Go To Hell Senator kennedy!

In other words, he did a version of what probably 99.9% of people in similar situations have done or would do. It doesn’t make him evil, it just means he’s fallible like the rest of us.

And, just as i thought, this has turned into a debate over Kennedy and Chappaquiddick, rather than over the OP’s ridiculous assertions or the issue of the Cape Cod wind farm.

This is what conservatives and alleged moderates like stupiddave are so good at—changing the debate to make it all about the evil libruhls.

I asked a friend of mine, who’s in the industry, about this the other day, and according to him claims of bird strike at wind farms are greatly exaggerated by the conservationists. No cite I’m afraid.

99.9% of the population would drive drunk, killing a woman, and attempting to cover it up?

Who here can say that when they see or hear about Ted Kennedy in political action Chappaquiddick doesn’t immediately come to mind ? Just imagine O.J. Simpson returning to NBC to comment on the NFL games.

The hilarious part of this accusation is that it was the liberals who brought up the subject of Chappaquiddick in this thread. Read back. Post the first mention of Chappaquiddick or Mary-Jo. Look at who posted it. Then quit yapping.

Oh, and if you read back, all I did was fill in Zoe on the details of what happened in 1969. You got a factual beef about what i said, go ahead and state it, otherwise stop flapping your gums.

I can honestly say that. Except, of course, on those occasions where jerkoffs not only bring it up, but make it the only issue, ignoring the actual subject of the debate.

The real issue, though, is not whether it comes up in people’s minds, but whether it is germane to the subject at hand. Do you honestly think that Kennedy’s position on the wind farm is in any way related to Chappaquiddick?

Try reading s-l-o-w-l-y, Hamlet.

99.9% of people in similar situations doesn’t equate to “99.9% of the population.”

So, in your opinion, what was Stephe96 talking about?

Only to the extent that I dismiss anything he says because he lost credibility for me.

Do you honestly think that Stephe96’s reference was to anything else, given the evidence presented in this thread. If so, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what it was, especially since the poster in question hasn’t got the courage to return to the thread.

This is an out-and-out lie.

Your first post in this thread said:

This is not simply “fill[ing] Zoe in on the details of what happened in 1969” (as if you actually know anyway); it is an attempt to make the whole issue about alleged liberal hypocrisy, rather than about the actual topic of the thread.

Not only that, your first post is, in itself, factually incorrect, in that you say that “Kennedy definitely committed manslaughter.” If you can direct us to evidence of this, please do so. Otherwise retract your lie.

And where, oh moderate one, was your critique of the OP’s partisan conservatism? You still haven’t found the energy to address that issue, have you?

Well, let’s see how easy this is.

The fact that you would dismiss anything that a person says due to one single act almost forty years ago means that you have no credibility. This means, of course, that anything you say can also be dismissed out of hand.

Which, given your performance in this thread, seems pretty reasonable.

Ooooohh. Thanks. So the population that matters is the 99.9% of the people who drive drunk, with a passenger, go off the road into a pond, thereby causing the passengers death? Well shit, in that illustrious company, he’s positively average!!!

His actions were a trifle more than “fallible”. But thanks for the correction.

Now, I’ll take mhendo’s words to heart and avoid this conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

As I’ve often said about the Kennedy clan: “It’s easy to be a liberal when you’re rich.” :D:D

Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. Fuckin’ putz.

Heck, didn’t you know that all of Nantucket belongs to them?

A couple of years ago, the company I was working for sent a 30’ truck with crew to the Kennedy compound on Nantucket to do some work for the day. When they were finished, the crew chief happened to mention that he was worried they would miss the ferry back to the mainland. The kennedy who was having the work done (I won’t name specific names) said “Oh, no problem.”, hit the speed dial on the phone for the Ferry, and arranged to have it held for them.

When they arrived, they discovered that not only was the ferry held, they hadn’t let anyone else onboard yet. Escorted to the front of the line, our truck was the first one on, then everyone else was allowed on. This meant that they were also the first ones to get off on the mainland.

Sure it was great for our crew, not having to wait 4 hours till the next boat, but it drove home for me the twin points of how the kennedys expect to get their way, and how everyone around them gives it to them.

Beats the hell out of me, why don’t you ask her? Personally I think Kennedy’s voting record is as good a ticket to hell as one could want, but I’m not the one who said it. Every single person in this thread talking about Chappaquiddick is doing so under the assumption that that’s what Steph was refering to, and has proceded based upon this assumption, with no basis in fact. The first poster to mention Chappaquiddick was from the liberal side of the ailse, and away the merry-go-round had swung since.

There’s a line in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress to the effect that Americans have been wanting their royalty back ever since the Revolution deprived them of it.

Would be nice to see an America where we no longer treated rich and powerful people, and celebs of all sorts, as royalty. I was thinking about this a week or two ago on account of the local sheriff’s deputy being obviously more easily turned away at the Armstrong Ranch than he would have been at an ordinary home. But it’s just as applicable with the Kennedys, if not more so.

If it quacks like a duck, …

…it’ll get hit by a windmill? :smiley:

It’s not a lie. The text you quoted was not from my first post to the thread, it was from a text made in direct reply to Zoe (whom I quoted) wondering if Kennedy meant to drive off the bridge at Chappaquiddick. I said no. It is you who is mixing questions and responses from different posts to create the illusion that I am saying something I have clearly not said. You appear to have quite a future in propaganda.

Got any factual problems with what I said, or are you all just bluster?

You’re the one going nuts about liberal hypocrisy. I pointed out a glaring double standard in the posts on this board. An honest person would have looked it it objectively, said 'You know, you have a point", and gone back to the topic at hand, instead you wind up like a monkey, shrieking and screeching and flinging your feces around. You’re as predictable as the tides and as amusing as a clown.

What’s to retract? Kennedy committed manslaughter. O.J. committed murder. Neither man was convicted of either charge, but only a deluded fool would argue that they weren’t guilty. :smack: Of course, THAT’S why you’re making this argument. Never mind. Tell you what. Why don’t you strap a woman into your car and drive it into Back River. Leave the scene and come back in the morning. Let’s see what you are charged with. Care to be what it’ll be?

It’s not my OP. Why you think I would be obligated to defend it is beyond me.

Again, where have I even addressed the issue of Senator Kennedy and the wind farm? I haven’t, mainly because I don’t care very much. I didn’t say that what happened at Chappaquiddick had any bearing at all on the wind farm. That was entirely the creation of those on your side of the floor, creating an issue and then going nuts defending it. It’s kinda like watching a schizophrenic argue with a mirror. Amusing at first, but ultimately it’s just sad.