beer-drinking rights suspended

[modelo]

Did anyone see this outrage:

License suspended simply for drinking at home (http://martinirepublic.com/item/american-s-inalienable-drinking-rights-suspended)

[unkle bik]

What happened to doctor-patient confidentiality?

[Beaver]

Big Brother is definitely watching!

[steveh]

I sent the link to a friend who is up on a lot of Urban Legends - he's seen the story legitamitely reported and added, It proves Barach’s Rule – “An alcoholic is a person who drinks more than his own physician.”

S.

[MeridianFC]

That is so friggin' out of control I can't believe it. What if the fellow drinks his sixer when he gets home at night? I don't see how that'd impair his ability to drive.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for very strict drunk driving laws. One of my best friend's mother and sister were killed by drunk drivers (in separate incidents) and I've seen what it can do to people, so I'm all for a good swift kick in the ass for these morons, but the above story just seems positively Minority Report (providing he has no priors)

[SoxyinMO]

I guess honesty ISN'T the best policy.

[YamahaXS]

It does sound a bit screwed up... i wonder if we have all the facts.

[fretlessman71]

It would seem so, wouldn't it? If this story has been around a while, that is. I suppose it's possible that the guy was really honest to his doctor, and admitted that he drank closer to a CASE a night, and is telling everyone else he only drinks a 6er, but this is a case that needs following up to be sure. There are lots of alkies out there who are really in denial about their problem.... OTOH, there are lots of doctors out there who feel it their duty to play God. :rolleyes:

[chazwicke]

I wonder what the WHOLE story is? This sounds so extreme. There must be more to it. At least I hope so.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by unkle bik
What happened to doctor-patient confidentiality?

[huge shit stirring paddle]

I saw this one a few weeks ago. In that state (PA) there is a law requiring doctors to report this information.

I guess I am the only one that is going to step out on the limb and say I do not have a problem with this. Who better to judge a persons abilities then there own physician? There is also the underlying medical condition here. I am sure the doc did not just report this because he wanted to be a jerk, in his professional medical opinion this is someone who presents as a danger to himself and others.

Remember there is no law that says alcohol is a right. The repeal of the Volstead act I am sure does not contain anything saying that this is a right, so it is a privilege afforded to those old enough to do so.

Since it is not a right there is no infringment that I see.

If this were a right though what would be more pressing? His right to drink and possibly drive or our rights to not be run off the road by someone with a heart condition who has been drinking?

[/huge shit stirring paddle]

[MeridianFC]

Oddly enough that is a very considered response BrewM.

To address the Doctor/Patient confidentiality, if a doctor believes a law has been broken it is his or her responsibility to report it to law enforcement. You can't go to your doctors office with a gunshot wound covered in paint from a spray pack and expect D/P priveledge to be in effect (it's not). This case is a bit skewed from that but as BrewM. points out there could be more to it.

I'm not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

[fretlessman71]

If I trusted the medical profession more as a whole I would probably be swayed by Brewm's point; sadly, I've seen more than my fair share (or not, maybe?) of total quacks in the field, and it makes me very concerned. I've even had a doctor tell me (unofficially, of course; we were at a party) that they've "invented" conditions that a patient didn't have just so they could write them a prescription for a basically harmless drug. Seems he was getting a little something on the side for helping out this pharmaceutical company... really makes you wonder.

Certainly drinking beer is a privilege; however I see no reason (other than a very strange law in PA) that a doctor should be able to have control over our lives like that. My philosophy has been for many years: "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose." As long as you're not hurting me or anyone else, go and do what you like. Just remember that "hurting me or anyone else" can take on a myriad of forms, and this is not a call for anarchy by any means. Simply keep yourself to yourself, and the rest will come out fine.

Besides, a 6er a night is just 2-3 beers over the "recommended" amount for an improved heart condition, isn't it? Isn't 3-4 beers the amount we've been hearing about that's pretty good for us?

[Beaver]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
If I trusted the medical profession more as a whole I would probably be swayed by Brewm's point; sadly, I've seen more than my fair share (or not, maybe?) of total quacks in the field, and it makes me very concerned. I've even had a doctor tell me (unofficially, of course; we were at a party) that they've "invented" conditions that a patient didn't have just so they could write them a prescription for a basically harmless drug. Seems he was getting a little something on the side for helping out this pharmaceutical company... really makes you wonder.

Certainly drinking beer is a privilege; however I see no reason (other than a very strange law in PA) that a doctor should be able to have control over our lives like that. My philosophy has been for many years: "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose." As long as you're not hurting me or anyone else, go and do what you like. Just remember that "hurting me or anyone else" can take on a myriad of forms, and this is not a call for anarchy by any means. Simply keep yourself to yourself, and the rest will come out fine.

Besides, a 6er a night is just 2-3 beers over the "recommended" amount for an improved heart condition, isn't it? Isn't 3-4 beers the amount we've been hearing about that's pretty good for us?

I usually hear 1-2 a night.

But if a guy wants to drink a 6 pack a night, if he doesn't drive, who cares? I'm sure most people here have had 6 beers in a night before.

[newportstorm]

This follow up story is incomplete. The original I read back a couple months had more info. and made a bit more sense. A bit.

What amazes me though, is that people here have tended to slam the doctor and not the system. The doctor had a concern about his patient's health and it's possible effect on the general public, has a duty under state law to report it and did so. The doctor didn't revoke the license sight unseen. The state did.

Sure, the doc could have looked the other way and let it slide, but should he have? Of course not. If he did, he's no better than a scumbag doc like fret mentioned who invents conditions to prescribe meds that he gets a kickback from (if anything should be reported, it's filth like that doctor who fuel the pharma companies' prices, but now I'm ranting).

Anyway, unless I'm really ill, I keep my alcohol/drug/sex/driving habits to myself on the rare times I visit the doc. I got enough lectures as a kid...

Cheers!

[newportstorm]

Originally posted by Beaver
I usually hear 1-2 a night.

But if a guy wants to drink a 6 pack a night, if he doesn't drive, who cares? I'm sure most people here have had 6 beers in a night before.

I know I sure have and I'm sure we all have at one time or another. But a guy with a heart condition drinking a sixer every night raised a flag with his doc.

And before someone raises the "tolerance" issue...sure, the guy probably has a pretty high tolerance for alcohol by now and has learned to function normally. But try drinking nearly 2 cases a week for years on end (w/o a heart condition) and see how affects your health. Not saying the guy is a booze hound or has a "problem". But if I were a diabetic bus driver who told my doc that I polish off three boxes of HoHo's during every school day, I'd expect some action to be taken - if only for the welfare of the kids.

Cheers!

[fretlessman71]

I agree about the tolerance issue - just because you can hold your beer better than most doesn't mean you're doing less damage to your body with that same amount of alcohol.

[fretlessman71]

And newport's right about the state and their stupid laws - this is the same state that requires you to buy an entire case of beer at a time because the lobbyists have won out in Harrisburg! GRRRR....

[Beaver]

Originally posted by newportstorm
I know I sure have and I'm sure we all have at one time or another. But a guy with a heart condition drinking a sixer every night raised a flag with his doc.

And before someone raises the "tolerance" issue...sure, the guy probably has a pretty high tolerance for alcohol by now and has learned to function normally. But try drinking nearly 2 cases a week for years on end (w/o a heart condition) and see how affects your health. Not saying the guy is a booze hound or has a "problem". But if I were a diabetic bus driver who told my doc that I polish off three boxes of HoHo's during every school day, I'd expect some action to be taken - if only for the welfare of the kids.

Cheers!

It raised a flag with his doc, but that flag should be for his personal health, not his endangerment of others. As long as he is not driving after drinking there is no reason to take away his license.

If the concern is that he may have a heart attack while driving, thus endangering others, what about all the other people who have heart conditions?

[sallad]

http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=2185446
the article posted above links to this -- looks to me like a legit news website (as opposed to a likely biased Martini Republic site).

this article doesn't add much, except to say that he could drive if he had a breathalyzer device installed in his car that could prevent him from driving if he'd been drinking.

I think some people prone to seizures or other uncontrolable muscle disorders are also not allowed to drive. i'm all for that. now, if the issue was that he had a heart condition, thats fine, but i don't see how a heart condition can prevent you from driving. i can see how drinking a 6er per night with a heart condition could lead to a heart attack or something. and i guess we don't want him having a heart attack behind the wheel. but then, shouldn't they install a defibrillator in his car rather than a breathalyzer??

something just doesn't add up to me, and i don't like it!

i'm not a lawyer or a doctor, and i didn't even stay at a holiday inn.

[fretlessman71]

Says here they recalled his license for "medical reasons related to substance abuse."

So is there a legal precedent for abuse of a perfectly legal drug? "Here, buy this stuff by the case, but if you drink a quarter of it in a night, you're abusing it and you can't drive anymore." HMMMMM.....

[newportstorm]

Originally posted by Beaver
It raised a flag with his doc, but that flag should be for his personal health, not his endangerment of others. As long as he is not driving after drinking there is no reason to take away his license.

If the concern is that he may have a heart attack while driving, thus endangering others, what about all the other people who have heart conditions?

From the article: "A Pennsylvania law dating back to the 1960s requires doctors to report any impairments that could compromise their patients' ability to drive safely."

I can't question the doc for making a judgement call and doing his job as required by law. But it's the state and their laws that revoked the man's license without even talking to the guy.

Now, I'm not a doc and have no idea how drinking a sixer a day might exacerbate his heart condition. Any docs/nurses out there want to chime in?

And there is no way to control everyone who gets behind the wheel. Old people get confused. 45 y.o. men have heart attacks with no warning. Truck drivers fall asleep. Shit happens. But the doc had concerns and did his job. The state and its asinine laws are the ones we should be lambasting here.

Cheers!

[Tom C]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
[huge shit stirring paddle]

I saw this one a few weeks ago. In that state (PA) there is a law requiring doctors to report this information.

I guess I am the only one that is going to step out on the limb and say I do not have a problem with this. Who better to judge a persons abilities then there own physician? There is also the underlying medical condition here. I am sure the doc did not just report this because he wanted to be a jerk, in his professional medical opinion this is someone who presents as a danger to himself and others.

Remember there is no law that says alcohol is a right. The repeal of the Volstead act I am sure does not contain anything saying that this is a right, so it is a privilege afforded to those old enough to do so.

Since it is not a right there is no infringment that I see.

If this were a right though what would be more pressing? His right to drink and possibly drive or our rights to not be run off the road by someone with a heart condition who has been drinking?

[/huge shit stirring paddle]

Using your train of thought....since you had a thought that consisted of the possibility of someone being hurt by an action of yours I rule that you should have a full frontal labotomy to ensure that a crime never takes place to begin with even though it never had in actuality taken place. Further a ruling like this only hurts doctor/patient relationship by not allowing a patient to openly discuss medical issues in fear of retaliation that may be taken. Regardless if the man/woman drank a sixer each night or a keg he/she is at home. One can not be condemed or prosecuted for a potential wrong!

Tom C

[dillen]

That is what you get for being honest!He should sue that doctor.

[wortchillergoal]

I have to agree with brewmonkey. Also, the doctor may not like it but is requried by law in PA to do what he did.

When it comes to driving, it is not a right but a privilege. The state is within their rights to protect other drivers.

It is situations like this that need more study. How many people will now lie to their doctor and put their health in jeporady?

I don't like the situation but don't blame the doctor.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Tom C
Using your train of thought....since you had a thought that consisted of the possibility of someone being hurt by an action of yours I rule that you should have a full frontal labotomy to ensure that a crime never takes place to begin with even though it never had in actuality taken place. Further a ruling like this only hurts doctor/patient relationship by not allowing a patient to openly discuss medical issues in fear of retaliation that may be taken. Regardless if the man/woman drank a sixer each night or a keg he/she is at home. One can not be condemed or prosecuted for a potential wrong!

Tom C

Since there is a law that requires this to be reported there is no "potential" wrong. I also did not say it didn't hurt the doctor/patient priviledge. Had this not been a law in effect I would have had the doctor brought up on an ethics charge. However, like I said it is a law and the doctor was required to report it.

You also need to check your PM's.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by dillen
That is what you get for being honest!He should sue that doctor.

No legal recourse that I can see, the doctor was following the law. If the guy is pissed he should talk to his state reps who passed the law in the first place.

[Beaver]

Originally posted by wortchillergoal
I have to agree with brewmonkey. Also, the doctor may not like it but is requried by law in PA to do what he did.

When it comes to driving, it is not a right but a privilege. The state is within their rights to protect other drivers.

It is situations like this that need more study. How many people will now lie to their doctor and put their health in jeporady?

I don't like the situation but don't blame the doctor.

If he's not drinking, he's not any more of a risk to endanger people than others. If they are saying his risk of heart attck may be higher, thus endangering others, that is crazy.

What if a study came out saying that men are twice as likely as women to get into car accidents. Should all men be banned from driving? After all, driving is not a right. If this was the law in a state, does that make it any better?

I just don't see how this guy is endangering others just by drinking, so the law and the application of it are stupid.

[fretlessman71]

I agree - both the doctor and the lawmakers ought to be sunk to the bottom of a vat of Yuengling! :p

[swzine]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
I agree - both the doctor and the lawmakers ought to be sunk to the bottom of a vat of Yuengling! :p


mmmmm...Yuengling.

I guess they're not big enough to lobby PA government just yet!

[wortchillergoal]

Originally posted by Beaver
If he's not drinking, he's not any more of a risk to endanger people than others. If they are saying his risk of heart attck may be higher, thus endangering others, that is crazy.

What if a study came out saying that men are twice as likely as women to get into car accidents. Should all men be banned from driving? After all, driving is not a right. If this was the law in a state, does that make it any better?

I just don't see how this guy is endangering others just by drinking, so the law and the application of it are stupid.

I too like brewmonkey, don't like the situation. The point is that law requires the doctor to make a judgement call and notify DMV that this person is a risk. Yes, he should report a person with a heart condition as I understand the law.

It is not a good situation. Do you believe this guy never drove a car after drinking a 6 pack? The truth is we don't know. We also don't kmow if he has a medical condition that is made worse by alcohol or what other information about this guy the doctor might have.

The doctor had to act as he did. I said before that the doctor may not like this law but he needs to cover his bases.

As stated, drinking and operaqting a car are not rights. This does lead to some hard decisions in how to handle certain situations.

I will state that I believe that drinking a 6 pack every night is uncalled for as well. If he wants to do so, that is his call but there are much better ways to spend your money and time.

[wild]

I've never been to PA. Do people that drink six or more beer/wine/cocktails in bars lose their driving privileges whether or not they drove there or is it just those that drink at home and tell their doctors? The doctor did what he is required to do by law. It's the law itself that is questionable and should come under scrutiny by the people of PA. But what do we know, out here its still illegal to hunt camels or for a man to enter Phoenix wearing a dress (kilts included).

Wild

[Tom C]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Since there is a law that requires this to be reported there is no "potential" wrong. I also did not say it didn't hurt the doctor/patient priviledge. Had this not been a law in effect I would have had the doctor brought up on an ethics charge. However, like I said it is a law and the doctor was required to report it.

You also need to check your PM's.

just because there is a law in place it does not necessarily make it ethical or right. Many laws have been in place that suggest this....slavery, seperate but equal, etc. They were laws, but not right nor ethical.

Tom C

oh yeah, please check you pm

[newportstorm]

Originally posted by Tom C
just because there is a law in place it does not necessarily make it ethical or right. Many laws have been in place that suggest this....slavery, seperate but equal, etc. They were laws, but not right nor ethical.

Apples and oranges. One is an individual's health risk as seen by his doctor - like it (agree with it) or not. The other examples you gave are abominations against a whole race. C'mon now. The law about reporting health risks may be questionable - I don't argue that - I don't think anyone here did. And the fact that the DMV revoked his license on the spot is a joke - again, everyone seemed to agree on that point. But to compare a law that, at its core, is about public safety to laws that were about human indignity is taking it a bit far.

Cheers!

[Tom C]

point was a law does not make something ethical or right. The two examples I provided where clear cut examples of such. In no way am I comparing the two nor listing them as a matter of societal importance or significance.

Tom C

[sallad]

...I rule that you should have a full frontal labotomy...

i'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotomy!

sorry, couldn't resist.

as you were...!

[newportstorm]

"Right" and "ethical" are very subjective. Ask 50 people what "ethics" means and you're liable to get 50 different answers. Hell, there are probably people out there that still think slavery and segregation are right & ethical.

I wonder if people in PA are discussing this story as passionately as a few beer geeks in cyber space. :D If not, they should - and start by contacting their congressman before they are the next example of this wacky law.

Cheers!

[threecb]

Originally posted by newportstorm
I wonder if people in PA are discussing this story as passionately as a few beer geeks in cyber space. :D If not, they should - and start by contacting their congressman before they are the next example of this wacky law.

When this story first came out, I heard a NJ talk radio station discussing it. They said that PA isn't the only state with this law. Check your local laws before consulting a physician!

[steveh]

Originally posted by newportstorm
I wonder if people in PA are discussing this story as passionately as a few beer geeks in cyber space. :D If not, they should - and start by contacting their congressman before they are the next example of this wacky law.

I sent the story to a friend of mine in Harrisburg - he has a friend who's a state lawyer with whom he's going to bring it up soon.

S.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by wortchillergoal

When it comes to driving, it is not a right but a privilege.


Not too exacerbate the argument, But, It could be argued that driving has become and indeed is a right.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Tom C
just because there is a law in place it does not necessarily make it ethical or right. Many laws have been in place that suggest this....slavery, seperate but equal, etc. They were laws, but not right nor ethical.

Tom C

oh yeah, please check you pm

Regardless of how you feel about a law as long as it is in place it must be followed. Now if this went to trial and the judge gave the rules to the jury about jury nullification we would have a whole different ball of wax.

[Theakston]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Regardless of how you feel about a law as long as it is in place it must be followed. Now if this went to trial and the judge gave the rules to the jury about jury nullification we would have a whole different ball of wax.

So will you be voting for Tony Blair or the Conservative party in the next election?;)

[Tom C]

there are many laws still on the books that are not followed....MA law requiring bathing daily, states not allowing a man to walk down the street with a married woman. Still technically laws but not followed. Also, people have the power not to follow laws through many means of peaceful protests.

Tom C

[fretlessman71]

I think the best thing that can happen to this law is what's happening right now: heated discussion. We're on our way towards the solution; I can feel it!

Here's what I think we can all agree on:

-A 6er an evening just isn't that excessive, even though it might be bad for the drinker.

-The law, while passed with good intentions, is invasive at best and Orwellian at worst.

-The doctor was indeed following the law, but on the other hand, who would have known if he hadn't said a thing?

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Theakston
So will you be voting for Tony Blair or the Conservative party in the next election?;)

If I was a resident of the UK I would.

Originally posted by Tom C
there are many laws still on the books that are not followed....MA law requiring bathing daily, states not allowing a man to walk down the street with a married woman. Still technically laws but not followed. Also, people have the power not to follow laws through many means of peaceful protests.

I agree, there are laws that are not being followed and as well they are not being enforced and while people may protest a law peacfully the government at the same time has the right to arrest or cite those who are in contravention of the law.

Your barking up the wrong tree here. Nothing you post is going to make me see things any different then I do. The doctor followed the law and since it is a law there was no breach of doctor/patient confidentiality. You do not have to like it but it is there. You are trying to put the cart before the horse and go after the Doctor when in reaility if you want to address the issue you need to take it to the state capitol.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by fretlessman71

-The doctor was indeed following the law, but on the other hand, who would have known if he hadn't said a thing?

Would you advocate that stance had this been a doctor reporting child abuse or a sex crime?

[newportstorm]

Originally posted by Tom C
there are many laws still on the books that are not followed....MA law requiring bathing daily, states not allowing a man to walk down the street with a married woman. Still technically laws but not followed. Also, people have the power not to follow laws through many means of peaceful protests.


With respect, you've gone from one extreme to the other. From laws that singled out and stigmatized whole groups/races to the utterly (by today's standards) ridiculous. While I may not want to ride on the subway with you after your not bathing for days on end, who gives a shit? Want to walk around town with someone else's spouse? Feel free to drop in for a beer. Whether simply listing them as examples or comparing them directly, they are not in the same league as this current law.

I said before that the doctor could have let it slide. But he had concerns about the health of his patient and it's possble effect on others and, under the law, was required to report it. Had he not and something happened as a result, how would the doc feel? And if a reason arose to indicate the doc knew important info but didn't pass it on, his license to practice medicine could be in jeopardy. We have no way of knowing whether the doc struggled over this issue or not as the brief article is short on many details. But the words doctor, law, malpractice & revoke probably ran through the doc's mind as he made that phone call.

Glad this topic is getting some good debate but I'll bow out with these points:

-I don't think the doc was wrong
-The law itself has good intentions but may be vague and too open to interpretation
-The DMV blows for not immediately contacting this guy and offering a hearing of some sort - they seem to be the real a-holes here, though they too may be constrained by that law.

Cheers!

[unkle bik]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
And newport's right about the state and their stupid laws - this is the same state that requires you to buy an entire case of beer at a time because the lobbyists have won out in Harrisburg! GRRRR....

Amen to that!
Stupid draconian laws.
My wife & I toured the Latrobe brewery several years back. Very nice tour (better than their beer) and gift shop. At the end of the tour, the tour guide asked if we had any questions. I asked where we could get some samples.

We were directed to a bar several miles away. Some stoopid Pa. law made it forbidden to serve any beer at a brewery.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by unkle bik
Amen to that!
Stupid draconian laws.
My wife & I toured the Latrobe brewery several years back. Very nice tour (better than their beer) and gift shop. At the end of the tour, the tour guide asked if we had any questions. I asked where we could get some samples.

We were directed to a bar several miles away. Some stoopid Pa. law made it forbidden to serve any beer at a brewery. Well, of course! You might not be inspired to buy a case at jacked-up prices if you had a sample! :D

[Theakston]

Originally posted by unkle bik
Amen to that!
Stupid draconian laws.
My wife & I toured the Latrobe brewery several years back. Very nice tour (better than their beer) and gift shop. At the end of the tour, the tour guide asked if we had any questions. I asked where we could get some samples.

We were directed to a bar several miles away. Some stoopid Pa. law made it forbidden to serve any beer at a brewery.
That's odd --- I've drank on the premises and got outsales at several PA breweries: Victory, Sly Fox, Mackenzies...has the law been changed?

[Tom C]

just another situation of the large Amish Lobbying corporations keeping PA in check.

Tom C

[steveh]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Would you advocate that stance had this been a doctor reporting child abuse or a sex crime?

Again, we're back to equalizing what may to what has happened. I don't see how anyone can be punished for the possibility of a crime. Ask a cop, "probable cause" only covers so much.

I think the Penn law makers have been taking Philip K. Dick just a little too seriously.

S.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Tom C
just another situation of the large Amish Lobbying corporations keeping PA in check.

You sure that you don't write for The Onion? ;)

S.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by Theakston
That's odd --- I've drank on the premises and got outsales at several PA breweries: Victory, Sly Fox, Mackenzies...has the law been changed? Straub has been giving tastings since the 1970s.

[steveh]

So I got to thinking, I wonder where the ACLU might stand on all this? They tend to step into any perceived rights violation they can find. Not one mention at their national site, or the local Penn ACLU site.

Then, seeing a sidebar about the Patriot Act, I remembered - isn't the "father" of that legislation a Pennsylvania politician?

S.

[Theakston]

Originally posted by Tom C
just another situation of the large Amish Lobbying corporations keeping PA in check.

Tom C

No! they didn't take his buggy operators licence too did they?:confused:

[Tom C]

Originally posted by steveh
Again, we're back to equalizing what may to what has happened. I don't see how anyone can be punished for the possibility of a crime. Ask a cop, "probable cause" only covers so much.

I think the Penn law makers have been taking Philip K. Dick just a little too seriously.

S.

Finally, someone who gets it!

Tom C

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by steveh
Again, we're back to equalizing what may to what has happened. I don't see how anyone can be punished for the possibility of a crime. Ask a cop, "probable cause" only covers so much.

I think the Penn law makers have been taking Philip K. Dick just a little too seriously.

S.

I am not talking about the possibility of a crime, I am addressing the doctor/patient relationship. In some cases there is no recognized confidence. If someone reports a rape, child abuse or shows up wounded by gunfire the doctor MUST report this to the authorities yet that is not a breach of privilege. In the case of the doc reporting the alcohol use he was JUST DOING HIS JOB! Seems that you all want to jump knee deep into the doc for doing his legal duties.

Since many of you want to harp on the issue of no crime being committed, have you not also read that the man was given options that would have allowed him to keep his license? He refused. They did not just step in and say "oh, you drink to much give us your license."

[steveh]

BrewM. There's no way I can begin to compare a doctor discovering obvious evidence of child abuse to the possibility of DWI. The bottom line is that this guy was never convicted of anything and had his license suspended based on hearsay.

Yes, the doctor was "doing his job," but I don't think the law that requires that particular aspect of his diagnosis is at all right. It's a breach of privacy.

And I'd bet that the cat refused the breathalizer operated vehicle under advisement from a lawyer - saying yes to that could possibly be considered admitting guilt.

S.

[hops99]

Again, we're back to equalizing what may to what has happened. I don't see how anyone can be punished for the possibility of a crime.

This was the premise of the futuristic Spielberg movie that came out a few years ago with Tom Cruise - can't remember the title, though.

AFA Pa. beer laws are concerned, it doesn't get much worse (well....with the possible exception of Utah and Oklahoma). Up until a few years ago, you weren't even allowed to use a CREDIT CARD to purchase beer in the Keystone State!

[newportstorm]

Here's an article that mixes opinion with fact. Interesting:

http://www.plastic.com/comments.html;sid=04/07/15/16243717;cid=49

Seems odd that the PennDOT must have known about this months before they sent a notice to Mr. Emerich - it is required by law for the doc to make a report within 10 days of the exam. Also strange that they'd suspend his license effective some random date in the future (May 6). If he's deemed a danger, isn't he dangerous now? Looks like PennDOT laid a big smelly one here.

Cheers!

[newportstorm]

Originally posted by hops99
This was the premise of the futuristic Spielberg movie that came out a few years ago with Tom Cruise - can't remember the title, though.

Minority Report (2002). Not a bad flick.

Cheers!

[threecb]

Hence steveh's remark about "taking Philip K. Dick a little too seriously".

He was the author of the original story that Minority Report was based on, as well as some other bleak futuristic fare...

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by steveh
BrewM. There's no way I can begin to compare a doctor discovering obvious evidence of child abuse to the possibility of DWI. The bottom line is that this guy was never convicted of anything and had his license suspended based on hearsay.

Yes, the doctor was "doing his job," but I don't think the law that requires that particular aspect of his diagnosis is at all right. It's a breach of privacy.

And I'd bet that the cat refused the breathalizer operated vehicle under advisement from a lawyer - saying yes to that could possibly be considered admitting guilt.

S.

As I understand it the doc was not so much concerned with the DUI/DWI as he was about the alcohol in relation to the heart condition. We also do not know what if any meds this man may have to be on that are contraindicated to alcohol. Lots of what ifs yet everyone is ready to burn this doc at the stake for following the law. I know when I was down for my back a ton of the meds I was on were not something to be taken with alcohol in any amount. Some irregular heartbeats are controlled through medication, Moricizine is one that seems to be popular (I called my doctor about this) and it alone has warnings about operating a car. Like I said before, we do not have all the information and most likely never will. The media would never sell a paper if they gave it all to you.


You can also put the shoe on the other foot. What if this man did have an incident to which the doctor turned a blind eye as previously mentioned by Fret. Had something happened you would all still be banging down the docs door to drag him to the stake. He is screwed either way and it is not his fault.

I also never said I agreed with the law as written or even in concept. I do however agree that since it is a law and the doc was aware of it, he was required to report it.

[fretlessman71]

Yeah... this doctor was Damned if he did, and Damned if he didn't. What's a guy to do?

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
Yeah... this doctor was Damned if he did, and Damned if he didn't. What's a guy to do?

Which is what I am saying. If the doc reports it he is at the butt of ridicule but if he did not report it and something happens he runs the risk of having his medical licence brought under review or worse.

Take it to the lawmakers! Where was the opposition when this was passed? Living in a state that is still very prohibitionist we spend a lot of time talking to the reps and others about the crap they try to get through. My state has 105 counties, 39 of them are dry and another 53 have a food requirement (30% of gross recipets must be food) to sell liquor by the drink. That leaves 13 counties as not having any requirements and you can buy liquor by the drink at any bar.

[unkle bik]

So what's next?
A man hurts his back lifting something out his truck. He goes to his doctor and is prescribed Vicodin. The next thing the doctor is going to do report this guy to the DMV?
What about patients who take tranquilizers everyday for anxiety?
Will they be forbiden to drive also?

Will this change they way YOU answer the doctor's question?
"How many alcoholic bevreages do you consume everyday?"

This thing is going to open up a big can of worms.

[steveh]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
As I understand it the doc was not so much concerned with the DUI/DWI as he was about the alcohol in relation to the heart condition. We also do not know what if any meds this man may have to be on that are contraindicated to alcohol.

Maybe, and if the doc was reporting because of meds or the condition itself, fine - but PennDOT revoked his license for "substance abuse," not possible heart failure.

And I don't want to hang the doctor so much as question the rule he's forced to play by.

And if the man had an incident, after being instructed that he shouldn't drive or drink while taking the meds, it's his own fault - no one else's. This starts to fall into taking responsibility for one's own actions - something that seems pretty extinct these days.

S.

[steveh]

Originally posted by unkle bik
So what's next?
A man hurts his back lifting something out his truck. He goes to his doctor and is prescribed Vicodin. The next thing the doctor is going to do report this guy to the DMV?
What about patients who take tranquilizers everyday for anxiety?
Will they be forbiden to drive also?

But see, this is the more obvious reason to report the patient, "I have prescribed anti-depressants to my patient and these have been known to cause impaired driving. Based on the duration of the prescription, it may be advisable to suspend his driving privileges."

Not, "My patient has revealed to me that he often partakes in 6 alcoholic beverages at home each evening. Though he's never taken the opportunity to joy-ride in his vehicle afterward, you never know..." And that's probably not what was said, but that's certainly how it sounds PennDOT interpreted it.

S.

[modelo]

Steve, your question raises another: do beer drinkers have a lobby? Brewers do, but--what about consumers? We need a national legislative analyst to monitor laws like this in all fifty states. We need a guy or gal in the Gov's office (I don't even know who it is) telling him what a fouled up law this is, and saying, "You know what, clown? Beer drinkers are not going to turn out for you if this law stays on the books."

[Tom C]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
I am not talking about the possibility of a crime, I am addressing the doctor/patient relationship. In some cases there is no recognized confidence. If someone reports a rape, child abuse or shows up wounded by gunfire the doctor MUST report this to the authorities yet that is not a breach of privilege. In the case of the doc reporting the alcohol use he was JUST DOING HIS JOB! Seems that you all want to jump knee deep into the doc for doing his legal duties.

Since many of you want to harp on the issue of no crime being committed, have you not also read that the man was given options that would have allowed him to keep his license? He refused. They did not just step in and say "oh, you drink to much give us your license."

Brew Monkey,

It has everything to do with government overstepping their boundries. I have said nothing in regards to the doctor but you keep on insisting that I am. The situations you bring up...rape...a crime WAS committed. Child Abuse....a crime WAS committed. Gunshot wound....extreme high probabilty that a crime of some nature WAS committed. But drinking a six pack in the confines of your own home with or without a heart condition when of legal age ...take that Liberalism elsewhere!

Tom C

[modelo]

Tom, let's not assign protection of this stripe to liberalism in general. I would submit that the people who are trying to roll back draconian marijuana laws, for instance, are not rabid conservatives. Classic liberalism aspires to protect not just poeple, but especially people's inalienable rights.

[wortchillergoal]

Originally posted by chazwicke
Not too exacerbate the argument, But, It could be argued that driving has become and indeed is a right.

You may have a valid point there Chazwicke. I took my position as I have not heard of any challenge made to prove it.

We have all made a mistake, unless I missed it, but drinking is a right. Since Prohibition was dealt with throught the Constitution, it must be a right. I know it made the manufacture and sale illegal, but if they make and sell it, they know we are going to consume it. So I believe drinking must be a right. Since they couldn't forefit his right, they wen't after his privilege.

I still stand with brewmonkey. This doctor followed the law. The law may need some reworking, I agree. If this doctor did not report and this guy killed some person, the doctor would be liable.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Tom C
Brew Monkey,

It has everything to do with government overstepping their boundries. I have said nothing in regards to the doctor but you keep on insisting that I am. The situations you bring up...rape...a crime WAS committed. Child Abuse....a crime WAS committed. Gunshot wound....extreme high probabilty that a crime of some nature WAS committed. But drinking a six pack in the confines of your own home with or without a heart condition when of legal age ...take that Liberalism elsewhere!

Tom C

Your reply quotes my reply to Steve. I never insisted that you said anything about the Doc, but rather that in general everyone keeps bringing up the doc.

The situation is simple. The doc did not overstep any bounds of doctor/patient privilege as there was a law. Wether or not we agree with the law is moot in that respect. I have not said that I agree with the law in any way shape or form.

[chazwicke]

I'm with brewmonkey on this one. I see his point. Not saying I agree with the law. But until it is changed the doc was obligated.

[Tom C]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Your reply quotes my reply to Steve. I never insisted that you said anything about the Doc, but rather that in general everyone keeps bringing up the doc.

The situation is simple. The doc did not overstep any bounds of doctor/patient privilege as there was a law. Wether or not we agree with the law is moot in that respect. I have not said that I agree with the law in any way shape or form.

I guess this is where you and I are different. You, on one hand, will oblige if written and persuaded to be the right thing by some because it is written in stone whereas I don't necessarily believe this is the case at all times. Perhaps you obide by the speed limit at all times never overstepping the bounds of the posted signs. It is law, right? One must stand up time from time in what he/she feels is simply the right thing to do regardless of what the law or others may think. This, perhaps, is why the man did not accept other ramifications as you alluded to in previous posts. He may, as would I have, felt that if he accepted other stipulations that this was acceptance on his part of being in the wrong in the first place which, apparently, we both agree he was not. Self dignity rides above all. There is no law higher.

To sit by idly and accept the practice is an injustice not only to this individual but is an attack on our personal liberties as a whole. If this precedent is set and allowed, what next? An old writing ends with this phrase....and when they came for me there was no one left to speak up for me. It is for this very reason that we (you and I) should stand up and put down such unwarranted oppresion upon our liberties and personal freedom. Let us not forget that government in our country is of the people, by the people, for the people. If we, the people, decide (as I have not heard any disagreement within these posts) that this is unlawful, then let it be law no more!

Tom C

[brewmonkey]

Again you have missed my point and now are putting words into my mouth. I do not oblige because something is written down and set in stone. If I feel something is not right then I do not break the law, I try to change the law. Just because you feel the law is immoral it does not give you the right to do as you please. If that were the case then anyone can pick and choose the laws they disagree with. I have posted that several times but now you seem to just be posting for the sake of arguing.

When it comes to driving the speed limit I have to say no, I do not obey it. Of course I also do not drive as my back injury has left me with permenant nerve damage that causes muscle spasms in my legs and makes driving something of a problem.

Don't try to make yourself out to be some rebelious person who stands up for the little guy or even that you are better then anyone else. I know exactly what this country is made up of. I spent 17 years as a military brat and then the next 9 after that wearing the big green tick. Since you seem to be bent on the government of the people, by the people and for the people, what have you done for your government? This is not a shit stirring question either. You have tried to make yourself look like a patriot of the people, so I ask you what have you done for them.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by modelo
We need a guy or gal in the Gov's office (I don't even know who it is)...
You're KIDDING.... you never heard of Arnold Schwarzenegger?

[Tom C]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Since you seem to be bent on the government of the people, by the people and for the people, what have you done for your government? This is not a shit stirring question either. You have tried to make yourself look like a patriot of the people, so I ask you what have you done for them.

First off, I wish more people like your self were more "bent" on a government that represents its people. After all, is that such a bad thing? Thank you for your service in the military. It has provided me the opportunity to be "bent" on such issues pertaining to civil liberties in a manner that is lawful.

I too served our country for 8 years, am active in local/state governement and have chosen a profession that I believe will have lasting impact upon our society, teaching. Above all, I would like children to be free thinkers who are able to come to conclusions on their own rather than accepting things at face value because someone else is telling them so. Should a child feel so compelled to stand up for what they feel is right and that they feel they have done no wrong. I hope they would make a stand. For it is the beginning stages of how one makes a necessary change. These are to name a few. However, to engage in such a character dialouge would be well off point and away from the original thread. It amazes me that when someone's ideas and opinions are placed into question they retaliate by placing into question another's character.

Tom C

[modelo]

I'm entertained by the discussion. Typically, beer speeds along civil disobedience. Rarely has it become the subject of civil disobedience itself.

To me, the doctor's first obligation is to the patient, to healing--and second is to the state.

A doctor who said, "I feel obliged to report you to the state, because of this law--but before I do, I'll give you thirty days to find a new doctor if you'd like to try your luck with someone else, who may not choose to report you," would be fulfilling her obligation to both patient and state. Such an approach would be first and foremost an approach dedicated to healing the patient; it plants the urgency of the "diagnosis" in his mind, but also lets the patient control his own health. Patients should not be blindsided by doctors, and this patient clearly was.

A professional consultation is one that is supposed to be made in confidence. When trust breaks down between doctor and patient to the degree that the doctor is going to snitch out the patient to government authorities, it's incumbent of the doctor to announce his intentions to the patient first.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Tom C
First off, I wish more people like your self were more "bent" on a government that represents its people. After all, is that such a bad thing? Thank you for your service in the military. It has provided me the opportunity to be "bent" on such issues pertaining to civil liberties in a manner that is lawful.



You do not have a clue about what "people like myself" do or have done when it comes to government. I too have spent many volunteer hours working with my local government and have sat as the President/Director of several of those organizations. Again you try to make yourself look better by degarding those around you.

I too served our country for 8 years, am active in local/state governement and have chosen a profession that I believe will have lasting impact upon our society, teaching.

An honorable profession indeed. I have spent many hours in the classroom as a teachers aid and and with the "parents as teachers" program in my community.

Above all, I would like children to be free thinkers who are able to come to conclusions on their own rather than accepting things at face value because someone else is telling them so. Should a child feel so compelled to stand up for what they feel is right and that they feel they have done no wrong. I hope they would make a stand. For it is the beginning stages of how one makes a necessary change. These are to name a few. However, to engage in such a character dialouge would be well off point and away from the original thread.

I have no problems with teaching our children to think for themselves, it is after all how this country came to be what is.

It amazes me that when someone's ideas and opinions are placed into question they retaliate by placing into question another's character.

Retaliate by questioning character? I did no such thing. I asked you a simple question about what have you done. You try to make yourself sound like some great hero we should all worship because you stand up for yourself, or more because you think we do not stand up for ourselves. The fact remains that you have stated You, on one hand, will oblige if written and persuaded to be the right thing by some because it is written in stone whereas I don't necessarily believe this is the case at all times. which I can only take as you passing judgment on me. You have not the slightest clue about me and yet in a few posts you have the balls to sum me up in a sentence or two? I never questioned your character yet you have attacked mine. Looks to me that you cannot take what you like to dish out.

All this because you do not agree with my opinion(which you do not have to). Seems that you are the one who needs to relook at how this country is. I am free to think and do as I please within the confines of the law. When there is a law I think is bogus I do not just dismiss it and do as I please. I take it up with those who have the ability to change it. Trust me, it works. I have seen it with my own eyes. Yet you will sit here and try to cram your liberal beliefs down my throat. My guess is because you see that I am very conservative in my views. Hell, here is one for you to spaz over I VOTE A STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN TICKET!

[unkle bik]

The problem with this arguement, is it was made on a "presumption", rather than any "evidence" of a crime comitted.

[unkle bik]

Originally posted by brewmonkey

Hell, here is one for you to spaz over I VOTE A STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN TICKET!

Question authority.
Blind faith in ANY government is foolish and unsafe to those followers.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by unkle bik
Question authority.
Blind faith in ANY government is foolish and unsafe to those followers.

Questioning authority is perfectly fine, provided it is done in a manner that does not break the laws. However you are entitled to your opinions as I am mine. I do not subscribe to your theory. It is also not blind faith if I believe in the ideals of my particular party, it is why we have a multi party system.

[unkle bik]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Questioning authority is perfectly fine, provided it is done in a manner that does not break the laws. However you are entitled to your opinions as I am mine. I do not subscribe to your theory. It is also not blind faith if I believe in the ideals of my particular party, it is why we have a multi party system.

You are the under the assumption that by anytime anybody questions authority, you are immediately breaking a law. This country has provisions to to challenge authority in a lawful manner.

You have your right to subscribe any party you want ,as do I. But when one joins a party and begins to find their ideals aren't reperesented, you have a choice to:
1. Move to the other party.
2. Question the party you belong to move in a different direction.
3. Become independent and think for yourself.

If your party decided to ban beer except for those products made by Anhoser-Bush or Spiller, would you blindly go along with such reasoning?
I know it is far-fetched question I asked, but it was for sake of trying to make my point.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by unkle bik
You are the under the assumption that by anytime anybody questions authority, you are immediately breaking a law. This country has provisions to to challenge authority in a lawful manner.

You have your right to subscribe any party you want ,as do I. But when one joins a party and begins to find their ideals aren't reperesented, you have a choice to:
1. Move to the other party.
2. Question the party you belong to move in a different direction.
3. Become independent and think for yourself.

If your party decided to ban beer except for those products made by Anhoser-Bush or Spiller, would you blindly go along with such reasoning?
I know it is far-fetched question I asked, but it was for sake of trying to make my point.

Sorry not under that assumption at all as well I said you can go ahead and question authority, it can be done in a lawful manner. I am all about keeping our politicians in check by following up with them and challenge them when you disagree. Show me where I said that by anytime anybody questions authority, you are immediately breaking a law.

If you join a party and find that the parties ideals are not your own then by all means switch or even start your own party. I have no problems with that.

I never said I go blindly along, once again someone assumes. I have had issues with my party and I have addressed them with the elected officials that were in a position to do something about it.

My belief in voting a straight ticket has nothing to do with the fact that I can't or do not think for myself. It simple means that I agree with the basic principles of that party. Once again you assume.

[unkle bik]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Sorry not under that assumption at all as well I said you can go ahead and question authority, it can be done in a lawful manner. I am all about keeping our politicians in check by following up with them and challenge them when you disagree. Show me where I said that by anytime anybody questions authority, you are immediately breaking a law.


My belief in voting a straight ticket has nothing to do with the fact that I can't or do not think for myself. It simple means that I agree with the basic principles of that party. Once again you assume.

1. I should have left the first paragraph off. I think you made your point in your first rebuttal. My bad.
2. One the second paragraph i did not assume. When you vote along straight party lines, you are voting with ALL the prinicples of that party. Whether you agree with 98% or 100% of those principles.

Good discussion, BTW. Even though we have strayed from the original topic.

[brewmonkey]

It is a good topic and while at times it can be tense it has not disintegrated into a flat out "screw you" match. One of the many things I like about this site is just that, topics can be discussed without anyone really being offended.

I will have to disagree with you though on the party principles. You have to take the good with the bad sometimes. Did you vote in the last election? Did anyone you voted for who made it into office hold 100% of your values and ideals? I highly doubt it, but you still voted for him/her.

[unkle bik]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
It is a good topic and while at times it can be tense it has not disintegrated into a flat out "screw you" match. One of the many things I like about this site is just that, topics can be discussed without anyone really being offended.


That is one thing I will agree 100% with you on.:)
So many sites end up in pissing matches when it comes to topics as heated as politics. Heck, some even end up in flame-throwing experiments of over what car brand is better!

Says a lot about the maturity of this board's members.

BTW, I do vote on every occasion. I find it to be more effective to get involved with politics on a local level. It's the local level where you notice it's affects and you make more of a difference.
Hence, the "Question authority remark."

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by unkle bik
That is one thing I will agree 100% with you on.
So many sites end up in pissing matches when it comes to topics as heated as politics. Heck, some even end up in flame-throwing experiments of over what car brand is better!

Says a lot about the maturity of this board's members.

Yes it does.





And we all know that Ford is the best. :D

[Beaver]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
It is a good topic and while at times it can be tense it has not disintegrated into a flat out "screw you" match. One of the many things I like about this site is just that, topics can be discussed without anyone really being offended.

I will have to disagree with you though on the party principles. You have to take the good with the bad sometimes. Did you vote in the last election? Did anyone you voted for who made it into office hold 100% of your values and ideals? I highly doubt it, but you still voted for him/her.

I never agree with a candidate 100%. That's why I don't vote blindly on parties. I research each contest and vote based off candidate's principles rather than party principles. I think the 2 party system sucks.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Beaver
I never agree with a candidate 100%. That's why I don't vote blindly on parties. I research each contest and vote based off candidate's principles rather than party principles. I think the 2 party system sucks.

The only time you will see me vote other then republican is when a dem or other party is running unopposed in which case I vote for my father. I have seen in my small town some funny stuff on voting. We had a year where someone was not running, had no interest in running and still got enough write in votes to move on to the general election. LOL!

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
...
And we all know that Ford is the best. :D

Know what Chevrolet stands for?

Can
hear
every
valve
rod
or
lifter
every
time

I've been a Ford man for as long as I can remember.

[Beaver]

I guess voting straight party ticket would make things easier, but it seems irresponsible to me. I vote for the best person for the job. I have voted for at least 4 different parties.

It would be nice if others did this as well. I think we would get better people into office, rather than the polished politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouth. The lack of quality candidates causes people to vote against someone rather than for someone.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Beaver
I guess voting straight party ticket would make things easier, but it seems irresponsible to me. I vote for the best person for the job. I have voted for at least 4 different parties.

It would be nice if others did this as well. I think we would get better people into office, rather than the polished politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouth. The lack of quality candidates causes people to vote against someone rather than for someone.

The biggest thing and I am sure we all agree on this is actually voting. Last presidential election should be proof that every vote counts. Hell we just had the primaries here and 2 candidates running for the Republican nomination for the 3rd district were only 81 votes apart. It was something like 33,200 to 33,109, very close call.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Fast_Eddy
Know what Chevrolet stands for?

Can
hear
every
valve
rod
or
lifter
every
time

I've been a Ford man for as long as I can remember.

My first car was a Ford and I drove the crap out of it. The next was a Toyota and at 33K miles it went down hard. When my wife went to work for Ford I was in heaven, any vehicle I wanted on the A plan as well as Ford employee APR of 4.9% or less! While she was working for them we would keep one car on purchase and the other on a lease.

[unkle bik]

Originally posted by Beaver
I guess voting straight party ticket would make things easier, but it seems irresponsible to me. I vote for the best person for the job. I have voted for at least 4 different parties.

It would be nice if others did this as well. I think we would get better people into office, rather than the polished politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouth. The lack of quality candidates causes people to vote against someone rather than for someone.

I agree. And i get really irritated when I have to declare a party to vote in a primary. I must have changed party affiliations 4 times in the past 5 years to make sure I voted for the PERSON, not the party.

The problem with politicians is they try to be something for everybody. I would rather vote for a candidate who speaks HIS mind, rather have him worry about how many people he can potentially piss off by speaking his mind. We then ending up voting for the worst of two candidates, rather the the better.

Substance vs. style for me. Teddy Roosevelt was the last non-BS president we had. We could use a guy like him, now
Wow, we are way off track, now.

[Beaver]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
The biggest thing and I am sure we all agree on this is actually voting. Last presidential election should be proof that every vote counts. Hell we just had the primaries here and 2 candidates running for the Republican nomination for the 3rd district were only 81 votes apart. It was something like 33,200 to 33,109, very close call.

Good point. We had a primary here for State House that was 2316 to 2314. Needless to say it's going to a recount.

[Beaver]

Originally posted by unkle bik
I agree. And i get really irritated when I have to declare a party to vote in a primary. I must have changed party affiliations 4 times in the past 5 years to make sure I voted for the PERSON, not the party.

The problem with politicians is they try to be something for everybody. I would rather vote for a candidate who speaks HIS mind, rather have him worry about how many people he can potentially piss off by speaking his mind. We then ending up voting for the worst of two candidates, rather the the better.

Substance vs. style for me. Teddy Roosevelt was the last non-BS president we had. We could use a guy like him, now
Wow, we are way off track, now.

I agree completely! I hate always switching my registration for primaries. I should be able to declare Independent and then just go in and pick up one of the ballots. I do understand why they don't want people to vote in both though.

I think John McCain would make a good President. He's a non-BS guy for the most part.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by unkle bik
I agree. And i get really irritated when I have to declare a party to vote in a primary. I must have changed party affiliations 4 times in the past 5 years to make sure I voted for the PERSON, not the party.

The problem with politicians is they try to be something for everybody. I would rather vote for a candidate who speaks HIS mind, rather have him worry about how many people he can potentially piss off by speaking his mind. We then ending up voting for the worst of two candidates, rather the the better.

Substance vs. style for me. Teddy Roosevelt was the last non-BS president we had. We could use a guy like him, now
Wow, we are way off track, now.

I agree that with Primaries you should not have to declare a party. For those who want to vote there mind it may mean a candidate from different parties.

Another election issue I have is the way many states handle electoral votes. Some are seeing the light and awarding them based on actual popular vote percentages. All the electoral college does right now is guarantee that candidates will only hit the key states. They heavily hit Missouri because of it, in fact Missouri is the only state and I believe it was for the last 6 elections, picked the President based on the way the state voted (I hope that makes sense as the Lortab just kicked in).

I would like to see a system where no single state is key as it will force the candidates to campaign nationwide. What happened to the old whistlestop tours where they hit as many states as possible?

It would also be nice to see some limit on campaign days allowed. Right now we have 2 men running for President who have another job to do. Kerry is missing critical votes and I am sure that the President has had to put off some key issues needing attention to be out on the trail.

While I do not care for Lieberman much I thought he was a standup guy for realizing that if he was going to be serious about getting into the Whitehouse then he needed to resign his seat so that he would have the time to dedicate to the campaign as well it would mean the people who put him there would also have the representation they expected when they did put him there.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Beaver
I agree completely! I hate always switching my registration for primaries. I should be able to declare Independent and then just go in and pick up one of the ballots. I do understand why they don't want people to vote in both though.

I think John McCain would make a good President. He's a non-BS guy for the most part.

I think he would make an outstanding candidate and if he picked Colin Powell as his running mate they could possibly win it. I would even bet beer that they could run independent and be the first 3rd party to win the White House.

At least with them we know that there is not a single question about their military service! :D

[unkle bik]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
I think he would make an outstanding candidate and if he picked Colin Powell as his running mate they could possibly win it. I would even bet beer that they could run independent and be the first 3rd party to win the White House.

At least with them we know that there is not a single question about their military service! :D

Well, you just got another person to vote for that ticket!

My guess is that if that ticket were entered today, it would garner at least a 30% share.

It's amazing how much time is spent with two current candidates and the milatary record issue. If they spent that much time and energy on figuring out:
1. The hornet's nest in Iraq
2. The economy taking a dump.
3. Rising health care costs.

They might actually get my vote.

[brewmonkey]

Maybe it is time to start the realbeer platform! :D

[newportstorm]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
My first car was a Ford and I drove the crap out of it. The next was a Toyota and at 33K miles it went down hard. When my wife went to work for Ford I was in heaven, any vehicle I wanted on the A plan as well as Ford employee APR of 4.9% or less! While she was working for them we would keep one car on purchase and the other on a lease.

I am not a Ford man. My whole family used to be. My first car was a Ford - was OK until about 65,000. From there on, it was a huge can of worms. Got $100 for it when I dumped it at 120,000 miles. Bought a Honda (still strong at 165,000) and haven't looked back...the rest of my family has moved on as well. Too bad as they do come out with some decent looking cars - anyone see the Forty-Nine concept? Sweet.

http://www.detnews.com/pix/2001/01/08/autoshow/ford49a.jpg

[modelo]

Brewmonkey, since you broached the subject:

What exactly is it about the Republican Party that you like so much that you would never consider voting for anything else?

[brewmonkey]

Military funding and foreign policy would certainly be in the top of the list. As well I do not care for the democrats ideas of big government or the fact that they passed the largest tax increase (1993) in the US. They were at one time so bad about it they earned the nickname of "tax and spend liberals."

Democrats have cut and slashed the military to what it has become. If we had tried to fight the gulf war with Clinton in office there is no way we would have made it. Democrats cut defense spending and draw down the military. The problems we face right now in OIF/OEF are due large and in part to slick willies kinder gentler army and the reduction in force he presided over.

This is obviously just a short list of why but nonetheless important ones in my book. There are taxes, small business initiatives, abortion etc...

If any one thing turned me to the republican party it would have to be slick willy and the way I saw him treat the military while he was in office. Simple things like Task Force Ranger help define what I have come to expect of democrats. He sent them into Somalia to do a mission. A tough one at that, and when the shit hit the fan he did not respond accordingly. It was his actions or rather inactions that led to the deaths of our men. How did he respond to the situation? He denied he even knew the raid was going down and rather then being a standup guy he put all the blame directly on MG Garrison.

[brewmonkey]

http://www.gop.com/images/lang_0706.jpg

[brewmonkey]

http://www.gop.com/images/nowak_0305.jpg

Just some humor I thought some of you might enjoy.

[modelo]

So, let me get this right, Brewmonkey. You would never vote for a Democrat anywhere, ever, because of the way Clinton handled Somalia, and because of abortion, and military cuts in the 1990's, and the prospect of taxing and spending. Is that right? If so, do you care to rank those in order of why you would never vote for any Democrat, ever?

I'm also wondering if you ever went to college. I'm not trying to patronize you, but I am curious why you are so extremely Republican.

[Beaver]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Military funding and foreign policy would certainly be in the top of the list. As well I do not care for the democrats ideas of big government or the fact that they passed the largest tax increase (1993) in the US. They were at one time so bad about it they earned the nickname of "tax and spend liberals."

Democrats have cut and slashed the military to what it has become. If we had tried to fight the gulf war with Clinton in office there is no way we would have made it. Democrats cut defense spending and draw down the military. The problems we face right now in OIF/OEF are due large and in part to slick willies kinder gentler army and the reduction in force he presided over.

This is obviously just a short list of why but nonetheless important ones in my book. There are taxes, small business initiatives, abortion etc...

If any one thing turned me to the republican party it would have to be slick willy and the way I saw him treat the military while he was in office. Simple things like Task Force Ranger help define what I have come to expect of democrats. He sent them into Somalia to do a mission. A tough one at that, and when the shit hit the fan he did not respond accordingly. It was his actions or rather inactions that led to the deaths of our men. How did he respond to the situation? He denied he even knew the raid was going down and rather then being a standup guy he put all the blame directly on MG Garrison.

I agree about big gov't, but Repubs have been just as guilty on that issue. They just increase deficits and debt to pay for it later rather than paying for it now with taxes.

[brewmonkey]

Yes, I did go to college and no Clinton's handling of Somalia is not the only reason I dislike the democratic party but he is indicitave of the ideals within the democratic party that I do not care for. Kerry is another one in the dem party that shows exactly what I dislike about the party.

http://www.kerryoniraq.com

College had no bearing on my political affiliation as I went to college after spending 9 years in the Army and 17 as an Army brat.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Beaver
I agree about big gov't, but Repubs have been just as guilty on that issue. They just increase deficits and debt to pay for it later rather than paying for it now with taxes.

Niether has gotten it right IMHO but then again when it comes to government spending I don't think many would get it right at all.

Funny thing though, the government is allowed to operate at a deficit but if you tried that with your credit card company.......:eek:

Sorry mastercard, ran into a slight budget problem this month.

[modelo]

So if you went to college, and your family drew armed service payroll for seventeen years, and you drew it for nine yourself, that's--let's see--thirty or thirty-one years of your life on government payroll, and you haven't got to social security yet.

But you don't like taxes, and that's all the Democrats' fault, and you'll never vote for any Democrat.

OK. I gotcha. All entitlements are wrong, except the ones that support you directly.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by modelo
So if you went to college, and your family drew armed service payroll for seventeen years, and you drew it for nine yourself, that's--let's see--thirty or thirty-one years of your life on government payroll, and you haven't got to social security yet.

But you don't like taxes, and that's all the Democrats' fault, and you'll never vote for any Democrat.

OK. I gotcha. All entitlements are wrong, except the ones that support you directly.

I see education wasn't wasted on you. 17+9=26 not 30 or 31. Must be the new math they teach now. My time in college was paid for by me. Not sure if you know what the GI Bill is about, but it is not free. You have to pay into it to get anything out of it. In addition there are other contractual obligations that must be met.

First of all being in the military and recieving pay for the services provided is NOT the same as recieving social services. DONT EVER CONFUSE THE TWO. Like usual a liberal steps into the mess and starts to put words into peoples mouths or try to think for them.

Maybe you have not looked at what a soldier gets paid. People do not join the military because of the pay. My last year in the service I was in charge of a 40 man platoon. All aspects of their welfare were my responsibility including the possibility of leading them to war (which we all understood when we enlisted). In the real world that would be a 60-80K a year job. I got about $1800 a month before taxes, and this was not but a few years back. I did not have quarters provided for myself and my family because slick willy cut the funding for it so I was forced to live on the economy but if I did they would take the housing allowannce from me. I did not live in a place where rent was cheap either, I was in SoCal. Many soldiers who are able to work a second job and if they cannot their spouse certainly does. I am sure you also did not know that many people in the US Military live below the poverty line, thanks to liberal cuts and lack of adequate pay raises. The military rarely recieves a raise equal or greater then inflation and every year it gets a little harder for them.


I am not sure where you get off thinking that being in the military is some form of social security. You sound to me like one of those people who praise the fact that we have no draft but you dislike those who choose to serve their country. How arrogant of you.

Social security will long be gone by the time I get to be of age to collect it. Even if it were still functional I doubt that I would have a need for it as I have been saving for my retirement since the day I enlisted.

I never said I did not like taxes, once again some liberal wants to put words into peoples mouths. I have no problem paying taxes but I like my tax breaks. As a self employed person I get it coming and going. Since I own 2 houses I get it even worse. I pay twice the mill levy to the public school that I do not use as my kids go to Catholic school. Why do they go to Catholic school? Because some liberal came up with the grand idea to allow states to do more of their own funding of schools. My state could not keep up and started closing schools and slashing programs like special education. That means the kids are moving at the pace of the slowest learner (which is why I spent time as a parent in the classroom). The schools that remain open fell into the "no child left behind program" because standardized test scores fell below a level set by the federal government. I have never bitched or whined about it and pay my mill levy like the rest do, I have never asked for a voucher program that would allow me to have my kids tuition reduced by that amount.

I am wondering how the rest of my fellow veterans on this board feel about you calling the military social welfare.

[skahtboi]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Last presidential election should be proof that every vote counts.

I couldn't disagree more. The only thing that I learned is that every vote didn't count, and many, in Florida especially, weren't counted. The last presidential election placed a candidate in office who wasn't voted for by the majority of the electorate. The winner lost and the loser won.

[skahtboi]

It seems, however, that somewhere along the line this thread was hijacked! :D

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by skahtboi
I couldn't disagree more. The only thing that I learned is that every vote didn't count, and many, in Florida especially, weren't counted. The last presidential election placed a candidate in office who wasn't voted for by the majority of the electorate. The winner lost and the loser won.

It is not the only time in our history that the popular vote did not decide the votew It is why I said that I would like to see a change in the electoral college to reflect the popular vote. A few states are doing it but we need all on board to make it work. Right now if you carry a major state by even 1 vote you get all the electoral votes. If the system were changed you would recieve the electoral ballots based on the percentage of the popular vote you carried.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by modelo
So if you went to college, and your family drew armed service payroll for seventeen years, and you drew it for nine yourself, that's--let's see--thirty or thirty-one years of your life on government payroll, and you haven't got to social security yet.

But you don't like taxes, and that's all the Democrats' fault, and you'll never vote for any Democrat.

OK. I gotcha. All entitlements are wrong, except the ones that support you directly.

Now I am interested in what are your actual views on the military. You seem to think it to be some form of welfare/social security. I guess you then feel that all the people who work for the federal government are just there for the entitlements. They are nothing more then low lifes who would rather work for the Government then get a "real" job.

Would you rather do away with the military as a whole and sit back and see what happens? You must be a fan of the UN. :rolleyes:

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by Fast_Eddy
Know what Chevrolet stands for?

Can
hear
every
valve
rod
or
lifter
every
time

I've been a Ford man for as long as I can remember.

Found on road dead, Fix or repair daily

I have no particular loyalty. I currently drive an Infinity FX45 but my previous cars have been Avalanche, Blazer, Sonoma all GM or chevy. I bought a 68 Falcon for my son. I buy what I like

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by unkle bik

BTW, I do vote on every occasion. I find it to be more effective to get involved with politics on a local level. It's the local level where you notice it's affects and you make more of a difference.
Hence, the "Question authority remark."

I agree whole heartedly and am active in local campaigns and politics.

[chazwicke]

I like the 2 party system. I used to feel like we should have more choices and will sign petitians to add names to the ballot but the 2 party system has served us pretty well for a long, long time. That said, This really may be the first time that I write in a vote for president or skip it all together.

[hops99]

Found on road dead, Fix or repair daily

Or, as I found out with my Windstar last week: Found On Rural Driveway (dead, that is) :(

I think this thread has officially eclipsed the smoking/no smoking thread several months back on the controversy scale.....

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by chazwicke
I agree whole heartedly and am active in local campaigns and politics.

And no disagreement from me either. I still remain active in the local political scene from helping with campaigns to attending city hall meetings. Actually town/city hall meetings are a must for everyone. You do not have to go them all but as many as you can during the year. I learned more about how dysfunctional the system is by sitting in on the open door meetings.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by hops99
Or, as I found out with my Windstar last week: Found On Rural Driveway (dead, that is)

I think this thread has officially eclipsed the smoking/no smoking thread several months back on the controversy scale.....

I was thinking along the same lines but to make sure I was planning on introducing gay marriage in another page or so. :D

[hops99]

I was thinking along the same lines but to make sure I was planning on introducing gay marriage in another page or so.

Don't forget abortion! ;)

[Fast_Eddy]

HOORAY BEER!!

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Fast_Eddy
HOORAY BEER!!


LOL!

You have to love a thread like this. It is like a bad car accident, you don't want to look but the morbid curiousity gets to you and you just have to.

As long as it does not degenerate into a personl attack flame war it should keep on going. Because regardless of personal political views I have no doubt I could sit ad talk beer with everyone here without letting beliefs get in the way.

[chazwicke]

I, personally, have enjoyed this thread.

[modelo]

Now I am interested in what are your actual views on the military. You seem to think it to be some form of welfare/social security. I guess you then feel that all the people who work for the federal government are just there for the entitlements. They are nothing more then low lifes who would rather work for the Government then get a "real" job.

My view on the military? They're shaped half by my own experiences and half by my father's. I never served in the military; I have worked for defense contractors. My father (http://joyrideswithoutmaps.net/archives/000326.html), on the other hand, was in WWII, in the RCN, from 1939-1945. We both had good feelings about his service, even though he remained reticent about his experiences all his life. He was underpaid, but pay really wasn't a factor when global security was the issue.

We both subsequently had very bad feelings about the US military through the Vietnam era, especially towards the end. We thought troops were largely being lied to, even beyond what passes for "typical" experience, and that the lies necessarily tainted the military, making it less effective. Secrecy is OK, but baldfaced lies are trouble in managing war.

We had a better feeling about the military in the First Gulf War. Then, I was pleased to take a peace dividend through the nineties; the spending cuts didn't bother me at all.

So what I've mainly learned is that one's relationship to the military is a complex thing, that evolves over one's entire life.

Here's where I'm at now: I do think that since the elimination of the draft, the military has indeed provided a patchy, incomplete economic safety net for certain economically vulnerable families who otherwise would not be drawn to military life. Sometimes that net is too wide for all the holes in it--I see those who fell through the holes out on the street all the time in downtown LA. I think optimally the military should be a smaller net with less holes. Fewer men and women, better pay for those in it. (I also think Rumsfeld's insistence in the recent war on keeping the invading force numbers low was an experiment in the military venturing in this direction: smaller net, fewer holes).

As for my feelings on the UN, funny you ask. Right now, I'm reading Churchill's memoirs. One thing it surprised me to learn about Churchill was how much good he thought the League of Nations could do, and how convinced he was that a strong unified force at the League would have forestalled WWII entirely. Now, the League of Nations was always weak--the UN is far stronger, has far more members. Churchill would have saw great promise in today's UN.

I do think the UN does a lot of good at critical times, and is a valuable resource for all countries. Like any institution, it is flawed; so is the Repubican Party, so is Microsoft, so is the Catholic Church. Still, the capacity to do good is somewhere in there, and good is often done.

[Fast_Eddy]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
LOL!

You have to love a thread like this. It is like a bad car accident, you don't want to look but the morbid curiousity gets to you and you just have to.

As long as it does not degenerate into a personl attack flame war it should keep on going. Because regardless of personal political views I have no doubt I could sit ad talk beer with everyone here without letting beliefs get in the way.


Everyone here is smart and contemplative so we don't have a whole bunch of knee-jerk reactions going on. At the same time everyone here is smart and contemplative and unlikely to be swayed one way or the other in this type of forum(and any forum, most likely).

[brewmonkey]

Since you did not spend time in the military you can only assume. You see some of the people on the streets of LA but it is not the military that put them there, It is the person who needs to decide how they want to live. If they are a bona fide honorably discharged vet then they have many resources available to them to make it. The sad fact is many of them choose not to make it and it is why they are no longer in the service. The military is not a day care.

As for the socio-economic factor in the military. Everyone tells me that people from lower income areas make up a big part of the military. Maybe I got lucky and all the units I was in were made up of people like myself (from a middle class family). Did I see a few of my buddies come from the other side of the tracks? Yes I did. Many of them either stayed in the service and are now finishing their 20 years or they have gone on to college and earned a degree and hold a good job. All thanks to their time in the service.


You say you would like to see a smaller military but that is not possible. Every time the UN sends in troops or NATO does so they rely on American troops to be on the ground. Now either we stop sending our men and women to every place needing peacekeepers and downsize or we build it up to maintain. I would reckon that the downsizing did not bother you but it put several hundred thousand men and women out of work. While some of the loss came thorugh natural attrition (ETS & Retirement) and it was further enhanced by reduced recruiting goals the bulk of those who left in the early 90's were forced out of the military. Some of them needed to go away but a good deal of some damned fine soldiers were told thanks but we don't need you anymore. They got what is known as a RIF (reduction in force) or were denied promotion which put them past their RCP (Retention control point) and were forced out of the service for failing to progress. Of course the cut did not hurt you, it wasn't your family that was left scrambling for work. But I did like the way slick willy claimed he created tons of jobs. He had to! He just sent 400,000 people packing from the military.

All I can say about UN operations is they have a begining, a muddle and no end. We have UN peacekeepers all over the world. Many places some people have long since forgot about. Little places like the Sanai where we operate under MoFo (Multi-Force Observers.) Many UN missions end in miserable failure and the rest just never seem to end.

While I thank your father for his service he did not serve in the US military. It is night and day between many countries militaries. I have trained with units from Canada all the way to units from Baltic states. They are all run very different, it is not possible to compare them to each other. Especially since the US military is one of the very few all volunteer military.

I noticed while you were noting what institutions are flawed you specifically left out the democrats. Are you trying to say that they are without flaw? If you read my posts I have already said the GOP is not without flaw, in fact I made a point to say it. How about it? Are the domecrats perfect in your eyes?

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Fast_Eddy
Everyone here is smart and contemplative so we don't have a whole bunch of knee-jerk reactions going on. At the same time everyone here is smart and contemplative and unlikely to be swayed one way or the other in this type of forum(and any forum, most likely).

Yea, nothing like 10 or 20 A type personalities getting together to talk politics. :D

[modelo]

How about it? Are the domecrats perfect in your eyes?

Hell no! In fact, in my eyes, they're the worst, most devious, most morally bankrupt major party in America, except for that other one.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by modelo
How about it? Are the domecrats perfect in your eyes?

Hell no! In fact, in my eyes, they're the worst, most devious, most morally bankrupt major party in America, except for that other one.

I would have to agree, I don't like the libertarians much either.


















:D

[wortchillergoal]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
I would have to agree, I don't like the libertarians much either.]


Now there is a reason to have a beer.

I have avoided the latter stages of this thread following that train of thought that says never discuss politics or religion when you can talk about beer and/or sex.


Any one up for a convention?















:D

[steveh]

Originally posted by wortchillergoal
Now there is a reason to have a beer.

I have avoided the latter stages of this thread following that train of thought that says never discuss politics or religion when you can talk about beer and/or sex.

Any one up for a convention?

I second this motion - all in favor...

S.

Although, we should probably be careful with the Lager/Ale division too ;)

[DreamWeaver]

ALE.. I mean I. :D

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by wortchillergoal


I'm up for a convention.

[hops99]

Is Lyndon Larouche (sp?) available?

[fretlessman71]

Can I be a centrist; i.e., one who enjoys both lagers AND ales? :D

[brewmonkey]

I am a strict constructionist, I enjoy beer for what it is. :D

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
Can I be a centrist; i.e., one who enjoys both lagers AND ales?

NO!!! You MUST choose one or the other! :D

[Jeff]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
Can I be a centrist; i.e., one who enjoys both lagers AND ales? :D

I think that makes you an independent and thus cannot vote in any primary elections.

[skahtboi]

Originally posted by chazwicke
This really may be the first time that I write in a vote for president or skip it all together.

Sadly...that probably reflects the feelings of much of the voting population this round.

[skahtboi]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
It is not the only time in our history that the popular vote did not decide the vote...

It is, however, the first time in our history that a conservative Supreme Court involved itself in stopping a recount of votes. Isn't it odd that action assured the election to "their" candidate?

[skahtboi]

Originally posted by steveh
I second this motion - all in favor...



Aye

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by skahtboi
It is, however, the first time in our history that a conservative Supreme Court involved itself in stopping a recount of votes. Isn't it odd that action assured the election to "their" candidate?

Whatever. Had it been a liberal court and gone the other way not a single liberal would have said a thing.

[steveh]

Originally posted by chazwicke
NO!!! You MUST choose one or the other! :D

Of course you can Fret - there's more to choose from when you factor in both Lagers and Ales (and stouts, and porters, and weizen, and...)

S.

[danno]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Military funding and foreign policy would certainly be in the top of the list. As well I do not care for the democrats ideas of big government or the fact that they passed the largest tax increase (1993) in the US. They were at one time so bad about it they earned the nickname of "tax and spend liberals."

Democrats have cut and slashed the military to what it has become. If we had tried to fight the gulf war with Clinton in office there is no way we would have made it. Democrats cut defense spending and draw down the military. The problems we face right now in OIF/OEF are due large and in part to slick willies kinder gentler army and the reduction in force he presided over.

OK, I'll apologize in advance for stepping back into this, but according to OMB (link to an Excel spreadsheet (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist08z7.xls)) the only time in the past 30 years that defense spending decreased (we're talking actual dollars here) was 1996, a 2.2% decrease from 1995. But then guess what? a 2.7% increase in 1997, and growing ever since... I just have an issue with "cut and slashed"...

I'd also like to take issue with the idea that Republicans aren't spenders. Please see this FactCheck.org link (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=139)

[danno]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
Whatever. Had it been a liberal court and gone the other way not a single liberal would have said a thing.
well, I'd disagree here, the liberals would have said "the courts decided fairly, within the rules of law, I don't understand why you're complaining", etc, yada yada, ad nauseum... Just like the Republicans did... :D

[unkle bik]

Originally posted by chazwicke
That said, This really may be the first time that I write in a vote for president or skip it all together.

I ended up doing that in the last one.
I voted Republican - Ted Nugent.

He made more sense than the other two clowns.

[wortchillergoal]

I can't believe I am about to say this. I am a Democrat. I can't believe the election came up again. The courts decided fairly IMHO. The ballots in FL were of poor design but the Democratic Party approved them.

The recount was poorly done and very inconsistent. How could anyone really know how someone meant to vote by looking at an incrrectly done ballot. We have no idea how many absentee ballots don't get count because they were done wrong so why should this have been different.

Lastly, I would rather Gerge W. inoffice for 9/11 over Al Gore.
I don't believe Gore could have functioned in that situation. Please don't go nuts trying to change my mind as that is my firm opinion. You are entitled to yours and I am not trying to change it but stating how I feel. If you thonk Gore would have done well, then more power to you.

I have said too much. Yet, I must add that your thoughts in this matter do not affect the fact that I think every person in this community has something of value for here and their home lives.

[brewmonkey]

I agree that in that I do not think Gore would have handled the situation well at all. If he were in office I firmly believe that we would have been attacked again by now and that both the Taliban would still be in power and providing training grounds for terror cells.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by steveh
Of course you can Fret - there's more to choose from when you factor in both Lagers and Ales (and stouts, and porters, and weizen, and...)

S.

I know, I know. I was just funnin him.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
I agree that in that I do not think Gore would have handled the situation well at all. If he were in office I firmly believe that we would have been attacked again by now and that both the Taliban would still be in power and providing training grounds for terror cells.
I agree, but I also can't help wondering how much of the middle eastern terrorists are fueled by the fact that there's another Bush in the White House... I mean, it's their own fault, but I wonder how much it plays a role.

[hops99]

In Bush's defense (and potentially Gore's, if he had been in office), I believe that if someone is willing to give up their own life to kill others, it's damn near indefensible.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by hops99
In Bush's defense (and potentially Gore's, if he had been in office), I believe that if someone is willing to give up their own life to kill others, it's damn near indefensible. Very true. But we seem to be doing a much better job of it now, don't we?

[hops99]

So far, so good.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by hops99
In Bush's defense (and potentially Gore's, if he had been in office), I believe that if someone is willing to give up their own life to kill others, it's damn near indefensible.

Ever read the Code of Conduct for the US Military? It was established by President Eisenhower in 1955. I know among the grunts we all knew it by heart and believed it.


I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me, and will back them up in every way.

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give only name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom,
responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

[skahtboi]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
I agree, but I also can't help wondering how much of the middle eastern terrorists are fueled by the fact that there's another Bush in the White House...

I am sure that certainly plays a part in it.