Originally Posted By ecdc "Repeating an assertion does not make it true." Anymore than disagreeing with an assertion makes it false.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Which is more than Mark Foley did." Yep, Foley's a gem, a real keeper. He only sent emails to pages asking them about their underwear.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <They're called free elections, not praise< semantics only - if you want to stick with the strictest definition because it suits the support of Teddy, then defend the 'praise' for his heroic (supposed) rescue efforts...since he remembered those but lost hours and hours otherwise...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Anymore than disagreeing with an assertion makes it false.> Right. It makes them both opinions.
Originally Posted By ecdc "semantics only - if you want to stick with the strictest definition because it suits the support of Teddy, then defend the 'praise' for his heroic (supposed) rescue efforts...since he remembered those but lost hours and hours otherwise..." It's not semantics only - not in my world anyway. I vote for people all the time, even multiple times if they continue to run election year after election year, and I would never say that I "praise" them. Sometimes I like them, sometimes I consider them the lesser of two evils. I'm not defending Ted Kennedy, supporting Ted Kennedy, or revisiting what he did as heroic. All I did and intended to do was point out the very tortured equating of "electing" someone to "praising" someone.
Originally Posted By jonvn "you would not call re- electing him how many times over the past 35 years praising him ?" No one has praised him for his traffic accident. "Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure." You can find people who will do anything. He broke no laws. He was censured because the boy involved was an underling, this in an era where this sort of thing was not as strictly regulated as it is today. This is all simply more partisan political crap that the voters have just rejected straight out of hand. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the fact that Jefferson owned slaves. He was a democrat too.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Which is more than Mark Foley did." And you know, I suppose, because you're one of the pages. Right. "Repeating an assertion does not make it true." Repeating trite aphorisms doesn't make them applicable, either.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And you know, I suppose, because you're one of the pages. Right.> I know that he has not been accused of that by anyone. <Repeating trite aphorisms doesn't make them applicable, either.> If an aphorism is accurate, then it is applicable.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Sometimes I like them, sometimes I consider them the lesser of two evils. < if after what happened with ted Kennedy, he was ever the lesser of two evils, God help us. He was given a pass because he was a Kennedy - period. You or I would still be in jail for that one, without question. What was his punishment ? he did't get to run for president. gee. Now no way am I going to support Foley or anyone who thinks Foley is more than the low life he appears to be....I am just tired of this somehow being anything to do with the fact he is Republican and democrats have never done anything this bad...that's just ludicrous.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>You or I would still be in jail for that one, without question.<< No we wouldn't. It's been almost 40 years since that happened. A regular guy involved in that incident - if it was a first time offense - would likely have faced a couple of months in jail, and that sentence probably would have been suspended.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 < if it was a first time offense - would likely have faced a couple of months in jail, and that sentence probably would have been suspended. < Really, the last drunk driving case in our area where 3 girls were killed - the driver got 27 years -- a 16 year old ( now 17) also received 8 years for a case in which the car he was driving hit a tree and the passnger was killed -- but I guess where you live anything must go...jails must be empty.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Really, the last drunk driving case in our area where 3 girls were killed - the driver got 27 years --<< Is that the last case in your area, or the last one the media reported on? And if the driver had been sentenced in 1969, he would have been out ten years already. >>a 16 year old ( now 17) also received 8 years for a case in which the car he was driving hit a tree and the passnger was killed<< And he would have gotten out of jail in 1977 if he had been sentenced in 1969. >>but I guess where you live anything must go<< It's the same where you live. You just have to dig a little deeper than the sensational stories that hit the press.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Is that the last case in your area, or the last one the media reported on? And if the driver had been sentenced in 1969, he would have been out ten years already. < in a tight knit community of 150,000 most all of them hit the airwaves. and the fact he would have been out ten years already is in stark contrast to someone who didn't spend one minute atoning for what he did doesn't it ? But the defense for him continues - Camelot lives on.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 2 of the 3 girls involved were sisters to friends of one of my daughters. I guess until it hits closer to home and you can see the pain, people like Teddy will be defended.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Just because his legal punishment was typical for the time doesn't mean he hasn't spent a lot of time atoning for what he did or didn't do on that night. Atonement isn't typically something our legal system is interested in. If you can find a similar case from 1969 with a much harsher penalty, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 He had 2 previous speeding tickets and one for wreckless driving ( including evasion) - and was driving on a 5 month expired license at the time of the accident.( a misdemeanor only). Not that many people don't have similar records, but they were never allowed into this case. They were on his Massachusset's license and didnt show up in Virginia records at the time - conveniently. he begrudgingly pleaded guilty ( as he sat in court with his horsecollar on) - and was given a suspended minimum sentence... you show me a case in 1969 where someone got less than that...for leaving the scene of a accident with injury/death and all that could be done was to prevent manslaughter charges being brought.
Originally Posted By jonvn So, what Kennedy did was not good. Fine. So, who has praised him for it and called him courageous? And depending on what the facts of the case are, you may or may not get prosecuted for certain things, but he probably did get some slack because of who he was.
Originally Posted By ecdc Seriously, what is the rights obsession with Kennedy? It's been almost 40 years, but anything to bash the left. Guaranteed we'll be hearing about Clinton 20 years from now for having sex in the White House. Boo hoo. Bush's incompetence is responsible for far more deaths than Teddy Kennedy's drinking, and I'm pretty sure Clinton's sex and subsequent lie about it didn't kill anyone.
Originally Posted By gadzuux But - but - what about vince foster and ron brown? Clinton's a MURDERER!
