Larussa gets a DWI
jlbsquared
Posts: 840
in Sports Talk
0
Comments
from thesmokinggun.com
I really like the organization and Tony, but I have absolutely no tolerance for any type of drunk behind the wheel.
For those of us out there who know, how much liquor do you need to drink if you are LaRussa's size in order to register a .093?
Thanks
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
<< <i>Limit is 0.08. While .093 is not much higher, it does pose a threat to innocent bystanders. What's he doing asleep behind the wheel? Doesn't he get a great room/house to sleep in for being a WS champion manager? This isn't a truck driver we are talking about here.
I really like the organization and Tony, but I have absolutely no tolerance for any type of drunk behind the wheel.
For those of us out there who know, how much liquor do you need to drink if you are LaRussa's size in order to register a .093?
Thanks >>
I am sure that someone blowing a .093 poses no greater risk to other drivers then the average American idiot on their cell phone during rush hour, or the legions of obese mouth-breathers who plow through Double Whoppers on their way to and from the hardware store. Like I said, I have no idea why he was sleeping, but anyone who thinks it was because he'd passed out from drinking too much is wrong. A .093 is something like 4 beers in 90 minutes for a 180 lb. male. If you can't drive after 4 beers in an hour and a half then you're probably a lousy driver anyway.
Funny....I've never had anyone ever admit anything other than "One or Two Occifer"
<< <i> .093. Give me a break. I don't know why he was asleep at the wheel, but it obviously wasn't because he was too sauced to drive. >>
Care to explain why then because it makes perfect sense to me that is exactly why he was sleeping.
Maybe he doesn't handle alcohol well? Maybe he didn't eat much and had "several" drinks. Maybe his body doesn't burn it up as it should. Maybe he was actually well over a .10 BAC and was on his way down? (His BAC would have most likely dropped between the time the officer contacted him and when he was actually tested UNLESS he slammed a drink or 2 just prior to passing out). I can't quite recall the rate at which a body burns off the excess alcohol but for some reason .015% per hour seems to stick out in my mind.
Unfortunately for him, that's the law, and if you or I were caught doing the same thing, we would have been treated the same. An unfortunately it's not illegal to eat a whopper, be fat, or talk on a cell phone (in most places although that should be)
Also, there's a reason that the limit is .08%BAC and I'm pretty sure it has to do with the amount of crashes/fatals/injuries that were occuring when the limit was still .10. (at least here in Ohio, ours was lowered to .08 a year or 2 ago)
You'll never hear sympathy from me when a drunk gets arrested. They kill.
<< <i>It would take more than 4 beers to register a .093. In his statement to the officer he admits to several drinks.
Funny....I've never had anyone ever admit anything other than "One or Two Occifer"
<< <i> .093. Give me a break. I don't know why he was asleep at the wheel, but it obviously wasn't because he was too sauced to drive. >>
Care to explain why then because it makes perfect sense to me that is exactly why he was sleeping.
Maybe he doesn't handle alcohol well? Maybe he didn't eat much and had "several" drinks. Maybe his body doesn't burn it up as it should. Maybe he was actually well over a .10 BAC and was on his way down? (His BAC would have most likely dropped between the time the officer contacted him and when he was actually tested UNLESS he slammed a drink or 2 just prior to passing out). I can't quite recall the rate at which a body burns off the excess alcohol but for some reason .015% per hour seems to stick out in my mind.
Unfortunately for him, that's the law, and if you or I were caught doing the same thing, we would have been treated the same. An unfortunately it's not illegal to eat a whopper, be fat, or talk on a cell phone (in most places although that should be)
Also, there's a reason that the limit is .08%BAC and I'm pretty sure it has to do with the amount of crashes/fatals/injuries that were occuring when the limit was still .10. (at least here in Ohio, ours was lowered to .08 a year or 2 ago)
You'll never hear sympathy from me when a drunk gets arrested. They kill. >>
I can't believe this. Aren't you a cop, goose? Surely you've pulled people over before that have blown a .09. Were ANY of them so snockered they couldn't stay awake?
If you blow a .093 then you have not consumed enough alcohol to put you to sleep behind the wheel of a vehicle. In fact, I would argue that at .093 you are still pretty much fine to drive. I have no idea how the states' cooked up this .08 BS, but it can't be because of any empiricle findings that suggest a significant level of impairment at that B.A.C. If there is, in fact, data that suggest that at a .08 B.A.C people are impaired to the point where their recklessness warrants a night in jail, a 90-180 day revocation of their driving priviledges, and $7000 in court fees and alcohol education classes then I will publicly retract my earlier assertions.
Honestly you shouldnt get behind a wheel after 4 beers. Lack of common sense on his part if thats the case. He's rich, call a cab send the butler for the car.
<< <i>If you blow a .093 then you have not consumed enough alcohol to put you to sleep behind the wheel of a vehicle. In fact, I would argue that at .093 you are still pretty much fine to drive. I have no idea how the states' cooked up this .08 BS, but it can't be because of any empiricle findings that suggest a significant level of impairment at that B.A.C. If there is, in fact, data that suggest that at a .08 B.A.C people are impaired to the point where their recklessness warrants a night in jail, a 90-180 day revocation of their driving priviledges, and $7000 in court fees and alcohol education classes then I will publicly retract my earlier assertions. >>
$$$
Hell an OVI here for the first offense is MAYBE 500.00 plus costs and roughly a 90 day suspension.
If you refuse the test, it's a 1 year suspension no matter what happens in court. I think it might be a few hundred to get it re-instated.
Generally a first timer will get reduced to a reckless op.
I don't have the time to go wading thru google and crap but if he was passed out, aka sleeping, at the wheel, he clearly had too much to drink and yes, .093 is too high of a BAC to be driving.
Don't get me wrong, I've stopped people that haven't done too horrible on the field sobriety tests only to take them in and have them test over a .3!!! And on the other hand, I've had ones that fail them miserably and test at or under the limit!
It all depends on the individual Boo but drunk drivers kill and unfortunately the majority of the time, it is them that comes out unscathed.
FIRST offense in alot of areas can get your car impounded.
Your license can be revoked for up to 3 years and you receive 3 years probation where you must report anywhere from once a week to once a month. They breathalize you, drug test you, do home visits, and sometimes random workplace visits.
Alcohol and drug treatment programs are mandatory.
Costs can easily surpass the $7000 mark when you take into acount court fees and fines, monthly probation costs, costs of required drug testing, and the costs of treatment programs.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>Try blowing that here in NY.
FIRST offense in alot of areas can get your car impounded.
Your license can be revoked for up to 3 years and you receive 3 years probation where you must report anywhere from once a week to once a month. They breathalize you, drug test you, do home visits, and sometimes random workplace visits.
Alcohol and drug treatment programs are mandatory.
Costs can easily surpass the $7000 mark when you take into acount court fees and fines, monthly probation costs, costs of required drug testing, and the costs of treatment programs. >>
This sounds much more in line with the program we have here in Meeechigan.
I respect the fact that you're in law enforcement, goose, and therefore probably have a different take on this than I do, but IMO .093 is a joke. I stand by that. There may be some guys out there who are drooling over their steering wheel after four beers, but the vast majority of us do not fall into that catagory, and I for one fully resent the notion that I could be driving home from the bowling alley, a threat to nobody, and I could end up with all kinds of financial and legal difficulties because some f**k nut T-Bones me at a four way stop and the cop who shows up decides he might as well give everyone involved a breathalyzer. It's a stupid limit, and the way they enforce it (i.e., you can get a ticket even if the reason why you've drawn a cop's attention has nothing to do with your driving) is a fraud.
While an .093 reading may not mean you're not falling down drunk, everyone reacts to the effects of alcohol differently (some of us who drink have tolerance, etc.), so I think it is irresponsible to make a generalization that everyone can function just fine after a few beers when that is obviously not the case, at least in this situation with LaRussa, who I'm sure would be the first to agree that he exercised bad judgement by getting behind the wheel that night.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Also, there's a reason that the limit is .08%BAC and I'm pretty sure it has to do with the amount of crashes/fatals/injuries that were occuring when the limit was still .10. >>
No, the main reason is because the federal government blackmailed the states by threatening to withhold federal highway funds if they didn't drop down to .08. That is when you saw most states quickly change to .08. "Federal funds" are the most insidious end-around to bypass the 10th Amendment since it started being ignored in 1865.
Many studies have shown that the real "elbow" in the accident curve -- where the accident rate skyrockets -- is about .13 or .14. The difference in accident rate between .08 and .10 is rather slight.
<< <i>While an .093 reading may not mean you're not falling down drunk, everyone reacts to the effects of alcohol differently (some of us who drink have tolerance, etc.), so I think it is irresponsible to make a generalization that everyone can function just fine after a few beers when that is obviously not the case, at least in this situation with LaRussa. >>
I agree. But the thing is, even if you handle your liquor VERY well, .08 is DWI now. I would contend that some people are WAY more impaired at .05 than some are at, say, .10 or even .12.
I agree. But the thing is, even if you handle your liquor VERY well, .08 is DWI now. I would contend that some people are WAY more impaired at .05 than some are at, say, .10 or even .12.
Like I said, everyone reacts to the effects of alcohol differently, so that may be true (though saying that somebody with a BAC of .05 may be WAY more impaired than someone with a .12 may be a bit of a stretch IMO), but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line which is the law is .08 in most states.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>(though saying that somebody with a BAC of .05 may be more impaired than someone with a .12 may be a bit of a stretch IMO) >>
I'd agree it's not the norm, but I'm pretty sure I've been around enough people on both extremes that it's true even if unusual. Some people get smashed on one drink. Some people can have five or six beers in a short period and show considerably less impairment. Sure, it's stupid to tempt fate by drinking that many if you know you have to get behind the wheel again, but still...
<< <i>I don't know where you live but 7,000?
Hell an OVI here for the first offense is MAYBE 500.00 plus costs and roughly a 90 day suspension.
If you refuse the test, it's a 1 year suspension no matter what happens in court. I think it might be a few hundred to get it re-instated.
Generally a first timer will get reduced to a reckless op.
I don't have the time to go wading thru google and crap but if he was passed out, aka sleeping, at the wheel, he clearly had too much to drink and yes, .093 is too high of a BAC to be driving.
Don't get me wrong, I've stopped people that haven't done too horrible on the field sobriety tests only to take them in and have them test over a .3!!! And on the other hand, I've had ones that fail them miserably and test at or under the limit!
I also live in Ohio and OVI up here gets you 3 days in jail Min. 400-800 in court costs a reinstatement fee from the state of Ohio 425 and are forced to take remedial driving course 125 plus towing fees and impound 150-200 min. and if your smart you get a lawyer another 750 and then you are on high risk for 3 years which doubles to quaduples your insurance rate I' d say you are out more like 4-6 thousand in the long haul. Ohio now has another law 6 dui in a 20 year span is a felony and you get to do 18 months in the big house or 4 dui's in 6 years is a felony also. what really irks me is they look at what you were Charged with, not what you are convicted of. So even if they reduce the first time offender it follows them and now haunts them for 20 years. My opinion is it is 90% about the money and 10% about safety. I quit going to bars on friday and saturday because after 1:00 am the police are sitting across the street just waiting for you to leave.
I am totally against mandatory sentencing , I believe that each case should be handled individually and your record should reflect what you are convicted of not what you are charged with. A friend of mine blew a .06 and the officer still charged him with Dui of alcohol and or drugs (no accident) (no drugs) got reduced to reckless op but his insurance doubled because he was charged with a DUI not what he was convicted of. Just my opinion
Somebody mentioned that Tony has the money to hire a car service, call a cab, whatever ...... true that.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Somebody mentioned that Tony has the money to hire a car service, call a cab, whatever ...... true that.
Well stated. Personal freedoms notwithstanding, trying to justify or rationalize drinking and driving with a BAC over the legal limit is just lame.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Well stated. Personal freedoms notwithstanding, trying to justify or rationalize drinking and driving with a BAC over the legal limit is just lame. >>
See, this is the problem. It seems like some issues are too emotionally charged to have a reasoned discussion of public policy.
I question .08 as prima facie proof of intoxication without regard to observations about one's driving, results in a field test, and so on. I question the federal government's role in blackmailing the states into dropping to .08. I question the ultimate motives of MADD, a group which was once a fine one with noble and reasonable intentions but has largely become a neoprohibitionist movement hijacked by extremists. I question the constitutionality of checkpoints.
I don't question that true impaired driving -- whether someone blows a .05 or a .15, whether someone is inattentive on the cell phone, eating a cheeseburger behind the wheel, shaving or putting on makeup -- needs to be dealt with, and in most cases, more harshly than they currently are when demonstrably impaired or distracted. I just question the mindset that our policies and motivations behind tougher and tougher BAC standards are beyond question because they are "for safety" and that anyone who dares to think critically about it and reaches at least *some* level of discomfort with the way things are now -- and WHY they are that way -- can be branded an apologist for drunk driving. It's easier to just dismiss them as a DWI apologist than to discuss the underlying issues rationally and civilly.
And I'm not saying .093 or even .08 should be legal. I'm just saying it shouldn't necessarily be enough by itself to prove someone was "intoxicated." If their driving seems erratic, stop 'em. If they appear intoxicated and flunk the field test, fine -- bust em for DWI. (Even if they are at .05!)
Nevertheless I do agree that people should be a little smarter than to get behind the wheel if they know they are going to tie a few down.
Actually, it's quite simple--drinking and driving just don't mix. You can argue all you want about how this may be a political issue, that the BAC is arbitrary or unfair, etc., but the underlying fact here is that if you are drinking you shouldn't be driving. Are you truly saying that a BAC of .08 is too low?? That's what it seems like from what I've read by your posts, and that is just ridiculous. The "reasoned debate" is anything but when you sound like an advocate for the drunk drivers of America, at least those drivers with BAC of between .08 and the "elbow curve" of .13 or .14 you claimed in an earlier post. The other reality here is that if the BAC limit were .13, you'd have many people having that extra beer or two before getting behind the wheel just because they know they can. What I'm saying then is that the while the legal limit of an .08 may seem low or capricious in nature, it serves its purpose as a deterrent to people who choose to have a beer or two before driving. As for the argument that some people with a BAC of .05 may be way more impaired than a person with a BAC of .093, well that may be true, but you can't seriously expect the law to be unevenly applied based on the fact that one driver may be able to handle his liquor better than the next. That would be far more arbitrary and unfair than any set limit like the .08 BAC for DUI. As I also mentioned in an earlier post, people DO handle the liquor differently due to many different factors, but the law must apply equally to all, regardless of perception or opinion.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>...but the underlying fact here is that if you are drinking you shouldn't be driving. >>
And this is not in debate. Nice strawman there. Haven't I already said that?
<< <i>Are you truly saying that a BAC of .08 is too low?? That's what it seems like from what I've read by your posts, and that is just ridiculous. >>
Not at all. I'm just saying that the more you lower it, the less the BAC itself seems like a sufficient evidence, by itself, to demonstrate intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt. I've already said that someone should be busted if they seem intoxicated for blowing a .05. So how you can say I think BAC is "too low" is a joke. I just think there's more to the picture than BAC, and that perhaps it shouldn't be the "holy grail" of determining level of impairment. And I also don't think the ends always justify the means. There are clearly things you are not socially allowed to question, and this is one of them. As I implied earlier.
<< <i>The "reasoned debate" is anything but when you sound like an advocate for the drunk drivers of America.... >>
Like I said -- you can't discuss these things without being seen as an apologist for drunk driving.
<< <i>What I'm saying then is that the while the legal limit of an .08 may seem low or capricious in nature, it serves its purpose as a deterrent to people who choose to have a beer or two before driving. >>
Fair enough. I'm not opposed to deterrents per se, but I still think it should take more than BAC at least for relatively low levels of "intoxication." You blow a .25, for example, and there's no excuse -- NO one can be functional at that level of intoxication. But a .05 or a .08 or even a .10? I think those need to be more dependent on field sobriety tests and the like. I also think it might be appropriate to have different "degrees" of DWI. Someone weaving like hell and blowing a .23 should not get the same punishment than someone snared in a checkpoint blowing a .09 and not showing significant signs of impairment. The latter shouldn't be legal, perhaps, but not as serious (IMO) as the former.
<< <i>As I implied earlier. >>
Good one
To me the idea has always been to get people to think about having even one drink and then driving. Thus the really low threshold. Again, for me, its such a simple concept ..... Don't get behind the wheel if you have just had ANY amount of alcohol. I understand there are alot of those who may think they are OK after so and so amount of alcohol but there is no way this decision can be left up to the driver. No way ... thus the very low tolerance when it comes to field tests. I happen to be very happy that the level is so low.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
While an .093 reading may not mean you're not falling down drunk, everyone reacts to the effects of alcohol differently (some of us who drink have tolerance, etc.), so I think it is irresponsible to make a generalization that everyone can function just fine after a few beers when that is obviously not the case, at least in this situation with LaRussa, who I'm sure would be the first to agree that he exercised bad judgement by getting behind the wheel that night. >>
I agree-- that's a fair argument. It is different for everyone. From this point in the thread onward, however, my line of thinking is completely congruent with Ziggy's.
<< <i> See, this is the problem. It seems like some issues are too emotionally charged to have a reasoned discussion of public policy.
Actually, it's quite simple--drinking and driving just don't mix. You can argue all you want about how this may be a political issue, that the BAC is arbitrary or unfair, etc., but the underlying fact here is that if you are drinking you shouldn't be driving. Are you truly saying that a BAC of .08 is too low?? That's what it seems like from what I've read by your posts, and that is just ridiculous. The "reasoned debate" is anything but when you sound like an advocate for the drunk drivers of America, at least those drivers with BAC of between .08 and the "elbow curve" of .13 or .14 you claimed in an earlier post. The other reality here is that if the BAC limit were .13, you'd have many people having that extra beer or two before getting behind the wheel just because they know they can. What I'm saying then is that the while the legal limit of an .08 may seem low or capricious in nature, it serves its purpose as a deterrent to people who choose to have a beer or two before driving. As for the argument that some people with a BAC of .05 may be way more impaired than a person with a BAC of .093, well that may be true, but you can't seriously expect the law to be unevenly applied based on the fact that one driver may be able to handle his liquor better than the next. That would be far more arbitrary and unfair than any set limit like the .08 BAC for DUI. As I also mentioned in an earlier post, people DO handle the liquor differently due to many different factors, but the law must apply equally to all, regardless of perception or opinion. >>
Yes, I can expect the law to be unevenly applied, for the reasons that myself and Ziggy have set forth in other sections of this thread.
You'd make an excellent candidate for the bench with that philosophy!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Yes, I can expect the law to be unevenly applied.... >>
Law should always be evenly applied. "Equal justice for all under law" and some such.
The question is, what exactly should be the law, and to what degree should something like one's BAC be considered primary prima facie evidence of intoxication with no other evidence required (and at what level). For sure it's evidence, but I think it should be one piece of evidence that can be combined with others to form a strong case, not automatic conviction based on one number without supporting details.
You won't hear me saying that ANY law should be unevenly applied. If that's ever the case, most likely the existing law needs to be reviewed and tweaked, not randomly or arbitrarily applied.
<< <i>Yes, I can expect the law to be unevenly applied,
You'd make an excellent candidate for the bench with that philosophy!
Either you get it or you don't. If you don't, well, that's fine--heavier concepts then this one have flown over the heads of people smarter than either of us. But at some point you need to ask yourself: "Do I want to advance the debate, or do I want to act like a smart ass?" And if the answer is the latter it's probably best for all parties if you cease your involvement in the thread.
<< <i> Either you get it or you don't. If you don't, well, that's fine--heavier concepts then this one have flown over the heads of people smarter than either of us. But at some point you need to ask yourself: "Do I want to advance the debate, or do I want to act like a smart ass?" And if the answer is the latter it's probably best for all parties if you cease your involvement in the thread. >>
My concept makes for sense. Sorry. If ya have a drink, DON"T DRIVE. Then you have no need for this "debate"
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Hey, I can't be held responsible if you make asinine comments and then cry foul when I call you out on them. It's also ironic that the above statement comes out of the mouth of one of the more smug and pompous posters on this board. Sorry, pal, but I'm not going anywhere.
Either you get it or you don't. If you don't, well, that's fine--heavier concepts then this one have flown over the heads of people smarter than either of us
What hyperbole! So, what you're saying then, is that if someone doesn't agree with your "point of view" that means they just don't get it? How comical!
Even ziggy dismissed your assertion that you "can expect the law to be unevenly applied". That's just bunk. Such unequal application of the law is the norm in many rogue nations, but not in the U.S., and with obviously good reason. Nice try, though. Better luck next thread!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>"Do I want to advance the debate, or do I want to act like a smart ass?" And if the answer is the latter it's probably best for all parties if you cease your involvement in the thread.
Hey, I can't be held responsible if you make asinine comments and then cry foul when I call you out on them. It's also ironic that the above statement comes out of the mouth of one of the more smug and pompous posters on this board. Sorry, pal, but I'm not going anywhere.
Either you get it or you don't. If you don't, well, that's fine--heavier concepts then this one have flown over the heads of people smarter than either of us
What hyperbole! So, what you're saying then, is that if someone doesn't agree with your "point of view" that means they just don't get it? How comical!
Even ziggy dismissed your assertion that you "can expect the law to be unevenly applied". That's just bunk. Such unequal application of the law is the norm in many rogue nations, but not in the U.S., and with obviously good reason. Nice try, though. Better luck next thread! >>
l
////////////////////////////////////////
The thing that you "don't get" is that the term "unevenly applied" is operating in the context of Breathalyzer results. Not in some notion that laws should be arbitrarily enforced. Ever heard of affirmative action? That's predicated on the uneven application of admission or hiring standards, so there's obviously a precedent for it.
Time and time again you force your views on others, put down and belittle any thought process that doesnt jive with your own, and show your general conceit.
Its painfully evident that you just dont get it, nor will you likely ever.
You have an opinion, great. We are all entitled to them. What you dont get is that because it is YOUR opinion does not make it the only valid or intelligently constructed one.
It appears the only " concept " that consistently flows over anyones head around here is the concept of humility that routinely passes over yours.
And ohh, for the record, Id enjoy you trying to explain your one and only correct conclusion of merit to a dear high school friend of mines parents since their son was killed by a drunk driver while taking another friend home from a party by a drunk driver who blew a .09.
Im sure the knowledge your insight would provide them would be more than consolation for having lost their 17 year old son who received a letter for a full lacross scholarship to Princeton the day they covered him in dirt.
Let it be known for anyone who cares to read this far that in 2000 I received a DWI. To this day I am thankfull I got it because it may have been a wake up call number one, and because it enabled me and my father to communicate things with each other before it was too late. Things many fathers and sons never get a chance to say where regret often follows you through life over the lost opportunity. He passed away less than one year later and the DWI was a great blessing in my life.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>Boo you once again have amazed me at your total and complete need to express yourself in a manner that is so far and beyond. Do you honestly believe every thought that enters your head to be the correct and only way of thinking ?
Time and time again you force your views on others, put down and belittle any thought process that doesnt jive with your own, and show your general conceit.
Its painfully evident that you just dont get it, nor will you likely ever.
You have an opinion, great. We are all entitled to them. What you dont get is that because it is YOUR opinion does not make it the only valid or intelligently constructed one.
It appears the only " concept " that consistently flows over anyones head around here is the concept of humility that routinely passes over yours.
And ohh, for the record, Id enjoy you trying to explain your one and only correct conclusion of merit to a dear high school friend of mines parents since their son was killed by a drunk driver while taking another friend home from a party by a drunk driver who blew a .09.
Im sure the knowledge your insight would provide them would be more than consolation for having lost their 17 year old son who received a letter for a full lacross scholarship to Princeton the day they covered him in dirt.
Let it be known for anyone who cares to read this far that in 2000 I received a DWI. To this day I am thankfull I got it because it may have been a wake up call number one, and because it enabled me and my father to communicate things with each other before it was too late. Things many fathers and sons never get a chance to say where regret often follows you through life over the lost opportunity. He passed away less than one year later and the DWI was a great blessing in my life. >>
Well, for what it's worth I feel terrible for the parents of your high school friend. I personally lost 2 close friends in H.S. in drunk driving accidents, and I completely agree that it's an unmitigated tragedy. And I have no knowledge, or opinions, or insights, that could assuage their grief. None at all. But in the final analysis this issue isn't about them, no matter how poignant their story may be. This is about whether or not the drunk driving laws in this country, as currently constructed, are fair and equitable. I don't think they are, for the reasons that I and Ziggy-- and I give most of the credit to Ziggy, since he's done an excellent job of presenting the argument-- have put forth in this thread. There are, in all likelihood, compelling arguments against this viewpoint, but so far I haven't read any in this discussion.
Regarding my arrogance, pomposity, etc. etc., people can disagree with me all they want. But when they start quoting out of context, or pop off with silly remarks (as you did in the Waverly thread) that wilt when put under the light of reason, then I think I'm entitled to point that out. Just as YOU, or Grote, or whomever, would be entitled to do to me when the shoe is on the other foot.
But I digress. If you want to spend any more time telling me what an insufferable jerk I am then I urge you to do so via PM, since there's no need to further derail this (or any other thread) with your opinions of me. Hopefully we can agree on a least that much.
Nothing I or anyone else can ever say will get that to sink in.
Its not about attacking you Boo. Its about bringing to your attention that you force your viewpoints on others and belittle others views.
Once again, because you feel something to be legitimate, or something to be unequitable does not neccessarily make it true. I know this to be the concept that alludes you.
People have offered their views and opinions on the subject. Data is not needed to present a viewpoint or opinion. It is how a person feels and they have just as much entitlement to their viewpoint as you do and dont need to continually be put down for offering their viewpoint or opinion.
You claim people can dissagree with you all they want when in fact all you show is that they absolutely cannot do so without you trying to discredit them for doing so.
And now, as in the waverly thread you go as far as calling anyone who opposes you a jerk, or silly, or something else. I did not make any " silly " remarks in the waverly thread or anywhere else. All I did do was dissagree with you and tell you why I did. Im sorry you just dont understand the difference between someone disagreeing with you and responding with grace and acceptance of their opposing viewpoint and belittling their opposing viewpoint.
Thats all I have to say regarding this since now, like any other time someone questions you, it goes nowhere.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>All you have done in your response is ignore the possibility that on many occasions you choose your viewpoint as the only valid one. Period.
Nothing I or anyone else can ever say will get that to sink in.
Its not about attacking you Boo. Its about bringing to your attention that you force your viewpoints on others and belittle others views.
Once again, because you feel something to be legitimate, or something to be unequitable does not neccessarily make it true. I know this to be the concept that alludes you.
People have offered their views and opinions on the subject. Data is not needed to present a viewpoint or opinion. It is how a person feels and they have just as much entitlement to their viewpoint as you do and dont need to continually be put down for offering their viewpoint or opinion.
You claim people can dissagree with you all they want when in fact all you show is that they absolutely cannot do so without you trying to discredit them for doing so.
And now, as in the waverly thread you go as far as calling anyone who opposes you a jerk, or silly, or something else. I did not make any " silly " remarks in the waverly thread or anywhere else. All I did do was dissagree with you and tell you why I did. Im sorry you just dont understand the difference between someone disagreeing with you and responding with grace and acceptance of their opposing viewpoint and belittling their opposing viewpoint.
Thats all I have to say regarding this since now, like any other time someone questions you, it goes nowhere. >>
Hi bri,
Just out of curiosity-- how many times since you joined these boards can you remember admitting that you were wrong about something other than a statement of fact?
Edit to add:
You are right on at least one point, though, and that is that I frequently don't give sufficient credit to the arguments offered by other board members. With that in mind, I will admit that upon further that there are arguments in this thread in support of the drunk driving laws as they currently stand which are reasonable arguments (even if I don't agree with them) and should be recognized as such. For example, the argument set for by Dan-- and which was supported by Grote-- that the function of drunk driving laws is not only to punish current offenders, but also to serve as a deterrant to possible future offenders, and that since there's no obviously cost efficient way of separating the people who can drive safely with a BAC of .08 and those who can't the laws as currently constructed should stand, is certainly a fair minded counterargument to the position which I have proposed.
<< <i>Hi bri,
Just out of curiosity-- how many times since you joined these boards can you remember admitting that you were wrong about something other than a statement of fact? >>
I can personally vouch for at least one.
Bri has more respect for Biggio today than when he first joined the boards.
Link
Four beers my rear, unless he consecutively chugged them all.
he was crapfaced.
<< <i>.093. Give me a break. I don't know why he was asleep at the wheel, but it obviously wasn't because he was too sauced to drive. >>
<< <i>
but IMO .093 is a joke. I stand by that. >>
do you still?
<< <i>
<< <i>Limit is 0.08. While .093 is not much higher, it does pose a threat to innocent bystanders. What's he doing asleep behind the wheel? Doesn't he get a great room/house to sleep in for being a WS champion manager? This isn't a truck driver we are talking about here.
I really like the organization and Tony, but I have absolutely no tolerance for any type of drunk behind the wheel.
For those of us out there who know, how much liquor do you need to drink if you are LaRussa's size in order to register a .093?
Thanks >>
I am sure that someone blowing a .093 poses no greater risk to other drivers then the average American idiot on their cell phone during rush hour, or the legions of obese mouth-breathers who plow through Double Whoppers on their way to and from the hardware store. Like I said, I have no idea why he was sleeping, but anyone who thinks it was because he'd passed out from drinking too much is wrong. A .093 is something like 4 beers in 90 minutes for a 180 lb. male. If you can't drive after 4 beers in an hour and a half then you're probably a lousy driver anyway. >>
goodness, how I love a liberal's logic!!
watch the video.
<< <i>liberal's logic >>
what do they call sayings like this??
anywho, those are 2 words that should NEVER be used in conjunction with each other.
<< <i>
<< <i>liberal's logic >>
what do they call sayings like this??
anywho, those are 2 words that should NEVER be used in conjunction with each other. >>
Sounds more like right wing failure to accept responsibility and reality to me.
<< <i>that was a vast right wing conspiracy sweeping in on the video and surrounding his vehicle.
We also made the wind blow really hard, which was the real reason why Tony couldn't keep his balance.
"Hmm. There we go."