note: ‘running a stop sign, getting into an accident’ aren’t always criminally charged. but to assert that they flat out aren’t crimes, is factually wrong, since both can be charged as crimes, depending on the circumstances. (IOW, my statement above is a bit less precise than I intended, I do not assert that they are always treated as crimes, merely that then can be)
Not only did I read the OP, but it made my brain bleed.
Let’s see, we have an OP, titled “Bush Family Values”.
It contains the lines:
“Time to switch to full rant mode. I am sick of people preaching “family values” and condemning homosexuals while not bothering to practice them themselves.”
Followed by:
"Time for one mandatory disclaimer. No, I haven’t heard one word from Neil Bush about family values, either, and I have no idea how much his brother knew, if anything. Like I said, I’m not interested in politicians’ personal lives. I do, however, think adultery is a far greater threat to marriage than allowing homosexuals to marry. "
-
So what the hell does the sexual misadventures of a shady banker in Texas have to do with homosexual marriage and family values?* Fuck all, except that he’s related to the President of the United States. And then this somehow gets stirred together with the fact that Siege isn’t having sex because she believes that sex with someone she doesn’t want to marry is wrong. (Even though I believe that she has had sex and isn’t married, so principles were compromised somewhere along the line, at least to the extent of not waiting for the marriage bed.)
Look, everything I’ve read by Siege indicates that she’s a sweet person, but this OP is stunning in its incoherency and it almost immediately got hijacked into the incredibly stupid debate about whether being involved in a car accident makes one a killer. OK, let me settle that point. It * does*, but only by using the definition of "killer’ in a manner that is incredibly ** tone deaf**to the nuances of language. Unless it was clearly an intentional act, most people would use the passive voice to remove the implication of intent unless they were trying to be deliberately hurtful or obtuse. E.g. Diogene’s malicious “His wife once killed a guy.” implies intent and elides information in order to make the claim more shocking. “A friend was killed when she ran a red light and hit his car when she was 17.” does not imply intent.
After Diogene’s post, a thread that started at sea level managed somehow to go downhill for three excruciating pages and everyone involved should go sit in the corner and take a time-out.
You have got to be the biggest fucking hypocrite on the SDMB.
You accuse Bush Sr. of having a mistress, call the Bush daughters “drunken sluts”, and get in a gratuitous insult at Barbara Bush. When it is pointed out that you are getting your lies out of a humor magazine, you try to say that an accusation isn’t an accusation. Then when I post that **there is no evidence **that Robinson was doing guys while he was married, you get all huffy about insulting insinuations.
Then you start tying yourself into knots trying to say that getting divorced isn’t the same as “leaving your wife and children” and taking up with someone else. Except, apparently, if you are a) Republican, and b) straight.
You have lost the right to the effort involved in trying to find some way in which your posts are not stupid, offensive, and hypocritically absurd.
Have a nice day.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, you are a liar. I did not accuse Bush Sr. of having a mistress and I specifically said that I did not know if the Spy Magazine allegations were true. However, you don’t either so you can’t really declare them to be “lies” can you? Do you have some definitive proof that they are?
I did take a gratuitous swipe at Babs. So what?
I also called the Bush daughters “drunken sluts.” It was in poor taste and I retracted the “sluts” part.
As for divorce being equal to “leaving one’s children.” That is bullshit. He did not abandon his children either financially or emotionally and I defy you to show me where I made any hypocritical exceptions for Republicans or straight men who have done the same thing. Robinson also did not “take up” with anyone else until three years after the divorce. How many years is acceptable?
Your assertion that you could not find evidence of “boys on the side” implies that gay men have some high probability of being lecherous (and possibly pederastic) hedonists. You have failed to identify a single thing Robinson has done which is immoral unless you consider all divorce immoral which I doubt you do (after all, Ronald Reagan divorced his first wife and (by your logic) “left his children” by that marriage).
If someone has accidentally caused the death of another, has he killed? If he’s killed, is he a killer? If he was drunk at the time of driving, is it still an accident? If so, which part? The part where he started drinking, or the part where he started driving? If the accident was the part where he started drinking, is he then a murderer?
If a man cheats on his wife, but he’s a republican, are the republicans still pro family values? What if he cheated on his wife with a boy, is it still adultery? What if he was drunk at the time, and considers it an accident, is he still a homosexual? Or is he a killer? Or both?
Now YOU can own the answer to these perplexing questions with:
THE HAIRSPLITTER 5,000*
Now you’ll never again have to leave home without bringing the high ground with you!
Impress women with your firm grasp of semantics! Leave people astounded and deeply confused with your knowledge of right and wrong! With this device in hand you will have conclusive evidence that everyone is a hypocrite, except for you!
*Disclaimer: This product has not yet been approved by Jesus, Jehova, or the Holy Trinity.
Get bent, jagoff. Just because I posted the name doesn’t mean I “assist[ed]” the accusation. Go drag someone else into your stupid little game.
Right, they can be. But it wasn’t treated as a crime in Mrs. Bush’s case. On the other hand, Teddy plead out to leaving the scene of an accident (an actual crime) and lost his license for a year. Never mind he likely lost a chance at the presidency over it.
You’re whining about a cite befuddles me, as I thought the Chappaquiddick thing was common knowledge. Are you that young, or just that stupid? I’m guessing the latter.
Glad you’re back, milroyj, now you can give us that cite about Ted Kennedy being drunk at the time of his accident as you asserted.
Well, you see, Milroyj not all “common knowledge” is true. Like that oft-repeated story about Ronald Reagan keeping a stable of 12-year-old Filipino catamites to slake his perverted lusts. Not true, not a word of it.
Damn. You went and made me look up “catamite”. Yeesh.
All you ever wanted to know about the accident at Chappaquiddick
It seems to be truthful, but read at your own risk. I’m going to bed, but before I do I’d like to point out that there is something in there about whether he had been drinking or not. Look it up yourself, though. Good night.
I think it was the mixing of the liquor and beer that did him (and, well, Mary Jo) in, so to speak.
A: you asserted that “running a stop sign” wasn’t a crime. My first point to you was “sometimes it is”, so your original assertion was wrong. as I repeatedly stated. The fact that she wasn’t charged with a crime (vs. getting a ticket) isn’t the same as “it’s not a crime”. It’s quite easy to commit an offense w/o getting charged w/a crime - shoplifters and druggies do it all the time (possession of drugs is a crime, but rarely is prosecuted - since it’s rarely caught. oh, let me spell it out for you: every cocaine/heroin addict in the US is most likely in possession of the drug damn near every day, but obviously does not have 365 possession charges against them)
B. whining about the cite? Begged is more like it, which of course you still haven’t provided (tho 'Airman found something about it.). Let me (again) spell it out for you, since you seem so oblivious to data: how do you prove some one was drunk at (pick a time/date)?? Blood alcohol test, breathalyzer, witnesses at the scene. In this case, there was no BAT/breathalyzer that could be done because of the delay in reporting. There were no witnesses at the scene. He was never charged w/ drunk driving (which in your eyes, above meant that the crime didn’t occur, remember?).
as to “I thought it was common knowledge” hell - since the fact about Bush’s drunk driving conviction was public, main stream news in the fall of election (quite recent, you know vs. the Kennedy thing which happened so long ago), not to mention the various threads and debates about the election, I’d have thought certainly such much more recent news stories were far more likely to be “common knowledge” , yet you demanded “cite”
and - I provided it.
You’ve yet to do so.
So, once again, when asked for proof of your assertions, you’ve failed to deliver, yet, when I’ve proved my point over and over, you still labor under the delusion that you’ve ‘won’. I believe there’s a specific diagnosis code for that condition, and they’ve made quite significant strides in treatment - you should look into it.
I’ve never questioned, nor asked for proof that he’d been drinking at all. What I’ve asked for and that cite still does not provide is “was he drunk at the time of the accident” (as in legally considered drunk, bal >0.1 ). Statements from witnesses about ‘how many drinks’ he consumed cannot give us that data since this was a party and there’s no way to determine how ‘strong’ each drink was (vs. at a bar where there’s an exact measurement). plus, alcohol goes through people’s systems differently (though ‘roughly’ the same, one still cannot make the assertion “so and so was drunk having consumed x number of drinks in x amount of time” there’s various other factors such as weight, food intake, did the person throw up etc etc etc).
There was no bal testing done. You can suspect all you want, surmise all you want, believe all you want. But what you cannot do is ‘prove’ what Ted Kennedy’s BAL was on that night 30 years ago.
(still laughing that milroyj thinks details from news stories from 30 years ago should be ‘common knowledge’ but the main point from news stories 3 years ago require proof )
Wring, your calling Laura Bush a “killer”, based on a car accident where no fault was found, does not, in any way, compare to Teddy’s “incident” where he legally pleaded to leaving the scene of an accident and lost his license for a year.
“killer” as in caused the death of another person. Which part of that is not true? answer? none.
I’ve not made any assertion that she’s legally culpable, just that she can ‘correctly’ be described as some one who has killed. It may be justified. it may be an accident. It may be murder. it may be manslaughter.
but it most assuradly is ‘causing the death’.
still waiting for you to prove that Kennedy was drunk that night or admit that you can’t.
simply amazing.
Maybe.
No
Yes, it was.
No.
No.
Why, exactly, are you insinuating that Laura Bush is guilty of manslaughter/murder, when she clearly was not? You wouldn’t have a cough liberal agenda to push, would ya?
where did I assert, imply or anything else that Laura Bush was guilty of any thing of the sort? She caused the death of another person. I’ve repeatedly said that. And never once called her a murderer.
in the post you quote, I used the word “It”. Not “SHE”. “it”. It. as in “the killing” (noun, not a person). If I’d meant Laura, the correct phrasing would have been “She may have been a murderer etc.” But I didn’t say that.
Some one who kills another person is a killer. it (the killing) may be an accident. manslaughter. Murder. etc.
Jeeze.
But we’ve made progress. YOu’ve apparently now admitted that ‘maybe’ she can correctly be referred to as a ‘killer’, ie ‘some one who’s killed’.
Now, can we get that proof about Kennedy being drunk 30 years ago? or an admission that you were wrong?