ANOTHER KENNEDY COVER-UP?

No ... this couldn't be, could it? There is no police officer or police organization anywhere in this country that would ever cover-up for a Kennedy, is there? Naw. It just couldn't be!

Well ... there are some police labor union officials in DC who are a bit upset over an incident involving Rhode Island Democrat Congressman Patrick Kennedy. Reports are that Kennedy's car was running at 2:45 a.m. on Thursday without lights. It narrowly missed hitting a Capitol Hill Police cruiser, then crashed into a barricade protecting the Capitol building. The driver, Patrick Kennedy, exits the vehicle and appears to be stumbling.

OK .. now what does any police department in the country do at this point? You have a car driving erratically without its lights on at almost 3:00 in the morning. The car almost hits a police car and then crashes. The driver gets out and starts staggering around. He says he is a congressman and he is trying to get to a vote! Problem is, the congress adjourned three hours earlier. Now, if this driver is you then you can get ready for your field sobriety test. Time to blow into the little tube! Ohhhh .... but not Patrick Kennedy! He's Ted Kennedy's son! According to one of the Capitol Hill police officers on the scene superior officers did not permit them to perform a field sobriety test. Patrick Kennedy was put into a supervisor's car and driven home.

Yesterday Kennedy was claiming that he was disoriented because of some prescription drugs. Well .. that may be true --- but somehow we rather doubt it. It's easy to make that "prescription drugs" claim after you've had a chance to sober up. Now he says he'll cooperate fully in an investigation. Fine. Let's start with an explanation of how he thought there was a vote in the House at three in the morning.

Could Capitol Hill Police officials be covering up for Kennedy? Well ... let's think about this. First, is there any precedence? Well, we do have that incident with Patrick Kennedy's father, Senator Ted, and his famous Chappaquiddick episode. There have been books written about the extent of the cover-up by the Edgartown Police after Mary Jo suffocated in Kennedy's car while he was resting in an Edgartown hotel room.

America's royal family .... exalted and protected.


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060505-010509-4738r.htm

Another Kennedy storm to play out. Maybe he didn't have anything to drink. It'll be interesting to know the combination of pharmaceuticals he'll blame the behavior on.

He has blamed it on Ambien (sp?).
Bias media alert: CNN and AP are covering the story from the angle of how dangerous Ambien is. Try googling a CNN story about the dangers of oxycotin during Rush Limbaugh's travails.

HookerGate is coming at you fast ... Kennedy who?

PK has hit on all the blame-Ambien key phrases at his press conference. He is also confessing to driving under the influence of drugs (which is exactly what the police were attempting to arrest him for when they were mysteriously superceded at the scene). Let's see if an arrest is forthcoming.

PK actually put others' lives in danger. Let's see how the media and DA treat him compared to how Rush Limbaugh was treated.

HookerGate is coming at you fast.
What is that (if it's going to be involved you should probably start another thread)

What is that (if it's going to be involved you should probably start another thread)

Thinking about it ... meanwhile check out my new avatar. Let me know when you're done checking it out so I can put my Che avatar back.

PK has hit on all the blame-Ambien key phrases at his press conference.

Perhaps he should have gone into a house and told the police to go away, he'd talk to them after he'd sobere.......err, uhhh, what I meant was....that he'd talk to them 12 to 14 hours later.

Worked like a charm for Cheney.

Let's see how the media and DA treat him compared to how Rush Limbaugh was treated.

Yes.

Let's. (note; there has probably ALREADY been more negative Media coverage of the Kennedy incident than there was Rush's drug dealings during the entire saga.........I for one never heard a PEEP about the Rush drug bust until quite a bit of time had passed, and even then I did not hear one media outlet anywhere pushing a campaign of character assassination against him within 24 hours of the release of the news about it, as I heard today against Kennedy)

I certainly hope he (Kennedy) is called to answer for his actions to a far greater extent than Rush was ever asked to.

What's wrong? Aren't the Kennedys above the law in New England?
The apple brandy doesn't fall far from the tree.
At least he was wearing pants and didn't drown anyone.

At least he was wearing pants and didn't drown anyone.

Good point.

Teddy got away with manslaughter in the drowning of the Kopechne girl.

Of course, that pales in comparison [by a factor of around 1,000,000 to 1] to getting away with (traitorously) sending 2300 American soldiers to die for nothing, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis along with them.

_______________________________________________

Based purely on lies, the United States illegally invades a sovereign nation, destroys its infrastructure, deposes its government and kills 30,000 or 40,000 of its people.....and then calls it "spreading democracy". Or perhaps, "defending freedom". What a despicable and disturbing lie for a government to feed its people. Even more despicable and disturbing is the fact that many of the citizenry choose to believe it.

What's all the fuss??? Fer crying out loud, you'd think the guy shot someone in the face or something. :D

1. Perhaps he should have gone into a house and told the police to go away, he'd talk to them after he'd sobere.......err, uhhh, what I meant was....that he'd talk to them 12 to 14 hours later.
Worked like a charm for Cheney.

2. Let's. (note; there has probably ALREADY been more negative Media coverage of the Kennedy incident than there was Rush's drug dealings during the entire saga..

3. I for one never heard a PEEP about the Rush drug bust until quite a bit of time had passed,

4. I certainly hope he (Kennedy) is called to answer for his actions to a far greater extent than Rush was ever asked to.
1. No witnesses said Cheney was drunk. Police Officers trained in Standardized Field Sobriety Testing felt PK was intoxicated.

2. That simply not true.

3. Where were you?

4. The crimes are not comparable. As far as we know, Limbaugh didn't endanger anyone. He was charged with things that the DA couldn't come close to proving. Let's see if Kennedy is at least charged with DWI or DUI, since he has already admitted it, it should be easy.

Also, the police supervisors who squashed the arrest should be fired.

Having said all that, I think the police supervisors were wrong, the media is already wrong and the right and left cable shouters are wrong.

The only one I don't fault is PK who has a problem and needs help (but he should still be charged).

PS - DOP, Thanks for adding a little class to your avatar. You're hysterical.

1. No witnesses said Cheney was drunk..

Yeah......that's the same fucking answer you can always count on coming from a dishonest rightwing dick---

"Well, the Democrat we're talking about in this situation did something REALLY horrible and illegal. As for what the Republican did a while back, well, you can't really PROVE (thanks in most instances to a Corporate-owned Media that is complicit in the coverup; Iran-contra being a perfect example) that he did it, so there."

The crimes are not comparable.

On that we agree completely.

I'd hardly put a guy who was under the influence and who had a fender bender in the same category as a drug user buying hundreds or thousands of doses of an illegal substance.

More aristocratic bullshit from DC...who'd've thunk it...

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

I'd hardly put a guy who was under the influence and who had a fender bender in the same category as a drug user buying hundreds or thousands of doses of an illegal substance.What illegal substance was that?

I thought they both abused prescription drugs.

Also, the only difference between this fender-bender and manslaughter is arbitrary good luck.

Also, the only difference between this fender-bender and manslaughter is arbitrary good luck. yup. but can you convince partisan lackies about this...probably not. This and the Cheney thread shows very well whose willing to deny reality for partisan BS...

yup. but can you convince partisan lackies about this...probably not. This and the Cheney thread shows very well whose willing to deny reality for partisan BS...Very fair point.

GUILTY ::sheepishly raises hand::

Does this make you a --------- leftwing ----?????


Yeah......that's the same fucking answer you can always count on coming from a dishonest rightwing dick---

"Well, the Democrat we're talking about in this situation did something REALLY horrible and illegal. As for what the Republican did a while back, well, you can't really PROVE (thanks in most instances to a Corporate-owned Media that is complicit in the coverup; Iran-contra being a perfect example) that he did it, so there."



On that we agree completely.

I'd hardly put a guy who was under the influence and who had a fender bender in the same category as a drug user buying hundreds or thousands of doses of an illegal substance.

No news there - just another Kennedy scum bag living out his screwed up life.

All he will get is a pat on the back for being steadfast in the face of being a total fuck up. These people get a free ticket into congress - that's the sad part.

Ex-representative Joe Scarborough on Hardball said congresspeople get breaks and special treatment all the time and pretty much blew off the Kennedy incident.

Also, the only difference between this fender-bender and manslaughter is arbitrary good luck.

WTF?!?!?

I guess then that we have to say that the only difference between you having been killed in a car wreck home today and your NOT having been killed in a car wreck was that...you...didn't...have a car wreck.

See!!!!.....IF you had been killed in a car wreck, you'd be dead. But luckily for you, you didn't have a wreck. So you aren't. And Kennedy didn't kill anyone when he hit the barricade. So "luckily", there was no manslaughter. --- :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your saying -- ""the only difference between this fender-bender and manslaughter is arbitrary good luck"-- is completely nonsensical to me.

It would be akin to proclaiming --"""Well, the only difference between every human on the planet being alive right now and us all being dead is just the arbitrary good luck that a moon-sized asteroid did not slam into the Earth five minutes ago!!""

I guess then that we have to say that the only difference between you having been killed in a car wreck home today and your NOT having been killed in a car wreck was that...you...didn't...have a car wreck.

Your saying -- ""the only difference between this fender-bender and manslaughter is arbitrary good luck"-- is completely nonsensical to me.
Wow, when you don't understand something, you REALLY don't understand. My response was to your comparison of Rush and PK. I said Rush, as far as we know, didn't endanger anyone's life with his proclivities, whereas PK drove under the influence. You flippantly described his actions as DUI with a fender-bender.

If he was as wasted as he claims, he simply got lucky he didn't take a life.
You've never used or heard the expression "he's lucky he didn't kill someone"?
It's not difficult to understand.

Hey,

He's lucky he didn't kill anyone.

How is it that these Kennedys are immune to prosecution for the last 40 odd years,can someone explain.

... as far as we know, didn't endanger anyone's life with his proclivities ...

You don't know if Rush did or did not drive while whacked out on his cowboy heroin. Chances are he did and several times. That's how substance abuse works ... the abuser doesn't care how close to the edge (s)he gets and repeats dangerous behaviour over and over. We only find out about it after the fact as witnessed by the Kennedy case.

If you want to learn a little about substance abusers ... go through the 12 step program (a good one) and attend a few meetings. It's eye-opening.

How is it that these Kennedys are immune to prosecution for the last 40 odd years,can someone explain.

For the same reason the Bush family is immune. Here's an example of how it goes ...

==============
George Bush goes to a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR.

After his talk he offers question time.

One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him his name.




"Stanley," responds the little boy.

"And what is your question, Stanley?"

"I have 4 questions:

First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?
Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?
Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?"
Fourth, why are we so worried about gay-marriage when 1/2 of all Americans don't have health insurance?

Just then, the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess. When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"

Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him his name. "Steve," he responds." And what is your question, Steve?" "Actually, I have 6 questions".



First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?

Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?

Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?
Fourth, why are we so worried about gay marriage when 1/2 of all Americans don't have health insurance?

Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?

And sixth, what the hell happened to Stanley?"

Give me a break!!!!! Iraq broke 17 UN resolutions the UN would not enforce them. It is the UN who let the US down.

Bush won the election in 2000 the media even did a re count and came to the same conclusion.

For the same reason the Bush family is immune. Here's an example of how it goes ...

==============
George Bush goes to a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR.

After his talk he offers question time.

One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him his name.




"Stanley," responds the little boy.

"And what is your question, Stanley?"

"I have 4 questions:

First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?
Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?
Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?"
Fourth, why are we so worried about gay-marriage when 1/2 of all Americans don't have health insurance?

Just then, the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess. When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"

Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him his name. "Steve," he responds." And what is your question, Steve?" "Actually, I have 6 questions".



First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?

Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?

Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?
Fourth, why are we so worried about gay marriage when 1/2 of all Americans don't have health insurance?

Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?

And sixth, what the hell happened to Stanley?"

Give me a break!!!!! Iraq broke 17 UN resolutions the UN would not enforce them. It is the UN who let the US down.

Bush won the election in 2000 the media even did a re count and came to the same conclusion.

Not sure you're in the right thread but this is too inviting to pass up ...

you're frigging nuts if you think the media ever did a complete recount

Gore did get more votes than Bush, but Bush won more electoral seats. It was hotly contested, it went up to the supreme court, Bush won. Stop crying over it.

Besides, It's not unprecedented. I think it's happened twice before, in 1800 when Jefferson got elected and in 1824 when Adams was elected. But I could be wrong.

It has nothing to do with the popular vote argument. We don't have a democracy when the Supreme court votes strictly along party lines to STOP the democratic process of a recount. Saying you can't make sure you counted all the votes right means that voting is useless and you could care less about the real outcome of an election. All someone has to do is report whatever they want then challenge the recount. Thats not democratic.

You've never used or heard the expression "he's lucky he didn't kill someone"?
It's not difficult to understand.

I have HEARD it...but that does not change the fact that it is --IMO-- a nonsensical comment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"You know, you're really "lucky" you're still with us!"

"Really?! Why is that?"

"Why, you're lucky a meteorite didn't fall from the sky and hit you in the head and kill you!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's meaningless.

The Supreme Court has always voted along party lines, but that doesn't impede them from doing their job. It's all about how they interperate the Constitution. And their opinions are probably the most unbiased out of anyone in America. That's why they're there.

Brooks and Free. Please, let's stop the argument over cliche phrases. It's just an expression. It has some meaning, but it isn't a statement of fact. Yes, had Kennedy come across a pedestrian, this could have been really bad. We're all lucky that he didn't. A while back, i slipped on some black ice and nearly broke my head open; luckily, I regained my balance and didn't fall.

Many of those in the Supreme Court are not unbiased. Like Ruth R G


The Supreme Court has always voted along party lines, but that doesn't impede them from doing their job. It's all about how they interperate the Constitution. And their opinions are probably the most unbiased out of anyone in America. That's why they're there.

Brooks and Free. Please, let's stop the argument over cliche phrases. It's just an expression. It has some meaning, but it isn't a statement of fact. Yes, had Kennedy come across a pedestrian, this could have been really bad. We're all lucky that he didn't. A while back, i slipped on some black ice and nearly broke my head open; luckily, I regained my balance and didn't fall.

Thanks..............................


Gore did get more votes than Bush, but Bush won more electoral seats. It was hotly contested, it went up to the supreme court, Bush won. Stop crying over it.

Many of those in the Supreme Court are not unbiased. Like Ruth R G

So I'm guessing you feel that the liberals on the Court are biased and the conservatives are not?

So I'm guessing you feel that the liberals on the Court are biased and the conservatives are not?

Perhaps the conservatives are biased in the correct way. :)

There were more liberals on the court than conservatives. (Thanks to Clintax)

Now when Bush tries to appoint a conservative, the Democrats just refuse to vote on the issue.


So I'm guessing you feel that the liberals on the Court are biased and the conservatives are not?

Now when Bush tries to appoint a conservative, the Democrats just refuse to vote on the issue.Actually, it was the Republicans who shot down the Harriet Meiers nomination before it could come to a vote. Democrats did not fillibuster the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito. Once again you are 100% completely and totally WRONG.

Once again you are 100% completely and totally WRONG.

That much was obvious the instant the following idiocy-- "There were more liberals on the court than conservatives." -- came out of his mouth.

okay yeah............. the democrats have threatened to fillibuster, and fillibustered on many ocasions.


Actually, it was the Republicans who shot down the Harriet Meiers nomination before it could come to a vote. Democrats did not fillibuster the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito. Once again you are 100% completely and totally WRONG.

okay yeah............. the democrats have threatened to fillibuster, and fillibustered on many ocasions.

On nominations for other courts, yes, but not the Supreme Court. Not to mention that filibustering judicial candidates was pretty much unheard of until the Republicans started doing it while Clinton was president.

....filibustering judicial candidates was pretty much unheard of until the Republicans started doing it while Clinton was president.

Exactly.

The hypocrisy of the Republicans on this issue of fillibustering is simply beyond belief.

Is it not true that 8 of the 9 justices were appointed by republicans ... just asking.

Is it not true that 8 of the 9 justices were appointed by republicans ... just asking.
Forgive me for getting off subject for a second, but I'm liking the blog. You, Astra, and Nap all have helped support the blogspot community (as well as me). Good job :)

Is it not true that 8 of the 9 justices were appointed by republicans ... just asking.
No, it's not. Seven of nine. Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton.

No, it's not. Seven of nine. Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton.

Much grass Borg ... that's gringo for Muchas Gracias (but you already knew that)

Eva ... howz 'bout a link to your blog?

Much grass Borg ... that's gringo for Muchas Gracias (but you already knew that)

Eva ... howz 'bout a link to your blog?
My blog hasn't been updated in awhile, I'm returning to it now. And I'm going to start blogging my novel, both links are in my sig. (Hovel) (Desk)

My blog hasn't been updated in awhile, I'm returning to it now. And I'm going to start blogging my novel, both links are in my sig. (Hovel) (Desk)

Got it ... thanks ... looks good so far. Keep on blogging.

Got it ... thanks ... looks good so far. Keep on blogging.

Okay, last post off-topic-can I link to your blog from mine?

Okay, last post off-topic-can I link to your blog from mine?

Sure thing ... not much there yet but I will be adding some stuff shortly, blogging a novel (like you) and starting a 2nd blog.

As of Recent the answer is yes. But many of them are moderates.

No, it's not. Seven of nine. Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton.

As of Recent the answer is yes. But many of them are moderates.
Kennedy and Stevens are the only moderates I know of. But seven of the nine jurors were appointed by a Republican...why are you blaming Clinton, of all people, for the actions of the Supreme Court?