[…Dendahl’s mission is to so cripple Richardson that his chances of being the first Hispanic to win the White House will be as likely as George Bush ever telling us the truth about why Americans are killing and dying in Iraq.] It doesn’t have anything to do with his ancestry. It has to do with the opinions of many, both Republican & Democrat, that Mr. Richardson is a political animal who is only ‘in it’ for himself; whatever makes him look good at the moment. And apparently, the Republican Party has decided that the only way to keep Mr. Richardson out of any public office is Mr. Dendahl. Do I as a Republican agree with this? NO! And they are aware of my feelings on the matter.
As for whether President Bush tells the truth, what evidence can you, yourself provide that he can’t [due to his responsibilities to us, as our President], hasn’t or won’t? Back up your attacks.
Also, opinions can’t be WRONG. The are only opinions, not facts. Not even yours. ;)
I sure hope that the Gentleman of Ideals puts in an appearance.
Mr. Leichner's 'Theory' can't pass the tests of proving an hypothesis. But, his statements pass all of the requirements of a personal opinion.
Also, laws can't despise homosexual behavior, but they were put in place by governing bodies who themselves despise this type of behavior and wanted to prohibit it; for various heart felt, well intentioned [most of them] reasons.
Observing actions can give one clues as to why people behave a certain way, and enough observations can give you statistical probabilities. However, as my statistics professors used to say: you can make statistics say anything you want; it's all in how you apply it and then in how you present it. Mr. Leichner, it is my suggestion that you stop believing everything you see & read, especially if it seems to agree with your own opinions all of the time, and start thinking for yourself.
And 'Repulsion' is what is known as a Positional Attitude.
Unfortunately, Yellow Journalism is alive & well in the good ole US of America! Reporters & newscasters, media moguls, etc. used to take pride in writing ojective stories that told as much of the "truth, the whole & nothing but the truth", as they possibly could. Their reputations & careers would be ruined if gossip got started that they made stories up, or wrote them in such a way as to increase the sensationalism because the stories were factually weak. Journalists used to take pride in their no-nonsense approach to getting all of the facts and writing a good article. Now they really are just stories; bad fiction.
[…Billy Baldwin, owner of Stone Face Tavern, the Horse & Angel Tavern and Billy's Long Bar, all in Albuquerque. "I think they may have gotten a little overzealous with this."] Wow! Does he really think so? I bet that if this paper had a wider political circulation, the Alibi would find that most people don’t think this is at all over zealous. Or maybe Mr. Baldwin is so caught up in the money making that the fact that drunk driver’s become drunk from drinking alcohol, which the majority of them drink in bars and then drive off to kill other people’s father’s & mothers, sons & daughters, sisters & brothers, that this just doesn’t matter to him [or to the rest of those crying ‘Woe is Me’]. Can any intelligent, analytical, common-sensical adult human being really believe this? If so, our world is in a lot of trouble.
[…a good portion of the DWIs in New Mexico trace back to patrons being overserved...It's directly related to [not] cutting people off when they're visibly intoxicated."] Factually, actually, this has got be one of the biggest understatements of the year. If you don’t believe so, go do a little research for yourself, Dear Reader, instead of believing everything you see on the television news or in papers.
[Among other things, amendments include: serving minors or drunk people four times in 12 months would result in a revoked license; serving intoxicated people two times in 12 months would also mean license revocation; the director would have the option of not renewing a license if he considers the business unsafe for the area it's in; employees would be banned from drinking while on duty and couldn't be drunk at their place of work, even if not on duty.] Hmmm. How many times should drinking establishments be allowed to play Russian Roulette with our lives? Should they be allowed to serve alcohol using statistical probability as their litmus test of whether they should have their licenses revoked? Last time I checked, which was recently, it was ILLEGAL to serve alcohol to minors or drunks.
[…a citation is given when a Special Investigations Division (SID) agent witnesses someone serving liquor to a customer exhibiting signs of being drunk. In this case, what's considered drunk is a .14 blood-alcohol level, but a Breathalizer reading is not required as evidence.] Isn’t that just like a New Mexico law. Wouldn’t it make more sense for drunk being defined as a .08 blood alcohol level before getting into the car? Or do people actually believe that blood alcohol is going to drop .06 points in the time it takes to walk across the parking lot? And just to keep everyone on the up and up, make the Breathalizer necessary. Duh!, as my teenager would say.
[Baldwin is facing a lawsuit after a drunk driver killed three people in a taxi on Thanksgiving Day in 2005. The driver is said to have been drinking that night at Baldwin's bar, the Horse & Angel Tavern.] Now we know who should guide us iggerents, don’t we? Maybe the drunk driver was only ‘allegedly’ drunk or driving? Or maybe the driver only ‘allegedly’ killed those people? Or maybe the Horse & Angel only ‘allegedly’ serves alcohol? And never to someone whose blood alcohol level is .08 behind the wheel.
[In California, three sales-to-intox citations in a three-year period results in revocation. More than three citations in two years gets your license revoked in Arizona. Three in three years is all it takes in Texas.] And, they don’t have the problem with drunk drivers that we do. Don’t believe me? Then do the research. And, those states can have more licenses per capita because they have stricter laws AND they enforce them. What a novel concept.