Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Biden's concerns were that the driver had consumed alcohol.
We are talking about quotes from 2001 and 2007 made by Biden. He was not "concerned that the driver had consumed alcohol." He was intentionally implying that his family was killed by someone who was under the influence of alcohol./ I don't know of - and haven't been able to find - any indication that the driver had consumed a single DROP of alcohol, or had any sort of issue with alcohol in his life.
Quote:
I don't think there was an indication one way or the other.
The ONLY indication on record is Biden's insinuation. If you can show otherwise, PLEASE DO SO. I haven't been able to find a shred of evidence that the driver was under the influence of any alcohol.
Quote:
And since even if the driver had had a drink or two with his lunch, it wouldn't have been criminal and it wouldn't have resulted in any charges against the driver, I think "slander and libel" is over the top.
But this is nothing other than conjecture. It's not based on any evidence. And it's a VERY SERIOUS charge. How would YOU feel if a very public figure repeatedly implied on national television that your drinking had probably played a part in the DEATH of his wife and child??? Especially when there was absolutely no evidence of this?
Quote:
Biden had just lost his family. It was suggested to him that the driver may have had a drink.
Who suggested this to him, and based on what? I would love to see these details, because I can't find them anywhere.
Quote:
In his mind, the suggestion became fact. And he mentioned it in 2001. 29 years after the accident. Then again in 2007. 35 years after the accident. He wasn't going all over town for 35 years talking it up, telling loads of people and making hay of it in the press. He made the suggestion twice, both times saying that he'd heard this possibility.
With all due respect, neither you nor I have any idea how many times over his lifetime Biden has made these implications or allegations. We do know that at least two times, he has implied to the media, blatantly and in public, that the driver was possibly under the influence of alcohol. (Actually he said he had "drunk his lunch" which is a pretty serious allegation to make.)
Quote:
The second time he made the comment, it reached the ears of the drivers' family, and they defended the driver in the press and wrote Biden a letter, which Biden responded nicely to. And Biden has refrained from making the suggestion again.
Gee, thanks, Biden.
Honestly, will the man never learn the difference between appropriate and inappropriate comments?
By the way, here's a good Slate article on Biden's penchant for dishonesty - which spans his lifetime.
We are talking about quotes from 2001 and 2007 made by Biden. He was not "concerned that the driver had consumed alcohol." He was intentionally implying that his family was killed by someone who was under the influence of alcohol./ I don't know of - and haven't been able to find - any indication that the driver had consumed a single DROP of alcohol, or had any sort of issue with alcohol in his life.
The ONLY indication on record is Biden's insinuation. If you can show otherwise, PLEASE DO SO. I haven't been able to find a shred of evidence that the driver was under the influence of any alcohol.
But this is nothing other than conjecture. It's not based on any evidence. And it's a VERY SERIOUS charge. How would YOU feel if a very public figure repeatedly implied on national television that your drinking had probably played a part in the DEATH of his wife and child??? Especially when there was absolutely no evidence of this?
Who suggested this to him, and based on what? I would love to see these details, because I can't find them anywhere.
With all due respect, neither you nor I have any idea how many times over his lifetime Biden has made these implications or allegations. We do know that at least two times, he has implied to the media, blatantly and in public, that the driver was possibly under the influence of alcohol. (Actually he said he had "drunk his lunch" which is a pretty serious allegation to make.)
Gee, thanks, Biden.
Honestly, will the man never learn the difference between appropriate and inappropriate comments?
By the way, here's a good Slate article on Biden's penchant for dishonesty - which spans his lifetime.
Neither you nor I have any idea how many times Biden made the implications. But you're the one trying to make a case for slander and libel.
We don't know who, 40 years ago, may have raised the possibility of the truck driver having had a drink.
But we know this, that if the driver did have a drink, the police wouldn't have investigated it, unless the guy was visibly, noticeably impaired. BECAUSE IT WASN'T A CRIME. So why would you find anything?
You know what, you could go back to the 1950's and look for cases where spousal rape was prosecuted in the United States. And you wouldn't find any. Because back then it was legal for a husband to rape his wife. And just because you couldn't find any prosecutions wouldn't mean that husbands never raped their wives.
It was 1972. And to be prosecuted for DWI, your BAC had to register .15. You had to be VISIBLY impaired, confused, slurring just for an officer to show cause to test your blood. It was so very different back then than it is today, that people completely accepted the fact of people drinking and driving.
We don't know who, 40 years ago, may have raised the possibility of the truck driver having had a drink.
But we know this, that if the driver did have a drink, the police wouldn't have investigated it, unless the guy was visibly, noticeably impaired. BECAUSE IT WASN'T A CRIME. So why would you find anything?
You know what, you could go back to the 1950's and look for cases where spousal rape was prosecuted in the United States. And you wouldn't find any. Because back then it was legal for a husband to rape his wife. And just because you couldn't find any prosecutions wouldn't mean that husbands never raped their wives.
It was 1972. And to be prosecuted for DWI, your BAC had to register .15. You had to be VISIBLY impaired, confused, slurring just for an officer to show cause to test your blood. It was so very different back then than it is today, that people completely accepted the fact of people drinking and driving.
Drinking and driving was accepted in 1972? I don't think so. It was a DWI (driving while intoxicated) instead of DUI, and the levels were higher, but it was still illegal.
Even in 1972, when someone went to an emergency room who was involved in a car accident, a blood alcohol level would be taken. The driver was taken to the emergency room. The blood alcohol content would have been noted in his chart and I guarantee it would have been brought up in court, even if it was under the legal limit at the time.
Neither you nor I have any idea how many times Biden made the implications. But you're the one trying to make a case for slander and libel.
We don't know who, 40 years ago, may have raised the possibility of the truck driver having had a drink.
But we know this, that if the driver did have a drink, the police wouldn't have investigated it, unless the guy was visibly, noticeably impaired. BECAUSE IT WASN'T A CRIME. So why would you find anything?
You know what, you could go back to the 1950's and look for cases where spousal rape was prosecuted in the United States. And you wouldn't find any. Because back then it was legal for a husband to rape his wife. And just because you couldn't find any prosecutions wouldn't mean that husbands never raped their wives.
It was 1972. And to be prosecuted for DWI, your BAC had to register .15. You had to be VISIBLY impaired, confused, slurring just for an officer to show cause to test your blood. It was so very different back then than it is today, that people completely accepted the fact of people drinking and driving.
The bottom line is that Biden has never offered a shred of evidence to substantiate his insinations that the driver was impaired in any way by alcohol - or EVER had a problem with alcohol, for that matter. No evidence has ever been provided by anyone, that I'm aware of.
I don't know about you, but if someone was going on national television insinuating that I or my father had been drinking when involved in an accident that WAS THE FAULT OF THE OTHER DRIVER, I would be VERY ticked off and offended, and would consider such a statement to be a defamation of character.
But then - Biden has a lifetime of lies and insinuations behind him, and probably more before him. He has claimed to be the first person in his family to attend college (not true). He has claimed that his ancestors were coal miners (not true). While in law school, Biden received an F for a course due to plagiarism. He lied about and exaggerated his involvement in sit ins and other civil rights demonstrations. He lied in public about attending law school on a full academic scholarship (not true). He then claimed to have graduated in the top half of his class in law school (also not true). He has claimed in public to have earned three undergraduate degrees, when in fact he has earned one.
So please forgive me if I am skeptical of his claims, AND his motives for those claims. ESPECIALLY those claims that are simply not supportable by any facts or evidence other than whatever is rolling about in his head - sort of like a BB rolling about in an empty tuna fish can (thank you, DAVE BARRY, for that mental image, from this excellent article: Adventure Dog: Forever Faithful, Incredibly Stupid - Chicago Tribune)
So then you deleted it, so you must agree that you plagiarized. But it was too late because I already quoted your plagiaristic post when I replied to it to tell you if the other poster plagiarized, you did too.
Honey,
When someone begins a post---"who wrote this" and then posts in a different font a piece of writing, it's not plagiarism because the preface, "who wrote this", clearly disclaims authorship.
TWG posted the piece as if it were his own writing. That's plagiarism. There was no disclaimer to show he didn't write it, and there was no citation to say who really wrote it. He committed plagiarism. I've reported his plagiarized post to the moderators. Who will, when they have time, delete the plagiarized material, and the subsequent posts, yours, mine and TWG's about the plagiarism.
And if you don't understand this, I suggest you take it to one of your teachers for an explanation.
Is there no shame in posting a thread trying to exploit the death of his family members?
They did in fact die in a car crash.
Early on, they did in fact think that alcohol was involved (but it wasn't). I also cannot find this quote anywhere other than blog sites. Is there any video or reputable site that reports on him saying this? And also gives the date he said it?
Does that change the fact that they are dead? From a car accident? He lost his wife and infant daughter.
When someone begins a post---"who wrote this" and then posts in a different font a piece of writing, it's not plagiarism because the preface, "who wrote this", clearly disclaims authorship.
You copied the whole thing, without attribution, same as you accused someone else of doing. If you didn't plagiarize, why did you go back and delete your post?
Is there no shame in posting a thread trying to exploit the death of his family members?
They did in fact die in a car crash.
Early on, they did in fact think that alcohol was involved (but it wasn't). I also cannot find this quote anywhere other than blog sites. Is there any video or reputable site that reports on him saying this? And also gives the date he said it?
Does that change the fact that they are dead? From a car accident? He lost his wife and infant daughter.
If this was an isolated incident, I would agree with you.
You copied the whole thing, without attribution, same as you accused someone else of doing. If you didn't plagiarize, why did you go back and delete your post?
I didn't delete my posts. When the moderator deleted TWG's plagiarized post, the moderator deleted your posts, my posts and TWG's posts on the topic of plagiarism.
Drinking and driving was accepted in 1972? I don't think so. It was a DWI (driving while intoxicated) instead of DUI, and the levels were higher, but it was still illegal.
Even in 1972, when someone went to an emergency room who was involved in a car accident, a blood alcohol level would be taken. The driver was taken to the emergency room. The blood alcohol content would have been noted in his chart and I guarantee it would have been brought up in court, even if it was under the legal limit at the time.
It wasn't until the late 70's, early 80's that DUI became a legal issue. It was a traffic offense until MADD started putting pressure on in the 80s. I have a relative who crashed his car into a bank drunk in the late 70s and doesn't even have a record from it!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
