[Fragrag]

...I don't get it. OK sure, America consumerist excess LOL, but since when is that news?

edit:

Heh, I actually frequent the forul from where that came from.

[Kazan]

the kennedy's don't hold a CANDLE to delay and the rest of the right-wing crop of corrupt arsewipes

what do you REALLY have one kennedy? he got in a car accident once long ago, and he has a drinking problem that he doesn't try to hide, he tries to deal with

what else you got?


as for the big dig.... yeah that's a cluster****, but so is any project that big in an area of such dense urbation


ngt1mr: yup. the civilian hummers are for people with penis size problems

[aldo_14]

@Aldo: I don't think that a happy meal is going to get kids to join the military. But games like BF2, albeit not for your children and at the risk of sounding like jack thompson, are far better influence and recruiting tool. But if this were an attempt at military indoctrination, then it is a poor attempt, no offense intended.

not indoctrination; softening.  i.e. creating a positive impression of the military; it's just using the logic that kids play soldiers, so why not capitalise upon it?  Even if it's not creating actual recruits in 10+ years, it's creating (in concept) a positive attitude towards the militaries actions.  Let's not pretend this 'advertising' is anything new.....

[Kazan]

bingo aldo

[redmenace]

the kennedy's don't hold a CANDLE to delay and the rest of the right-wing crop of corrupt arsewipes

what do you REALLY have one kennedy? he got in a car accident once long ago, and he has a drinking problem that he doesn't try to hide, he tries to deal with

what else you got?


as for the big dig.... yeah that's a cluster****, but so is any project that big in an area of such dense urbation


ngt1mr: yup. the civilian hummers are for people with penis size problems

The man gets into drunk tirades. That car accident, however, resulted in a woman's death. His "testimony" that he swam home is BS primarily because he was heavily in toxicated and showed up in a neck brace a few day later.

[Kazan]

The man gets into drunk tirades. That car accident, however, resulted in a woman's death. His "testimony" that he swam home is BS primarily because he was heavily in toxicated and showed up in a neck brace a few day later.

and most of his drunk tirades are more intelligent and honest than all the republicans in congress combined

"swam home"? umm... he testified he swam to shore, not home

ennedy claims he tried several times to swim down to reach her, then rested on the bank for several minutes before returning on foot to the Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other "Boiler Room Girls" had occurred.

several hours later he alledgedly swam the 500-foot channel

*****ing about kennedy based chappaquiddic is just one of the dumbest things on the planet - he got in a car accident in 1969 FFS!

[redmenace]

And they didn't call the police for help either. There was a phone. Politics aside, they man was responcible for her death on so many levels. And only got a slap on the wrist. Yes it happened in 1969, that doesn't change the fact that it did happen. The statute of limitation doesn't cover man slaughter or criminal negligence. Even after "several hours" he would have been in no condition to swim a 500 ft channel especially after being in an accident.

Kazan, you defending him is like me trying to defend Bush, if I were to actually do so..

[Kazan]

And they didn't call the police for help either.

he didn't immediately, they went back to the site to try and save her - think phone technology in 1969.. and they were on an island and the ferry had shut down for the night

he also called her family before calling the cops

Politics aside, they man was responcible for her death on so many levels.

he got in a car accident, that may or may not have been alcohol-induced (nobody can say for certain)

And only got a slap on the wrist.

the only thing they had evidence to charge him for

Yes it happened in 1969, that doesn't change the fact that it did happen.

you're right, it doesn't change the fact that kennedy got in a car accident - beyond that NOBODY CAN PROVE ANYTHING - the entire attempt to use it as a criticism of him rests on conjecture and "who didn't know he's not drunk, therefore he was drunk" and absolutely ASSININE assertions that it was somehow intentional... right

The statute of limitation doesn't cover man slaughter or criminal negligence.

neither of which he was indicted for despite the fact that a grand jury was enpannelled to investigate the accident

Even after "several hours" he would have been in no condition to swim a 500 ft channel especially after being in an accident.

assuming he was injuried or assuming he was drunk

either way you're making an assumption - i'm fairly certain the first one is demonstrably false, the second one nobody can prove either way, all you can do is vaguely suggest "he's an alcoholic therefore he MUST have been drunk!!!" - i know an alcohol that NEVER, EVER has driven drunk

Kazan, you defending him is like me trying to defend Bush, if I were to actually do so..

no - defending kennedy on this is easy - the entire attack consists of presumptions, vague suggestions that nobody can prove or even reasonably state, and bull****

bush has demonstrably, repeatedly, knowingly violated the law and the constitution

if you want to criticise kennedy, then do it with something concrete, not vague consipracy theorist nutjob chappaquiddic idiocy

[neoterran]

Ted kennedy doesn't drink, btw.

[Kazan]

oh... i must have been confusing him with a relative on the alcoholism thing (or heard it from a liar)... so that make the chappaquiddic thing EVEN LESS of a serious complaint

[redmenace]

Not being convicted in a court of law does clear anyone of any culpability. Because Bush will never convicted in a court of law for the war in Iraq or the thousands that have died as a result of his fool hearty actions, does that mean he isn't responcible? Of course not. Should we not think of Kennedy as responcible for that woman's death because he was never convicted or endicted? I don't think so.

[Kazan]

can you give ONE SHRED of evidence that it was anything other than an accident?

[neoterran]

Not being convicted in a court of law does clear anyone of any culpability. Because Bush will never convicted in a court of law for the war in Iraq or the thousands that have died as a result of his fool hearty actions, does that mean he isn't responcible?

Most of those on your side of the fence would say no.

Should we not think of Kennedy as responcible for that woman's death because he was never convicted or endicted? I don't think so.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?" I guess that goes out the window when you'd like to win your own points in arguments, huh ?

[redmenace]

He is innocent in a court of law because he was never charged which could be for any number of reasons including lack of evidence. But like OJ, it ultimatly doesn't mean that he is not responcible for that persons death.

Also I don't have a fence to side on.

@Kazan: The accident is proof its self or being criminally negligent. Especially when you consider the fact that, even if there was no law enforcement official on the island, there was a fire house that likly would have been manned. I don't think limitations of the telecom systems of 1969 would have prevented them from calling the firemen. On a side note, he also called his lawyer before calling the police as well. The whole situation is incredibly sketchy, but of evidence IS circumstancial.

[aldo_14]

He is innocent in a court of law because he was never charged which could be for any number of reasons including lack of evidence. But like OJ, it ultimatly doesn't mean that he is not responcible for that persons death.

Whoah whoah whoah.  Not that I really give a **** in this debate, but isn't the whole point of having a court of law to make decisions like this?

[Kazan]

@Kazan: The accident is proof its self or being criminally negligent.

no it's not, he made a wrong turn down an unlit road with a bridge at an odd angle to the road that had no guard rails.  If you want to try to maintain getting into a car accident is criminal negligence i'll make sure that you get prosecuted for such

....

basically: you have no evidence of any wrong doing, none at ALL - NONE, zero, zilch, nada, null, nichts.  You don't have any evidence he did anything wrong, so why don't you shut your mouth while you're ahead.  Having to make shady, unsupportable implications against a senator because he got in a car accident smacks not only of desperation, but of biased dishonesty.

Why don't you take that zeal to go after senators for wrongdoing and apply it to the ones that we know for a fact have been accepting bribes and are corporatist whores

[Kazan]

Whoah whoah whoah.  Not that I really give a **** in this debate, but isn't the whole point of having a court of law to make decisions like this?

yeah.. chappaquiddic references are just right-wing red herrings to distract from the fact that pretty much every republican congresscritter has been wholly-owned by the corporations for a long time

sure, there are dishonest sleazy congresscritters on both sides, it just happens to be that democrats ostracise their corrupt members while republicans all stand in this one united front and deny that they did any wrong doing when they're caught redhanded with bribes

[Colonol Dekker]

I love reading the first post in a thread, letting it grow a few pages, and then reading the last post to see how far it skews off. This ones done not too bad.......

[redmenace]

He is innocent in a court of law because he was never charged which could be for any number of reasons including lack of evidence. But like OJ, it ultimatly doesn't mean that he is not responcible for that persons death.

Whoah whoah whoah.  Not that I really give a **** in this debate, but isn't the whole point of having a court of law to make decisions like this?

Except the courts can be abused by hiring enough highpriced lawyers.

[redmenace]

@Kazan: The accident is proof its self or being criminally negligent.

no it's not, he made a wrong turn down an unlit road with a bridge at an odd angle to the road that had no guard rails.  If you want to try to maintain getting into a car accident is criminal negligence i'll make sure that you get prosecuted for such

....

basically: you have no evidence of any wrong doing, none at ALL - NONE, zero, zilch, nada, null, nichts.  You don't have any evidence he did anything wrong, so why don't you shut your mouth while you're ahead.  Having to make shady, unsupportable implications against a senator because he got in a car accident smacks not only of desperation, but of biased dishonesty.

Why don't you take that zeal to go after senators for wrongdoing and apply it to the ones that we know for a fact have been accepting bribes and are corporatist whores

Regaurdless, you cannot deny the fact that he tried to cover it all up by not contacting the people that would been able to save her.