less likely to be injured in an auto accident. If you have been drinking and are involved in a serious auto accident, you face twice the risk of dying from your injuries as those in the car who haven't been imbibing. http://ads.hollandsentinel.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.hollandsentinel.com/feature/index.shtml/23331/Middle/default/empty.gif/39376364633064383430353236316130 9fbf14.jpg In other words, the notion that people who have been drinking are protected from injury because they are relaxed is false, according to University of Michigan Medical Center researchers. Alcohol worsens any injury resulting from an impact -- it renders the person more vulnerable, says Patricia Waller, director of the U of M Transportation Research Institute and a research scientist in the Department of Psychiatry. You can have a designated driver who is completely sober and hasn't touched a drop, but if someone else runs a traffic light and hits you and you're in the front seat, the probability of your being seriously injured or killed is higher than if you had never been drinking, Waller says. Still, she says, the myth that drunks are safe persists. Even now you will get police officers who swear that a drunk driver will walk off from an accident unscathed while all the sober victims are maimed and mutilated. Dr. Waller studied how blood alcohol levels relate to the severity of motor vehicle crashes and came up with an unexpected finding. When we took into account the variables that were associated with the seriousness of the crash -- how badly the car was crushed, for example -- if the driver had been drinking, he or she was more likely to be seriously injured. Kevin T. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
Ray Ludenia wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Some people on this list consider drunk driving to be a horrible crime that isn't punished harshly enough. (I'm not one of them.) At least he wasn't caught legally gambling, the republicans would really howl over that! IMO, it isn't punished harshly enough when it leads to death, dismemberment or disfigurement. I must disagree somewhat with this view. I have never understood why people advocate much harsher penalties when this happens. Two drivers equally under the influence (all other factors being equal) should face the same penalty. Just because one is unlucky to have a bad accident, he should be hammered, whereas the one not involved should get off lightly? To me, they appear equally culpable. If anything, the killer is worse off because he has to live with what he did. Regards, Ray. PS: By same penalty, I mean they both should be hammered. Sure, hammer them both. But the cases I'm familiar with in which someone driving drunk killed, maimed or disfigured someone else, the punishment was not harsh enough, IMO. And in those cases you're more likely to get a jury willing to throw the book, or as much of it as they're allowed to, at the perpetrator. The most extreme position I've ever taken is that in a very specific set of circumstances, the perp should just be taken out behind the courthouse and shot once a guilty verdict is in. The set of circumstances in question: 1) The accused must have had a prior DUI conviction 2) leading to the suspension of the accused driver's license 3) and must have been driving without a licence 4) under the influence 5) and killed someone in the process. With all of that, unless you can guarantee you lock them up for life, they have, IMO, demonstrated that they cannot live in a society with automobiles without being a threat to the lives of others, and so should be permanently removed from that society. But that position is probably considered extreme by most people. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Kerry Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 05:55 PM 3/11/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: Gee, was he nominated? Guess I missed that. They're aggressively attacking him even before he's gotten his party's nomination for President. That sounds like they're worried to me. Now you are just being plain silly.Of course he's the nominee. Can Kerry win?Of course he can. He's running against a man who was elected on a margin of 537 votes. He was elected on the margin of 1 SCOTUS vote. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
At 04:28 PM 3/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/11/2004 6:21:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For a law maker to break any law should be enough for him to be removed from office. Maybe he'll go for the democrat daily double and lie under oath. Uh - you are kidding right? Any law? Drunk driving is enough to get you out of office? So Bush who went off a road in Maine while drunk should resign? Was he in office at the time? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Kerry Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: elected on a margin of 537 votes. He was elected on the margin of 1 SCOTUS vote. I know that this is an article of Faith for you Fool, but even if the Supreme Court ruled the other way, Bush still would have won the recount as the media has demonstrated. And even if the Gore had won that recount, the best that could happen would be that Florida would submit two slates of electors. In which case, Congress would have to choose... since the House would have chosen the Republican electors, and the Senate might have chosen the Democratic electors, in this case the tiebreaker would go to the Governor of Florida. Sorry, but Bush vs. Gore had exactly zero effect on the ultimate outcome of the election. Under the laws of Florida at the time of the voting, Bush won by 527 votes. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
DUI (was: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats)
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Some people on this list consider drunk driving to be a horrible crime that isn't punished harshly enough. snip IMO, it isn't punished harshly enough when it leads to death, dismemberment or disfigurement. snip Agreed. If it only involved the death or maiming of the imbiber, a harsh view would be Darwin at work! But of course all-too-frequently, those who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong moment are the victims. 1996 stats: Alcohol consumption was associated with 476,000 crashes (7% of the total) and 17,126 crash fatalities (41% of the total). On average, one alcohol-related crash fatality occurred every 31 minutes... http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/3566-3642.html Child fatalities in alcohol-related MVAs: During 19972002, a total of 9,622 child passengers died in motor-vehicle crashes; 2,335 (24%) were killed in crashes involving drinking drivers. Of the 2,061 alcohol-related crashes involving drinking drivers in which children were killed, 1,624 (79%) involved at least one driver with a BAC of 0.08 g/dL... http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5304.pdf The cost: In its publication The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that the total cost of alcohol-related crashes exceeded $50 billion in 2000... http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/whd2004/information/MV-Facts.pdf Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DUI (was: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats)
At 03:56 PM 3/12/04, Deborah Harrell wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Some people on this list consider drunk driving to be a horrible crime that isn't punished harshly enough. snip IMO, it isn't punished harshly enough when it leads to death, dismemberment or disfigurement. snip Agreed. If it only involved the death or maiming of the imbiber, a harsh view would be Darwin at work! But of course all-too-frequently, those who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong moment are the victims. I've heard (maybe you can confirm or correct this) that many times the drunk driver is so relaxed that he is less injured while the sober person he hits is wide awake and frantically trying to do something to avoid the accident and so is tensed up and likely to be more seriously injured . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DUI (was: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats)
Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:56 PM 3/12/04, Deborah Harrell wrote: snip If it only involved the death or maiming of the imbiber, a harsh view would be Darwin at work! But of course all-too-frequently, those who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong moment are the victims. I've heard (maybe you can confirm or correct this) that many times the drunk driver is so relaxed that he is less injured while the sober person he hits is wide awake and frantically trying to do something to avoid the accident and so is tensed up and likely to be more seriously injured . . . That is certainly both 'conventional wisdom' and the impression I got from most ER personnel, but a quick search of PubMed and eMedicine did not turn anything confirmatory up...even a quick perusal of MADD's FAQs didn't help. scratches forehead I don't think there will be too many volunteers to do the controlled study on this one... :P Debbi Some Questions May Never Be Answered Maru (meaning no disrespect!) ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DUI (was: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats)
I've heard (maybe you can confirm or correct this) that many times the drunk driver is so relaxed that he is less injured while the sober person he hits is wide awake and frantically trying to do something to avoid the accident and so is tensed up and likely to be more seriously injured . . . -- Ronn! :) I know this has happened second-hand; I know people that were practically unscratched after a very bad wreck. I'm not going to post the alcohol ones, but they do happen. This summer a young man's car was hit by a truck (not alcohol related, just a sunny day accident); people getting to the car were sure no one was alive. He was trapped but practically unhurt. He had a cat in a carrier; the carrier was mangled but the cat was out of it in great health. (The man swore the cat was in the carrier, said it wouldn't travel any other way). There are far too many that are not as fortunate. Kevin T. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DUI (was: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats)
I've heard (maybe you can confirm or correct this) that many times the drunk driver is so relaxed that he is less injured while the sober person he hits is wide awake and frantically trying to do something to avoid the accident and so is tensed up and likely to be more seriously injured . . . -- Ronn! :) I didn't answer the way I wanted to. (Damn this racing brain!) I meant: you will hear more anecdotal stories about someone walking away from an accident, whether drunk or not, then ones with an injury. You will more easily remember the no-one-was-hurt reports. It's the way the brain works. If I (accidentally) recall a bad memory it feels like a blow to the head; sometimes I'll have a physically reaction. But good memories are easy to recall, are brought back just to savor the experience. Kevin T. Like a good burp ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DUI (was: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats)
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 03:56 PM 3/12/04, Deborah Harrell wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Some people on this list consider drunk driving to be a horrible crime that isn't punished harshly enough. snip IMO, it isn't punished harshly enough when it leads to death, dismemberment or disfigurement. snip Agreed. If it only involved the death or maiming of the imbiber, a harsh view would be Darwin at work! But of course all-too-frequently, those who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong moment are the victims. I've heard (maybe you can confirm or correct this) that many times the drunk driver is so relaxed that he is less injured while the sober person he hits is wide awake and frantically trying to do something to avoid the accident and so is tensed up and likely to be more seriously injured . . . The local case I'm most familiar with had the victims' car catch fire while the DUI's car didn't. At least one young woman died, and another was very badly burned over a lot of her body, including her head and her hands -- it was amazing that she survived. If it hadn't been for the fire, most if not all of the victims would have survived. Then again, they were all wearing seat belts, which seems to be the deciding factor in survival in crashes over a broad range of severity. DUIs that hit pedestrians are horrible. The first death among the groups of kids my sister and I considered our friends was a DUI-pedestrian accident. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DUI (was: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats)
At 07:42 PM 3/12/04, Kevin Tarr wrote: I've heard (maybe you can confirm or correct this) that many times the drunk driver is so relaxed that he is less injured while the sober person he hits is wide awake and frantically trying to do something to avoid the accident and so is tensed up and likely to be more seriously injured . . . -- Ronn! :) I didn't answer the way I wanted to. (Damn this racing brain!) I meant: you will hear more anecdotal stories about someone walking away from an accident, whether drunk or not, then ones with an injury. You will more easily remember the no-one-was-hurt reports. It's the way the brain works. If I (accidentally) recall a bad memory it feels like a blow to the head; sometimes I'll have a physically reaction. But good memories are easy to recall, are brought back just to savor the experience. I've heard it from sources in the medical field, which was why I wondered if Debbi (or any of the other list members with medical connections) had heard the same thing. From her answer, it still seems possible that it is anecdotal or a selection effect or that it is a real effect . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
At 02:06 AM 3/11/2004, you wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/news/s_183239.html State lawmaker accused of drunken driving Friday, March 05, 2004 By Ed Blazina, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette State Rep. David Levdansky, D-Forward, is scheduled for a hearing next month on drunken driving and other charges as the result of an incident over the weekend in Rostraver. The criminal complaint stated Levdansky's blood-alcohol content registered at 0.16 percent. A person is considered legally drunk in Pennsylvania at 0.08. snipped lawyer talk David stands by his vote of reducing the blood-alcohol content (in the state) to 0.08. You left out the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH where it says that he's not trying to weaasel out of anything: David's not going to stand for being treated any more or any less than any citizen would be treated in the courtroom. He's going to stand tall. He has no record. We'll stand tall and walk through this. So he voted to make more restrictive laws, so he got caught breaking those same laws. He's showing every sign of being a responsible adult, not being hypocritical, and will face whatever punishment is deemed appropriate after due process. If only all politicians would be so honest. -- Matt I'd be foolish if I tried to misrepresent a story in this fashion. I also left out the PROCEEDING SENTENCE I want to examine the evidence. It's raised some questions in my mind, LoPresti said. The law maker said nothing, his lawyer made the statements. Maybe you are foolish to expect his lawyer to come out and say We are fight this every way we can; the evidence clearly shows that David did nothing wrong and we expect him to be found innocent of all charges. Some people on this list consider drunk driving to be a horrible crime that isn't punished harshly enough. (I'm not one of them.) At least he wasn't caught legally gambling, the republicans would really howl over that! For a law maker to break any law should be enough for him to be removed from office. Maybe he'll go for the democrat daily double and lie under oath. Kevin T. - VRWC Late for work ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
Kevin Tarr wrote: At 02:06 AM 3/11/2004, you wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/news/s_183239.html State lawmaker accused of drunken driving Friday, March 05, 2004 By Ed Blazina, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette State Rep. David Levdansky, D-Forward, is scheduled for a hearing next month on drunken driving and other charges as the result of an incident over the weekend in Rostraver. The criminal complaint stated Levdansky's blood-alcohol content registered at 0.16 percent. A person is considered legally drunk in Pennsylvania at 0.08. snipped lawyer talk David stands by his vote of reducing the blood-alcohol content (in the state) to 0.08. You left out the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH where it says that he's not trying to weaasel out of anything: David's not going to stand for being treated any more or any less than any citizen would be treated in the courtroom. He's going to stand tall. He has no record. We'll stand tall and walk through this. So he voted to make more restrictive laws, so he got caught breaking those same laws. He's showing every sign of being a responsible adult, not being hypocritical, and will face whatever punishment is deemed appropriate after due process. If only all politicians would be so honest. -- Matt I'd be foolish if I tried to misrepresent a story in this fashion. I also left out the PROCEEDING SENTENCE I want to examine the evidence. It's raised some questions in my mind, LoPresti said. The law maker said nothing, his lawyer made the statements. Maybe you are foolish to expect his lawyer to come out and say We are fight this every way we can; the evidence clearly shows that David did nothing wrong and we expect him to be found innocent of all charges. For a law maker to break any law should be enough for him to be removed from office. Maybe he'll go for the democrat daily double and lie under oath. His lawyer has the job of defending him in court, he HAS to question the evidence. I doubt that the defense will be very successful, but they have to try. The congressman has probably been advised not to talk with the press until the trial is over, since the first question they'll ask is are you guilty?, after which he'll either make a statement condeming himself, or have to say something to the effect of no comment. As for getting thrown out of office, that has to wait until after a guilty verdict, now doesn't it? The fact is, he hasn't gotten away with anything yet. He's still presumed innocent, there has been no guitly verdict, no sentencing, etc. If you want to moan about Democrats shirking the penalties for their crimes, use examples that have actually happened, not hypothetical ones. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
From: Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:55:21 -0800 Kevin Tarr wrote: At 02:06 AM 3/11/2004, you wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/news/s_183239.html State lawmaker accused of drunken driving Friday, March 05, 2004 By Ed Blazina, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette State Rep. David Levdansky, D-Forward, is scheduled for a hearing next month on drunken driving and other charges as the result of an incident over the weekend in Rostraver. The criminal complaint stated Levdansky's blood-alcohol content registered at 0.16 percent. A person is considered legally drunk in Pennsylvania at 0.08. snipped lawyer talk David stands by his vote of reducing the blood-alcohol content (in the state) to 0.08. You left out the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH where it says that he's not trying to weaasel out of anything: David's not going to stand for being treated any more or any less than any citizen would be treated in the courtroom. He's going to stand tall. He has no record. We'll stand tall and walk through this. So he voted to make more restrictive laws, so he got caught breaking those same laws. He's showing every sign of being a responsible adult, not being hypocritical, and will face whatever punishment is deemed appropriate after due process. If only all politicians would be so honest. -- Matt I'd be foolish if I tried to misrepresent a story in this fashion. I also left out the PROCEEDING SENTENCE I want to examine the evidence. It's raised some questions in my mind, LoPresti said. The law maker said nothing, his lawyer made the statements. Maybe you are foolish to expect his lawyer to come out and say We are fight this every way we can; the evidence clearly shows that David did nothing wrong and we expect him to be found innocent of all charges. For a law maker to break any law should be enough for him to be removed from office. Maybe he'll go for the democrat daily double and lie under oath. His lawyer has the job of defending him in court, he HAS to question the evidence. I doubt that the defense will be very successful, but they have to try. The congressman has probably been advised not to talk with the press until the trial is over, since the first question they'll ask is are you guilty?, after which he'll either make a statement condeming himself, or have to say something to the effect of no comment. As for getting thrown out of office, that has to wait until after a guilty verdict, now doesn't it? The fact is, he hasn't gotten away with anything yet. He's still presumed innocent, there has been no guitly verdict, no sentencing, etc. If you want to moan about Democrats shirking the penalties for their crimes, use examples that have actually happened, not hypothetical ones. Agreed. It should be interesting to see what this gets turned into by both sides. An interesting editorial from salon.com details the VRWC's latest attacks on Kerry. I guess Republicans are now seeing him as a serious threat. Editorial is here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/09/conspiracy/index.html. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
Kevin Tarr wrote: Some people on this list consider drunk driving to be a horrible crime that isn't punished harshly enough. (I'm not one of them.) At least he wasn't caught legally gambling, the republicans would really howl over that! IMO, it isn't punished harshly enough when it leads to death, dismemberment or disfigurement. But the politician in question hasn't been charged with any of that, and in any case hasn't been tried yet, so let him have his day in court, and geez, if the legal gambling in question is buying lottery tickets, you can always use the excuse that you're helping the state by buying the ticket. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
An interesting editorial from salon.com details the VRWC's latest attacks on Kerry. I guess Republicans are now seeing him as a serious threat. Editorial is here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/09/conspiracy/index.html. Jon So Republicans shouldn't consider the Democratic nominee a serious threat? I've got so much to learn about politics. Kevin T. - VRWC Annoy a liberal - Work hard and be happy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
In a message dated 3/11/2004 6:21:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For a law maker to break any law should be enough for him to be removed from office. Maybe he'll go for the democrat daily double and lie under oath. Uh - you are kidding right? Any law? Drunk driving is enough to get you out of office? So Bush who went off a road in Maine while drunk should resign? Get a grip ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:08:56 -0500 An interesting editorial from salon.com details the VRWC's latest attacks on Kerry. I guess Republicans are now seeing him as a serious threat. Editorial is here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/09/conspiracy/index.html. Jon So Republicans shouldn't consider the Democratic nominee a serious threat? Gee, was he nominated? Guess I missed that. They're aggressively attacking him even before he's gotten his party's nomination for President. That sounds like they're worried to me. Certainly most of the candidates we've seen 'til now have not been serious threats. I mean, let's be serious... Kucinich, Lieberman, Graham, Gephardt, Al Tawana Sharpton? Please. I've got so much to learn about politics. Ah young grasshopper, but that's why we're all here. :D Kevin T. - VRWC Annoy a liberal - Work hard and be happy LOL! Jon Annoy a Republican, help the homeless. Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/11/2004 6:21:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For a law maker to break any law should be enough for him to be removed from office. Maybe he'll go for the democrat daily double and lie under oath. Uh - you are kidding right? Any law? Drunk driving is enough to get you out of office? So Bush who went off a road in Maine while drunk should resign? Get a grip Was this after he was elected? Once people are elected, they get held to a higher standard. Heck, we lost a sheriff in December for public intoxication -- he was too drunk to drive and started *walking* home, and that set into motion a chain of events that led to his removal, another sheriff being appointed, *that* sheriff resigning within 2 months, leading to the appointment of someone who was already *running* for sheriff, and, well, after Tuesday, both the most recent sheriff (still in office) and the guy who appointed him are both lame ducks, neither of them making it past the primary. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Kerry Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
At 05:55 PM 3/11/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: Gee, was he nominated? Guess I missed that. They're aggressively attacking him even before he's gotten his party's nomination for President. That sounds like they're worried to me. Now you are just being plain silly.Of course he's the nominee. Can Kerry win?Of course he can. He's running against a man who was elected on a margin of 537 votes. But then again, Bill Clinton showed in 1996 that, as ABC's The Note put it, strangle the baby in the crib. Kerry is the nominee, and now Bush is going to use his $100+ million dollars to do his best to ensure that this election is never even close.If Bush succeeds in following the Clinton blueprint, we won't ever remember Bush fearing Kerry. The full quote from The Note: Despite what you'll hear in some quarters, the prospects for the President's re-election are NOT just about the incumbent. America's judgment on the job Mr. Bush has done is key, but John Kerry has to clear a series of bars on national security credibility; likeability; character; and being a potential good steward of a good economy if he is going to have a chance to win -- no matter what kind of campaign BC04 runs or what people think of the President. So -- as we have written before -- the talking points, the surrogates, the Web sites, the research and (soon) the campaign ads from the GOP side are largely geared toward making sure that Kerry gets nowhere near those bars in the eyes of the American people. Late winter and early spring, in other words, are the times to strangle the baby in the crib. (How's that for a Monday metaphor to get your attention?) Certainly most of the candidates we've seen 'til now have not been serious threats. I mean, let's be serious... Kucinich, Lieberman, Graham, Gephardt, Al Tawana Sharpton? Please. Count me as the person who breathed a huge sigh of relief that a few thousand more Oklahomans picked Clark instead of Edwards, thereby handing the popularity contest to Dukakis' Lt. Governor and the Senate's Top Liberal see my previous analysis in Its Official, Kerry vs. Bush. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Kerry Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
John D. Giorgis wrote: Late winter and early spring, in other words, are the times to strangle the baby in the crib. (How's that for a Monday metaphor to get your attention?) Disturbing. Especially in light of the noises that were coming through the baby monitor 2 hours ago (Was she hurt? In pain? Just really mad? And was it going to set off her brother who was trying to sleep 10 inches away from her? The problem was diagnosed, solved for the night, at least, and eventually she settled down again and went to sleep, but BOY it wasn't pleasant.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/news/s_183239.html State lawmaker accused of drunken driving Friday, March 05, 2004 By Ed Blazina, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette State Rep. David Levdansky, D-Forward, is scheduled for a hearing next month on drunken driving and other charges as the result of an incident over the weekend in Rostraver. The criminal complaint stated Levdansky's blood-alcohol content registered at 0.16 percent. A person is considered legally drunk in Pennsylvania at 0.08. snipped lawyer talk David stands by his vote of reducing the blood-alcohol content (in the state) to 0.08. Kevin T. - VRWC At least he didn't kill anyone, like Tom Druce (who is republican) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do as I say, not as I do Democrats
Kevin Tarr wrote: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/news/s_183239.html State lawmaker accused of drunken driving Friday, March 05, 2004 By Ed Blazina, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette State Rep. David Levdansky, D-Forward, is scheduled for a hearing next month on drunken driving and other charges as the result of an incident over the weekend in Rostraver. The criminal complaint stated Levdansky's blood-alcohol content registered at 0.16 percent. A person is considered legally drunk in Pennsylvania at 0.08. snipped lawyer talk David stands by his vote of reducing the blood-alcohol content (in the state) to 0.08. You left out the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH where it says that he's not trying to weaasel out of anything: David's not going to stand for being treated any more or any less than any citizen would be treated in the courtroom. He's going to stand tall. He has no record. We'll stand tall and walk through this. So he voted to make more restrictive laws, so he got caught breaking those same laws. He's showing every sign of being a responsible adult, not being hypocritical, and will face whatever punishment is deemed appropriate after due process. If only all politicians would be so honest. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
