• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Kennedy hypocracy vs Alito

aps said:
Typical self-centered man.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm far from self centered. I don't desire him to be in the Supreme Court either. But I'm being honest. I can't change where he goes or how he gets there. I'm just glad that the possibilty of his influence might have little reprocusion on my life. I feel for those women who are for pro-choice or people who are minorities or fear outrageous Presidential power. If I had a choice I gladly continue to be who I am and not have to worry than to see the government peeking through my bedroom windows or snooping through my private sex life. Would you rather be safely on the curb side or thrown under the bus?
 

Okay, I see what you mean. I'm sorry for calling you self centered. You see a lot of people who don't care about those with whom they cannot relate (like rich people not caring about poor people). I misunderstood what you meant.
 

No more than anyother justice he's just one vote,

I feel for those women who are for pro-choice or people who are minorities or fear outrageous Presidential power.
Click to expand...

Why?


If I had a choice I gladly continue to be who I am and not have to worry than to see the government peeking through my bedroom windows or snooping through my private sex life. Would you rather be safely on the curb side or thrown under the bus?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with Alito? Why do you think he will order someone to look in your window?
 
hipsterdufus said:
I find it incredibly ironic that the almost all-white, all-male Senate goes after Alito for his membership in a group that promotes an all-white, all-male vision for Princeton. I do think it's a valid point though.
Click to expand...

Actually the group didn't as Larua Ingrham, a past president, stated on her show.

Of course the point is that any Senator could be voted out of office at any time, and SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment. Therefore SCOTUS nominees should be held to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

Well exactly how high a standard should be applied to Senators then? And are you saying that it's OK to be a sexist in the Senate AND then complain about a potential Justice engaging in the same? What folly.

As Woody Allen said - "I'd never join a club that would allow a person like me to become a member."
Click to expand...

Interesting but pointless.
 
Stinger said:
No more than anyother justice he's just one vote,
Click to expand...
True, but he won't be the swing vote. Escpecailly with Roberts, and Scalia.


Stinger said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because these people end up being on the wrong end of conservative rulings



Stinger said:
What does that have to do with Alito? Why do you think he will order someone to look in your window?
Click to expand...
As much as any politician won't admit it the ability to be able to monitor any one at anytime for any reason is too tempting to resist. If a conservative President has the ability to deem anyone an enemy of the state who else to uphold survelence laws to bend towards his/her favor than conservative judges. Of course you can say "he won't do that". And if he or any one else on the supreme court did it you say "it's justified". The bottom line is that some principles in the constitution are so ambiguos (sp) that any one can interperate them anyway they like. Some say that the constitution does not cover the right to privacy soe say it does...who gets hurt? Who stands to loose more if he gets in as a judge?
 
You notice how the democrats and the main stream media are all going on and on about how the supreme court justice nomination/approval process is "broken"?? Funny how it wasn't broken when Mrs. Ginsburg and Mr.Breyer got selected, answering even a fewer questions than did Alito.

How come things are always "broken" or "questionable" when republicans win??

Seems to me that the democrats fear Alito because of his intelligence, his humility, and the possibility that with logical arguments devoid of emotion. he can convince others. I believe democrats are fearful of this.
 
aps said:
Okay, I see what you mean. I'm sorry for calling you self centered. You see a lot of people who don't care about those with whom they cannot relate (like rich people not caring about poor people). I misunderstood what you meant.
Click to expand...
No problem I'm not easily insulted.
 
YNKYH8R said:
No problem I'm not easily insulted.
Click to expand...

Oh good...then go screw yourself.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by YNKYH8R
Oh, I'm far from self centered. I don't desire him to be in the Supreme Court either. But I'm being honest. I can't change where he goes or how he gets there. I'm just glad that the possibilty of his influence might have little reprocusion on my life.


Me>> No more than anyother justice he's just one vote,

YNKYH8R said:
True, but he won't be the swing vote. Escpecailly with Roberts, and Scalia.
Click to expand...

Well if he interprets the constitution and the laws as written what is the basis of your fear?

Quote:
I feel for those women who are for pro-choice or people who are minorities or fear outrageous Presidential power.

Me>> Why?

Because these people end up being on the wrong end of conservative rulings
Click to expand...

If it is the proper constitutional ruling....................





I don't understand you claim that just because someone is conservative that they have more a desire, if a desire at all, than a liberal to monitor anyone at anytime and no president has the authority to deem anyone at anytime an enemy of the state.


Of course you can say "he won't do that". And if he or any one else on the supreme court did it you say "it's justified".
Click to expand...

A proper judge will say it is either constitutional or not. And so far what you fear has been ruled constitutional by all the courts that have ruled on it.


No one states the constitution states a right to privacy. Even RvW only goes so far as to say one might imply a right to privacy and in such an awkward way that even some liberal legal scholars disagree.

Do you believe there is a right to privacy and if so exactly what is it and where is it in the constitution.
 
alphieb said:
Everbody has skeletons in their closets. The Kennedy's are just highly publized because of who they are.
Click to expand...

Sorry that boat doesn't float... The Kennedys have been living off that names sine JFK. Andthey have been trying to live off of it above the law. The family is as much American Royalty as I am, so bow to me....LOL... I stand by m y earlier statement.
 

Do you have any facts to back up Ms. Ingrham's statement?

Senators are elected by the people. The standards set for their election is up to the people.

I don't have the same standards for my mechanic as I do for my physician.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Sorry that boat doesn't float... The Kennedys have been living off that names sine JFK. Andthey have been trying to live off of it above the law. The family is as much American Royalty as I am, so bow to me....LOL... I stand by m y earlier statement.
Click to expand...

Teddy's actions were atrocious when he drove over that bridge and left that poor women to die. I do agree with that.
 
alphieb said:
Teddy's actions were atrocious when he drove over that bridge and left that poor women to die. I do agree with that.
Click to expand...


They have also been accused of a few other minor indescretions. Such as womanizing, rape, bootlegging.. Hell thats were they made there money to start. Toss in kennedys little oppsie and whatever else I didn't mention or I don't know about. There are other abuse alegations out there and some MOB alegations to from a while back. I stress alligations because I don't know if anything was ever proven
 
hipsterdufus said:
Do you have any facts to back up Ms. Ingrham's statement?
Click to expand...

What statement? Her statement on her national show? I don't need to back it up althrough Judge Napalitano (sp?), who was also a member, also mentioned it. I have no reason to believe she told a bold face easily debunked lie about her membership on her national radio show and several other talk shows.

Me>> Well exactly how high a standard should be applied to Senators then? And are you saying that it's OK to be a sexist in the Senate AND then complain about a potential Justice engaging in the same? What folly.

Senators are elected by the people. The standards set for their election is up to the people.
Click to expand...

So answer my question, you are a people aren't you.

I don't have the same standards for my mechanic as I do for my physician.
Click to expand...

So as far as you are concerned it's OK to be a sexist Senator but not a sexist Judge, as I said what folly.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Sorry that boat doesn't float... The Kennedys have been living off that names sine JFK. Andthey have been trying to live off of it above the law. The family is as much American Royalty as I am, so bow to me....LOL... I stand by m y earlier statement.
Click to expand...


One of the realy interesting things has been. The blind support Feminist groups and Pro abortion groups always give Kennedy. Considering his record with actual women which they just ignore for the greater good,for them.
 
JOHNYJ said:
One of the realy interesting things has been. The blind support Feminist groups and Pro abortion groups always give Kennedy. Considering his record with actual women which they just ignore for the greater good,for them.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. So if a man isn't perfect with women, we are supposed to NOT support him? It doesn't work that way. The Chappaquidick thing was an accident. I would never hold that against him, and I know I am not alone.
 
aps said:
Oh brother. So if a man isn't perfect with women, we are supposed to NOT support him? It doesn't work that way. The Chappaquidick thing was an accident. I would never hold that against him, and I know I am not alone.
Click to expand...
Again, you stop with the accident and refuse to look at his actions that followed. No one is arguing that the inceident was an accident. Leaving the scene of a crime, allowing her to die and giving yourself time to sober up was not an accident.
 
I heard on the news when I was driving back from the rifle range in my truck that a new charge has been filed against Kennedy ........If its true it seems when he was 51 he had a love child with a woman who has come forward now and wants the young man recognized........As soon as I can find a link I will post it................

Got it.........

http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=121772


Mag: Ted K’s secret love child a secret no more
By Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa
Wednesday, January 18, 2006

The National Enquirer splashes this week with a shocking story about Sen. Ted Kennedy’s secret love child with a Cape Cod woman whom the mag says he dated during his days as a swinging single.

According to the tabloid’s source, the boy, named Christopher, just celebrated his 21st birthday and is “mature enough to make his own choices about his background and biological father.”

A Kennedy family confidante told the Enquirer, “This is one of the biggest secrets in the Kennedy family and known to only a few people including Ted’s ex-wife, Joan.”
 
Last edited:
It all comes down what is best for the people. We've always had a right to privacy and now it comes into conflict, why? We've always had a seperation of church and state and that comes into question, why? If, in your opinion, we as a society do not benefit from a right to privacy then so be it. We'll stop argueing about a womans right to choose and we'll open up our medical records to those who come calling (agenda or not) and we'll even elminate the need for probably cause before getting a warrant for arrest or for search procedures. We'll tell people when they should die instea of letting terminally ill people to take their lives into their own hands.

But there is a problem with all of this, it's not democratic. if we don't have a right to privacy then what is the freedom to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness about?
 

By any chance do you have a source for this other than the National Enquirer?
 
tryreading said:
By any chance do you have a source for this other than the National Enquirer?
Click to expand...

So far I don't but there are a lot of links to it and its gaining momentum.......Just google on Kennedys love child.......

Stay tuned.........
 
Navy Pride said:
So far I don't but there are a lot of links to it and its gaining momentum.......Just google on Kennedys love child.......

Stay tuned.........
Click to expand...

True or not, I don't defend Kennedy. But that source is questionable, except for the UFO scoops.
 
tryreading said:
True or not, I don't defend Kennedy. But that source is questionable, except for the UFO scoops.
Click to expand...

I agree but when it comes to Kennedy I would not put anything past him.......We shall see......
 

I doubt Ted Kennedy was a bootlegger himself. I think he's a little young for that.

My concern is though, the American people recognize that Prohibition was wrong, and sought to repeal it. Why the big concern over ignoring bad law?

It's like saying the people who hid jews during WWII or operated the "underground railroad" in the USA were bad people because they broke bad law.

The Crime and Violence resulting from balck market activities (assuming this is the reason why people actually have the problems with bootleggers) is a result, again, of bad law. Crime and Violence are the only sufficient means left to adress grievences when the state prohibits any other method of grievence resolution. People are left to persue their own justice, when the primary mechanisms of justice are denied to them.

Bootlegging alcohol should not be viewed as a bad thing, but the institutional conditions that promted black market activity should be viewed as the bad thing. It is the insitutional condititions that exacerbate violence and crime associated with black markets. It is the institutional conditions that creates black markets that attract those willing to use violence and force as a means of labor. It is the insitutional conditions that promotes and expands corruption in public officials. It is those conditions which should be mocked, and supporters of those conditions who should be ostracized and expelled from power.

Two wrongs, of course don't make a right. But the initial wrong that sets the stage from the secondary wrong, must be viewed as the cause, and worst of the wrongs. Without prohibition, there would have been no bootleggers.
 
KCConservative said:
Again, you stop with the accident and refuse to look at his actions that followed. No one is arguing that the inceident was an accident. Leaving the scene of a crime, allowing her to die and giving yourself time to sober up was not an accident.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay, then even considerting his leaving the scene of the accident, her dying, and his delayed response in contacting the authorities, I still support him, and clearly others do too. Otherwise, he wouldn't still be in the Senate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…