BF2S Forums 40 Years Since Chappaquiddick

Poseidon wrote:

Oh, okay. So the fact that she didn't hide it suddenly makes it okay. That and the fact that she wasn't a public figure at the time.

Righty-o, chap!

Nope, the fact, she didn't LET the person die when/if she could have saved him, and then didn't cover it up, to save her ass, makes it FORGIVABLE, not okay.

I would pay top dollar to see lowing debate obama on tv.

lowing wrote:

Ut ohhhhhhhhhh, a difference even Poseidon can't deny, DRATS!!!.......See ya when you come back out of the woodwork, CHAP!

I was working. Not everyone monitors the debate boards of a BF2 forum 24/7 like you do.

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Oh, okay. So the fact that she didn't hide it suddenly makes it okay. That and the fact that she wasn't a public figure at the time.

Righty-o, chap!

Nope, the fact, she didn't LET the person die when/if she could have saved him, and then didn't cover it up, to save her ass, makes it FORGIVABLE, not okay.

Keep trying to make excuses for her. It's amusing.

Poseidon wrote:

Oh shit! Lowing ALSO hasn't responded in 12 minutes! Clearly he's given up!

I will respond as soon as you post a counter point to what I have said as you STILL did not address it. It is not excuses, it is the circumstances and facts behind both events.


There is a difference between "forgiving" and "being okay". You forgive when shit happens, it was unfortunate but not intentional.

Okay means it was "okay" that you did it, no problem.

Like it or not there is a difference between what both of these people did.

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-20 15:04:25)

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Oh shit! Lowing ALSO hasn't responded in 12 minutes! Clearly he's given up!

I will respond as soon as you post a counter point to what I have said as you STILL did not address it.


There is a difference between "forgiving" and "being okay". You forgive when shit happens, it was unfortunate but not intentional.

Okay means it was "okay" that you did it, no problem.

Like it or not there is a difference between what both of these people did.

And neither have you. You've dodged every point people have thrown at you by making up bullshit excuses for Laura Bush.

If it were Michelle Obama in Laura's position you'd be on her like Kobe Bryant. And you know that. Please, don't even try to say you wouldn't. It's not only me who sees your bias in this thread, and you make it so obviously apparent.

Now lowing my dear, I'm leaving for the night. Don't get all full of yourself thinking you won because I don't respond for a few hours.

I did adress the points made in this thread, I can not be held responsible for people such as yourself who REFUSE or are UNABLE to see the difference between a 17 year old teenager, getting into an accident never leaving the scene, cooperating with the investigation and to this day feeling remorseful about it, to a sitting senator who was drunk, drove off a bridge and let his date drown instead of help her, in order to spend time sobering up to cover his tracks, and avoid a DWI.

Like it or not there is a difference, which you still have not acknowledged. It is also the point I have been making which you still refuse to recognize.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge these facts does not mean they have not been presented. again I am not responsibile for your refusal to accept an argument.

Turquoise wrote:

I've got one that will at least make lowing feel uneasy.

John McCain ditched his crippled wife for a much younger heiress (his current wife).  That's going about as far as Edwards did, although McCain's ex-wife apparently wasn't as bitter about it as his kids once were.

Also Reagan.

Nobody really cares about these guys.  This past election was supposed to be the most historic, epic, and biggest turn out ever.  Well, not so much.

"For all the attention generated by last year's presidential race, census figures show the share of eligible voters who actually went to the polls in November declined from 2004.'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … QD99IAAT00

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I've got one that will at least make lowing feel uneasy.

John McCain ditched his crippled wife for a much younger heiress (his current wife).  That's going about as far as Edwards did, although McCain's ex-wife apparently wasn't as bitter about it as his kids once were.

not admirable I agree,  but where is the crime?   Not the same thing as what Kennedy did.

I'm not saying it's equal either.  I'm just mentioning yet another example of how the GOP has its skeletons in the closet as well.

Granted.  I am not so concerned about the whole crime aspect to it as to how I am amazed that he kept getting elected!  I mean, scandals usually spell the end of a Republican (whether through resignation or failing to be re-elected).

If Ted Kennedy was just caught having an affair, that would be politics as usual.  But, given the actual series of events that happened that night, along with the weak-assed excuses he gave in his speech, I am frankly amazed that he managed to stay in office.

EDIT:  Oh, and just so I can chime in on the Laura Bush (even though she was not a Bush at the time) and the Ted Kennedy comparison, from what I can find, Laura Bush stayed on scene and co-operated with the police.  She was thus cleared of any crime.  Kennedy left the scene, walked back to the Kennedy compound, hid in the bushes to avoid being seen be people still at the party, got two of the Kennedy assistants, drove in their car back to the scene, then had those assistants drive him to the ferry dock (the ferry was shut down for the night), swim accross the channel to the main island, go to his hotel, sleep, wake up the next day and take a taxi back onto Chappaquiddick island, and call the police to report the accident from a payphone on the island (about 10 hours after the accident occured).  The police suspected that Kennedy had been intoxicated, but any evidence of that would have cleared his system by the time he notified police.

-There was a house within eyesight of the bridge that was the sight of the accident, with inside and outside lights on, and visible telphone wires leading into the house.  This is significant because the Island was sparcely populated at the time, with no street lights.  At 1am, the house would have been very visible.  Also, not every house had a telephone back then.  Kennedy did not try to contact the house to ask for their help or to use the phone.
-At the Kennedy compound, there was also a phone he could have used to contact the police.  He did not do this.  In fact, he did his best to avoid attention.
-There was a phone in his hotel room, which he did not use when he got back to his hotel room (after swimming the channel, let us remember), nor did he use it the next morning when he awoke.

Other fun items from the incident.  Where was he taking her?  The ferries were shut down for the night, and at the time, there was no where else to go on the island.  She was staying at the compound.  The bridge he ran off was between the compound and the beach, not the ferry port.  She left her purse at the compound, suggesting she planned on returning.

Okay, so he was off to get some nooky.  Understandable, and he is a politician.  What I have against Kennedy is the lengths he went through to cover the crime up to avoid (or minimize) any fallout to his career.  We don't know if he could have saved her, and we will never have anything but his word for that.  But his actions afterwards are deplorable; I can not think of any concievable reason why he would do all of that unless it was to try to stay out of trouble himself.

And the voters of Massachusetts let him get away with it.

Last edited by imortal (2009-07-20 17:30:57)

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

not admirable I agree,  but where is the crime?   Not the same thing as what Kennedy did.

I'm not saying it's equal either.  I'm just mentioning yet another example of how the GOP has its skeletons in the closet as well.

Granted.  I am not so concerned about the whole crime aspect to it as to how I am amazed that he kept getting elected!  I mean, scandals usually spell the end of a Republican (whether through resignation or failing to be re-elected).

If Ted Kennedy was just caught having an affair, that would be politics as usual.  But, given the actual series of events that happened that night, along with the weak-assed excuses he gave in his speech, I am frankly amazed that he managed to stay in office.

That is because liberals are comfortable with scandals, their whole existence is based on scandal, misdirection, illusion and fantasy. Without it, their entire ideology would be exposed for what it is, a scam.


A very astute observation you have, when a republican fucks up, he is removed, when a democrat fucks up he is re-elected or promoted.
Go figure huh?

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-20 17:25:38)

lowing wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not saying it's equal either.  I'm just mentioning yet another example of how the GOP has its skeletons in the closet as well.

Granted.  I am not so concerned about the whole crime aspect to it as to how I am amazed that he kept getting elected!  I mean, scandals usually spell the end of a Republican (whether through resignation or failing to be re-elected).

If Ted Kennedy was just caught having an affair, that would be politics as usual.  But, given the actual series of events that happened that night, along with the weak-assed excuses he gave in his speech, I am frankly amazed that he managed to stay in office.

That is because liberals are comfortable with scandals, their whole existence is based on scandal, misdirection, illusion and fantasy. Without it, their entire ideology would be exposed for what it is, a scam.


A very astute observation you have, when a republican fucks up, he is removed, when a democrat fucks up he is re-elected or promoted.

Actually, I think it is because nearly every politician is messing around.  I think it is almost like a rock-and-roll lifestyle.  However, some of the scanals that have hit Republicans have been so counter to what they politically profess.  Some of the most anti-gay republican politicians have been nailed in homosexual scandals.  GOP representatives praising family values caught having affairs. This shocks their voters, and the voters turn on their sullied representative.

The Democrats, on the other hand, tend to have more permissive voters, and allow them to get away with a lot more. 

I think it is a matter of if the scandal involved violates the trust or expectation of the voters.  And it depends if the voters support the policitian for what they represent or just because of who they are.

imortal wrote:

Granted.  I am not so concerned about the whole crime aspect to it as to how I am amazed that he kept getting elected!  I mean, scandals usually spell the end of a Republican (whether through resignation or failing to be re-elected).

If Ted Kennedy was just caught having an affair, that would be politics as usual.  But, given the actual series of events that happened that night, along with the weak-assed excuses he gave in his speech, I am frankly amazed that he managed to stay in office.

EDIT:  Oh, and just so I can chime in on the Laura Bush (even though she was not a Bush at the time) and the Ted Kennedy comparison, from what I can find, Laura Bush stayed on scene and co-operated with the police.  She was thus cleared of any crime.  Kennedy left the scene, walked back to the Kennedy compound, hid in the bushes to avoid being seen be people still at the party, got two of the Kennedy assistants, drove in their car back to the scene, then had those assistants drive him to the ferry dock (the ferry was shut down for the night), swim accross the channel to the main island, go to his hotel, sleep, wake up the next day and take a taxi back onto Chappaquiddick island, and call the police to report the accident from a payphone on the island (about 10 hours after the accident occured).  The police suspected that Kennedy had been intoxicated, but any evidence of that would have cleared his system by the time he notified police.

-There was a house within eyesight of the bridge that was the sight of the accident, with inside and outside lights on, and visible telphone wires leading into the house.  This is significant because the Island was sparcely populated at the time, with no street lights.  At 1am, the house would have been very visible.  Also, not every house had a telephone back then.  Kennedy did not try to contact the house to ask for their help or to use the phone.
-At the Kennedy compound, there was also a phone he could have used to contact the police.  He did not do this.  In fact, he did his best to avoid attention.
-There was a phone in his hotel room, which he did not use when he got back to his hotel room (after swimming the channel, let us remember), nor did he use it the next morning when he awoke.

Other fun items from the incident.  Where was he taking her?  The ferries were shut down for the night, and at the time, there was no where else to go on the island.  She was staying at the compound.  The bridge he ran off was between the compound and the beach, not the ferry port.  She left her purse at the compound, suggesting she planned on returning.

Okay, so he was off to get some nooky.  Understandable, and he is a politician.  What I have against Kennedy is the lengths he went through to cover the crime up to avoid (or minimize) any fallout to his career.  We don't know if he could have saved her, and we will never have anything but his word for that.  But his actions afterwards are deplorable; I can not think of any concievable reason why he would do all of that unless it was to try to stay out of trouble himself.

And the voters of Massachusetts let him get away with it.

I agree for the most part, although I will say that it probably comes down to the power of the Kennedy family.  A politician from a less powerful family would be in jail right now.

Then again, look at the history of the Bushes.  Prescott Bush was a big player in the Union Banking Corporation.  We all know what became of that and how he maintained his political career.

It's not really about party, it's about power.  If you come from the right family, you can literally get away with murder.

Sen. Ted will see enactment at long last of  a health care bill.  Where was Ted? His name is on major bills with conservatives, I think. Oh, no one had a case against him, and he has long payed for his drunken behavior that got her killed.
And the president would flay any conservative talk show host as they have made-     up facts; sure the opponent would win the minds of the wingnuts.
Gee, we liberals can be mean!

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

And neither have you. You've dodged every point people have thrown at you by making up bullshit excuses for Laura Bush.

If it were Michelle Obama in Laura's position you'd be on her like Kobe Bryant. And you know that. Please, don't even try to say you wouldn't. It's not only me who sees your bias in this thread, and you make it so obviously apparent.

Now lowing my dear, I'm leaving for the night. Don't get all full of yourself thinking you won because I don't respond for a few hours.

I did adress the points made in this thread, I can not be held responsible for people such as yourself who REFUSE or are UNABLE to see the difference between a 17 year old teenager, getting into an accident never leaving the scene, cooperating with the investigation and to this day feeling remorseful about it, to a sitting senator who was drunk, drove off a bridge and let his date drown instead of help her, in order to spend time sobering up to cover his tracks, and avoid a DWI.

Like it or not there is a difference, which you still have not acknowledged. It is also the point I have been making which you still refuse to recognize.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge these facts does not mean they have not been presented. again I am not responsibile for your refusal to accept an argument.

You know, rape isn't the same as murder, but it's still bad.

Laura Bush killed a teenage kid and it was her fault. And you're excusing her just because it was a different set of circumstances, and the fact that she's the wife of your messiah, GWB.

I can't be held responsible if you're so damned biased you're willing to just forget and forgive vehicular manslaughter because said person is affiliated with your party/flawed ideology of choice. Because someone is remorseful, it all of a sudden just makes it okay? Are you serious? Hold on, let's take everyone off death row just because they said they were sorry.

I coulda swore I said, it didn't make it "OKAY" that it made it "forgiveable". There was no malace on her part, it was, BY DEFINITION, an accident.

and please, we all know htere is only 1 messiah and that ain't Bush, it is your fuckin rock star celebrity, Obama.

There is nothing for me to forget or forgive, all of that must come from the parties involved.


Laura WELCH didn't kill anyone, Laura WELCH was involved in an unfortunate car accident where a person was killed. Ted Kennedy could have saved Mary Jo, he didn't, he let her drown and covered up his involvement until he was sober.

time to get real and stop arguing this just for the sake of arguing, sometimes a liberal should really try and believe their own bullshit.