You May Have Missed

Onceler said:
Bull. No one is hounding him. Stories like this disappear in a day.

I can see why he wouldn't want to name someone: burning bridges, friendship, a certain degree of loyalty, intimidation, lack of necessity. You'll probably tear each of these apart, since you're intent on focusing on this rather insignificant part of the testimony, and believing that someone would just make something like this up.
Click to expand...

Let's see, I am focusing on this part of his testimony.... because... wait for it.... THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.
 
Darla said:
Was this common practice back then? Why would someone do that?
Click to expand...
Rose Marie was developmentally diabled, she was not "retarded." She did not have Down's Syndrome and a mongloid appearance, in fact she was a rather nice looking girl. The Kennedy's feared that she would have an 'embarassing situation' because she had no sexual inhibitions. It was acceptable in those days, in both the Catholic church and society at large, to sterilize God's "lesser children." Apparently, prior to the lobotomy, she had a penchant for self-gratification when the need arose - even at inconvenient times and / or places (in the public eye).

That said, the Kennedy's did not simply warehouse her and forget her. She was visited regularly by the extended family, according to the source. They were always concerned about her well-being, made sure she had the best care, and truly loved her.
 
"Then you're insane. As I said, there are loads of reasons people prefer not to name someone, especially someone higher up, if it's not necessary to do so, and in this case, it wasn't. I'd be interested to see the testimony; did anyone even ask a follow-up asking who it was? You have a really skewed idea of human behavior."

Actually in this case it is absolutely necessary. To blindly accuse someone in the administration of saying something this bad, which in turn gets reported by the NY Times, then yes, you should absolutely tell us who you are referring to.

It is not out of loyalty.... if you were loyal, you wouldn't bring it up. If you were a friend, you wouldn't trash them. What possible intimidation? He doesn't work for the admin anymore and he would have endless job offers from Dems for outing another official.
 
New Bottom line: You may now accuse "a Democrat" of anything you want without having to make reference to whom you are talking about. Because you don't want to embarass them. Just say "a Senior Democratic leader" did "x" and you are good. No need to point out WHO did what or said what.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Rose Marie was developmentally diabled, she was not "retarded." She did not have Down's Syndrome and a mongloid appearance, in fact she was a rather nice looking girl. The Kennedy's feared that she would have an 'embarassing situation' because she had no sexual inhibitions. It was acceptable in those days, in both the Catholic church and society at large, to sterilize God's "lesser children." Apparently, prior to the lobotomy, she had a penchant for self-gratification when the need arose - even at inconvenient times and / or places (in the public eye).

That said, the Kennedy's did not simply warehouse her and forget her. She was visited regularly by the extended family, according to the source. They were always concerned about her well-being, made sure she had the best care, and truly loved her.
Click to expand...


That's really horrible. It's easy to forget what kind of things were acceptable in the too recent past.
 
Superfreak said:
New Bottom line: You may now accuse "a Democrat" of anything you want without having to make reference to whom you are talking about. Because you don't want to embarass them. Just say "a Senior Democratic leader" did "x" and you are good. No need to point out WHO did what or said what.
Click to expand...

I think you're leaving something out.

The under oath part.
 
Superfreak said:
Very easy... the guy is pissed at the administration for not allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. So he takes a pot shot. I just have a hard time believing someone this annoyed with the administrations position on scientific issues wouldn't name the person.

I cannot see one possible explantion that would rationalize why he wouldn't say who it was.
Click to expand...


I can.

I can think of multiple reasons he wouldn't drag out a specific person's name out in public. Reasons that make a whole lot more sense, that asserting that he lied under oath and made this whole thing up.
 
Okee Dokee then...!

Troglodyte27 said:
Rose Marie was developmentally diabled, she was not "retarded." She did not have Down's Syndrome and a mongloid appearance, in fact she was a rather nice looking girl. The Kennedy's feared that she would have an 'embarassing situation' because she had no sexual inhibitions. It was acceptable in those days, in both the Catholic church and society at large, to sterilize God's "lesser children." Apparently, prior to the lobotomy, she had a penchant for self-gratification when the need arose - even at inconvenient times and / or places (in the public eye).

That said, the Kennedy's did not simply warehouse her and forget her. She was visited regularly by the extended family, according to the source. They were always concerned about her well-being, made sure she had the best care, and truly loved her.
Click to expand...



Sounds a little Freudian to me!
 
Superfreak said:
Who cares if you are under oath? If you are not required to tell anyone whom you are referring to, then you can never be found guilty of perjury.
Click to expand...

Some people, consider testifying under oath to be a serious matter. Obviously, you do not.

Whatever SF, absolutely live in your own world. Everybody, including REPUBLICANS who served in this adminstration are lining up to commit perjury to make your boy look bad. If that's what gets you through the night, that's fine. But don't expect anybody else to buy that BS, and don't complain when you get tagged as a bush aplologist.
 
There are about 3-4 posts with reasons why someone wouldn't provide a name in a testimony like this.

What a ridiculous thing to hone in on...
 
Superfreak said:
Please... provide some...
Click to expand...

What, are you a snitch at work?

If something happens in a work project that I disagree with, I don't rush into my bosse's office and say:"Well, so-and-so (insert name here) is totally doing things the wrong way...he's/she's screwing up the project in my opinion!"


Is that what you do? Snitch on co-workers to the boss? That's bad form, SF. Bad etiquette in professional society.


So, my first reason is that since this didn't pertain to a criminal or civil matter, there was no need to drag the person's name out in a public forum. Possibly exposing them to ridicule and embarrassement.

Lorax already listed a ton of other reasons, that make a hell of a lot more sense, than asserting the U.S. Surgeon General made up this thing out of whole cloth and lied under oath about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top