Would you hire this individual?

Griff's thread on human sacrifice got me curious about the psychological causes of gradiosity. I goggled the terms grandiosity, pathology, and psychology; and to my amazement the first 3 hits were about George Jr. I searched further to come across anything mainstream (or more mainstream) about George Jr. And found this: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/georgebush.htm
Verrrry interesting... What do the rest of you think?

I think the site reads like it was written by tw.

Mari-You could tease out the humanity of someone who molested children. I am certain you could do the same for someone who got a DUI.

PS: I am no fan of Bush

um, wow. mari - i hope you were posting that site as a joke or something. that was over the top hysteria in its most pure form. that is even more ridiculous than the rantings of the dual asshats rush/hannity.

You guys should have seen the REALLY nutty sites that I deemed as not yet ready for viewing by sensitive young cellurites. The stuff is true, however. George Jr. did get a DUI at 30, and it took him 10 more years to wise up and quit drinking. Duh, what? Stop and think about it. Would you hire an individual with those things in his back ground for a top level, complete security clearance type job? I wouldn't.

And to Brianna, sure George Jr. is human (theoretically), but that doesn't mean he is still not accountable for his actions. Just because I saw the suffering the man who had molested children was enduring doesn't mean I think it would be a great idea to make him a boy scout leader. :eyebrow:

The stuff is true, however. George Jr. did get a DUI at 30, and it took him 10 more years to wise up and quit drinking.

Sure... but did you read the section on how the presence of a rat poison in cigarettes is a conspiracy of the SOUTH because they're still bitter they lost the Civil War? :lol:

marichiko wrote:

The stuff is true, however.

sure they do have facts in their arguments, but that doesn't mean their positions are correct. if we sit back and think real hard we can each probably think of at least 1 or 2 cellarites who use true facts to support absolutely ridiculous ideas. (and yes, maybe some of you may include me as one of your individuals)

having a dui in your past doesn't make one incapable of operating in a high stress, critical position. it simply means that someone made a bad decision. to equate that with child molestation is a little over the top.

marichiko wrote:

Stop and think about it. Would you hire an individual with those things in his back ground for a top level, complete security clearance type job? I wouldn't.

What about THIS guy? Ha ha ha...

http://www.gwpda.org/tomorrow/bushsuckerpunch.gif

that is freaking awesome, great photo.

How amusing! That's what I get for not following all the links. And I come from a family of tobacco farmers, too! I can't tell you the many happy childhood memories I have of going back to Kentucky for the tobacco harvest, and how we'd all gather in a solemn circle around the bundles of cured leaves, add coumarin to them, and intone "Tha South Shall Rize Agin'! Halleluyah!" That's why I now spoke only American Spirit cigarettes - no chemical additives! Anyhow, I said I had to wade through a lot of wierd sites. Guess I stopped wading too soon! :blush:

thank goodness, for a moment i thought you had gone off the deepend Mari. :3eye:

Whoever wrote that site would make a great Salt Water Taffy puller, the way they stretch things. :rolleyes:

lookout123 wrote:

...having a dui in your past doesn't make one incapable of operating in a high stress, critical position. it simply means that someone made a bad decision. to equate that with child molestation is a little over the top.

I am not equating the two. I merely meant that if Mari could find it in her heart to empathize with a child molester surely she could forgive a DUI. MmmmKay?

mmmkay.

Brianna wrote:

I am not equating the two. I merely meant that if Mari could find it in her heart to empathize with a child molester surely she could forgive a DUI. MmmmKay?

Sure, I can forgive a DUI. But do I want to make him a designated driver? Anyhow, this time the joke's on me. Its what I get for trying to research something while at the same time console a friend about his love life. He went out with the girl in question about an hour ago, and I sure as hell hope he didn't pay any attention to the advise I gave him, given my batting average here on this one! :D

DUI is a piddling little offense. Bush's was about as piddling as a DUI got back then, too -- BAC of 0.10. One such is nothing to base a hiring decision on (except perhaps for a driving job), not even if it were last year rather than nearly 30 years ago. It's nothing to quit drinking over, either.

russotto wrote:

DUI is a piddling little offense. Bush's was about as piddling as a DUI got back then, too -- BAC of 0.10. One such is nothing to base a hiring decision on (except perhaps for a driving job), not even if it were last year rather than nearly 30 years ago. It's nothing to quit drinking over, either.

A DUI should give one considerable pause. Its a very serious offense and in my state, a second one brings manadatory jail time and loss of your driver's license for x amount of time. According to a study done by the state of Colorado, about 55% of DUI offenders are problem drunk drivers - they just haven't been caught all the other times they drank and drove.

How many other times do you suppose George Jr. might have got pulled over and was let go as a courtesy because of who he was? Especially when given the fact that G. Jr. finally DID admit to being alcoholic 10 years later after almost killing himself and a friend in the course of a drunken plane ride with George in charge in the cockpit?

A DUI should make ANYONE look very seriously at their drinking pattern.

marichiko wrote:

A DUI should give one considerable pause. Its a very serious offense and in my state, a second one brings manadatory jail time and loss of your driver's license for x amount of time.

Because the MADDWomen have had their way, it has punishment way out of proportion with its seriousness.

According to a study done by the state of Colorado, about 55% of DUI offenders are problem drunk drivers - they just haven't been caught all the other times they drank and drove.

So, even taking that for granted, the other 45% are just average Joes who got nailed for one beer too many (which could be just one beer)

russotto wrote:

Because the MADDWomen have had their way, it has punishment way out of proportion with its seriousness.

Many drivers on the road don't drive very well even when stone sober. I consider drunk driving reckless endangerment with a lethal weapon. It's very nearly a textbook definition of irresponsibility.

Fine, but exceeding .08 doesn't make you a drunk driver. :)

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Fine, but exceeding .08 doesn't make you a drunk driver. :)

I don't have any information to call on this. I'd say it depends at what level reaction time is impaired.

dar512 wrote:

Many drivers on the road don't drive very well even when stone sober. I consider drunk driving reckless endangerment with a lethal weapon. It's very nearly a textbook definition of irresponsibility.

So if Billy Bob drives better after 3 beers than Jimbo does sober, why is it Billy Bob committing "reckless endangerment"?

russotto wrote:

So if Billy Bob drives better after 3 beers than Jimbo does sober, why is it Billy Bob committing "reckless endangerment"?

First thing -- how quickly did Billy Bob consume the three beers and how long after the last one did he get in his car and drive away?

Next - you are asking a theoretical question that I'm not convinced applies in real life. Assuming that Jimbo has passed a driving exam at some point, and assuming that Billy Bob drank three beers in an hour and then drove, I don't believe that any Billy Bob will drive better than the sober Jimbo.

In any case, I am sure that Billy Bob sober drives better than Billy Bob with three beers in him. The decision to drive with decreased ability is reckless.

This is always a problem with "one size fits all" laws. There is always so many other factors besides the alcohol consumed that affect your driving. :confused:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

This is always a problem with "one size fits all" laws. There is always so many other factors besides the alcohol consumed that affect your driving. :confused:

Yeah, try telling that to a judge. :cool:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

This is always a problem with "one size fits all" laws. There is always so many other factors besides the alcohol consumed that affect your driving. :confused:

Sure there are, but the point is the chances of the driver recovering from or reacting to those other factors quickly and most accurately is greatly reduced after alcohol. Alcohol takes effect from the first beer/glass of wine/shot of Rotgut whether you notice or not.

Billy Bob had enough beers that he's at .08 on the way up, will peak at .10.

Jimbo passed a driving exam, but just barely. He managed to use his turn signals and watch for traffic during the exam, but rarely does in real life. He's gotten in many fender-benders as a result but somehow has avoided a major accident or license suspension. Please don't try to tell me this type of person doesn't exist; they do.

In any case, I am sure that Billy Bob sober drives better than Billy Bob with three beers in him.

Well, actually, Billy Bob's a bit high-strung and aggressive sober. So I wouldn't be all that sure.

The decision to drive with decreased ability is reckless

And that's a silly cop-out. It's not reckless to drive when not at 100% of one's ability, provided one's remaining ability is decent.

grandpa drives and he's a hundred and four...think he's 100%----not!

Alcohol takes effect from the first beer/glass of wine/shot of Rotgut whether you notice or not.

Actually the U of Michigan did a study years ago that said most people drive better after 1 drink but then of course ability declines from there on.

The decision to drive with decreased ability is reckless

Then hang up the God damned phone. :mad2:

russotto wrote:

And that's a silly cop-out. It's not reckless to drive when not at 100% of one's ability, provided one's remaining ability is decent.

But that is exactly the problem. The very organ that we use to make decisions and access risk factors - the brain - is the one being impacted by the alcohol. Frankly, I don't think its unreasonable to still drive after having had one or even two drinks. More than that and your starting to skate on thin ice (or drive, as the case might be).

Billy Bob's brain tells him that after 4 drinks he's the funniest man in the bar, that every woman will want to go home with him , and that he's the best driver since Mario Andretti. Wrong every time.