Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonkie who wrote (73317)	2/16/2006 10:08:36 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Re: "You don't mean you believe her when she said that there might have been one or two beers available?" The thing is, when she says she's sure there must have been a couple of beers around, as she did, she knows we know that she knows that we must assume more than a flippant two beers as stated. One beer apiece, if all present drink it, might be at most, well, how many people were present (did ya like this sentence?). Maybe the Doctors were a little tipsy themselves? We can't prove your "if there was beer there was plenty of it" comment. It would be silly to bother trying when she said the shooters weren't drunk. Your comment is a reasonable assumption to make in some circles, in some common situations, but not necessarily while hunting by a long shot, in any given hunting outing. However certain we are that a practically endless supply might have been had in short order (the norm indeed in America all the time, not the exception), we can't prove lots was drunk by many on this occasion. Couple her testimony with Cheney saying he had a beer 5 hours earlier, along with his further testimony that no one at the scene was drunk, and her further testimony that the shooters weren't drinking, and realizing no one among the witnesses is likely to go against this if there WAS a coverup of a little drinking, it's hard to assume otherwise. Hard to assume, and people understand, that's just the way it is. It's so hard to assume, because in fact it would NOT be unusual for any given group of hunters to have weeded out truly problem-child drinkers, were ever there any among them. The concept of drinking at hunting camps truly doesn't typically involve any actual hunting while seriusly drinking. When that combination does happen (happily it does so mostly without mishap, no doubt), it tends to engender more than a few raised eyebrows if described. So there is just no telling here, your assumption IS hard to assume. I drink socially. I don't drink around the house save if with some occasional company who brought their own and share it with me. Few would expect to find alcohol in my fridge. I'll get close to rolling drunk as much as a couple of times a month some months, too. At the same time, I'll easily drink one beer visiting someone, and move on without a drop 'til the next occasion, if weeks later and longer. I know that for me to assume Cheney was something close to rolling drunk could incredibly easily be the absolute incorrect assumption in all reality. Did he have Drunk Driving Convictions in his past? I can empathize. Take it into consideration, but the man is aging and closely attended to by the ever present Doctor entourage, et al. Do we assume he's a regular heavy drinker under these circumstances? Perhaps a secret alcoholic who'd shake without the sauce all day and who is about to lose his liver for it (we've all know one or two, no)? ALL things about hunting considered, there is nothing here. Considering his probable state of shock after having shot someone while hunting and being the Vice President of the USA at once, and that he had it reported shortly, and that he knew the victim was attended to immediately by his own fine Doctors who were present as witnesses, the fact that he claims he turned away the deputy because he thought he should let the ranch owner, a third party witness, tell the story instead of his own biased ass seems almost understandable even if he weren't suaced. NO? Ok, if NO, I can see that. If he was drinking he'd hide, and he effectively did indeed. But this was was plausibly and IMHO, almost certainly at worst an accident involving a guy not rolling drunk, but rather a guy flirting with the legal limit or little more. So even if he was drinking, people will see it as a forgivable accident. Like it or not as the Democrat you seem to essentially be, people will empathize with Cheney. Dan B.