But **Shodan ** can, and did, lie about the cite which he based his opinion on. There was nothing in it to support his belief that the Kennedys bought anyone off to avoid prosecution. The lie occurs when you state that your site contains information that supports your belief. If I said, “I believe George W. Bush wants to abolish the Constitution and institute a dictatorship,” then cited one of his state of the union addresses as containing statements that supported that contention, I would expect to be called a liar as well.
He assaulted someone (on video, no less) and wasn’t charged. That’s what his cite says. How does that happen?
He thinks that the Kennedy family paid hush money to make it go away. That’s not a lie. That’s an opinion based upon the facts. The fact is that Kennedy did something, wasn’t charged, and settled out of court. It’s somewhat reminiscent of Michael Jackson, and people have no problem whatsoever believing that he paid hush money, so why is it a big deal here?
That’s right, and had it ended there, there is no lie. If he had said, “It’s my opinion, I don’t have anything concrete to base it on, other than it was a Kennedy”, I would just chalk it up to more anti-Kennedy bluster. But when I asked what led him to believe that, he lied when he posted a cite that he said contains information that would support such a belief, and lead others to do so as well. When he points to a website and says, “Here’s the cite,” as if it refutes any contradiction, then that is dishonest.
Doesn’t the person who got shoved have to press charges, first? Did the guard he shoved ever try to do that? Or did she just go straight for the civil suit, which was settled before it went to trial, as happens with most such suits?
There are plenty of ways:
- She may have done something to him first that would make the case difficult to prosecute.
- The tape may be unclear as to whether he was deliberately shoving her or, say, drunkenly off-balance and stumbled into her (I’ve not seen the tape; I don’t know).
- The shove may have been so minor that it’d fall under De minimis non curat lex.
- The DA may have decided that pressing charges against a Kennedy would mean that he had no chance of winning re-election in his heavily Democratic district.
- The Kennedys may have bribed the DA.
- The security guard may have begged not to have charges pressed, because she didn’t want to be a centerpiece of a celebrity trial.
That’s off the top of my head. I’m not saying which of these is most likely. But concluding that it’s #5 is tinfoil hat territory.
Daniel
:rolleyes: Whatever.
Pretty weak rebuttal on your part, though, mhendo. Providing us substance-free threads in which one’s eagerness to express indignance outruns one’s grasp of the facts is the entire point of the Pit.
Oh, I agree. I’m just saying that an opinion is not a lie. The cited article referenced an incident that usually results in some charges, but they didn’t charge him and he was allowed to settle. That looks shady, if nothing else, and Shodan is allowed to have his opinion in the samw way that some of you opine that Bush is fattening his oil cronies at the expense of the little guy (which is a common opinion here).
Random quotes from news sources at the time of the LAX airport incident. This was in 2000. These are random and chosen by me to offer a general opinion of the incident.
. They settled in 2002.
A later story said that after Kennedy was NOT indicted by the LA police, the Airport Police released the videotape and it DID show Kennedy mildly shoving the woman, though not in any way hurting her. He was just being a jerk.
well ** and ** bein’ a Kennedy.
Why couldn’t he simply have been wrong? Maybe he thinks it and believes it, but is, you know, wrong? Why is it necessarily a lie? Why is it dishonest?
From those quotes, yes he was just being an arrogant and pushy jerk. It doesn’t sound like an attack at all. More like brushing someone aside, and the guard trying to cash in on some deep pockets.
Kennedy mad. Kennedy smash. ??
Nope, doesn’t even sound close to that.
I explained my accusation to Airman Doors in posts#181 and #183. It thas nothing to do with his opinion. It has do do with dishonest debate.
No, you’re just - well, I’ve already explained.
Because it is not a lie, not wrong, and not dishonest. It’s not even an opinion.
Kennedy assaulted a security guard. She filed a complaint. They paid her off, and she dropped the complaint. Which is what I said in the first place, and what my cite establishes.
Fear Itself, being what he is, interpreted my remarks in a way that a person of normal intelligence would not have done. Equating “paid to make it go away” as bribery is, well, exactly what I said it was.
Not unexpectedly, unfortunately.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
Only an ignorant, uninformed fool would equate all legal settlements with bribery. It suits your rabid political agenda to do so, but it makes you look like an idiot. If you represent normal intelligence, the rest of us would be able to levitate a battleship with a mere twitch of our intellect.
…and Bricker disease strikes down another.
Too bad.
-Joe
I need only point out that you are the one who equated a settlement with bribery.
Accordingly, I agree with your post entirely. Anyone who would do that is an ignorant, uninformed fool with a rabid agenda.
Regards,
Shodan
You are such a fucking liar. Do you kiss your children with that mouth?
A devastating rebuttal indeed.
Like I said, it would be too much to expect that you could comprehend things from a non-stupid point of view.
Regards,
Shodan
Heh. The old “I know you are but what am I” riposte. I haven’t heard that since I was in the fourth grade. What’s next Shodan, “I’m rubber you’re glue”? I will, however, concede that you are of normal intelligence; for a nine-year-old.
Excuse me - but I am in this thread defending Rep. Kennedy, which is certainly contrary to the position I would take if motivated by partisan concerns.
Woiuld you care to point out, anywhere on this board, a time when you have taken a position that would be fairly described as contrary to your partisan concerns?
So what, exactly, is “Bricker disease?”