# Does anyone believe Kennedy was NOT Drunk?



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

I think he got away with it.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

ISBW,

Look after getting away with vehicular manslaughter with Miss Kopecne a DWI is small beer for the Kennedy clan. What a disaster they have been as a family post RFK. But undoubtedly the people of Rhode Island will re-lect Patrick Kennedy, its not as if he killed anyone like his dear old dad.

Disgusting. 

Karl


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

All we know for certain at this point is:
The officer on the scene wanted to administer a breathalizer test, and was overrulled by his superior.

Witnesses at the "Hawk and Dove" bar saw him drinking earlier in the evening.

A bar tab from this establishment has been obtained.

Earlier incidents that are public record, would indicate that a larger problem may exist:
Cocane use
Physically assaulting an airport security inspector at LAX
$28,000 in damage that was done to a yacht that he chartered

The rest will evolve over time. I wouldn't count on much.

Carpe Diem


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I wonder why the police official was so interested in not testing him. I can't imagine a payoff or anything.

I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Kennedy was not drunk.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Was there an accident or was he just pulled over for driving erratically?



Edited to add that MSN News says that Kennedy crashed into a security barrier.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I won't say that Republicans have a monopoly on virtue but at least when they get in trouble (even if its just politcal trouble)they have the courtesy to resign - Nixon, Gingrich, Delay etc. The scary thing is that I don't think it would ever occur to a Kennedy, no matter how outrageous their behavior, to resign. 

The stories of Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd drunkenly terrorizing the women of DC in the 80's are the stuff of legend.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Gents,
> 
> I won't say that Republicans have a monopoly on virtue but at least when they get in trouble (even if its just politcal trouble)they have the courtesy to resign - Nixon, Gingrich, Delay etc.


I wouldn't use the word courtesy in connection with those three crooks and liars.....

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


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> I wonder why the police official was so interested in not testing him. I can't imagine a payoff or anything.
> 
> I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Kennedy was not drunk.


The news today said that there is a disconnect between the newer, younger officers that have come on board since 911, many from the military, and are very serious about protecting the capitol, and their older supervisors who are used to treating congresspeople as royalty.

The younger officer that was first on the scene said that the congressman was staggering, and smelled of alcohol.His superior forbid the breathalizer test. Obviously too late now.

The younger officer has filed a complaint through the officers union regarding the way that he was hindered in doing his job by his superior.The union has made his statement public.

If you are betting, it would be good to put your money on statements from his physician that he was on Rx, including Ambien which was the total cause of the accident.

One other interesting thing. According to the law, a congressperson is immune from the law if on the way to a vote in congress.

PK had the presence of mind to tell the officers that he was on his way to vote, even though congress had adjourned 3 hours earlier.

Congressperson Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, is facing criminal charges for striking a capitol officer. It will be interesting to see if she, as a black woman, gets the same treatment as Teddy's son, PK does.

Carpe Diem


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:
> 
> One other interesting thing. According to the law, a congressperson is immune from the law if on the way to a vote in congress.
> 
> ...


And what do you say there is no penalty for claiming such to avoid arrest.


----------



## LPinFla (Jan 7, 2005)

Intrepid, excellent point. The double standard is alive and well in DC.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

Ahhh...another victim of the "Kennedy curse" which is "Stupidity."

Regards,


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gentlemen:

Please, PK is innocent until proven guilty. Albiet, this will be difficult when officers are not allowed to gather evidence such as administering ETOH tests. Further, to intimate that a Democrat, let alone a member of the Kennedy clan, would do something as egregious as operate a vehicle while impaired, through ETOH, perscription rx, or otherwise, is simply taking part in scandle mongering and I will not have it! I think at this point in time, the proper thing to do would be to list Republicans with similar problems, no doubt starting with Rush. Gmac, correct me if he would not be #1 on the proper list please.

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> Gmac, correct me if he would not be #1 on the proper list please.


Georgie boy's cocaine issues were actually where I was going start.

But Rush and the hillbilly heroin will do just as well.

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


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for the expected insight. Gentlemen, please take your cues from this.

Warmest regards


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

I firmly believe the Kennedys should not be issued driver licenses, but that's another soap box.

I would be willing to bet, it had nothing to do with the last name of the person who was driving and hit the barracade. I'm sure it had more to do with "Congressman" in front of the last name. Like it or not, <fill in the blank> (money, fame, political position, etc.)___________ has its privileges. Today, short of killing someone there probably wouldn't be an arrest made for anyone in political office suspected of DUI. I do believe if a congressman drove off of a bridge and killed his passenger, today he would see the inside of a jail.

So, do I think he was drunk? Of course I do. Do I think its fair that he wasn't taken to jail? Yes, becuase others (not just political figures) are given the same type of "break" each and every day across this country. Do I hope he learned his lesson? Very much yes. Did he learn his lesson? He's a Kennedy, you decide.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I LOATHE Bush, and I think he probably did use drugs during the period of his life that he is not open about. However, I know of no instance where a policeman was pressured not to report findings.

A lot of people who did drugs in the 70s and 80s did not come to the attention of the law. 

I partied with a lot of stuff back then and was never officially busted. Once, a cop did give me some leeway over a small bit of pot.

This is different from the case where the cop was not allowed to do his job with Kennedy.

God only knows why the people of New England keep putting the Kennedys in office. They seem like thoroughly nasty people.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't know about Ambien, but I'm taking Lunesta and there are very big warnings, both from my doctor and on the bottle, "DO NOT DRINK ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WHILE USING THIS PRODUCT."

At least for me, the stuff stays in my system for quite a while even when not taking it, which I usually don't do on weekends. Once, at a Saturday evening reception, I made the mistake of having a glass of wine, and got totally spaced out, even though I had not taken any Lunesta since Thurs. night. Fortunately, I recognized the effect, and had several hours before the function ended for it to wear off, so I could drive home safely. That was the first and last time I have had any alcohol since I started taking this medicine.

I'm not really a drinker, so perhaps am especially sensitive, but I could see the Ambien having an effect on him if it wasn't out of his system and he had had a drink.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> I firmly believe the Kennedys should not be issued driver licenses, but that's another soap box.


Not just driver's licenses, but the ability to operate any type of heavy machinery (planes, boats, earthmovers, cement trucks, anything.)

As Democrats, shouldn't they be showing their concern over the environment by riding around on Vespas instead of gas-guzzling muscle cars? (I think he got pulled over in a Mustang)

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

While I believe anyone having addiction issues needs support and attention, there is something about this latest development I find unfortunate for America.

Call it political spin, the "Oprahization" factor, or whatever. But we have witnessed another politician/public figure attempt rendering moot the potential liability of his or her actions by pledging they will go to rehab. The courts have come a long way in acknowledging individuals are accountable even if impaired. Society is working in reverse. Do something bad or show a pattern of bad behavior? Then declare you have a problem and are now seeking treatment.

No one should be fooled by this routine. Kennedy showed terrible judgement, and has for some time. I don't mean to crucify the guy, but he should not be excused from any inquiry as a result of his latest pledge.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

PK's problem is the same as with any powerful personage. Their toadie staffs are all afraid for their jobs, thus they never get the right answers. At his press conference today, he admitted to having a relapse of the drug problem, and never mentioned the obvious problem with alcohol. Checking into the Mayo Clinic does not solve the problem, unless PK really admits his problem.

Rush Limbaugh was right on the money when he discussed the incident on his show today. PK is around accommodators, including his family. They cover for his problem, and people who can bring the problem to light, hardly ever do. PK is an alcoholic and a drug addict, and he has to admit that the addiction will be with him the rest of his life.

I have a long time friend whose daughter became addicted to crack cocaine. The monkey on her back is like a rabid animal. The addiction is unrelenting, and she may never be strong enough to shake it. I can certainly understand the addiction, but I can never understand the people who continue to accommodate the addict.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I would have hoped you would not make such serious allegations (W's alleged drug use) without proof but I should have known better. You love to accuse and whether it be the veracity of a poster on this forum or the habits of the President when you are asked to back up your claims you sink away into the ether proven once again to be an intellectual fraud. J'accuse, Gmac!

Karl

P.S. Kennedy announced he's going into rehab - for at least the second time. He should resign immediately.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> Gentlemen:
> 
> ...


Wayfarer, guilt is not assumed only in a court of law. I don't see anyone sitting on a bench wearing a black robe. PK wrecked his car, smelled of alcohol, and had other symptoms of being drunk. He was drunk. If the DC prosecutor wants to go forward, so be it.

PK is not the first, nor the last Kennedy, to have serious problems with alcohol, drugs, or women. The problem is not politics - *It's power and privilege gone corrupt.*

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Careful where you tread, GMAC. President Bush was never charged, or even officially implicated concerning cocaine. That story was all tabloid tripe.

Rush readily admitted his addiction to pain killers, and spent five weeks in rehab, admitting publicly his addiction.

The Kennedy's have spent all their time denying, obfuscating, and covering for one another. This has gone on for over *eighty years*!

Rush's monologue today, really got to the core of addiction problems, and he showed real empathy for PK, which is far more than the press which works as an accommodator for libs.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Pendennis,

Empathy for PK? Absolutely. We should do more to treat addiction in this country than to just criminalize it. But the first step in overcoming addiction is accepting responsibility and by his refusal to resign I do not think he has done so. He should resign and perhaps make a come back when he is healthy. Surely his district will elect him no matter what, so why not take the high road? Perhaps it would do PK some good to be in the real world, I mean he's 38 and be in Congress for 12 years, its not as if he's ever had a real job. It might do him a world of good bc he looks a very hard 38, I thought by his picture he was in his mid 40's.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I must admit to some confusion. Did I not say the gentleman was innocent until proven otherwise? Dear sir, please to not create an argument where none exists.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

It's the American way to speculate into these things.

I'll say this: having lived in Washington DC for a little while I would not be surprised at all if they didn't do the most in depth look at whether or not a white congressman was breaking the law. Everything in Washington is about race and power. And that is just the tip of the iceberg of the problems with the Washington police force.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pardon the confusion, Wayfarer.

I meant to write that guilt is *not assumed * only in a court of law. We non-lawyers and non-judges are not bound by such mandates and assumptions. PK was drunk, and on drugs.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> Pardon the confusion, Wayfarer.
> 
> I meant to write that guilt is *not assumed * only in a court of law. We non-lawyers and non-judges are not bound by such mandates and assumptions. PK was drunk, and on drugs.


Ahhh, much clearer. I have to maintain my stance though, I refuse to believe a multi-term Democrat, a member of the upstanding Kennedy clan, could be guilty of such crimes. Special treatment for an elected representative of the "party of the people"? Why...that...that would be elitist!

I am of course being very tongue in cheek.

Warmest regards


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I find it quite odd that the officer has already filed a complaint for not being able to do his job. I don't see any officer being this steadfast in his convictions and what is "right and wrong." If he has done this because of his morals (I'm guessing to cover his butt, when the media starts crucifing him for not doing what they deem as his job) I commend his character. That said, this isn't the first time and it won't be the last time (if he still has a career in Law Enforcement) a senior officer is going to dictate what he does. This happens every day. When the guy senior to you tells you to do something, you do it, its that simple. If he says, don't arrest this guy "just take him home", you just take him home.

I'm interested in how this whole story eventually ends (or will it just fall of the media radar, conveniently?).

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> I meant to write that guilt is *not assumed * only in a court of law. We non-lawyers and non-judges are not bound by such mandates and assumptions. PK was drunk, and on drugs.


I agree.

George W Bush was a total coke head alcoholic frat boy.

I'm glad you came around from you previous position.

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


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Gmac,
> 
> I would have hoped you would not make such serious allegations (W's alleged drug use) without proof but I should have known better.


See Pendennis's post about this not being a court of law.



> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> You love to accuse and whether it be the veracity of a poster on this forum or the habits of the President when you are asked to back up your claims you sink away into the ether proven once again to be an intellectual fraud. J'accuse, Gmac!


You can accuse me of what you wish - but one thing I do not do is "sink away into the ether".

When I questioned the veracity of the other poster it was because his story was clearly a complete crock and I demonstrated that on the thread in question.

Answer me this - did *you *believe the story in question (you know the one I mean)? No slinking away into the ether now!



> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> P.S. Kennedy announced he's going into rehab - for at least the second time. He should resign immediately.


I would tend to agree with this.

As for me being an "intellectual fraud", I don't claim to be an intellectual....

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


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> Rush readily admitted his addiction to pain killers, and spent five weeks in rehab, admitting publicly his addiction.


Ha! He admitted it when he got busted for doctor shopping.

Readily admitted? He was still claiming it was for back pain as he played golf.

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


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. He admitted to the addiction, and was treated for same, before he was accused of "doctor shopping".

His housekeeper made the accusation when she sold her story to one of the "rag mags". Her accusations were never substantiated, nor corroborated.

He became addicted to pain pills when he refused to be operated on for back pain. His refusal for surgery had to do with the fact that doctors wanted to go through the throat to treat his spine, and he feared, with some justification, that it would damage his vocal chords and alter his voice.

You really should read some of the arguments made in court. The crux of the prosecutor's accusation was that a crime had been committed without any corroborating evidence that a crime had been committed. In other words, forcing a patient to admit to a crime using his own words. That is not allowed under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The Kennedy curse strikes again. Why don't we just get it over with and shoot all of them, including Arnold.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

Your time table is a little off about Rush. The story came first, then the investigation, then the admission and rehab. The story started the investigation, but the prosecution had more than that. They found he got prescriptions from 4 doctors in 5 months for the same drugs which he had filled at the same pharmacy. The appeals started because Rush's lawyers asserted they weren't given proper notice so they could attempt to prevent the state from looking at the files. That was the appeal the ACLU helped out on, which ultimately lost. Finally, they hatched a deal. Personally I think the prosecution didn't really care about doctor shopping as they could have easily made out that case, but instead wanted to go after the cigar box full of money in the denny's parking lot at 3 in the morning, which they couldn't make a strong enough case on. So instead they went with the deal.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

How did I know, so early in this thread, that the drunken, drug addled Kennedy would lead to attacks on Rush? Damn I'm good 

Warmest regards


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

I'm just waiting to see how long it will be before someone brings up Bush's '76 drunk driving incident or Cheney's two DWIs back in the 60s after he dropped out of Yale. 

If this case shows us one thing it is how much perception of drunk driving has changed. Thirty years ago the BAC was about twice as high as it is now and punishment was usually a warning. Now, thanks in large part to groups like MADD we see the devastation it can reck and treat it like the violent crime it is.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I have often considered starting my own organization called DDAM, Drunk Drivers Against Mothers. Somehow, I doubt it would be treated very favorably by the media.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

What is the connnection between Rush and PK?

Was Rush in a wreck? Did he cross lanes and almost hit another car?

There's a big difference between just taking some pain pills and getting in a car at 3am impaired on them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> What is the connnection between Rush and PK?
> 
> ...


You miss the point my friend. This is how the game is played:

One of "your guys" does something like PK did. Do you say, "Wow, the bum should resign?" No, you point to how someone on the opposite side of the aisle, or in the case of Rush, media personality, did something similar. It is of course a logical fallacy of the _tu quoque_ brand, but that is how politics works these days. Sad, but the truth.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I thought as long as you didn't endanger anyone else what a person did on their own was ok?

Wasn't their a Republican congressman who ran a redlight at about 60 mph 2 or 3 times? That would be a more logical connection IMHO.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> The Kennedy curse strikes again. Why don't we just get it over with and shoot all of them, including Arnold.


I'll second the Arnold motion. What made us think he could be Governor?

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

You accussed me of being a liar and issued a sheepish apology - and I honestly don't recall the story you mention but if you refresh my memory I will give you my opinion. But for you to write that George W. Bush used cocaine without a credible source is not fair. Another poster in another thread had some unkind (and untrue) comments about your mother - would it be fair for me to repeat those comments as gospel bc someone has made such a claim? Of course not. You should also know that in today's society an accusation is almost as damning as a guilty verdict. If you have some proof that George W. Bush used cocaine then show it - good God man, you'll win a Pulitzer Prize! Otherwise when making a dubious claim then at least preface it with alleged.

Gmac I think people like you are the reason why George W. Bush was re-elected. I am not really a fan of his and I think a large number of swing voters were undecided in 2004 but the Left's unfair character assasination of Bush pushed undecideds his way. And yes the same was done to Clinton which I won't defend but you would think that experience would have taight the Left a lesson.

Karl

I don't think you are a fraud but you use cheap theatrics and outrageous statements to sidestep debate far too often. I give you the benefit of the doubt and think you are capable of producing a coherent and likely incorrect argument! 

And get over Rush. I don't care for him and won't defend him. Quite frankly I am a bit embarassed that the voice of Conservatism in the US is a thrice divorced college dropout with a drug problem. But Rush is a private citizen and from what I have read today spoke in a very empathetic manner about PK today.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

Actually it is pretty funny how Rush comes up on this thread. Wayfarer makes a passing mention, Gmac makes a quip. Then somebody starts defending Rush and makes a few mistake. I correct them. And by then he is out in the open leading ksinc to say, what is the connection? Honestly, I have no idea. But its like hitler coming up in political discussions. It just sort of happens.

And look what we have discovered in this thread: Politicians often do incredibly stupid things. Seriously, have a little more cynicism about your leaders people, they are human; and that's not saying much. I have yet to meet a perfect individual. 

George Bush Sr. pardoned all those who "may have" committed crimes in connection to Iran Contra, possibly including himself.
Bill Clinton had an intern, smoked pot and probably did coke.
Same for George W. but replace the intern for alcohol
Al Gore smoked pot and loves his wife a little too much if you ask me.
Ronald Reagan literally WAS an actor
Ross Perot went insane
Michael Dukakis was short and didn't seem all that bothered by the notion of his wife getting killed
Gary Hart: "Monkey Business," fantastic name for a scandal by the way.
Grover Cleveland: child out of wedlock
Thomas Jefferson - the same, but with a slave
Strom Thurmond - had sex with probably every woman he ever met in his life
Harold Carswell was a white supremacist
Talmadge and his overcoat full of cash
Nixon...doesn't really need any explanation
Ben Franklin - see Strom Thurmond
And on whole, how many of those in Congress who were of age during the Vietnam War served and how many managed to avoid it through some pretty incredible strokes of luck?

Now take a look around you and just think, if you REALLY knew everything about those people you'd probably find a lot of the same things.

To the issue at hand: I think he was plastered. If that's true he should resign, not only because it helps retain some respect for the office, but also because otherwise the removal procedures are a pain.

If people really cared that much about tasteless, unfair, character assasination McCain would have won the nomination in 2000, the Swift Boat attacks woud have pushed Kerry ahead in '04, Nixon would have lost the 1950 senate race, etc.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

MER,

Don't put forth the old canard about GHWB and Jennifer Fitzgerald. I doubt its true and even if it is I doubt he ever uttered the best line from the Starr Report ("It tastes good.") while in the Oval Office or the VP residence at the Naval Observatory.

Karl


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

I was actually thinking of Jane Morgan. But Jennifer Fitzgerald probably makes more sense. To me it makes a lot of sense, especially back then when your "office wife" was a common occurence, and he didn't help his case by refusing to deny it. But as it bothers you so I will change it to something else.

Also...it seems you missed the point of my post.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Just want to remind everyone that, even though this is not a court of law, publishing factual claims about other people, even famous people, on an internet message board with "knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to the truth" is still unlawful and can subject you to civil liability.

_Odoreater remove's lawyer hat_

[}]

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I have never and probably never will understand the American electorates love affair with the Kennedy gang (including JFK). We repeatedly see fit to excuse boorish, irresponsible, reckless and frequently criminal behavoir on their behalf. Is our collective sycophancy such we are rendered completely incapable of applying our basic sense of right and wrong to these characters. Of even greater concern to me is our continued willingness to elect and re-elect documemted drunks, addicts and even convicted criminals (and it is not limited to the Kennedys) to high State and National office, as our CHOSEN representatives. When PK runs for reelection, the good people of Rhode Island will reelect him, and that is truely sad! Can they, or perhaps I should say, can we do no better??


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

anybody have a link to the story? I couldn't find it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by eagle2250_
> When PK runs for reelection, the good people of Rhode Island will reelect him, and that is truely sad! Can they, or perhaps I should say, can we do no better??


Please, if Marion Barry can get re-elected, PK will be in office just as long as he wishes to be.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> You accussed me of being a liar


Yes, I did.


> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> and issued a sheepish apology


 not certain how sheepish I was - or have ever been. But continue.



> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_ - and I honestly don't recall the story you mention but if you refresh my memory I will give you my opinion.


Ummm, I think you do remember but whatever, I'll re-post it just to embarrass him.


> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> But for you to write that George W. Bush used cocaine without a credible source is not fair.


Life isn't fair Karl. The shrub loved the blow, what mopre can I tell you.



> _Originally posted by Karl89_
> Another poster in another thread had some unkind (and untrue) comments about your mother
> {/quote]
> Interesting that you don't remember the original story but you do remember that clown calling my mother a whore - and some gay thing about my dad. To be honest, I couldn't care less about what some dumbass on the internet says about my family or me.
> ...


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Okay, I've reposted FatSex's ridiculous story in the N word thread.

I don't really expect a response from Karl but it amuses me to tease him about it.

And Wayfarer's head seems about ready to explode so we might as well keep pushing it.

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


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I said in my original post, the election of documemted drunks, addicts and convicted criminals is not limited to the Kennedys (as candidates) or to the Rhode Island electorate (as those responsible for putting them in office). The electorates in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and the District of Columbia immediatly come to mind as others sharing that honor. Im am sure that with a little research, virtually every State in the Union could be added to this list. Doesn't the quality of chacacter count when we are electing those who represent us? We certainly have, in the past, managed to elect "characters" to represent us!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> And Wayfarer's head seems about ready to explode so we might as well keep pushing it.


My head is just fine thank you. I have never been less than calm, I am merely applying the labels to you I think appropriate, in a restrained and detached manner. No threats, no cursing, just plain English words for what you are displaying about yourself.



> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> I won't offer you any substantive argument on this topic.


That you have yet to do more than taunt and clearly state your refusal to actually speak to the meat of any subject, only makes you look more foolish.



> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> Why don't you call my mother a whore? Or tell me how tough you are and what a beating I'm in for if our paths ever cross?


I am not an ITG, as you are egging me on to be in the other thread. It takes a certain something, or maybe lack of something, to actually entice someone to insult or threaten you.



> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> ...might as well keep pushing it.


Thank you for yet again admitting that all you are doing is trolling. I thank you again for plainly posting that you have no intent on a give and take of ideas, you are merely here to taunt.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by eagle2250_
> 
> I have never and probably never will understand the American electorates love affair with the Kennedy gang (including JFK). We repeatedly see fit to excuse boorish, irresponsible, reckless and frequently criminal behavoir on their behalf. Is our collective sycophancy such we are rendered completely incapable of applying our basic sense of right and wrong to these characters. Of even greater concern to me is our continued willingness to elect and re-elect documemted drunks, addicts and even convicted criminals (and it is not limited to the Kennedys) to high State and National office, as our CHOSEN representatives. When PK runs for reelection, the good people of Rhode Island will reelect him, and that is truely sad! Can they, or perhaps I should say, can we do no better??


Mabye in spite of their criminal behavior, addiction, and drunkeness, because of their name they are able to do a better job in Congress and get more done for their state than somebody who is not a Kennedy would be able to get done. Maybe when a Congressman says "Hi, my name is JoeBlow Kennedy" people listen more than when he says "Hi, my name is JoeBlow Jasikowski" and that helps him get things done.

What I really can't get over is how much Americans care about their elected representatives' personal lives and how much of an issue this becomes during elections. It's been obvious throughout our history that some men who have had troubles in their personal lives were great leaders of men in their public lives (e.g., T. Jefferson). If the guy is getting the job done for the people of Rhode Island, then they *should* reelect him in spite of being a drunk (if he indeed is one).

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> Just want to remind everyone that, even though this is not a court of law, publishing factual claims about other people, even famous people, on an internet message board with "knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to the truth" is still unlawful and can subject you to civil liability


I'm not sure about American courts but in the jurisdictions I am familiar with the truth remains an effective defence.

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


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow! This is you calm and restrained? I'd _love _to see you get mad!

Where does it go from "piece of filth"? You going to call my mum a whore too?

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


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, this is correct. I was talking about statements that may not be true. That why I mentioned that they have to be published with "knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth."

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Well, if George wants to sue me for calling him a drunk and a cocaine user then I stand ready.

But he'll have to do better than simply refusing to answer questions about his drug use during certain periods of his life.

Don't get me wrong, Georgie's substance abuse is probably his most endearing quality. He's got to make more sense wasted than he does straight.

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


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

Ok I read FlatSix's story. And yes it sounds too good to be true and I am skpetical BUT I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not assume he lied. I only assume the Iranian theocracy is not acting in good faith.

I remembered the unfortunate comment about your mother bc I was shocked at how uncivil FlatSix was, not bc I took delight in your family being insulted.

Life is unfair but it seems that you forget this with your socialist love for wealth redistribution. Perhaps W did use drugs I just think its irresponsible to present such an allegation as fact. But responsible posting is not your thing, is it? Do you have an Ambien problem Gmac?.....just kidding! 

And I don't think I am a neo-con, I am much more of a Wilsonian. 

Anyway Gents - I am off to go pick up the gf and do the dinner and movie thing. Evryone play nice while I am gone.

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Oh, Karl, do we have to??


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Gmac,
> 
> Ok I read FlatSix's story. And yes it sounds too good to be true and I am skpetical BUT I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not assume he lied.


He would have got the benfit of the doubt from me too if he hadn't immediately starting throwing insults at me. But he did so I called him on it. The results were unfortunate but probably predictable from that sort of character.

His later comments about members of my family were childish and served only to make him look like an idiot.

And, no, responsible posting is not my thing. I wouldn't want to buck the trend here on the Interchange now would I?

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


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

There is hope for PK, if he gets counselors who talk to him driectly and without interference.

I was 38 when I sobered up, I was out of control, and the name, well...

Maybe I'll move to Providence and run for PK's seat. "Vote for the sober Patrick - He won't crash into you at 3 a.m.! And he dresses better!"


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Patrick, if you run, will Opening Day of Fishing Season become a National Holiday??


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Getting back onto topic (thanks Patrick!), the history of the Kennedy clan is certainly a fascinating one. Their well documented behaviour issues, whether it be booze, women, risky antics or whatever, seem to carry across the generations. Is this a genetic or learned behaviour? Has their position of extreme privelege led them to think that consequences don't apply to them? And since this is clearly not the case why don't they learn?

I know more or less nothing about Bobby Kennedy - did he have these behaviour traits? My little knowledge of him is that he was the "good" Kennedy.

To get it out of the way, I generally agree with the politics of the Kennedys but that is not what I am talking about here.

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


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't think he committed felonies. I'm not sure how faithful he was to his wife. I know that Teddy and JFK were total tomcats. 

I read a book, but now can't remember how it portrayed Bobby on the fidelity issue.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


odoreater; Should we choose to assume that your presumptions of a representatives' effectiveness in office are correct and agree with your conclusion as to the impropriety of electoral concern regarding a candidates personal character, then perhaps we deserve the type and quality of governance that we are receiving. Gee, I was hoping for more from my Country and its' governmental institutions than simple influence pedaling and purchased patronage.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

The fidelity issue is an important one for me. I don't trust a man who can't keep it in his pants and I'm always disappointed when I hear of the infidelities of men I look up to (I'm talking to you Bill Clinton!)

JFK's infidelities were the stuff of legend - but did Americans know about his behaviour at the time? Was it quietly tolerated or effectively hushed up?

How about JFK jnr? Was he a tomcat? I know he was well admired among the ladies and I'm sure he took advantage of that fact.....

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


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I was only 7 when he died, but the news media back then seldom reported infidelities and other personal issues unless it was really flaunted.

Kennedy's sex life became well known about 15 or 20 years after he died.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by eagle2250_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't making any presumptions. I was offering possible explanations of why guys like this might keep getting reelected in spite of their personal problems. All I was saying is that it is *possible* that the people of Rhode Island might like what this guy is getting done for them in Congress and that is why they reelect him. Why should they elect someone who is not going to be as effective?

If I feel that my elected representative is doing the things that he was elected to do, whatever those things may be (e.g. tax cuts, new highways, more funding for schools, less funding for things I don't want funded, whatever) then should I not vote for him again because he also likes to hit the bottle or tap the intern?

When I vote for my congressional representatives, I vote on who I feel will get the best results for me and my state in Congress. If my incumbent candidate has a strong record of getting things done, then I will vote for him regardless of whether he is a drunk or a womanizer.

By the way, you are right about one thing - we get the government we deserve. Unfortunately, I think that way too many people vote based on the candidates personality or personal background than on the candidate's record. See, for example, George W. Bush - a man who has a great personality and is genuinely a likeable fellow, who has a long record of failure.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

I agree with odoreater, _if_ the job is done and people are satisfied with him, they will reelect him. Who cares about his private life? I sure as hell don't.

Remember the big stink about Lewinsky? How does a slimy interpretation of smoking a cigar have to do with running the executive branch? Nothing. Is Bill of ill moral character? Yes! Are a bunch of other leaders in Washington? Yes! Unless the lack of ethics impedes on the task at hand... Who care what the lack of ethics pertains to? I don't. Just my opinion.

Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people. - F. M. Hubbard


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

On a certain level, I agree with you.

I don't think that it is wrong for high elected officials (especially the president) to set a good moral example as they do a good job.

Especially the president. Out of nearly 300 million people, we should be able to find SOMEONE who can do a good job AND set a good example.

While I think that impeaching Clinton was a gross overreaction, I DO think that he deserves the smirking shame with which he will always be remembered.

(I was in a band at the time and got off my best one line wise crack ever over the mike at Clinton's expense!) LOL


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> On a certain level, I agree with you.
> 
> ...


Very true, I hope that we someday do but I am not betting on it. It is tough to get where these people get without some deceitful rhetoric. Yup, Clinton deserves every bit of shame.

Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people. - F. M. Hubbard


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by GT3_
> 
> I agree with odoreater, _if_ the job is done and people are satisfied with him, they will reelect him. Who cares about his private life? I sure as hell don't.
> 
> ...


Returning our attention to the present instance, was PK "getting the job done" when he crashed his 1997 Mustang into a security barrier near the Capitol due to drug and/or alcohol induced motor skills impairment. I guess he was also getting the job done when he told the officer he was on (Congressional?) duty and would be entering a rehab program the next day. He was definitely getting the job done when the officers superiors ordered him not to arrest the Congressman. PK is a disgrace and I would not want him or others like him representing me regardless of how effectively he or they could throw their influence around. What PK or others do while they are elected representatives is not personal or private and it should be, no...must be, considered. Otherwise, we are a Democracy in decline!

Thank God we still have Senator John McCain struggling to restore the breastwork of integrity to our governmental institutions!


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by eagle2250_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am also a fan of McCain, so we agree there.

I said _if_ (even italicized above) he was doing his job and satisfying his constituents... I actually don't know if he is doing his "congressional" job (which is what I meant by job) or not, nor do I care, I don't live in RI.

How does democracy decline when constituents don't know the private lives of their elected representatives? The public side of their dealings (voting record, keeping promises) I have no dispute with, consituents are entitled to know. I guess I don't understand why we should be in the know of their private lives for our democracy not to decline.

Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people. - F. M. Hubbard


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think that an arrest and using one's pull to avoid prosecution is public enough to be taken into account, too.

I agree with you on most of the rest of what you said.


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> I think that an arrest and *using one's pull to avoid prosecution* is public enough to be taken into account, too.
> 
> I agree with you on most of the rest of what you said.


Yes, I agree since prosecution is done by representatives of the people (public). I do resent the fact that he got away with it, terrible message to the country.

Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people. - F. M. Hubbard


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by GT3_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We don't need to know what they had for dinner, who they socialize with, their religion, if they enjoy a few drinks, or who they sleep with. We do need to know if they are honest ethical, law abiding and fair minded and if and how well they are representing us.

Examples of a democracy in decline: public monies and resources are expended ineffectively, the politicos friends get the job (rather than the best offerer), those who can afford it enjoy "greater representation, and the strengths of our legal systems are slowly eroded, as the select few receive preferential treatment.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by GT3_
> 
> I agree with odoreater, _if_ the job is done and people are satisfied with him, they will reelect him. Who cares about his private life? I sure as hell don't.
> 
> ...


What an unfortunate choice of adjectives. [}]


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

> quote:We don't need to know what they had for dinner, who they socialize with, their religion, if they enjoy a few drinks, or who they sleep with. We do need to know if they are honest ethical, law abiding and fair minded and if and how well they are representing us.
> 
> Examples of a democracy in decline: public monies and resources are expended ineffectively, the politicos friends get the job (rather than the best offerer), those who can afford it enjoy "greater representation, and the strengths of our legal systems are slowly eroded, as the select few receive preferential treatment.


Yup I agree. My definitions of private go along with yours (I was not being clear enough). Anything having to do with politics (all that you suggested), however, is public.



> quote:What an unfortunate choice of adjectives.


I thought it was funny, but I guess not. 

Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people. - F. M. Hubbard


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> Patrick, if you run, will Opening Day of Fishing Season become a National Holiday??


Yes, but only for me.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by eagle2250_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Two things:

First, you missed the point. I wasn't saying that they get things done while they are drunk or getting into trouble. I was saying that they get things done _in spite of_ being lousy drunks or getting in trouble. Ultimately, it's up to the good people of Rhode Island to decide if they want to keep this guy. If they think that he's been getting the job done for them, in spite of being a drunk and crashing his car, then they should vote for him.

Second, Of course you don't care, because he doesn't represent you. I'm not saying that we should never take their private life or personality into consideration, but it's one of many issues that are important to people, and to a lot of people, it's nowhere near as important as other issues. I have a million issues that I think about when determining who I am going to vote for before I even consider the guy's personality.

Also, all this "democracy in decline" talk is just rhetoric.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you don't think a public officials use of their position for personal gain or, in this instance, to sidestep legal responsibility is wrong and that it should not be addressed. I am saddened to hear that my friend, as that is an excellent example of democracy in decline...spreading public apathy.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by eagle2250_
> 
> So you don't think a public officials use of their position for personal gain or, in this instance, to sidestep legal responsibility is wrong and that it should not be addressed. I am saddened to hear that my friend, as that is an excellent example of democracy in decline...spreading public apathy.


I think that a public official's use of their position for personal gian is kind of problematic. Well, I guess it depends on the circumstances. If he used his position for extortion or bribery, or to favor political allies in public contracts, that's very problematic and would be enough for me to vote for some. If he used his position to influence other Congressmen to make concession for the benefit of his state, which in turn benefits him by helping him get reelected, then that would probably be alright.

As for sidestepping legal responsibility. Well, that's kind of problematic. Let me give you an example. I live in the State of New Jersey. In this state we've had some problems with corruption and the whole "pay to play" principal where contractors would give what amount to kick-backs to politicians in the form of campaign contributions in exchange for government contracts. When the US Attorney thought that the State Attorney General was not doing a good job at prosecuting these people, he started going after them himself and charging them with federal crimes. Now, while what he was doing may be good in the sense that he was going after corruption, it was also bad in another way. See, I have a big problem with a _federal_ official aggressively investigating and prosecuted elected _state_ officials.

Nevertheless, I don't disagree with you that maybe he should have been given a sobriety test or even hauled away (though, I don't see how that would have been possible given the congressional immunity law). That's not the point that I was arguing against. The point that I was arguing against is people's criticism of the people of Rhode Island for constantly re-electing this guy and for criticism of people from other states who constantly elect guys that are similar to this guy. The bottom line is that if people feel that it is in their self-interest to have this guy in office, then they should vote for him regardless of his drinking or drug problems.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

These threads seem to be intellectually non productive when it becomes a contest of people essentially shouting that" your guy is a bigger moral degenerate than my guy."

The thing that I find troubling, is the seeming lack of character on a bi partisan basis.

Just the ones that have gotten a lot of press that we know about:

Cunningham in Calif that is going to jail.

The congressman in W. Va whose net worth went from something like $100,000 to $11 million, in a very short period of time. His use of earmarks for people that he was in partnerwhip with caused him to step down from the chair of the congressional ethics committee.

Rep Cynthia McKinney who physically assaulted a police officer who attempted to bar her access into the congress hall when she didn't have proper id.

William Jefferson of La who is facing indictment for being paid for political favors for telecom cos in Negeria.

The PK problem that we have pretty well exhausted.

Their private lives are just that. However, these people have an immense impact on the future of our republic. Based on character alone, there are very few of them that you would hire to run a business for you.

I guess we just have to rely on the ultimate good judgement of the voting public. It's easy to get cynical unless you feel that the public wants good government, regardless of party, and will ultimately prevail.





Carpe Diem


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OE, since you and I both live in the same State, I hope others will pardon a state specific post, but it does seem to apply elsewhere.

My sense is that the voters have been so accustomed to self dealing "public servants" that they have almost given up. The recent disgrace at the State Medical School and Hospital seems to have drawn little more that a "What do you expect in NJ?"

While many states are enjoying budget surpluses now, we are still struggling with a government structure that is driving businesses and individuals accross the Delaware River into Pa.Our lawyer has recently gotten admitted to the Pa bar, since so many of her clientas are moving there ,for tax reasons.

Maybe it will get better, but when voters get cynical and give up, the results can't be very good.

Carpe Diem


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

That's cold, Patrick! LOL


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

I have not read all of the threads so please forgive me. When I first read the news about PK, I was not shocked. I was disgusted that someone could get away with such. I stepped back for a moment and realized that PK is an alcoholic. He has a disease. Granted, he has lived a life of luxury because of his name. He has been afforded things that most of can only dream about. He has been handed things on a silver platter so to speak. We can get angry and jealous and think that we would never waste such an opportunity with alcohol, drugs or gambling or whatever addictive thing you can think of. I suspect that the addictive personality trait was inherited somewhat. Bottom line, he has a disease that must be treated with self-recognition of that disease, abstinence and a renewed and different approach to carrying out his life. Patrick06790 can speak much better on this topic than I can. I am not an alcoholic (do not drink for that matter), but I think I know enough about the topic to have a different understanding than the majority. Nevertheless, individuals with chemical dependency did not wish for it. They spend more time and energy hiding it than trying to recover from it. I can see why and how Mr Kennedy utilized his power to hide and continue his dependent lifestyle, it's what alcoholics do. I am not trying to justify what he has done and not trying to say that it is ok. I simply understand why. 

I hope that he can get help. It is said he is going to Minnesota. I suspect a stay at Hazelton will be of benefit, but it is what PK does after he gets out that will determine the rest of his life.

"...always aspire to live simply and elegantly." - Madeleine Finn


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

Thi:
This is a very interesting topic. Two observations: 

"Innocent until proven guilty" is such a fraudulent cliche. One never hears it applied to Nixon, Hitler or Tom Delay, and the guilt of each is a given in some circle.

Most interesting in the most recent Kennedy crime is that Patrick Kennedy, in the tradition of Dear Old Dad, has made two clearly conflicting public statements regarding the "accident" (parenthetical due to the fact that drunk driving is never an accident).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> These threads seem to be intellectually non productive when it becomes a contest of people essentially shouting that" your guy is a bigger moral degenerate than my guy."


Scroll waaaaayyyyy back to the first page and you'll see that I predicted that was where this thread was headed and gmac admitted, predictably, that this was exactly where he was headed.


> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> Georgie boy's cocaine issues were actually where I was going start.


Sadly, our lad gmac is representative of how politics works. It is difficult to fathom how problems can be dealt with in an honest, forthright, and productive fashion when so many *on both sides* are always so busy ignoring the shortcomings of people from "their side" and trying to make political hay when someone from the "other side" screws up.

Warmest regards


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bwep_
> 
> I have not read all of the threads so please forgive me. When I first read the news about PK, I was not shocked. I was disgusted that someone could get away with such. I stepped back for a moment and realized that PK is an alcoholic. He has a disease. Granted, he has lived a life of luxury because of his name. He has been afforded things that most of can only dream about. He has been handed things on a silver platter so to speak. We can get angry and jealous and think that we would never waste such an opportunity with alcohol, drugs or gambling or whatever addictive thing you can think of. I suspect that the addictive personality trait was inherited somewhat. Bottom line, he has a disease that must be treated with self-recognition of that disease, abstinence and a renewed and different approach to carrying out his life. Patrick06790 can speak much better on this topic than I can. I am not an alcoholic (do not drink for that matter), but I think I know enough about the topic to have a different understanding than the majority. Nevertheless, individuals with chemical dependency did not wish for it. They spend more time and energy hiding it than trying to recover from it. I can see why and how Mr Kennedy utilized his power to hide and continue his dependent lifestyle, it's what alcoholics do. I am not trying to justify what he has done and not trying to say that it is ok. I simply understand why.
> 
> ...


Very well said! I do wish I had been able to state my case that well and that compassionately.


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

Eagle: Thankyou.

"...always aspire to live simply and elegantly." - Madeleine Finn


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> OE, since you and I both live in the same State, I hope others will pardon a state specific post, but it does seem to apply elsewhere.
> 
> My sense is that the voters have been so accustomed to self dealing "public servants" that they have almost given up. The recent disgrace at the State Medical School and Hospital seems to have drawn little more that a "What do you expect in NJ?"
> ...


I thought things might get better now that Corzine is governor because he's rich on his own and I thought maybe he wouldn't have to pander to the political bosses (though I didn't vote for him), but I guess I was wrong on that. I think the problem is that no Democrats in our state have any backbone and Republicans just can't get elected in statewide elections.

And it's only going to get worse. Now they're talking about raising every tax under the sun so that they can make up for budget deficits. I love living here and I'm not going to leave, but, I really wish we could do something about all the corruption without getting the federalies involved.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

I think it's true that a significant part of the electorate really does compartmentalize personal morality and public effectiveness when evaluating candidates/politicians, but I think another reason these kinds of incidents have minimal effect on the electorate is that they're resisting what inevitably becomes a partisan attack. 

It took about 5 posts for this thread about a single individual's addition to turn into one about "Democrats", with claims about the relative superiority of Republican immorality vs. Democrat immorality. (WTF?) The significance of the act itself takes a back seat to a game of partisan 'gotcha'. So as soon things start to turn into a Republican feeding frenzy, Democrats (as one would expect) dig in their heels. Because it's now not about Patrick Kennedy or Bill Clinton or whomever -- it's about those damned slimy, womanizing Democrats. Same with Limbaugh, Bennett or whomever on the "other side".


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

So true.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> That's cold, Patrick! LOL


Just trying to establish the ersatz divine right aura that seems to be a prerequisite to election.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> There is hope for PK, if he gets counselors who talk to him driectly and without interference.
> 
> ...


The NYT Week in Rewiew this week made me think of you, and wonder what your take was on one of their articles.

Essentially, the thesis was that a person with a substance abuse problem didn't need to quit cold turkey, but just to "cut back". You're an expert on the subject, and I'm not, but this seemed counter intuitive, based on everything that I have ever heard on the subject.

I've known guys that would go out when the package stores were closed and drink Mennan Skin Bracer. Called them "green frogs" or something like that. They finally quit cold, and resumed a normal life.

I don't understand the logic of "cutting back".

Carpe Diem


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

Intrepid

The NYT article that states "cutting back" is offensive. This theory has been disproven time and again. Some 30 or 40 years ago that was a belief held strongly by the medical psychiatric community. It was completely divergent from the practice endorsed by AA of complete abstinence and maintanence of the 12 steps. It was, and I suppose still is, a controversial topic. My father in law is a retired psychiatrist and mother in law is a retired nurse and chemical dependency counselor. I simply studied the stuff in med school. At any rate, over the years the psychiatric community has come to the realization that complete abstinence provides a statistically significant better outcome. Medications have not really been the answer. For meds like antabuse to really be of benefit, they seem best only in the short term to assist in sobering someone up while the person can complete their twelve steps and continuopusly live their life of recovery.

"...always aspire to live simply and elegantly." - Madeleine Finn


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Just read the NYT piece.

I've been down this road, and it didn't work. In my opinion, if someone can successfully moderate his drinking, the person is not addicted to alcohol.

The dirty little secret of the addiction treatment business is that when all's said and done, whether the client's at Betty Ford or the local hospital's detox ward, they all give the same advice as you leave - don't use, go to meetings, get a sponsor, work the steps.

Addiction is described as a three-fold disease: of the body, of the mind, and of the spirit. Detoxing the body, allowing the brain to resume functioning - all measurable. (And billable [}])

But I believe addiction is ultimately a spiritual malady. Doctors and insurance companies don't much care for that notion, as it cuts them out of the solution.

I don't know what substances Mr. Kennedy was on but his story continues to change. I hope for his sake that somebody says to him, straight up, "Cut the bleep or you're going to die," and that he believes it.


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

Patrick

You stated it much better than I could have ever done.

"...always aspire to live simply and elegantly." - Madeleine Finn


----------

