For Gonzo

Sure, but spit in one hand and pray in the other and see which fills up first!
 
jollie said:
" WHY have Democrats NOT OUSTED a KU KLUX KLAN MEMBER, and an Unconvicted Murderer from YOUR Party, the Democrat Party?
Click to expand...
Because unconvicted murderers and Klan members have political opinions, too.

I mean, seriously, the Republican Party would NEVER allow a KNOWN K.K.K. Member to stay in its Party,
Click to expand...
Because the KKK was founded largely as anti-Republican organisation...kind of like saying that the Jewish community would never allow an active Nazi to be a member--- it goes without saying.
or a man who not ONLY killed a woman and RAN AWAY TO HIDE, but then, years later, had a Drunken Rape Party, where he had invited his Nephew, who was CHARGED with rape? How can a Party of "Racial Equality", and "Women's Rights" STAND to have such men in its RANKS?
Click to expand...
Republicans are responsible for deaths, too. They just use armies instead of cars.
 
J-

I do not believe you can oust a senator from your party. Voters do that. And he's a southerner, and he spoke at the RNC national convention in support of Bush in 2004 so you can hardly call him a liberal Democrat. I'm sure you'll find PLENTY of Democrats who dislike, disagree, disassociate, and disregard the old man, though.
 
gonzojournals said:
Do you mean in a legal sense or in reality?

Because you can be an unconvicted murderer, just not legally.
Click to expand...

In a legal sense of course.

To call Teddy an unconvicted murderer is ignoring the fact that he already went through the legal process. Michael here is convicting him in his own mind.
 
ib1yysguy said:
In a legal sense of course.

To call Teddy an unconvicted murderer is ignoring the fact that he already went through the legal process. Michael here is convicting him in his own mind.
Click to expand...

It is true--- and technically he wouldn't be a murderer, anyway, just a manslaughter...er.

He didn't intentionally kill that woman.
 
No matter what you decide he is, murderer or manslaughter-er, he'll always be a scumbag for running away from the scene of the accident without even trying to save Mary Jo.
 
Norman Paperman said:
No matter what you decide he is, murderer or manslaughter-er, he'll always be a scumbag for running away from the scene of the accident without even trying to save Mary Jo.
Click to expand...

You can't eject someone from your party for being a scumbag if the voters disagree with that sentiment since it's the voters that decide who qualifies for the party leadership and who doesn't.

This is in answer to Michael's ridiculous question.
 
Norman Paperman said:
No matter what you decide he is, murderer or manslaughter-er, he'll always be a scumbag for running away from the scene of the accident without even trying to save Mary Jo.
Click to expand...

He has been re-elected by the voters for decades, after all.

I would like to see you dive into a river while drunk to rescue someone.
 
gonzojournals said:
He has been re-elected by the voters for decades, after all.
Click to expand...

This fact continues to amaze me.

I would like to see you dive into a river while drunk to rescue someone.
Click to expand...

I would like to think that I would do my very best if this situation were to arise. I think the actions one takes under these conditions are a question of character more than a state of mind. Luckily, I'm not known for drinking and driving.
 
Norman Paperman said:
This fact continues to amaze me.
Click to expand...
Why?



I would like to think that I would do my very best if this situation were to arise. I think the actions one takes under these conditions are a question of character more than a state of mind. Luckily, I'm not known for drinking and driving.
Click to expand...
Question of character? So two dead drunk people would be ok, as long as one of them died due to stupid heroics?
 
gonzojournals said:
Why?
Click to expand...

I guess because I just don't get the whole Kennedy mystique, especially where Ted is concerned. Because I think change in politics is a good thing. It's not just the continued re-election of TK that amazes me, I would same the same of most of the old guard politicians who have held office for decades.

Question of character? So two dead drunk people would be ok, as long as one of them died due to stupid heroics?
Click to expand...

Yes. To do nothing ensures that one dies. I would have to at least try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top