I could not agree with you more.
Holy crap, just noticed your location. I was just in Michigan City last year. On a very, very, very bad project for the power plant…
You’re right, reading through his posts in this thread I can only come to the same conclusion.
Can you seperate your hate for him from what he actually posts in a thread? And could you also keep those threads seperate? Do you really want people stringing together unrelated posts you make in the future to try to make a weak attack on you?
There is one and only one person that brought up the murder, and it wasn’t the person you’re after.
Let it go. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
I have no idea whether to be insulted or flattered by this, since I can’t make heads or tails out of it. Would you come on back and explain what the above means so that I can respond accordlingly?
Out of curiosity duffer, what do you think he was referring to? I was pretty sure it was Chappaquiddik before seeing the list of prior quotes, but I’m willing to hear alternate theories.
I guess that would be me. And horseshit, by the way.
Murder?
CMC
But, duffer, I’ve been noticing this Stephe guy’s obession with Ted Kennedy for a long time. He never misses a chance, however oblique, to throw in a Chappaquiddick slam, no matter how tangential to the thread. It’s reached the point where I just have to see that username to think “Here comes the kneejerk slur,” and nine times out of ten I’m right.
Although he does reserve some of his vitrioloc drool-spewing for Clinton.
Please keep up.
Conservative Moron Handbook, Article 273 clearly states that Edward Kennedy murdered Mary-Jo Kopechne that night in Chappaquiddick.
Article 273(a) additionally states that this is the only acceptable version, no matter what decision those liberal whackos in the Massachusetts criminal justice system decided.
Article 273(b) provides for the excommunication of any conservative who veers from this version of events.
Article 273(c) does allow for some difference of opinion, giving conservatives the opportunity to decide for themselves whether the murder was a result of criminal negligence or malice aforethought.
And i’m still waiting for the OP to have the courage to come in here and retract his lies.
He’s probably gone out for a drink with Clothahump.
Guess I missed those. Or didn’t pay enough attention to the posts to notice.
Carry on.
You know, GW maybe went AWOL from the National Guard, it’s not a cut and dried situation by any means, yet people who dislike Bush constantly throw that up in debates concerning anything he does and that’s just fine. Kennedy definitely committed manslaughter and maybe got away with murder, yet anyone who mentions that making a dirty pool partisan attack. Even better, liberals are in a frenzy about the delay in calling the authorities when Cheney accidentally shot a man in the face, yet that’s exactly what Kennedy did in 1969, yet criticizing him for Chappaquiddick is verboden. Double standard much?
When doind a search for posts by a certain user using “Kennedy” as the search term results in 9 threads, and when you can find 6 references to Mary Jo quite quickly from the same poster, maybe there’s a problem. Are you aware of any Bush bashers that bring up his AWOL with anywhere near that frequency?
What, if anything, does any of that have to do with the actual subject of this thread?
Hey, moron, no-one never said criticizing Kennedy for Chappaquiddick was verboten. In fact, if you want to start a thread about the subject, go right ahead.
If you did start such a thread, i would probably make a similar observation to the one i made in this post two years ago:
Kennedy’s delay in notifying authorities was wrong, and it was wrong irrespective of Cheney’s actions decades later. In my experience, plenty of liberals hold very similar views about the incident.
The question is whether or not a drive-by post about Chappaquiddick is a relevant and appropriate response to every thread that involves a discussion of Ted Kennedy.
Of course, you engage in the usual puerile “but libruhls do it too” bullshit. How many times do mouthbreathers like you need to be told that this isn’t a reasonable excuse? Like many liberals and leftists on this Board, i think that drive-by postings about Bush’s alleged AWOL are also unproductive, and i challenge you to find a single post by me that makes such a gratuitous reference. Especially in a thread where actual issues are being discussed.
Similarly, i challenge you to find a similar reference to Bush by any of the liberals in this thread who have brought up the irrelevance of the Chappaquiddick incident in this discussion.
If you were really the non-partisan moderate you claimed to be, you would have spent some energy criticizing the irrational libruhl-bashing of the OP. But of course, as usual, you wade past the partisan bullshit of the conservative and make a beeline for the liberals.
You’re pathetic.
No, it’s much worse. It’s applying the same standard.
Was there ever any evidence that he meant to drive off the bridge at Chappaquiddick and kill an innocent young woman, disgrace himself and his family and forever ruin his chances at the presidency? Gee it all seems to make sense, right?
What else happened during that same four week period? Armstrong walked on the moon. The Manson gang committed the Tate-LaBianca murders. Peace broke out at Woodstock. “You know, like that’s been a while, man.”
Are you who you were thirty-seven years ago?
I wish that Mary Jo Kopechne had lived a long and full life and that she was enjoying being 65 now. I wish that the man that she campaigned for had been made of sterner stuff in younger years.
I’m not familiar with this windmill issue and I don’t know Kennedy’s motives. I tend to trust what ETF says because I know her better and she is coherent.
Just a word, if I may. I remember your comment in that thread. And I’ll confess to being rather rabidly anti-Kennedy. I also believe that the Kennedy clan has played fast and loose with the law to protect the family.
None of that really seems germane to the topic that the OP tried to rant about, however.
Anyone calling the OP on the errors of fact, the exaggerations, or the misrepresentations in the OP seems to be shooting fish in a barrel. (Quite legitimately, I may add.)
Anyone trying to deflect those critics by ad hominum attacks on Sen. Kennedy seems to be shooting a different fish. (Or beating a dead and rotted horse, if you prefer.) And, in this case, the question of Ted Kennedy’s character seems at best only tangentially related to the legislative action that the OP seems to be most exercised about.
I guess I want to make it clear that one can be fairly down on Sen. Kennedy, without feeling the need to bring up Chappaquiddick every time he annoys me.
I think, far more importantly than any attempt to characterize this as the act of one person, it should be taken as illustrative of the lengths to which political policy can be held hostage to NIMBY attitudes. Certainly Sen. Kennedy’s position on this “green dream” project seems a bit at odds with nominal Democratic Party positions on the problems of energy production. And with the electricity prices in Massachusetts being among the higher in the nation, it would seem that this Cape Wind project would be an ideal place to test some of the claims of the proponents of wind farms. But, as others have pointed out, there’s no way that that this act to ban wind farms from proximity to ferry lanes could have been the actions of just one Senator or Representative.
In some ways, it reminds me of the scorched earth tactics of those persons who are still fighting the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility. It all depends upon who’s ox is gored. 
On preview - Zoe, there is still a part of me that is very angry that the man is still being elected to any public office after his actions that night. I want to believe that character matters. After all, aren’t questions about his character one of the reasons that Gary Condit is no longer in Congress?
I just don’t see how it matters to the issue of the Cape Wind project. It’s not something that any one representative could do alone.
No, I don’t think he meant to kill Mary-Jo. The problem is that after the accident, he went to a friends house, (a house with a phone, yet nobody called the police), returned with his friends to the scene of the accident, and when (he claims) they were unable to rescue the girl, he swam the channel and went to back to his hotel, where he called his lawyer and a couple other people for advice before contacting the police. The police didn’t arrive at the accident scene until the next day. Mary-Jo’s body was never autopsied (unusual for a death in such circumstances), so her cause of death is unknown, but rescuers did note a large volume of air trapped in the car, and some have speculated that the girl may have suffocated when the oxygen in this air pocket ran out rather than drowning, in which case a prompt police and rescue response might have saved her life. Of course nobody will ever know for sure. To my mind there is only one credible reason for the delay (a reason that I feel is likely the cause of the Cheney delay as well, FWIW), And that’s that he was drunk, and needed time for the alcohol to clear his system before the authorities became involved. That’s why Chappaquiddick is a little more than “he didn’t mean to kill her”, AFAIK, nobody claims that he did.