The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:55 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
We don't actually know if he killed the girl. We don't. Where is the evidence connecting him to her death? Where is the murder weapon?

It's possible he might have killed her. It's also possible that someone else killed her and set him up for it. If you are going to charge someone with murder, you ought to have your **** together.

The right did the same thing with Vince Foster. They swore up and down that Clinton had the guy killed, despite their being no actual evidence connecting him to any conspiracy or to the crime. And still today you have perfectly rational intelligent people swear up and down that Clinton had it done.

I don't know what happened that night. But murder is a pretty serious allegation.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:27 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
He drove the car off the road while drunk. He knew she was in the car, left her, passed a firestation and many other places with phones but only called in the accident after he had a good nights sleep.

Murd er er

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:33 pm 
Offline
The King
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:34 am
Posts: 3219
Monte wrote:
We don't actually know if he killed the girl. We don't. Where is the evidence connecting him to her death? Where is the murder weapon?

It's possible he might have killed her. It's also possible that someone else killed her and set him up for it. If you are going to charge someone with murder, you ought to have your **** together.

The right did the same thing with Vince Foster. They swore up and down that Clinton had the guy killed, despite their being no actual evidence connecting him to any conspiracy or to the crime. And still today you have perfectly rational intelligent people swear up and down that Clinton had it done.

I don't know what happened that night. But murder is a pretty serious allegation.



Dude that's pretty weak even for you. Anything to protect the party I guess aye comrade?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:35 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Monte wrote:
We don't actually know if he killed the girl. We don't. Where is the evidence connecting him to her death? Where is the murder weapon?

It's possible he might have killed her. It's also possible that someone else killed her and set him up for it. If you are going to charge someone with murder, you ought to have your **** together.

The right did the same thing with Vince Foster. They swore up and down that Clinton had the guy killed, despite their being no actual evidence connecting him to any conspiracy or to the crime. And still today you have perfectly rational intelligent people swear up and down that Clinton had it done.

I don't know what happened that night. But murder is a pretty serious allegation.


I don't think you are at all familiar with the incident then.

From Wiki:

Quote:
Christopher "Huck" Look was a deputy sheriff working as a special police officer at the Edgartown regatta dance that night. At 12:30 am he left the dance, crossed over to Chappaquiddick in the yacht club's launch, got into his parked car and drove towards his home, which was south of the Dike Bridge. He testified that between 12:30 and 12:45 am he had seen a dark car containing a man driving and a woman in the front seat approaching the intersection with Dike Road. The car had gone first onto the private Cemetery Road and stopped there. Thinking that the occupants of the car might be lost, Look had gotten out of his car and walked towards it. When he was 25 to 30 feet away, the car started backing up towards him. When Look called out to offer his help, the car took off eastwards, towards the ocean, down Dike Road in a cloud of dust.[6] Look recalled that the car's license plate began with an "L" and contained two "7"'s, both details true of Kennedy's 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88.


The Dike Bridge, Martha's Vineyard, pictured here in 2008 with guardrail.According to his inquest testimony, Kennedy made a wrong turn onto Dike Road, an unlit dirt road that led to Dike Bridge (also spelled Dyke Bridge). Dike Road was unpaved, but Kennedy, driving at "approximately twenty miles an hour", took "no particular notice" of this fact, and did not realize that he was no longer headed towards the ferry landing.[7] Dike Bridge was a wooden bridge angled obliquely to the road, with no guardrail. A fraction of a second before he reached the bridge, Kennedy applied his brakes; he then drove over the side of the bridge. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond (at that location a channel) and came to rest upside-down underwater. Kennedy later recalled that he was able to swim free of the vehicle, but Kopechne was not. Kennedy claimed at the inquest that he called Kopechne's name several times from the shore, then tried to swim down to reach her seven or eight times, then rested on the bank for around fifteen minutes before returning on foot to Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other "Boiler Room Girls" had occurred. Kennedy denied seeing any house with a light on during his journey back to Lawrence Cottage.[8]


"Dike House" along Dike Road.In addition to the working telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, according to one commentator, his route back to the cottage would have taken him past four houses from which he could have telephoned and summoned help; however, he did not do so.[9] The first of those houses, referred to as "Dike House", was 150 yards away from the bridge, and was occupied by Sylvia Malm and her family at the time of the incident. Malm later stated that she had left a light on at the residence when she retired for that evening.[10]

According to Kennedy's testimony, Gargan and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the waterway with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Both of the other men also tried to dive into the water and rescue Kopechne multiple times.[1] When their efforts to rescue Kopechne failed, Kennedy testified, Gargan and Markham drove with Kennedy to the ferry landing, both insisting multiple times that the accident had to be reported to the authorities.[11] According to Markham's testimony Kennedy was sobbing and on the verge of breaking down.[12] Kennedy went on to testify that "[I] had full intention of reporting it. And I mentioned to Gargan and Markham something like, 'You take care of the other girls; I will take care of the accident!'—that is what I said and I dove into the water".[11] Kennedy had already told Gargan and Markham not to tell the other women anything about the incident "[b]ecause I felt strongly that if these girls were notified that an accident had taken place and Mary Jo had, in fact, drowned, that it would only be a matter of seconds before all of those girls, who were long and dear friends of Mary Jo's, would go to the scene of the accident and enter the water with, I felt, a good chance that some serious mishap might have occurred to any one of them".[13] Gargan and Markam would testify that they assumed that Kennedy was going to inform the authorities once he got back to Edgartown, and thus did not do so themselves.[2]

According to his own testimony, Kennedy swam across the 500-foot channel, back to Edgartown and returned to his hotel room, where he removed his clothes and collapsed on his bed.[13] Hearing noises, he later put on dry clothes and asked someone what the time was: it was something like 2:30 a.m., the senator recalled. He testified that, as the night went on, "I almost tossed and turned and walked around that room ... I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car."[14]

Back at his hotel, Kennedy complained at 2:55 am to the hotel owner that he had been awoken by a noisy party.[2] By 7:30 am the next morning he was talking "casually" to the winner of the previous day's sailing race, with no indication that anything was amiss.[2] At 8 a.m., Gargan and Markham joined Kennedy at his hotel where they had a "heated conversation." According to Kennedy's testimony, the two men asked why he had not reported the accident. Kennedy responded by telling them "about my own thoughts and feelings as I swam across that channel ... that somehow when they arrived in the morning that they were going to say that Mary Jo was still alive".[14] The three men subsequently crossed back to Chappaquiddick Island on the ferry, where Kennedy made a series of phone calls from a payphone by the crossing. The phone calls were to his friends for advice and again, he did not report the accident to authorities.[2]

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:36 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Technically, it should probably be manslaughter, not murder.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Elmarnieh wrote:
He drove the car off the road while drunk. He knew she was in the car, left her, passed a firestation and many other places with phones but only called in the accident after he had a good nights sleep.

Murd er er



That's certainly circumstantial. And I'm not saying it's not possible. I do think that you hate Ted Kennedy because he was a liberal, and a powerful one for many years. And much like your blind hatred for Obama, Pelosi, or any other liberal, you are likely willing to believe just about anything negative about them.

But I do think your evidenciary standards have a habit of varying based on your political affiliations. For example, you demanded absolute evidence that Ron Paul was involved with his own racist, bigoted newsletter before you would believe he had anything to do with it. But in this case, you have convicted the man when the law didn't. It's just interesting.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Monte wrote:
But I do think your evidenciary standards have a habit of varying based on your political affiliations.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
So, is there any evidence contradicting his testimony? It certainly looks like manslaughter, but he was never charged. Why not? Do you think it was merely his influence? Or do you think that there was insufficient evidence to convict him? Either is certainly possible.

So yeah, clearly not murder, probably manslaughter, but no charges and no trial. No plea, no evidence to show intent. Just a lot of guesswork.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:05 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
So, is there any evidence contradicting his testimony? It certainly looks like manslaughter, but he was never charged. Why not? Do you think it was merely his influence? Or do you think that there was insufficient evidence to convict him? Either is certainly possible.

So yeah, clearly not murder, probably manslaughter, but no charges and no trial. No plea, no evidence to show intent. Just a lot of guesswork.


It was his influence. If there's evidence contradicting his testimony, go find it. Yes, the evidence is circumstansial and it's possible he didn't do it, but the evidence is exceedingly strong circumstansial evidence.

Yes, a lot of us dislike him because he was a liberal, as well, and yes, either is possile, but it's far, far more likely he did it. Claiming there's more than a remote possibility he was innocent just makes you look amazingly biased.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
I'm sorry, but I'm confused. What about that incident would lead someone to believe that he 1) was not driving the car, 2) did not drive off the side of the bridge 3) did not fail to use the closest resource for help, 4) did not fail to notify authorities in a timely manner and 5) was not responsible for the accident?

Who needs other evidence the facts... he admitted to it all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Sure. But murder implies an intent to kill.

He was in an accident in which someone died. Laura Bush was also in a car accident in which someone died. Is she a murderer as well?

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Wow, a Bush Shield while talking about Kennedy. Its like the Swiss army knife of political discourse.

But to answer your question, without knowing the specifics of that incident, its probably on par with Kennedy. I doubt intent, but the facts support some charge.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Sure, and yet neither of them were charged. And here we are, trumpeting the idea that the late Ted Kennedy is a murderer. And in large part, I think that's because he's Ted Kennedy.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:42 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
That's because Laura Bush did not fail to notify authorities, and did not fail to obtain help. In Ohio, what Laura Bush did is only a second-degree misdemeanor, whch, while far more serious than a regular traffic accident, is a lot less serious than what Kennedy did. There also was no suspicion of alcohol in her case, while there's plenty of good reason to think Kennedy was drinking.

Just because they both got in a wreck where someone died does not mean its hypocritical to cricticize one but not the other based on the different circumstances. There's also the fact that Kennedy was actually an elected official while Laura Bush wasn't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:03 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Yes, it was due entirely to their influence in both incidents.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
That's a fair position to take, Rynar, but I think in order to condemn someone you need a bit more actual evidence. You're certainly entitled to make a call about the situation, but Elmo didn't just make a call. He stated that Ted Kennedy murdered that woman. The evidence does not support that.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:17 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Monte wrote:
That's a fair position to take, Rynar, but I think in order to condemn someone you need a bit more actual evidence. You're certainly entitled to make a call about the situation, but Elmo didn't just make a call. He stated that Ted Kennedy murdered that woman. The evidence does not support that.


I'll take his own statements as evidence. That said, there are states, such as Arizona, where what he did, by his own admission, constitutes a class 2 felony.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:52 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
That's a fair position to take, Rynar, but I think in order to condemn someone you need a bit more actual evidence. You're certainly entitled to make a call about the situation, but Elmo didn't just make a call. He stated that Ted Kennedy murdered that woman. The evidence does not support that.


You're correct. The evidence supports that he committed manslaughter against her. You don't need any more evidence to condemn him for that, especially since moral condemnation does not require legal proof of guilt.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Sure, anyone can condemn him morally, I certainly don't question that.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:35 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
Sure, anyone can condemn him morally, I certainly don't question that.


So why did you? Were you actually unclear that Elmo was doing that? Clearly, the man was not convicted in court. Were you really that concerned over the distinction between manslaughter and murder?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 328 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group