1
   

What Liberals Wish They Were Reading This Morning ...

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 06:49 am
BernardR wrote:
The idea that one can make comments on historical occurences without reference to past events is one which only people who are untrained in Historiography would make.


Given your horseshit remarks about racism as the origin of all fascism, and your subsequent inability to support that fairy tale, you have to be a screaming hypocrit (if not altogether an idiot), to bring up historiography. From Abuzz five and six years ago right up to the present, you have shown not the least grasp of the subject; not the least ability to make a sound judgment on the value of evidence, nor the bases for judging it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 07:35 am
WhoodaThunk wrote:
dlowan wrote:
BernardR wrote:
I agree. Limbaugh is a hypocrite. He has railed against drug use and it is an established fact that he went "doctor shopping" and piled up quite a large cache of "pain killing drugs".

I hope that the populace remembers this if Limbaugh ever speaks of cracking down on addicts.

But sometimes the public has a short memory or the media does not give enough attention to the case at hand.

How many people are aware that the illustrious Ted Kennedy, after his complicity in the death of MAry Jo Kopechne, was only charged with leaving the scene of an accident without reporting it and that charge was immediately suspended?

How many people are aware that the illustrious Ted Kennedy was unceremoniously booted out of Harvard Law School when he cheated on a Spanish test?

Because Rush Limbaugh was hypocritical about the subject of drugs, I can never take his pronouncements on that topic seriously.

Because Ted Kennedy was a cheater at Harvard and clearly evaded justice in his home state, Massachusetts, after the death of Kopechne, I can never take his pronouncements about "Justice" and "Equity" seriously.



You need to get over Ted, Massagato....the affair was a looong time ago, and he has forgotten you. Let go...you will feel so much better.

Really.


Hypocrisy has an expiration date?

Your selective moral outrage is hysterical.

<<BTW, this is your cue to redirect with a sigh, eyeroll, & a dissertation on the right's obsession with the Kennedys & Clintons. Lights, camera, action, Deb!!>>


You need to learn to read.

I was discussing Italmassagato's need to get over his affair with Ted...he is obsessed and needs to let go. Clearly, Ted doesn't love him any more.


You once had some sort of sense of humour as I recall. I note that the bile is destroying it, and your ability to comprehend English.


It might help you if you attempt to take in posts before you respond.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 08:19 am
dlowan wrote:
You need to get over Ted, Massagato....the affair was a looong time ago, and he has forgotten you. Let go...you will feel so much better.

Really.


Deb: Forgive me for not catching on to your reference to Bernard/Massagato's homosexual love affair with a U.S. senator. I simply was not aware you were invoking the usual Kennedy usage of the word, as in "Jack & Bobby's affair" with Marilyn Monroe. For some reason I assumed you were referring to the Chappaquidick "affair" (which was actually mentioned in Bernardgatto's post) or the West Palm Beach Kennedy rape "affair" or the Patrick Kennedy drugged driving "affair."

As much as I hate the schoolmarm-ish references to Webster's, this misunderstanding did pique my interest and, okay, I looked it up. "An amorous relationship" is listed as the 6th and final usage of the word, and, well, you're a smart girl so you check the other listings if you're so inclined.

I assure you my sense of humor is fully intact (and just as twisted as ever) but that's probably not apparent to you as you seem fixated on providing me with any number of new anal orifices each and every time our paths cross. Thanks for caring, though.

As for bile production, 'twould seem you're probably consuming your fair share of Purple Pills based on your posts here and elsewhere. As I recall, your hide was thicker in times past ... perhaps there's a pill for that, too.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 08:23 am
And, Deb, if you would ever consider taking this pissing contest off the A2K front porch, I would be most receptive to a PM exchange.

If not, I'll just have to continue to refrain from bending over in your presence
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 12:42 pm
Historiography-??

from "Understanding History" by Louis Gottschalk--

"In fact, there is a school of historians who content that values and ideas change with periods of history, that what is a justifiable princple of aesthetics, morality or politics may be less so at another, that thought patterns are relative to contemporary conditions arising out of the cultural and historical climate of a given area and time. That belief, which would deny the validity of absolute principles or of a single system of truthful interpretation in history, is sometimes called objective relativism or historical relationism"



If one is to follow this school of thought, I wonder which guidelines are to be followed. Is everything which took place before Jan.19th 2001 never to be referenced under any circumstances? If so, we must never, in any context speak the names of FRD. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kennedy, or even Bill Clinton.

Do we dare ever reference Everett Dirksen? Shall there never be any mention of Tip O'Neill? What about Patrick Moynihan?


It is a fact that Ted Kennedy, always filled with phrases about the necessity to be moral with regards to the poor and fluent with his declamations concerning political integrity was expelled from Harvard for cheating on a Spanish test and should have been found guilty of manslaughter in the case of the death of Mary Jo Kopechine.

To those who think I am going too far back in History and that nothing after a specific date should be mentioned concerning any political personage, I would ask them to give me the date. I will endavor to follow it provided no one else wanders into the era which is proscribed.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 02:05 pm
BernardR wrote:

It is a fact that Ted Kennedy, always filled with phrases about the necessity to be moral with regards to the poor and fluent with his declamations concerning political integrity was expelled from Harvard for cheating on a Spanish test and should have been found guilty of manslaughter in the case of the death of Mary Jo Kopechine.

To those who think I am going too far back in History and that nothing after a specific date should be mentioned concerning any political personage, I would ask them to give me the date. I will endavor to follow it provided no one else wanders into the era which is proscribed.


Interesting. On another thread you claimed Ted was expelled for cheating on a Math test. History doesn't seem to involve solid facts when you use it Bernard but rather is whatever made up fact you want to spew to try to support your present rant.

Just so you know.. Manslaughter didn't apply in the drowning. Not only morals and ideas change, laws do too. History requires that you look at acts in context of its time frame.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 03:54 pm
WhoodaThunk wrote:
And, Deb, if you would ever consider taking this pissing contest off the A2K front porch, I would be most receptive to a PM exchange.

If not, I'll just have to continue to refrain from bending over in your presence


Please do.

And, you may recall, I offered just such an exchange a long time ago, and this was made an occasion of especial nastiness from you, so naturally I have not renewed such an offer.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 07:07 pm
dlowan wrote:
WhoodaThunk wrote:
And, Deb, if you would ever consider taking this pissing contest off the A2K front porch, I would be most receptive to a PM exchange.

If not, I'll just have to continue to refrain from bending over in your presence


Please do.

And, you may recall, I offered just such an exchange a long time ago, and this was made an occasion of especial nastiness from you, so naturally I have not renewed such an offer.


You seem to like the front porch, Deb.

I do remember something of what you mention, but that memory pales next to the memory of your broadside which precipitated the especial nastiness ... which lived in the house that Jack built ... or something like that.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 09:27 pm
Ah, dlowan - off making friends and influencing people again, eh?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 10:17 pm
snood wrote:
Ah, dlowan - off making friends and influencing people again, eh?



Yeah...just like you.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 10:18 pm
WhoodaThunk wrote:
dlowan wrote:
WhoodaThunk wrote:
And, Deb, if you would ever consider taking this pissing contest off the A2K front porch, I would be most receptive to a PM exchange.

If not, I'll just have to continue to refrain from bending over in your presence


Please do.

And, you may recall, I offered just such an exchange a long time ago, and this was made an occasion of especial nastiness from you, so naturally I have not renewed such an offer.


You seem to like the front porch, Deb.

I do remember something of what you mention, but that memory pales next to the memory of your broadside which precipitated the especial nastiness ... which lived in the house that Jack built ... or something like that.


Look...crap or get off the pot.

If you want to go to PMs, do so.

Had you agreed to PM when I discussed it, you would have discovered that a number of those "broadsides" were not actually aimed at you, but wotthell...
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 12:00 am
It would appear that Parados is not in possession of the facts. He writes of "Made up facts". I made up no facts. Because you are not in possession of the facts, parados, you charge they are made up.

Please note:

www.aim.org/publications.aim_report/1979/11a.html

"NBC said- He(Ted Kennedy) was a freshman at Harvard, a football player, and he was expelled for cheating on a Spanish Test"

parados says--"a rant" By NBC? I am very much afraid, parados, that you do not have the facts. Please present evidence that Ted Kennedy was not expelled from Harvard for cheating on a Spanish test. Calling facts " a rant" is a very weak response.


And as for Kennedy's shameful record on Chappaquiddick---

from "Senatorial Privilege"-The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up by Leo Damore
Regenery Publisher--1988

quote - P.191

"The complaint charges that Edward M. Kennedy of Boston, Mass., on the 19th day of July at Edgartown, did operate a certain notor vehicle upon a public way in said Edgartown and did go away after knowingly causing injury to Mary Jo Kopechnie without stopping and making known his name, residence and the number of his motor vehicle."

"How do you plead?"

Kennedy hesitated..."Guilty" he said"

"Considering the unblemished record of the defendant(Actually, under a Charlottesville, Virginia dateline, the Associated Press had circulated a story appearing in that morning's newspapers listing Ted Kennedy's recod of previous traffic offenses)"and insofar as the Commonwealth represents this is not a case where he was really trying to conceal his indenty, he has already been and will cointue to be punished far beyond anything this court can impose, the ends of justice would be satisfied by the imposition of the minimum jail sentence and SUSPENSION OF THAT SENTENCE..."


Ted Kennedy was re-elected as Senator and continues to excoriate others for their unconsciable political actions.

The height of hypocrisy.

And, so, parados, if you consider the above to be a "rant" please be so good as to show that any part of it does not coincide with the official record.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 03:08 am
dlowan wrote:
Look...crap or get off the pot.

If you want to go to PMs, do so.

Had you agreed to PM when I discussed it, you would have discovered that a number of those "broadsides" were not actually aimed at you, but wotthell...


You know ... whatever.

Sorry I missed your once-in-a-lifetime window of opportunity.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 05:23 am
What I wish to see/read this morning is that Fitzgerald has gotten off the pot and indicted Rove for perjury and/or obstruction of justice. As starters.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 06:08 am
How's that going?

I haven't kept up.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 06:34 am
Paper this morning said that Fitzgerald is comparing all of Rove's testimonies and weighing whatever other evidence he may have....and will make a decision, one way or another, soon. But not a hint of what he might decide.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 07:45 am
BernardR wrote:
It would appear that Parados is not in possession of the facts. He writes of "Made up facts". I made up no facts. Because you are not in possession of the facts, parados, you charge they are made up.

Please note:

www.aim.org/publications.aim_report/1979/11a.html

"NBC said- He(Ted Kennedy) was a freshman at Harvard, a football player, and he was expelled for cheating on a Spanish Test"


BernardR wrote:


It is earnestly to be desired that Patrick does not manifest the "cheating" genes of his father which caused Ted Kennedy to be unceremoniously thrown out of Harvard for cheating on a Math test.


I'm not the one that claimed Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard for cheating on a Math test. That would be YOU Bernard. Please provide your evidence of Kennedy being thrown out of Harvard for cheating on a Math test AND for cheating on a Spanish test.

Quote:
parados says--"a rant" By NBC? I am very much afraid, parados, that you do not have the facts. Please present evidence that Ted Kennedy was not expelled from Harvard for cheating on a Spanish test. Calling facts " a rant" is a very weak response.
You might want to look up the word "rant" Bernard. Your argument that Kennedy should have been convicted of manslaughter is the "rant" I was referring to.
Kennedy was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident. "Manslaughter" didn't apply to such an act at the time. He couldn't have been guilty of manslaughter since the crime didn't cover that. It is a rant to claim Kennedy should have been convicted of manslaughter. Just as it would be a rant to claim Laura Bush should have been convicted of manslaughter for the death in her accident.


Quote:
Ted Kennedy was re-elected as Senator and continues to excoriate others for their unconsciable political actions.

The height of hypocrisy.
You do realize that a car accident is NOT a political act, don't you?

Quote:
And, so, parados, if you consider the above to be a "rant" please be so good as to show that any part of it does not coincide with the official record.
Just did. I showed 2 instances of you making things up, math test and manslaughter.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 12:39 am
Not a Math test but cheating on a Spanish Test.

Kennedy was unceremoniously booted out of Harvard University for cheating on a Spanish Test.

www.ytedk.com/scandals.htm

If you read my post, parados, you will note that the transcript of the hearing for Ted Kennedy indicated that he was charged with a crime of leaving the scene of an accident without making a report and that he was given the minimum jail sentence and that the sentence was suspended on the spot.

You can't deny that. That is part of the official record.



Then, manslaughter --a rant? You may think so but many in Massachusetts did not.

quote:

P. 53- Damore-"Senatorial Privilege

"Walter Steele, (special prosecutor for the county of Dukes County-Martha's Vineyard)said: "If I had to do it over again, I probably would have held out for a probable cause hearing for manslaughter and an autopsy"

P. 93- Damore

"Having defended automobile accident cases for insurance companies for many years, Gargan(Lawyer, Ted Kennedy's cousin, and co-host of the party at Chappaquiddick) was certain that Kennedy would be sued. Gargan said: "First, I was thinking of this as a civil case. And, in addition to that, manslaughter definitely had to be considered, since Mary Jo had died in an accident. BECAUSE ITS AUTOMATIC IN MASSACHUSETTS WHEN A PERSON IS KILLED IN AN ACCIDENT FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO BRING AN ACTION FOR CRIMINAL MANSLAUGHTER. YOU HAVE GOT TO HAVE A HEARING"

p. 110- Damore

"Gargan had known of cases of death resulting from automobile accidents which had been prosecuted for manslaughter. "That was quite common. There was nothing exceptional about it. That didn't mean that a lot of times, the person was not acquitted. BUT YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH A TRIAL"


P. 171- Damore

"As to manslaughter, the rule in Massachusetts was clear: "Any person who wantonly or in a reckless or grossly negligent manner did that which resulted in the death of a human being was guilty of manslaughter, although he did not contemplate such a result"

"A further manslaughter charge possibility developed from John Farrar, the Edgartown fire department scuba diver, In a number of interviews, Farrar repeatedly expressed the opinion that Mary Jo Kopechne might have lived for some time under water by breathing a bubble of trapped air, and that she could have been saved if rescue personnel had been promptly called to the scene of the accident"

P. 313-Damore

"Bernie Flynn(State Police Detective Lieutenant in charge of the Cape Cod Office of the District Attorney) indicated that Stan Moore, a participant about drinking on Richards' boat after the Regatta Race and before the party at Chappaquiddick, refused to talk to police about the drinking on Richards' boat, which suggested that Kennedy had half a bag on before the Party at Chappaquiddick, information of vital importance, given a possible manslaughter charge emanating from the request...The Registry of Motor Vehicles was "walking on tiptoes" around the case, Flynn said, because Ted Kennedy's license had expired, information that was common knowledge in the district attorney's office."


P. 323- Damore

"Henry Monaghan filed a brief on behalf of the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts as amicus curiae. Under Boyle's( District Court Judge, Edgartown, Massachusetts) ground rules, Kennedy could stand publicly accused of Mary Jo Kopechne's death. HAVING PLEADED GUILTY TO ONE OFFENCE ARISING OUT OF THE ACCIDENT, KENNEDY COULD BE REPORTED TO BE THE PERSON 'WHOSE UNLAWFUL ACT OR NEGLIGENCE APPEARED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THERETO, Monaghan said, "Accordingly, he faces the possibility of a MANSLAUGHTER PROCEEDING>"



and P. 412- Damore

Senator Kennedy granted a two hour interview to a team of investigative reporters to discuss the accident for the first time since the inquest....Kennedy cleared up none of the conradictions involved in the accident or the "nearly 100 discrepancies in the testimony and statements by several key inquest witnesses. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUDICIAL OFFICIALS HAD SAVED KENNEDY FROM BEING CHARGED WITH SERIOUS CRIMES, INCLUDING M A N S L A U G H T E R, the GLOBE concluded in its four part series"





Manslaughter--a rant? I respectfully submit that it is possible that Parados does not know what manslaughter is and that he is not aware of how it may have applied in the Kennedy case. A "rant" to Parados but not to the people, officials and newspaper quoted above.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 06:42 am
So why did you post it was a math test on another thread?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 11:03 am
I heard that Teddy cheated on a Spanish Test at Harvard College and was then expelled from the Campus. So, if this be the case, how did Teddy learn Spanish?

Immersion? Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 01:25:33