Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Another Drunk Kennedy Cover-Up

Universal Peach





Posts: 6166
(6170 all sites)
Registered: 6/10/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 07:41 PM
Kennedy Confirms Car Crash Near Capitol

By Del Quentin Wilber and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 5, 2006; Page A05

Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy crashed his car into a security barrier near the Capitol early yesterday and officers suspected that he was intoxicated, a police union official said.

Kennedy (D-R.I) issued a statement confirming that he was in an accident but said he consumed no alcohol prior to the crash. Kennedy, 38, was not injured, and no charges were filed. {Gee, wonder if you or I did it?}

"I will fully cooperate with the Capitol Police in whatever investigation they choose to undertake," Kennedy's statement said.

Capitol police released few details and did not even confirm that the six-term congressman was in the accident at 2:50 a.m. in the 100 block of C Street SE, near the House office buildings.

Within hours, however, the union representing Capitol Police officers provided its version of events and suggested that Kennedy, the son of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), got special treatment.

Lou Cannon, president of the D.C. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 1, said that officers at the scene thought Kennedy was staggering and might have been intoxicated. They called for supervisors over the radio, and supervisors drove Kennedy home, he said.

Cannon said officers were upset that supervisors prevented them from conducting a more thorough investigation, which might have included sobriety tests. "The officers just want to be able to do their jobs," he said.

Police sources said that officers noticed Kennedy's Mustang shortly before the crash because he nearly crashed head-on into a Capitol police car. The Mustang's lights were off, the sources said. The officer turned his patrol car around to pursue Kennedy, who then crashed into the barrier, the sources said.

When police approached, the sources said, Kennedy got out of his car and said he was late for a vote. The House was not in session.

Cannon said that the union's bargaining committee delivered a letter yesterday to acting Police Chief Christopher M. McGaffin protesting the handling of the matter.

Terrence W. Gainer, who recently stepped down as U.S. Capitol police chief, said he also spoke to some officers who were upset about the incident.

"It's always a tough situation when an officer has to take law enforcement action with members of Congress," Gainer said. "But the rules are very clear. If there's a violation of the law you treat everybody equally."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------

'Cept when it's a Kennedy. Can you say, "Culture of Corruption"? Bet 'cha can?

Guess we have another lying Police Officer. Part of the Right-Wing Conspiracy. Ummm....It's Bush's Fault! He lied & Patrick is pied.

Sung to the tune of "I Touch Myself"
"They'd arrest anyone else, but when the Kennedy's screw up they use their Wealth."

 

____________________

 
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18577
(18622 all sites)
Registered: 1/2/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 07:44 PM
"If I get drunk and sing all night long it's just a family tradition"


apologies to Bocephus

 

____________________
It was fun while it lasted




 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 100459
(100459 all sites)
Registered: 7/1/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 07:47 PM
of course Bush knows nothing of coruption.
how many people did Kennedy's arogenice kill?

 
E-Mail User

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6166
(6170 all sites)
Registered: 6/10/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 07:56 PM
quote:
of course Bush knows nothing of coruption.
how many people did Kennedy's arogenice kill?


Mary Joe Kopecknie..................

(I won't even mention the Bay of Pigs or Viet Nam; Oops, I just did)

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 100459
(100459 all sites)
Registered: 7/1/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 07:59 PM
what about old man Bush & his CIA days?
 
E-Mail User

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6166
(6170 all sites)
Registered: 6/10/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 08:11 PM
quote:
what about old man Bush & his CIA days?


Dunno...... how many?

 

____________________

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6166
(6170 all sites)
Registered: 6/10/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 08:25 PM
quote:
What does any of this really have to do with Patrick Kennedy. He may have made a mistake. Are we that closed minded that we indict entire families because of one person, be it a Bush or a Kennedy?


When 'the great unwashed' i.e., the rest of us "make a mistake" we do not pass go, do not collect $200, we go straight to jail.

That what it has to do with Patrick Kennedy.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 08:33 PM
quote:
quote:
of course Bush knows nothing of coruption.
how many people did Kennedy's arogenice kill?


Mary Joe Kopecknie..................

(I won't even mention the Bay of Pigs or Viet Nam; Oops, I just did)


Uh, genius, Kennedy was dead before we got into Nam and if you are going to drag Mary Jo up, you might want to at least spell her name correctly.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 82650
(83009 all sites)
Registered: 4/16/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 08:39 PM
I dont think he got away with it because he is a Kennedy.

He got away with it because he is an effin politician and they can.

Any one of us would be in jail .

 

____________________
RIP Cindy Fischer
RIP Hugh Duty
RIP John Ott

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 08:43 PM
quote:
'Cept when it's a Kennedy. Can you say, "Culture of Corruption"? Bet 'cha can?


LOL...hypocrisy thy name is CB. Should I name off the Republican scandals and corruption issues for the past 5 years? *That*, my friend, is a culture of corruption. Tom DeLay, Abramoff are just a couple. How about Jeff "Ill suck you off for $200" Gannon or the most recent prostitution scandal involving the honorable Duke Cunningham? Culture of corruption implies ongoing, well established events. That definition fits the GOP far more than Ted and Pat put together.

quote:
Guess we have another lying Police Officer. Part of the Right-Wing Conspiracy. Ummm....It's Bush's Fault! He lied & Patrick is pied.


Which cop do you think is lying?

quote:
Sung to the tune of "I Touch Myself"
"They'd arrest anyone else, but when the Kennedy's screw up they use their Wealth."



I got news for you, CB. If it had been the mayor, they would have done the same thing. Its the same in any community in America..politics at the local level is just as bad as national. If you really want to see a great example of using wealth to beat the system, look no further than your sainted Rush Limbaugh. 30K in "fine" and another 40K for creation of a "drug court" and he gets to walk too. Lemme guess....thats different, right?

If Kennedy was DUI, lock his ass up with the other DUI's, but lets at least have the investigation first.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 08:44 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
of course Bush knows nothing of coruption.
how many people did Kennedy's arogenice kill?


Mary Joe Kopecknie..................

(I won't even mention the Bay of Pigs or Viet Nam; Oops, I just did)


Uh, genius, Kennedy was dead before we got into Nam and if you are going to drag Mary Jo up, you might want to at least spell her name correctly.





I thought we had advisors in Vietnam in 1961. Kennedy died in '63.


Maybe so, but the military part of Viet Nam didnt get going until 64-65

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8718
(8718 all sites)
Registered: 11/12/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 08:52 PM
If you saw footage of the barriers Patrick Kennedy crashed into, you'd have to think he was smashed, headlights or no headlights.

The following doesn't deal with this incident, but there's a need to correct some erroneous history mentioned above:
quote:
quote:
(I won't even mention the Bay of Pigs or Viet Nam; Oops, I just did)
Uh, genius, Kennedy was dead before we got into Nam
Uh, Squatch, we had significant military involvement in Vietnam while Kennedy was president. For example:

"Late 1961
"President John F. Kennedy orders more help for the South Vietnamese government in its war against the Vietcong guerrillas. U.S. backing includes new equipment and more than 3,000 military advisors and support personnel.

"December 11, 1961
"American helicopters arrive at docks in South Vietnam along with 400 U.S. personnel, who will fly and maintain the aircraft."

There were more such examples of escalation under Kennedy. See this abbreviated timeline page:
http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/index.html

Large-scale deployment of American troops did not start until after Pres. LBJ successfully pushed through the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, though.

 

____________________
"This is an old true story;
this is called 'I Must Have Did Somebody Wrong.'
(I wonder who.)"

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 09:04 PM
quote:
If I recall correctly, in December 1961 the first American soldier was killed. When your soldiers start to die, you are in a war. It escalated out of control under Johnson. But Kennedy was the one who got us involved in that war.


Again, officially, we werent involved in combat operations until 1964 (Gulf of Tonkin). We had a ton of advisors there and as of 1962, Kennedy claimed we were not fighting. It would not surprise me to know that some of our soldiers were killed in the very early years of Vietnam. Using the Wall of Viet Nam fallen as a date marker, the first two deaths of the Viet Nam war occured July 8th, 1959. Both advisors. Looks like Eisenhower is to "blame" if we are going to split hairs over the details.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 09:05 PM
quote:
OK, it was technically July 8, 1959 under Eisenhower. Here is a chronology.


http://servercc.oakton.edu/~wittman/chronol.htm


You showed me yours, so Ill show you mine :-)

http://thewall-usa.com/information/

/great minds and all that

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 09:11 PM
quote:
If you saw footage of the barriers Patrick Kennedy crashed into, you'd have to think he was smashed, headlights or no headlights.

The following doesn't deal with this incident, but there's a need to correct some erroneous history mentioned above:
quote:
quote:
(I won't even mention the Bay of Pigs or Viet Nam; Oops, I just did)
Uh, genius, Kennedy was dead before we got into Nam
Uh, Squatch, we had significant military involvement in Vietnam while Kennedy was president. For example:

"Late 1961
"President John F. Kennedy orders more help for the South Vietnamese government in its war against the Vietcong guerrillas. U.S. backing includes new equipment and more than 3,000 military advisors and support personnel.

"December 11, 1961
"American helicopters arrive at docks in South Vietnam along with 400 U.S. personnel, who will fly and maintain the aircraft."

There were more such examples of escalation under Kennedy. See this abbreviated timeline page:
http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/index.html

Large-scale deployment of American troops did not start until after Pres. LBJ successfully pushed through the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, though.


Yes, as I said, many advisors. He was partly responsible for the very, very early involvement, but Johnson had the choices to make and as we know now, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.

[Edited on 5/5/2006 by SquatchTexas]

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6475
(6530 all sites)
Registered: 8/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 09:45 PM
quote:
When 'the great unwashed' i.e., the rest of us "make a mistake" we do not pass go, do not collect $200, we go straight to jail.




Speak for yourself. I love showers........

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8494
(8495 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 10:07 PM
What a feeling of relief not to be debating Squatch for a change - whew!

Q - how many Kennedy's does it take to change a light bulb?

A - 12: one to hold the bulb and eleven to drink until the room starts spinning!

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8718
(8718 all sites)
Registered: 11/12/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 10:26 PM
quote:
Looks like Eisenhower is to "blame" if we are going to split hairs over the details.
Yes, it's important to split hairs and sort out the details. I guess my motivation is not to deny the small role of Eisenhower (though I would underplay it) and the huge role of LBJ, of course, but to stress the huge role of Kennedy, which always seems to be glossed over by many people (not just in this thread). To recap the timeline from posts above and websites linked to in them:

Eisenhower years: to 1961.01
quote:
a Captain (Army) Harry C. Cramer was killed 21 October 1957 during a training action.
quote:
July 8, 1959
The first American combat deaths in Vietnam occur when Viet Cong attack Bien Hoa billets; two servicemen are killed. . . .

The U.S. military has professional soldiers consulting with all our allies all the time. During the Eisenhower years we didn't have advisors doing much more than just that: advising, mostly helping the South Vietnamese with battle plans and strategy and doing lots of training. I think at this point no Americans were actually operating machinery during operations, much less leading troops.

As such, though American casualties of combat were real, they were not incurred with the Americans as combatants. I would also downplay Eisenhower's responsibility for subsequent developments leading to what we know as the American tragedy in the War in Vietnam.

Kennedy years: 1961-63
quote:
February, 1961
The U.S. military buildup in Vietnam begins with combat advisors. President John F. Kennedy declares that they will respond if fired upon.

quote:
quote:
Uh, genius, Kennedy was dead before we got into Nam
Uh, Squatch, we had significant military involvement in Vietnam while Kennedy was president. . . .
This is the main point I don't want glossed over.
quote:
Yes, as I {later} said, many advisors. He was partly responsible for the very, very early involvement.
This, again, minimizes Kennedy's huge responsibility. Under him thousands more "advisors" and support personnel went to Vietnam, and they weren't just behind-the-scenes trainers and planners anymore. (I couldn't find the number of advisors in the '50s, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to Kennedy's escalation.) Kennedy's deployment of manpower was active in operating machinery, driving vehicles, and flying helicopters during combat operations--this was a huge leap "forward." American planes also began defoliating Nam forests.

These early-'60s developments represent the threshold where the U.S. went from a "very, very early" advisory capacity to become a huge party to the combat.

Johnson years: 1963-1968.01
quote:
quote:
Large-scale deployment of American troops did not start until after Pres. LBJ successfully pushed through the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, though.
Johnson had the choices to make and as we know now, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.
Having put more blame on Kennedy, I would by no means disagree that Johnson took American involvement to a whole 'nother level. I would insist, however, that what happened was a continuation of Kennedy's policies, as orchestrated by Kennedy's "best and brightest" people. In particular:
Secretary of State Dean Rusk 1961-1969 (entire presidencies of JFK and LBJ)
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara 1961-1968.02 (entire presidencies of JFK and LBJ except for last 10 months)
That's why it's fair, in this context, to call it the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

I'm not so keen on some of the popular icons of the 1960s. In this case, I don't like to see some ultra-unpopular Lyndon made a complete scapegoat while some hallowed, shining John is virtually given a pass.

 

____________________
"This is an old true story;
this is called 'I Must Have Did Somebody Wrong.'
(I wonder who.)"

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/4/2006 at 10:46 PM
quote:
quote:
Looks like Eisenhower is to "blame" if we are going to split hairs over the details.
Yes, it's important to split hairs and sort out the details. I guess my motivation is not to deny the small role of Eisenhower (though I would underplay it) and the huge role of LBJ, of course, but to stress the huge role of Kennedy, which always seems to be glossed over by many people (not just in this thread). To recap the timeline from posts above and websites linked to in them:

Eisenhower years: to 1961.01
quote:
a Captain (Army) Harry C. Cramer was killed 21 October 1957 during a training action.
quote:
July 8, 1959
The first American combat deaths in Vietnam occur when Viet Cong attack Bien Hoa billets; two servicemen are killed. . . .

The U.S. military has professional soldiers consulting with all our allies all the time. During the Eisenhower years we didn't have advisors doing much more than just that: advising, mostly helping the South Vietnamese with battle plans and strategy and doing lots of training. I think at this point no Americans were actually operating machinery during operations, much less leading troops.

As such, though American casualties of combat were real, they were not incurred with the Americans as combatants. I would also downplay Eisenhower's responsibility for subsequent developments leading to what we know as the American tragedy in the War in Vietnam.

Kennedy years: 1961-63
quote:
February, 1961
The U.S. military buildup in Vietnam begins with combat advisors. President John F. Kennedy declares that they will respond if fired upon.

quote:
quote:
Uh, genius, Kennedy was dead before we got into Nam
Uh, Squatch, we had significant military involvement in Vietnam while Kennedy was president. . . .
This is the main point I don't want glossed over.
quote:
Yes, as I {later} said, many advisors. He was partly responsible for the very, very early involvement.
This, again, minimizes Kennedy's huge responsibility. Under him thousands more "advisors" and support personnel went to Vietnam, and they weren't just behind-the-scenes trainers and planners anymore. (I couldn't find the number of advisors in the '50s, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to Kennedy's escalation.) Kennedy's deployment of manpower was active in operating machinery, driving vehicles, and flying helicopters during combat operations--this was a huge leap "forward." American planes also began defoliating Nam forests.

These early-'60s developments represent the threshold where the U.S. went from a "very, very early" advisory capacity to become a huge party to the combat.

Johnson years: 1963-1968.01
quote:
quote:
Large-scale deployment of American troops did not start until after Pres. LBJ successfully pushed through the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, though.
Johnson had the choices to make and as we know now, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.
Having put more blame on Kennedy, I would by no means disagree that Johnson took American involvement to a whole 'nother level. I would insist, however, that what happened was a continuation of Kennedy's policies, as orchestrated by Kennedy's "best and brightest" people. In particular:
Secretary of State Dean Rusk 1961-1969 (entire presidencies of JFK and LBJ)
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara 1961-1968.02 (entire presidencies of JFK and LBJ except for last 10 months)
That's why it's fair, in this context, to call it the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

I'm not so keen on some of the popular icons of the 1960s. In this case, I don't like to see some ultra-unpopular Lyndon made a complete scapegoat while some hallowed, shining John is virtually given a pass.


Ill go along with mostly all of this. His "advisors" probably did quite a bit of shooting. I would, however, disagree with the declaration that it was the Kennedy/Johnson administration and more the Johnson administration. I wonder what would have happened had Kennedy not been killed. Kennedy certainly got the ball rolling on VN, but with the significant lack of combat operations and more of a diplomatic mission under Kennedy, I would accept the idea that there was a lot going on at the time.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 13894
(14148 all sites)
Registered: 2/10/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/5/2006 at 06:14 AM
there has been a pattern developing with this putz for some years now.

coke in '86. (no big deal there, we all had our vices)

the boat thing a couple of years ago.

the airport "scuffle". now this.

the dude is a spoiled brat. he does whatever he feels like doing then uses his name and his father to bail his ass out. He's a putz.

the sad thing is, the people of this state and his district in particular, will continue to vote for him.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 13894
(14148 all sites)
Registered: 2/10/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/5/2006 at 06:35 AM
oops, watch it there, Patty. Got a waitress says she saw ya poundin' 'em down.

Ambien, my foot.

going to vote?

there ya have it folks, RI's finest off to vote on the Hill.....at 3 a.m.

the guy is a habitual liar.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6166
(6170 all sites)
Registered: 6/10/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/5/2006 at 06:55 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
'Cept when it's a Kennedy. Can you say, "Culture of Corruption"? Bet 'cha can?



quote:
LOL...hypocrisy thy name is CB. Should I name off the Republican scandals and corruption issues for the past 5 years? *That*, my friend, is a culture of corruption. Tom DeLay, Abramoff are just a couple. How about Jeff "Ill suck you off for $200" Gannon or the most recent prostitution scandal involving the honorable Duke Cunningham? Culture of corruption implies ongoing, well established events. That definition fits the GOP far more than Ted and Pat put together.

Ha, caught at your own game! You're the first one to whine on when someone brings up your "sainted" Clintonista Regime and here you go & start yelling, "Oh yeah, what about the Republicans?" Bit of a double standard you got there ST, or is it "hypocricy"? And I do consider the whole Kennedy saga a "culture of corruption", from daddy bootlegger Joe on down. It's an "ongoing, well established event".

quote:
quote:
Guess we have another lying Police Officer. Part of the Right-Wing Conspiracy. Ummm....It's Bush's Fault! He lied & Patrick is pied.



quote:
Which cop do you think is lying?


I don't. Either the cop is, or Kennedy is.

quote:
quote:
Sung to the tune of "I Touch Myself"
"They'd arrest anyone else, but when the Kennedy's screw up they use their Wealth."




quote:
I got news for you, CB. If it had been the mayor, they would have done the same thing. Its the same in any community in America..politics at the local level is just as bad as national. If you really want to see a great example of using wealth to beat the system, look no further than your sainted Rush Limbaugh. 30K in "fine" and another 40K for creation of a "drug court" and he gets to walk too. Lemme guess....thats different, right?

Read the article. There's nothing in there about any 'mayor'. It was the Capital Hill Police supervisors! The same people that do battle with Cynthia McKinney. Try & stay on topic. And I really don't care about Limbaugh's problems. He's not an elected official, he's a private citizen.

And it doesn't happen at the local level everywhere http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9151540/detail.html. Some places still believe in law & order, even if it's the mayor! Thought you, of all people, would be for it too. Only when it's those you don't support, I guess.

quote:
If Kennedy was DUI, lock his ass up with the other DUI's, but lets at least have the investigation first.


That's the point. The police were not allowed to do their job because of politics. It's funny you only get that when it's the other party. "Hypocricy", I guess.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/5/2006 at 07:41 AM
quote:
Ha, caught at your own game! You're the first one to whine on when someone brings up your "sainted" Clintonista Regime and here you go & start yelling, "Oh yeah, what about the Republicans?" Bit of a double standard you got there ST, or is it "hypocricy"? And I do consider the whole Kennedy saga a "culture of corruption", from daddy bootlegger Joe on down. It's an "ongoing, well established event".[/quote

Feel free to show me where Ive defended Clinton on any of his "scandals" and I might agree with you. So, do you agree that the Republicans just in the past 5 years have some serious corruption problems? We can discuss specific examples if you wish but lets try to limit how many because we have a lot to pick from.

quote:
I don't. Either the cop is, or Kennedy is.


For my money, I would wager that Kennedy is lying.

quote:
Read the article. There's nothing in there about any 'mayor'.


Oh my god.. you are serious? I never suggested that there was. I was implying that IF it had been someone as insignificant as the mayor, he would have been treated the same way by the cops because he was higher profile than the average citizen. I thought that was pretty clear.

quote:
It was the Capital Hill Police supervisors!


Right. And? So what? I can assure you that if the cops deal with anyone of higher profile be it a Senator, movie star, political hot potato, whatever, they are going to notify their supervisors. Thats called covering your ass. You let your bosses make all the decisions and that way, if the Sentator, movie star, political hot potato gets pissy, they dont come after you, the lowly beat officer, they go after your bosses with the stripes or bars because they are the ones that made the decisions to treat them a certain way. I hope this is clear for you.

quote:
The same people that do battle with Cynthia McKinney. Try & stay on topic. And I really don't care about Limbaugh's problems. He's not an elected official, he's a private citizen.


Oh but you brought up the idea of the wealthy buying their way out of trouble. I just gave you an example using Limbaugh. I dont know how you can bring up the points but not want to discuss examples.

quote:
And it doesn't happen at the local level everywhere http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9151540/detail.html. Some places still believe in law & order, even if it's the mayor! Thought you, of all people, would be for it too. Only when it's those you don't support, I guess.


Nice try, CB. If you go back through any post Ive ever made on law and order, Im all for anyone who breaks the law to pay the price. If Kennedy broke the law, he needs to be charged and if found guilty he needs to go to jail. Oh and child abuse and domestic violence are far different scenarios than stopping the mayor for speeding and noticing he had too much to drink. No cop anywhere is going to cut loose "the mayor" for any of that in your linked article. You surely do love to compare apples and oranges, CB. God bless ya.

quote:
That's the point. The police were not allowed to do their job because of politics. It's funny you only get that when it's the other party. "Hypocricy", I guess.


No, I get it just fine. Im not defending Kennedy, but Im not going to just assume he is guilty just because he is a Kennedy like some people here (looking at you CB). Limbaugh was guilty as sin. They had actual evidence on him. He tried like hell to stop the police and even went to the highest court in the land to try and stop them. I would say thats not letting the cops do their job just as much if not more wouldnt you? Oh thats right, you dont care about examples of what we are discussing...

It also sounds to me like the police supervisors dropped the ball out of fear of political backlash which is a distinct possibility when dealing with "Senators". How hard is it for them to pick up a phone and complain? Its the old training question in the academy: "If you pull over the chief of police and you see he is drunk, what do you do?" Theres two answers for that. The textbook answer is that you book him, but in reality, you "escort him home to ensure his safety" and it likely never even has a report generated. Is this right? Hell no. Is it reality? Yep. Does it happen everywhere? Yep, and it doesnt mean its right. The cop that pulled him over didnt know who was behind the wheel, but when he found out it was Kennedy, A SENATOR, he notified his supervisors which I would bet any amount of money on, is SOP when dealing with high profile people .

Unfortunately, in potential DUI cases, evidence disappears quickly and even if Kennedy was to admit he was drunk as a skunk that night, they probably couldnt do anything to him due to a lack of evidence. Even the testimony of the officer who made the first contact with him wouldnt hold much water as any 1st year law student could probably successfully defend the case by simply asking "wheres your evidence?".

Im not arguing for his innocence and Im not suggesting that what he did was right. I believe the police screwed up and I believe Kennedy was probably intoxicated.

[Edited on 5/5/2006 by SquatchTexas]

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/5/2006 at 07:49 AM
quote:
but when he found out it was Kennedy, A SENATOR


This Kennedy is a Rep. not a Senator.

Seems like the only male Kennedy that somewhat has his act together and has really never been in any kind of trouble is Robert F. Kennedy jr.

[Edited on 5/5/2006 by Peachypetewi]

[Edited on 5/5/2006 by Peachypetewi]

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/5/2006 at 09:38 AM
ST, I admire your patience in dealing with crb. I don't have that much. I think he just posts here to try to get a rise out of people. Sometimes he seems pretty intelligent, and then you find his posts like these.

Interesting that Kennedy is already found guilty of DUI and a cover up by crb. Yet Bush can lie to the nation, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans, and he's willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

crb, I love it when people like you call someone else a hypocrit. That is rich!

The ones who come here and engage in stereo-typing, generalities, and comparing apples and oranges to try to make themselves look smart stand out in sharp contrast to most of the posters here, and crb's posts are some of the most obvious.

crb, does the fact that you have narrow-mindedly convicted Kennedy based on his name alone cancel out some of the preferential treatment he gets based on his name alone?

And before you start screaming about what a hypocrit I am because I'm "defending" a corrupt politician, I'm not saying anything about this case, either way, until all the facts come out. People with influence get preferential treatment by police all the time, and we all know that. I don't think that is quite the same as the crimes the current administration has committed.

 

____________________


 
<<  1    2    3  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com