Skip navigation

diversitylane_series_for-blog

Advertisements

104 Comments

    • Steve T
    • Posted September 1, 2009 at 1:02 pm
    • Permalink

    Let’s see,…
    He cheated at Harvard – his daddy covered it for him, he was re-admitted a few years later.

    Teddy signs a four-year enlistment in the military – his daddy again covers for him, gets it changed to two years, keeps his trust-fund spoiled ass out of Korea, gets him a cushy job at NATO HQ’s.

    Teddy drowns a girl, leaves the scene – her body is swept out of state without a proper investigation… Teddy gets a minor ‘slap on the hand’, and the idiot population of Taxi-chusetts re-elects him, for the next 4+ decades.

    He gets tired of wife #1, pays enough $$ to the local Catholic church, and gets his marriage ANNULLED – hmmm, and that is after having three (3) children. Perhaps the local Archbishop prayed that Joan Kennedy’s hymen returned to pre-consummation conditions(?).

    This ultra-spoiled, hyper-narcissistic, shameless elitist thug was a most disgusting sample of the wretched, self-appointed ruling class, you can imagine.
    His WHOLE career is a serial violation of the 10th Amendment.

    Ted Kennedy even expected that the Pope would read his personal letter (hand delivered by Obama), and offer personal prayers for him (what incredible hubris-!)

    Thank God this disgusting, phony media pulp about ‘Camel-Squat’ is about over with-!

  1. Simply superb, Steve T. Thanks for taking the time to “set them straight.”

    Jake: That Laura Bush too was involved in a tragic car accident is a bit of a non sequitur, is it not? I never said Teddy was the only person in U.S. history to have behaved abysmally, or that only Democrats fail hideously to live up to the designation of “human being.” See Steve T.’s comment for further details.

    • Steve T
    • Posted September 1, 2009 at 1:41 pm
    • Permalink

    Jake-
    That is PATHETIC — if you have the slightest amount intellectual honesty in you, I emplore you to learn about the true nature of the Kennedy family, then it might dawn on you to hang your head in shame for trying to compare a tragic accident Laura Bush had, as a teenager, to the serial thug-ish life style Ted Kennedy had lead.

    Further, in case it missed you notice, the aggressive political opposition research the Democrats did, over both elections for GW Bush, they knew enough to avoid using this tragic accident.
    Does that give you the slightest hint, that your judgement is floundering withing the THC bubbling bilge within your bong-?
    (just a figure of speech – although possibly true)

    • Donna C.
    • Posted September 1, 2009 at 2:10 pm
    • Permalink

    Steve T., I bow to you and your awesomeness. Excellent replies.

  2. *bookmarking for the next time the Politics of Personal Destruction comes up or when someone complains of not respecting the conservative dead*

  3. Donna: He’s a fantastic resource, as are you. I’ve said it before– I learn a ton from my visitors.

    Chris: Gimme a break, I repected Teddy’s death all of last week plus throughout the weekend Funeral Extravaganza. I think hearing from Newsweek’s Ed Klein that Teddy loved to hear Chappaquiddick jokes finally sent me over the edge. I knew he was a super-cad and a leftist moron, but had previously still regarded him as human.

    • Steve T
    • Posted September 1, 2009 at 3:26 pm
    • Permalink

    Donna & Zack-
    Thank you for your very nice note-

    Ted Kennedy happens to be one of the most extreme examples of folks who violate the deepest values most of us grow up with,…that criminal & creepy behavior should get its due justice,… hopefully here, on this earthly plane.

    He avoided almost ALL the consequences any one of us would realize. He grew to expect, yes, EXPECT that he was above being held acountable for his creepy and sometimes criminal behavior (ref: waitress sandwiches (aka sexual assualt), his letter to the KGB to undermine Reagan (aka treason, violation of the Logan Act), and who knows how many others.

    And now, his carcass takes up more space in Arlington,… where the honored dead or our great Republic are supposed to rest.

    If I had the $$$, I would pay an F-18 SuperHornet Pilot and his BNO to fly a sortie, with 3-4 GPS/laser-guided 1,000 delay-fused bombs (when no one else was around in Arlington), have hyper-accurate grid coordinates for the three present sites where the Kennedy klan is planted, and transform eack site into a 20-ft deep x 55ft wide smoking blast crater.

    All the ‘Camelot carrion’ would be transformed into tens of thousands of smothering ash fragments the size of your pinky fingernail, scattered at hundreds of miles an hour, for a radius of thousands of feet.

    Naturally, part of my ’employment package’ would give these two fine & principled officers a lucrative retirement to a non-extradition country.

    Shucks – there goes my wishful right-wing fantasies again…-!

  4. Gee, Chris you mean liberals actually respect the conservative dead? That’s a new one to me!

  5. gee vegas art guy do two wrongs make a right?

    also regardless of what you consider ‘respect’ I am reasonably sure few if any liberals wrote complex fantasies about desecrating the corpses and killing the survivors of [insert conservative here]. Maybe I missed out on that while everyone was deifying Reagan, maybe lots of people wanted to kill off Nancy with fighter pilots.

  6. …besides which, Jake: Laura Bush was 16 when she had her accident; Teddy was 38! We all know how utterly removed from the realm of maturity and clarity nearly every 16 year old is, and whatever she did can scarcely be compared to the indefensible actions of the 38-year old Kennedy.

  7. And regarding Ed Klein:

    The guy is this generation’s Kitty Kelley, he keeps writing books about the Kennedys/Clintons/Katie Couric anyone that people want THE AWFUL TRUTH about. I would take him at his word about as well as I would the Weekly World News.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908280021

    I know Media Matters is “leftist” and you probably don’t take anything they say seriously either, but this guy is a crazy gossipmonger.

    Continue hating Kennedy for whatever you want — Chappaquiddick was pretty shameful, I can respect people who disagree with his broad political aims, and who likes Spoiled Rich Elitists? — but there is pretty slim support to suggest he liked to joke about Chappaquiddick.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 1, 2009 at 7:59 pm
    • Permalink

    “That Laura Bush too was involved in a tragic car accident is a bit of a non sequitur, is it not?”

    Not really. It seemed to me that this comic was about car accidents involving political figures. Laura Bush is a political figure, and she was involved in a car accident. That seems to fit with the theme.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 1, 2009 at 8:27 pm
    • Permalink

    “That is PATHETIC…a tragic accident Laura Bush had”

    So, talking about Bush’s tragic accident is pathetic, but apparently using Kennedy’s accident for political gain is a-ok? Are you suggesting that Mary Jo Kopechne’s death is not tragic? Did she deserve to die because she spent time with Ted Kennedy? Do you think her family likes seeing her death casually tossed around by cartoonists in order to make political cheap shots? Why does the family of Laura Bush’s victim deserve respect and peace, but Kopechne’s family should be forced to endure having Mary Jo’s death constantly bandied about by political “commentators” when they need to take shots at Kennedy? How is Zack’s comic any less “pathetic” then my link about Laura Bush? Do you believe that the Kopechne’s were horrible people who should be reminded of their family member’s death any time a “commentator” is too inept to make a real point about Kennedy’s politics? This comic is disgusting and insulting to the memory of Mary Jo Kopechne.

  8. No but three lefts make a right.

    When your side stops acting like their logo every time someone on the right passes away, has an addiction or other tragedy get back to me.

    • Steve T
    • Posted September 1, 2009 at 9:19 pm
    • Permalink

    Jake-
    You need to pass a drug test before further postings here.

    You assert that “Laura Bush is a political figure” – you are dead wrong, your reasoning is defective as can be, and you are doing what typical liberals do – dishonestly swiping at others, so you can “feel” justified in ignoring unwelcome truths that are put before you.

    You have no backbone – no integrity to seek the truth about Ted Kennedy.
    The truth about him is too unwelcome to folks like you.

    It is too easy for people like you to spit irrevelant attacks towards folks who have no part in this discussion.

    What is it like to wake up every morning, and see youself in the bathroom mirror-? Do you blame every blemish on your face on GW Bush-?

    You have no ability to process the scope of the corrupt character that was Ted Kennedy – so you find some twisted, unrelated subject, namely, a former First Lady, and she is part of your ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’.

    Jake – can you tie your shoes without blaming Bush for something-?

    • Jake
    • Posted September 1, 2009 at 9:34 pm
    • Permalink

    Way to miss the point, Steve-O. Apparently I overestimated your ability to understand analogous situations.

    I thought perhaps presenting a similar situation concerning a figure you support might help illustrate the rather disgraceful nature of using a fatal car accident to support your political point. While you express disgust at such an attack being used against some one you support, you remain unable to recognize that such an attack is despicable by its very nature and should be avoided regardless of your political allegiances. It seems that you and your ilk have allowed your politics to trump your humanity.

    “You have no backbone”

    I think you are the true spineless worm, Steve-O. You have chosen political cheap shots over compassion and respect for humanity.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 1, 2009 at 9:46 pm
    • Permalink

    The issue being debated here is Chappaquidick v Laura Bush’s accident, and how it’s unfair to bandy about one endlessly but completely gloss over the other. Laura was the wife of the most powerful man in the country for a span of time, so that DOES make her a political figure. Just like Hilary and Barbara Bush before her, and Michelle now.

    No one is saying what he did was a bad thing, but discounting everything he’s done since then because of it? That’s kind of unfair to his memory. If he NEVER ONCE repented in any way, then I’d agree he should be defamed, just like any other unrepentant murderer. But, and this is key… he did, and he championed many social causes, women’s rights issues in particular.

    @vegas – such as who? Reagan is the only person I know of in recent memory whose death was celebrated (which was a bit callous I’ll agree, but that’s a different matter.) What prominent political figures on the right have had their deaths celebrated in the past, say, 4 years?

    Attacking the recently deceased is rather insensitive, no matter what side of the political spectrum they’re on, barring a rare few, Fred Phelps being a likely candidate i the near future. But again, different subject. I can respect, say, Limbaugh for his ability to go on every day with mostly fresh material, and he’s fairly respectful unlike some pundits, again, on both sides, just as I can respect Teddy for the good he did in the world.

    Long story short (since I’m rambling now), respect goes a long way. Jake is being confrontational, yes, but so regular posters who agree with Zach (Steve and Donna coming to mind). Chris to somewhat with his second to last comment, but he does make a salient point.

    • TKWAFLS
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 3:00 pm
    • Permalink

    > you are the true spineless worm, Steve-O. You have chosen political cheap shots over compassion and respect for humanity. >

    Yes, folks, this was actually written in defense of Ted Kennedy, a guy who had no compassion and respect for humanity when he left a woman for dead to preserve his own career. You can’t make this stuff up folks.
    I see Manny makes as much sense on other sites as he does on iOwnTheWorld.com
    He actually draws a comparison between Laura Bush and Ted Kennedy, saying she is a political figure.
    Let’s examine this asinine assertion.
    Not only was Laura Bush NOT a political figure at the time of her accident, she was NEVER elected to any office… ever.
    So, Manny, why so stupid?
    Furthermore, there is absolutely no analogy AT ALL betwen what happened in Texas and what happened in Massachusetts.
    Let’s make the analogy work for Manny, though. Just to make him feel good. Let’s change the story to fit Kennedy’s.
    Laura Bush was a 26 year old senator, and was driving with a girl that she planned on having sex with, even though Laura was married with 2 children. Laura was drunk. She hit a telephone pole in a remote section of Texas at night. Her passenger was pinned in the vehicle, Laura wasn’t. Laura, fearing for her career, fled the vehicle even though a smoldering fire was developing. Laura passed a fire department while on foot, but chose not even to anonymously alert rescuers. Instead she called her lawyer, established an alibi, tried to convince others to take the blame, all in an effort to preserve her life of wealth and entitlement.
    The next day the car Laura was driving was found with the passenger dead of smoke inhalation. Had Laura just called for help the passenger would have lived.
    Laura went on to be elected and re=elected for the next 40 years. She remained an adulterer, a drunkard, and testified on behalf of a relative who was accused of rape. That relative was found not guilty, but was later arrested on another rape charge years later. Laura was a Republican that voted straight down party lines, never deviating on any issue.
    Laura passed away this week and Republicans canonized her as the greatest Republican Senator who ever lived. Democrats are left scratching their heads in incredulity.
    Of course, we all know Laura was 16, hit a car and never fled the scene. It was handled pretty much like the 100,000’s of car accidents that result in fatalities each year.
    Yup, Manny. You’re right again.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 4:34 pm
    • Permalink

    Calling me stupid is just a poor man’s arguing tactic dude. You’re ignoring everything Kennedy has done that’s good in the world to attack, yknow, a dead man. And some guy you don’t know on the internet.

    And just because she wasn’t elected to office doesn’t make her a political figure. Again, if that were the case, then insulting Hilary (up until she became a senator, then she’s an elected official.) and Michelle goes right out to. You can’t have it both ways. I never once tried to defend Kennedy for that incident, or I could understand your vitriol to a point. Right now, it just comes across as “hah, I can insult any Liberal I want. But don’t you dare insult any Conservative or you will face the *redacted* fury of my keyboard, stupid.”

    Read my last comment again if you’d kindly. I’ll respect you if you do the same. And Teddy did a hell of a lot of good in the world. No one is a saint. Not me, not you, not Obama, not Rush, not Zach, and not any of the more Liberal (Chris, Hysterical Woman, wootabega, etc.) commenters.

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 5:54 pm
    • Permalink

    Just…you know…putting it out there.

    ——————–

    Some Journalists Don’t Refrain from Liberal Shots at Reagan (upon announcement of his death)

    * On-screen text on CNN at 6:53pm EDT (day of), but repeated later:
    “BY-PRODUCT OF ‘REAGANOMICS’
    HUGE BUDGET DEFICITS”

    * ABC’s Sam Donaldson blamed the big deficit on Reagan for “stubbornly” refusing to raise taxes to pay for defense spending and he featured a soundbite of David Stockman denouncing Reagan for ignoring “facts.”

    * Barely 15 minutes after the announcement of Reagan’s death, CBS’s Jerry Bowen was on the air highlighting “the nagging perception” that in their post-White House years “the Reagans were cashing in on their Washington years.” He cited how “their California retirement home…was a gift from twenty wealthy friends. The Reagans paid them back, but the appearance of impropriety lingered.” He also brought up the controversy over how much Ronald Reagan was paid for some 1989 speeches in Japan.

    * CBS’s Bill Plante ludicrously claimed that he “succeeded, beyond conservatives’ wildest dreams, in shrinking the size of government,” but then Plante contradicted himself by asserting that Reagan managed the big budget cuts “by spending so much there was no money left.”

    * Bitburg and the S&L scandal. In a posting on MSNBC.com, MSNBC’s Tom Curry cited three “costly miscalculations” Reagan made in the White House. In addition to Iran-Contra, Curry brought up the Bitburg cemetery incident and how “he signed into law the Garn-St. Germain Act, which deregulated the savings and loan industry and ended up costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.” Curry showcased how “economist Paul Krugman called it the ‘biggest single economic policy disaster of the 1980s.’” That would be the same Krugman who is a far-left columnist for the New York Times.

    * The lengthy New York Times obituary in Sunday’s paper ran through a litany of liberal spin points against Reagan: Ketchup as a vegetable, how cutting off Social Security disability benefits for 500,000 people “furthered the perception that the administration was heartless,” how the October of 1987 stock market plunge “highlighted the administration’s failure to deal with the budget and trade deficits and the failure of supply-side economics to encourage investment and productivity.” On the up side, at least from the Times’ view, that meant “economists’ warnings that the administration was mortgaging the country’s future were finally heeded, and the President and Congress agreed to a deficit-reduction package.” Plus, thanks to Reagan, “more people were living below the poverty line, and homelessness became a national concern.”

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:09 pm
    • Permalink

    I’m well aware Reagan’s death was celebrated Donna :3. My favorite political cartoonist, Tim Krieder (thepaincomics.com), said that he had a drinking party that night (see his June 9, 2004 comic since I can’t directly link it). I was asking if there was any other prominent Conservative/Republican politicans whose deaths have been celebrated as much as Teddy’s, or Ronny’s for that matter.

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:13 pm
    • Permalink

    Just…you know…putting it out there.

    Just a sampling of comments at D.U. regarding Charlton Heston’s death:

    “He was a prick. And good riddance, about 35 years too late.”

    “Rest in Hell”

    “He was scum”

    “He was a real PRICK alright”

    “A prick with ears that is”

    “Feeling any sense of loss that some sorry piece of sh!thumanity such as C Heston has checked out? I am glad that he is no longer breathing the same air that you and I share.”

    “Is he soylent green yet??”

    ” NOW will somebody pry his cold, dead hands from that frickin’ penis substitute?”

    ————–

    Etc. Etc. Etc. Such class. SUCH CLASS!

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:15 pm
    • Permalink

    Sorry Manuel. Not really been reading your comments, so I missed your question.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:18 pm
    • Permalink

    …and now that I read through your comment, I don’t see how it’s particularly relevant? Only the last bullet point seems to be particularly damning, and even that’s kind of mediocre. The “ketchup as a vegetable” thing for example, did happen, because there wasn’t enough time to review the proposal. It got fixed yes, but it still did happen.

    Just curious where that’s all copied from if you don’t mind me asking. I looked up “Reagan ketchup as a vegetable” and straightdope.com answered it, and they’re pretty non-partisan from my understanding.

    • TKWAFLS
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:21 pm
    • Permalink

    You’re being called stupid for a very good reason. It’s because you’ve displayed abject stupidity.
    You’re the one trying to compare Laura Bush’s accident as some moral equivalent of Kennedy’s. That is just plain STUPID. it’s not even debatable.
    Then you continue defending your stupidity by drawing some parallel to conservative attacks of Hillary and Michelle Obama. Again… STUPID. Try and stay on point, stupid. No one is saying that Laura Bush is beyond reproach for liberals to attack. I’m saying that there is no analogy whatsoever between what Ted did and Laura did. NONE, stupid. Do you not have the ability to follow a point, stupid?
    You may think it clever to muck up the argument, but people who aren’t stupid have the ability to see through it. Are you doing it on purpose? Because if you are, that is just STUPID. if you’re not doing it on purpose, then well, you’re stupid. Are you catching on to the fact that you’re stupid?
    This is very different from some ad hominem attack. I am pointing out WHY you are stupid. Do you see the difference? Or are you just stupid?
    The point about Laura never being elected is very important, stupid. Because part of the argument against Ted Kennedy is that stupid people kept voting him in. Understand, stupid? See the difference here, stupid?
    The argument isn’t “I can insult a liberal, but don’t insult a conservative,” stupid.
    It’s, if you are going to point out a moral equivalent, thus pointing out hypocrisy, try finding one that has a moral equivalency, okay, stupid?

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:22 pm
    • Permalink

    ehh, half point there then for Heston, mainly since the NRA tends to be a little extreme. Anonymous comments from DU or DailyKOS have just as much weight in damning the left as anonymous comments on Freep or Stormfront… very little, in the grand scheme of things.

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:30 pm
    • Permalink

    Point 1: Media Research

    Point 2: How nice of you to offer excuses for someone’s bad behavior, regardless of if you deem them “anonymous”.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:31 pm
    • Permalink

    and I do appreciate the effort at least Donna, you’re being courteous unlike Waffles there. Like I said earlier, mutual respect makes things so much easier and more pleasant. And I’ll be much happier to read your comments when they’re not laced with vitriol like, again, Waffles :3. I’m sure Jake, wootabega, et al, would agree with that sentiment. Just as I’m sure you prefer people being courteous to you.

  9. There is something fundamentally different about celebrating Kennedy’s death and celebrating Reagan’s death, and I’ll lay it out for you, okay stupid?
    Liberals applauded Reagan’s death because he had an opposing political view. He didn’t have a despicable private life that would cause someone to celebrate his death APART from his politics.
    Many people, other than just conservatives, celebrated Kennedy’s death for reasons OTHER than his politics. The man was the political world’s OJ. He was a despicable human being.
    Abandoning a girl in a submerged car, never contacting help, trying to coerce others into taking the blame, then shoeing up at her funeral in a fake neck brace. That’s why I’m glad he’s dead. Got it, stupid?

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:33 pm
    • Permalink

    “…and now that I read through your comment, I don’t see how it’s particularly relevant?” -Manuel

    Am I correct I correct in presuming that your confusion in why I stated the points about Reagan, is because of the “truth” held within the bullets?

  10. Yeah, Waffles has detailed why calling you STUPID is not vitriol. It’s not vitriol when it’s true.
    Your arguments are ridiculous. It’s not as if we are debating point/counterpoint. Your assertions are so preposterous we can’t even get that far.
    try to get off the runway before you believe you are dogfighting in the sky.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:41 pm
    • Permalink

    I have no opinions on Heston, that’s all. And he’s not a big name particularly, compared to Teddy & Ronny. I agree that calling him a prick is a bit harsh, but ya gotta admit the soylent green comment was at least humorous for relevance.

    And it IS anonymous. comments from a messageboard could be made by anyone. You could be a liberal plant for all I know, or I could be, well..anybody.

    …and a good thing I refreshed before commenting. To quote Jesus Christ Superstar, “But what is truth? Is truth a changing law? We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?” “Truth” as you put it is subjective based on your political standings. Reagan is either revered or reviled generally speaking as you’re well aware. He did some good, and some bad, just like most any other politician.

  11. Again, you’re an idiot. See if you can follow this, okay stupid?
    You say Reagan did some things bad, some good, as all politicians do (trying to draw Kennedy into this pool of politicians, as if Chappaquiddick is part of this some good, some bad theory.)

    MANY people agreed with the things Reagan did that can legitimately be considered bad by his political adversaries. That is a valid argument.
    Who the F*CK agrees with what Kennedy did at Chappaquiddick? You’re lumping this in as part of the “some good some bad” thing?

    See… YOU’RE STUPID. Your assertions can be swatted aside like lumbering day flies.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:56 pm
    • Permalink

    have I said Chappaquiddick was good? No? There goes your argument there. Again, I agree with you that it was a terrible thing. But to ignore all the good Teddy did is just being ignorant.

    Would you say that Judas was a terrible person for selling Jesus out? Considering that, without that happening, Jesus wouldn’t have been crucified. Judas supported the less fortunate to. The scented oils and perfumes Mary Magedlane got for Jesus could have gone to help the poor.

    If you could at least frame your argument without resorting to calling me stupid based on your truths, then I’d be more likely to listen to you. “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” as the saying goes.

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 7:07 pm
    • Permalink

    My point, Manuel, in posting as I did about Reagan and Heston, was that there…again…seems to be a great deal of hypocrisy occurring here.

    It is “okay” to discuss the sins of this person…but not that person. It is “okay” to be vile in regard to ABC’s death…but not to XYZ’s. It is “okay” to use foul language when one cannot make a point…but when valid points are made, it is deemed confrontational.

    Even by your own words…first you claim I am being confrontational:
    Jake is being confrontational, yes, but so regular posters who agree with Zach (Steve and Donna coming to mind).

    but then you go on to say:

    and I do appreciate the effort at least Donna, you’re being courteous unlike Waffles there.

    I’m not being facetious when I ask HOW do you all keep things straight when your stance seems to change, from moment to moment?

    Or is that comment too confrontational?

  12. No, you’re not saying Chappaquiddick was good, but you’re not saying it was bad, bad enough to have rightfully ended his friggin career right then and there, like it should have. It was STUPID people like you who looked the other way
    while this genital wart of a person never missed a beat.
    You are edging very closely to saying what that complete imbecile over at HuffPo said. That Mary Jo’s death was worth it.
    Evoking religious analogies when discussing Ted Kennedy is hilarious. Like I said, are you being obtuse, or are you friggin stupid?
    I’m not at all interested in catching flies like you, I’m interested in seeing them eradicated from society. Your moral compass is asinine. I can honestly say I hope you find yourself submerged in a car in your watery grave, I mean that sincerely. I hope it’s Ted Kennedy that you are waiting on to save you.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 7:18 pm
    • Permalink

    you’re being more courteous to me here than I’ve seen you being in other comment strings, to answer your last question. See, you’ve changed too!

    But anyways, moving on… I’ll repeat that, yes, calling Heston a prick after his death is rather bad. Nor is celebrating Reagan’s death by partying. He did good with ending the Cold War, and he did good in the Middle East. But he wasn’t a saint either. Kennedy did a lot of good for the less fortunate during his life. But that doesn’t fully discount Chappaquiddick either, and again, I never said that it was a good thing. Harping constantly on him for that, ignoring all the other good he did, is where I take issue.

    I’ve also tried my best to refrain from foul language and insults, because that’s just bad arguing. Logical fallacies in general are just really trite and overused. Begging the question, tu quoqe (I think that’s the spelling. “and you”, you did this thing so I can do that thing, basically), etc.

    • Steve T
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 8:44 pm
    • Permalink

    Chris,
    Your question demonstrates that your reading comprehension is typical of what our ‘government’ schools turns out.

    Go re-read my post again, perhaps a third or forth time, and you will find NO reference, or implication to harming any living person.

    It is likely that you have little perspective on the history and heritage of what Arlington National Cemetery is, and that it is intended for the honored dead of our country.

    The facts of history – NOT disputed by historians, now show that JFK won his presidency through election FRAUD – yes, Joe Kennedy bought his brat kid lots of votes – even his nephews have been quoted in reference to the votes bought in the Chicago area.
    A fraud-President, from my Airborne-Infantry Officer perspective, does not deserve to have his skirt-chasing trustfund spoiled-brat Irish-trash ass buried in the sacred ground of Arlington.
    Is that a complicated conclusion-?

    We soldiers were held to an honor code – to not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do.
    The Kennedy klan grew up with deeply imbedded values that are 180 degree’s from that honor code.

    As of Ted Kennedy’s funeral, these family clowns take up a vast & large amount of space at Arlington – space more justly used for many hundreds of veterans those who ACTUALLY SERVED this great Republic.

    If you actually believe either JFK, RFK, or Ted the punk really “served” this country, you have bought the pop-media BS that has been shoveled for decades.

    That family is about power, influence and about their selfish desires.
    Their pathetic corpses do not belong at Arlington – but, too many people have drank the Camelot coolaid, and are warm & fuzzy in their brain-washed ignorance,… or, they have sold their soul, like so many Kennedy supporters have.

    Over the years, I have spoken to several folks from Mass.
    They freely admitted the commonly known sleaze in the Kennedy family, and in Ted,…BUT, they were happy to keep voting for Teddy.
    It is a weird pathology.
    You are free to share in it~

  13. Chris, if it works for your side why the hell not? Ethics are just for the conservatives right?

    Yea, right…

    Two words…

    Tony Snow

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 8:50 pm
    • Permalink

    “you’re being more courteous to me here than I’ve seen you being in other comment strings, to answer your last question.” -Manuel

    This, I do not understand.
    Have I called people names? No.
    Have I used foul language? No.
    Have I challenged people? Yes.
    Have I put the same requests to others, as has been requested of myself? Yes.
    Have I been honest? Yes.
    Have I been forthright? Yes.

    On the other hand, I have been called names, I have had lies told about me, etc. Does your claiming my being discourteous have anything to do with the fact that I am presenting an opposing viewpoint? At this point, I can come to no other conclusion, but.

    I am not going to suggest I don’t like to debate, because it is clearly apparent that I do. And I appreciate people who can debate skillfully, without resorting to tossing out negativity, foulness and red herrings. To an extent, I must count you amongst those who possess such an ability. You are a rare breed, IMNSHO. However, don’t attempt to discredit me in the manner you are. If you feel the need to discredit me, do so by my own word.

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 8:51 pm
    • Permalink

    Now that that is out of the way…back on topic.

    Tony Snow. Excellent point, Vegas!

  14. Donna C –
    I have no idea why in the world you think debating with a “progressive” is a worthwhile experience.
    As soon as you step into the arena, you’ve lost.
    There are no rules, there is no logic, there is
    shifting morality, a standard that you must adhere to, but they do not have to.
    How can you take seriously a thought process which can actually write that Mary Jo would have thought her death was worth it?
    Liberalism IS A DISEASE.
    Move on.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 9:16 pm
    • Permalink

    “Yes, folks, this was actually written in defense of Ted Kennedy, a guy who had no compassion and respect for humanity when he left a woman for dead to preserve his own career. You can’t make this stuff up folks.”

    If you were actually capable of understanding what I wrote, you would realize that was written in defense of the Kopechne family. I doubt very much that they enjoy seeing Mary Jo’s death waved around every time some lazy pundit wants to attack Kennedy directly instead of addressing his policies.

    I see from your comment that you are here from iOwntheworld. That does much to explain your ignorance and hateful nature.

  15. Manuel, I must say, that last comment was very well thought and well written, very well said. But if Ted Kennedy was charged appropriately then he would have been placed in jail. Then he would not have been elected again because of this, which would be appropriate also. If he wouldn’t be elected again then SOMEONE ELSE would have done what he has done, as for fighting for inequality in America and health care for these individuals. Someone, not a Democrat in particular or a Liberal either, what about a Republican or a Far right Conservative. But Someone who was not a criminal and did not have the power behind him to be re-elected over and over for 40 years. No matter how you spin it Manuel, he still did not serve time for what he did.

    By the way, let’s not forget Martin Luther King Jr. in this whole conversation here. He did just as much for equality here in America also.

    Basically, this is what I gathered and interpreted from this particular illustration here that we are supporting and critiquing. Also, I gathered another important issue and tactic. And that is, how the Socialist Liberals we have now in our government spins things around so to over-credit Ted Kennedy and his hard work for Health Care and tie it up to the over-propaganda efforts that the Obama administration have chosen to use, in order to shove it down our American throats. Great job Zack!!

    Hey Manuel, why don’t you show your true color here. Don’t spin things around, I know how you Liberals work, I have plenty of experience. If you are not a full blown Socialist-Liberal and you are just a real true blue America loving Democrat, then I’m very sorry, but then again, I doubt it. If I’m wrong, prove me wrong and I will apologize immediately right here.

  16. Hey Jake,
    Your So Vain You Probably Think That Post Was About You.

    Who was talking to you? Who are you? Who cares about you?

    And iOwnTheWorld is hilarious. Where are the funny left wing sites? Post a link.

  17. The closest a black person ever got to Hyannis Port was when the Kennedy’s needed living Lawn Jockey’s for a Regatta celebration. Please. Kennedy did NOTHING for black people. NOTHING. He merely continued the policies of the Great Society, which is an abject failure. Who can argue differently? Black people will be truly emancipated when they discover the fruits of the free market. How does one gather substantial wealth when capitalism is quelled?
    The answer: you can’t. and that’s exactly what the Kennedy’s and their ilk want. It’s a little specious to advocate socialism when your family has a legacy of wealth. When the Kennedy’s toss their entire wealth into the public trough I will shed a tear for ‘ol Teddy and all he did for blacks.
    Exploit capitalism to it’s fullest, then shut it down for everyone else.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 9:55 pm
    • Permalink

    Are you really so stupid as to not recall what your wrote in your own comment? Here, I will repost a larger section of your remark:

    “> you are the true spineless worm, Steve-O. You have chosen political cheap shots over compassion and respect for humanity. >

    Yes, folks, this was actually written in defense of Ted Kennedy, a guy who had no compassion and respect for humanity when he left a woman for dead to preserve his own career. You can’t make this stuff up folks.”

    The Steve-O part was something you quoted from one of my posts, so I would say that you were indeed posting about me. Learn to read and take some meds for your raging ADD. I bet you can’t wait to get out of Middle School.

  18. I mean seriously, this is like a convention of GED drop outs. Reading over these posts I have to say that a few of you here miht want to check with your doctors to see if a tumor is eating YOUR brains.

    We have Jake, a guy that most likely struggles with the riddles on the placement at the Chicken and Waffle house.
    He still keeps bringing up the Laura Bush incident as “analogous to Kennedy.” This is BEYOND retarded. I guess you are getting lost because a car is a shiny object?
    Let’s shift the venue so that maybe you can POSSIBLY see the error in your thinking.
    Laura Bush is standing at the edge of a cliff talking with a friend. As another friend walks by she steps back without looking and knocks the guy off the cliff, killing him. She’s 16, she feels horrible, she continues her high school education.
    Ted Kennedy is drunk, he is looking for a place to bang his brother’s secretary. In the dark he accidentally escorts the lady off a cliff. Luckily, they hit a branch. Kennedy is able to claw his way to safety… and RUNS AWAY. The girl can’t hang on any longer and drops to her death. Kennedy goes back to the senate where he continues his bloviating on the senate floor about ethics.
    Jake, in the future, will argue with his intellectual superior that he is somehow correct in bringing up the Laura Bush incident as an example of moral equivalency. He also wears a hockey helmet to bed.

  19. Learn to read.. lol. Frankly it is hard to keep the liberals separated, one from the other. You think alike, sound alike, and have a collective IQ of a box of boxes.
    Tell us again how Laura Bush was evil..lol
    What a dipshit.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 2, 2009 at 10:39 pm
    • Permalink

    Nice language in that last comment there Waffles. You are like a long winded version of Davey-boy.

  20. Wow, this conversation got super classy and reasonable.

    Far too intelligent for the likes of me!

  21. If I were you I would fall back to paragraph 3 of page 67 in the Debating For Dipshits manual, just as you have.
    Quote, “when confronted with challenges to your argument, ie: the difference between an accident and a willful attempt to involve oneself in a potential conspiracy in order to cover up a homicide, and you find that you have absolutely nothing to say, run. Run from the argument. Comment on the debaters language. Say he is just long-winded. Anything. But by all means, RUN… just like Ted Kennedy.

    lol – you’re a joke. tata

    • Jake
    • Posted September 3, 2009 at 12:28 am
    • Permalink

    Just a tip, Waffles, but Zack doesn’t particularly like vulgar language in his comments. This isn’t iOwntheworld.

    What page of the manual encourages you to constantly use vulgar and abusive language, Chuckles?

  22. Uhhhh.. Just FYI, moron. iOwnTheWorld has a profanity filter on the comments – so, apparently you have no idea wtf ur talking about.
    If Zack is so offended by the word DIPSHIT it shouldn’t be able to post.
    Furthermore, you’re doing it again. You’re trying your damndest to avoid talking about your idiotic assertion that the Bush accident when she was a 16 year old is a moral equivalent to a senator fleeing from a drunken accident with a woman who wasn’t his wife, and leaving her to drown as he try to conspire with 2 other people to cover-up the culpability, You’re right, IT’S EXACTLY THE SAME!!!! friggin idiot.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 3, 2009 at 3:41 am
    • Permalink

    I think Zack assumed his readers would hold themselves to a certain level of decorum with the need for automated profanity filters. I am not surprised that iOwntheworld has to filter its comments considering the kind of people that seem to make up the majority of its fanbase.

    You still don’t get the point I was making with the Bush example. I see little reason for me to bother trying to explain it to you again. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it participate in discourse above the level of a five year old. I will let you continue to wallow in your own ignorance. Your comments make a better case against you than mine ever could. Please feel free to continue to curse and call people stupid. I am growing weary of attempting to lower myself to your level.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 3, 2009 at 7:05 am
    • Permalink

    I’m referring to the comment string in “Bully of Color” particularly Donna. You haven’t been anywhere near as vitriolic as Waffles, but you can still be… well, mean. But you’re holding back here, and that makes me happy :3.

  23. I don’t think ANYONE gets your “point” about the Bush example. It is pointless.
    You can be passive aggressive all you want, I will stick to calling you a moron without “pussyfooting” around. Isn’t that the mantra of the left right now, “no pussyfooting?” Seems that you are out of step with your own tent.

    It also seems that you have some particular bug up your ass about iOTW – they would take it as a compliment, I’m sure.
    Nothing against Zack, but you can’t be serious comparing the 2 sites, can you?
    The commenters over there are PeopleCubists, AmericanThinker regulars, Moonbattists, etc. etc. I find it very odd that someone with an opposing political view would be championing a right-wing site. If I were Zack I’d be thinking I wasn’t doing my job.
    There are intriguing scenarios at play here.
    a: The commenters here can’t hold there own in a debate as simple as say, ohhhh, I dunno, that Ted Kennedy was a moral failure and that bringing up Laura Bush in ANY context when comparing to Chappaquiddick is, in a word, MORONIC.
    b: You’re comfortable thinking yourself a big fish in a small pond
    c: You’re a sock puppet, not a leftist at all, just some jerkoff trying to troll some buzz over here.

    Have fun discussing a one panel cartoon for days at a time.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 3, 2009 at 12:55 pm
    • Permalink

    Eat a bag of dicks, Waffles. There, no more pussyfooting. You are a sniveling piece of shit, and it should have been you at the bottom of Chappaquiddick. In closing, go fuck yourself.

    Hey Zack, am I “an exceptionally detailed, worthy interlocutor,” now?

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm
    • Permalink

    “I’m referring to the comment string in “Bully of Color” particularly Donna.” -Manuel

    WHY do you guys do this? (Well…I have a pretty good idea…) Please be specific about what you are referring to here, instead of tossing out a blanket statement.

    “You haven’t been anywhere near as vitriolic as Waffles, but you can still be… well, mean.” -Manuel

    And again…please be specific, as to where I have been “mean” to anyone.

    I would like to point out that if you had actually read that thread in it’s entirety, you would have been well aware that it was Chris who engaged ME, with what he deemed “mild insults”, which he then progressed into lying about me. How does my replying with demands that he back up his statements & claims, equate to being mean? Is it because I am a woman who stands up for herself, and can argue? The fact remains, the majority of what transpired over there, was my using Chris’ own words against him. I suspect that were I still in the lib camp, you would be applauding my veracity.

    “But you’re holding back here, and that makes me happy :3. -Manuel”

    I’m not holding anything back. Simply, you’ve not attacked me nor blatantly lied about me. We’re good.

  24. Uhhh, no, Jake. This doesn’t make you worthy of a thing. You see, when I insult you and curse, it is still intermingled with challenges to your asinine conjectures, none of which you have defended nor expanded upon. I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
    You can do neither.
    I guess “if you don’t know what I’m saying then there is no need to repeat it” passes as a zinger in your world, but it’s pretty pathetic in the real one.
    I’ve detailed around four times why evoking the Laura Bush incident is moronic, you’ve yet to address it, except by saying that I’m missing your point. Don’t think so, Chachi. Your point has been obliterated and you’ve regressed into an incoherent doofus. Which wasn’t a great descent, considering you started the debate as a partly coherent doofus.
    After awhile, punching the blow-up clown becomes tedious. You’d better take out the heavy artillery, like Cheney’s accident being on par with Kennedy’s despicable act.
    Bwa hahaha

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted September 3, 2009 at 6:53 pm
    • Permalink

    Zack can answer for himself. As for me, I’d have to say “No, Jake, saying what you said to Waffles three posts above this one makes you and exceptionally UNworthy interlocutor. It does makes you a standard issue troll, however.” Yaaaaawn. And don’t bother spewing your venom at me; I won’t be reading it. I only noticed your reply to TKWAFLS because it was above a post by Donna-whose posts I quite enjoy.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 3, 2009 at 9:43 pm
    • Permalink

    “I won’t be reading it.”

    You’ve said this three times now, and yet you still continue to respond to me, how sad.

    • Donna C.
    • Posted September 3, 2009 at 11:35 pm
    • Permalink

    You present yourself as being very liberal Jake…I thought libs supported a woman’s prerogative to change her mind? Or, does that only apply to women who share your viewpoints?

    • Jake
    • Posted September 4, 2009 at 12:36 am
    • Permalink

    “Uhhh, no, Jake. This doesn’t make you worthy of a thing.”

    I’m pretty sure you aren’t Zack, so feel free to fuck off. No one asked for your opinion, you dumb shit.

    • Steve T
    • Posted September 4, 2009 at 3:53 am
    • Permalink

    Jake-
    Nice vocabulary,…
    It is a very good illustration as to how shallow your mind works – a good wiondow into your empty soul.

    You truly are one of the democrat-underground, or Air America, or moveon.org culture,… so why do folks like you hang out here-?

    You are bitter – why not leave here, and go have some fun (your style), like go fetch your ‘code pink’ girl friend (if you are heterosexual), and go get another tattoo or body piercing together.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 4, 2009 at 4:32 am
    • Permalink

    “and go have some fun (your style)”

    Actually, I am using Waffles’ style now. Zack expressed his approval of profanity laced ad hominems, so I am giving you people the language Zack and Waffles desire. Why should I waste my time forming coherent arguments for dumbasses like Waffles who are just going to call me a stupid dipshit? This is easier and fits better with the apparently preferred style of posting in these parts.

    Souls don’t exist. When you die you rot in the ground. Your soul is shares the same state as mine, imaginary.

    “You truly are one of the democrat-underground, or Air America, or moveon.org culture,… so why do folks like you hang out here-?”

    Never been to any of them. Are the posters there as worthless as Waffles and his ilk here?

    “You are bitter – why not leave here,”

    You are worthless – why not leave this life and help solve the world’s over-population problem?

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted September 4, 2009 at 8:21 am
    • Permalink

    Jake-standard issue foul mouthed troll.
    He’s probably seeing how often he can use the “f” word and “shit” in order to get some attention. I’ve seen so many trolls on the internet I might as well have an advanced degree in it. ;^)

    It makes one grateful for the conservatives who don’t need to use such language merely to push buttons and there are some here.

    Anyone who basically says “Why don’t you just commit suicide?” is immediately not even worthy of attention, but of course he’ll say, “You weren’t going to read my posts.” Troll tactic #2. yaaaaawn. Aside from the fact, that one person committing suicide won’t solve the world’s overpopulation problem. If that was supposed to be an example of conservative logic it was lousy. LOL.

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 4, 2009 at 8:48 am
    • Permalink

    A good friend of mine has been known to make the point:

    “Feeble minds use coarse language to make their points.”

    • Jake
    • Posted September 4, 2009 at 9:23 am
    • Permalink

    “It makes one grateful for the conservatives who don’t need to use such language merely to push buttons and there are some here.”

    Go count how many times the good little conservative, TKWAFLS, called me a “dipshit” and then think about how dumb your comment is in light of this.

    Oh, and just for the hell of it, ‘“You weren’t going to read my posts.”’

    ““Feeble minds use coarse language to make their points.””

    I tried using intelligent language to make my point numerous times, but you people are too wrapped up in your cult to engage in any introspection. You have to use blunt tools to get through to people as dense as you.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 4, 2009 at 9:27 am
    • Permalink

    Oh, and calling people brownshirts, as you have done in the past, Donna, would generally be considered “coarse language.” I am not Chris, so don’t give me any of your illogical nonsense about how you only sort of kind of vaguely almost called liberals Nazis, because I can see right through it.

  25. Just want to duck in with an apology for Steve T.

    I am embarassed to say that I thought “carrion” was a term for scavenging animals, and when he referred to “The Kennedy Carrion” he meant the surviving “hangers-on” to the 1960s Kennedy Mystique.

    In fact, of course, carrion means dead bodies, those that the scavengers eat. So no, he never wished violence on any living being. Just the corpses of the Kennedy brothers.

    I’m sorry that my misunderstanding led to make unfair assumptions about your fantasy, Steve.

    • tkwafls
    • Posted September 4, 2009 at 8:08 pm
    • Permalink

    Yes, people, I am that good. It didn’t take me long to expose how much “above it all’ Jake is, right?
    So, were you “appalled” at my use of colorful coded language, or envious?
    I’m appalled at rapists. I wouldn’t start raping because a judge let a rapist go. After your whining to Zack for not banning me you became “a rapist.”
    Do you really want to go toe to toe with me? I have you dancing like a monkey on a waffle iron.
    I really enjoyed your recounting of our exchanges. It was cute to see you not include any of my points that you still have not addressed. Liberals have the ability to completely block out uncomfortable questions and hots across their
    pompous indignation, don’t they?
    Zack saw the questions. Zack saw the points. You haven’t. That’s either out of convenience or derangement, which is it?
    You see, the vitriol is a by -product of your refusal to stay on point. I have no tolerance for a worm in a debate.
    Tell us all again how Laura Bush’s accident was the moral equivalent to Ted Kennedy’s. And if that wasn’t your point, why did you bring it up? What was your damn point?

    • Jake
    • Posted September 4, 2009 at 10:14 pm
    • Permalink

    Have you finished eating all those dicks yet, you stupid cunt?

    “It was cute to see you not include any of my points that you still have not addressed.”

    You never addressed any of my either, shitface.

    “What was your damn point?”

    I explained it twice, you shit-eating retard. I’m not giving you any more intelligent responses, as you are clearly too fucking stupid to understand my point.

    • TKwafls
    • Posted September 5, 2009 at 12:16 am
    • Permalink

    Hmmm. Let’s reexamine your posts. You seem to be indicating, rather coarsely, that you had a point in there that people missed.

    You started off by posting a link to a story about Laura Bush’s accident. No explanation, just the link with a “just gonna leave this here.” Dramatic-like. Like you trumped all, with what is anyone’s guess.

    You then stated “Not really. It seemed to me that this comic was about car accidents involving political figures. Laura Bush is a political figure, and she was involved in a car accident. That seems to fit with the theme.”

    Mr, Strawman, bum-bum-bum-bum bring me a dream! Bum-bum-bum-bum
    The comic is NOT about “car accidents” involving political figures. It’s about all the despicable things Ted Kennedy at did at Chappaquiddick, none of which Laura Bush did. Try and keep in mind, LAURA BUSH WAS NOT A POLITICAL FIGURE. SHE WAS A 16 YEAR OLD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT. So, strawman, what is the comic actually about? Not what you say it’s about.

    Then this gem of a post:
    >So, talking about Bush’s tragic accident is pathetic, but apparently using Kennedy’s accident for political gain is a-ok?>
    Uhhh, talking about Kennedy’s accident is for political gain?
    That is ridiculous. The man shouldn’t be in politics. That’s the point. NOT talking about it is for political gain. Gain that isn’t worthy or justified. You have it backwards. And you can talk about Laura Bush’s accident all you want, just characterize it correctly – it was one of MILLIONS of car accidents that have resulted in a fatality on U.S. highways. The driver was not drunk, not fleeing, not up to no good and was 16. For you to bring it up as anything but what it was is the despicable part. Dontcha get that?

    This next part is just inconsistent incoherent rambling.
    >Are you suggesting that Mary Jo Kopechne’s death is not tragic?>
    Huh, waaa? Is this some sort of reverse psychology, or misdirection? Who argues against Ted Kennedy and holds the position that Kopechne’s death wasn’t tragic?
    >Did she deserve to die because she spent time with Ted Kennedy?>>
    WTH are you babbling about here? You’re making enough strawmen to make Blair Witch 2
    >Do you think her family likes seeing her death casually tossed around by cartoonists in order to make political cheap shots?>
    No. And do you think they like seeing Ted Kennedy called a Lion of the Senate? And leftists dismiss her death by saying she would have considered her death worth it?Your argument is a little like saying to the judge “Be lenient on my client who killed his parents, after all, he’s an orphan.”
    Kennedy KILLED HER!!!!!! He should be rewarded by having everyone not discuss it because it will cause Kopechne’s family discomfort??? Are you serious when you say this?

    >>Why does the family of Laura Bush’s victim deserve respect and peace,>>
    I love how you inject the term “victim” into your
    STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!! Who said this? That you shouldn’t bring up the accident to spare the family of the deceased? And besides, this question undermines YOUR argument. lol
    (This is a brutal beating.)

    >but Kopechne’s family should be forced to endure having Mary Jo’s death constantly bandied about by political “commentators” when they need to take shots at Kennedy? How is Zack’s comic any less “pathetic” then my link about Laura Bush?>>
    Asked and answered. You’re setting up a strawman argument to avoid the obvious difference between Kennedy’s “accident” and Bush’s. Kennedy’s incident was despicable and needs to be brought up so that his “legacy” cannot be re-written by the likes of a moron like you. (yeah, I said it. So far you’re doing as well as a moron could be expected to do in a debate.)
    The fact that Laura Bush’s accident wasn’t nefarious, but one of millions of unfortunate car crashes, and is brought up by you to draw an equivalence to, or a failed tit for tat thing with, the Kennedy fiasco, IS despicable, for all of the reasons YOU ALREADY ARGUED! Kennedy’s complete cowardice,the attempted cover-up, the lack of responsibility LED TO KOPECHNE’S DEATH!!! Yes, THIS NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT UP! The guy’s a scumbucket. You don’t get a free pass on being reminded of that because the victim’s parents will be offended. And how in God’s name can you use this as an argument? . You already broke your own GODDAMN RULE in the very first post by bringing up the Bush accident!!
    So, why does the Bush accident NEED to be brought up? I don’t care if it’s brought up, but explain WHY it needs to be brought up if you’re concerned about the “victim’s” parents?
    >>Do you believe that the Kopechne’s were horrible people who should be reminded of their family member’s death any time a “commentator” is too inept to make a real point about Kennedy’s politics?>>
    Asinine. Completely asinine. If this was a closing argument you’d be laughed out of a courtroom. The entire point of Chappaquiddick being brought up is that HE SHOULDN’T BE A POLITICIAN!! What he did, in a normal world, should have ended his career on the spot. But irregardless, it didn’t. The NEXT strawman in your argument is that commentators are incapable of bringing up other things about Kennedy’s politics. Are you KIDDING with that? They could, and did, go on all day. He was a party hack liberal who was a tax and spender. He did little that any other liberal couldn’t have done. There was nothing supremely special about writing checks with other people’s money. He fought windmills in HIS BACKYARD. He undermined Reagan’s effort to win the cold war by negotiating with the Russians. He voted YES on allowing a minor to cross state lines for an abortion. Voted YES on partial birth abortion. He Voted NO on paying down debt by rating a program’s effectiveness. Voted NO on the balanced budget amendment of 1997. Voted NO on full disclosure from sub-prime applicants. Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning.Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.Steadfast opponent of vouchers. Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts.Voted NO on $75M for abstinence education. Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer.Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China.Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land.Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons.Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security.Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. Voted NO on welfare overhaul. NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
    But you’re right. Chappaquiddick is all anyone can talk about.

    But since no one of any logic and erudition stepped up to the plate you went on with your ridiculous argument once again.
    >

    What are the similarities????
    That an accident occurred with a car? You seem to think that the Kennedy incident ended when the car hit the water (the accident.) That’s when it BEGAN you friggin idiot. (Yes I said it. Because it is warranted. Make sure you focus on that. It’s what a guy with no argument would do.)
    >>While you express disgust at such an attack being used against some one you support, you remain unable to recognize that such an attack is despicable by its very nature and should be avoided regardless of your political allegiances. It seems that you and your ilk have allowed your politics to trump your humanity.>>

    May I say that your tone exceeds the weightiness by 3000 to 1. The effort to make this sound substantive is applaudable, the result is laughable. It’s like I’m listening to Obama himself.

    Well, that’s about it, jerkoff.
    Those are your posts. You’ve been flayed open. You have no point that isn’t undermined by your own arguments. And you INDEED are trying to draw a moral equivalence to the 2 accidents, something that you’ve denied.

    You’re simply lost, with no point to be made. The point you think you are making is ridiculous. Anyone can see that.

    • TKwafls
    • Posted September 5, 2009 at 12:26 am
    • Permalink

    Here is your idiotic post that I failed to c/p. The question I ask “what are the similarities?” is in response to this drivel:
    >>I thought perhaps presenting a similar situation concerning a figure you support might help illustrate the rather disgraceful nature of using a fatal car accident to support your political point. >

    My point being that you just flippantly throw in there “similar situation” as if it is. I’ve already detailed how and why it isn’t. So your entire strawman argument is moot, as is your presence on this board.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 5, 2009 at 12:59 am
    • Permalink

    Too long; didn’t read.

  26. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what Jake said everyday to his teacher.
    This is why he is what he is today.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 5, 2009 at 8:34 am
    • Permalink

    Oooh, ice burn. You stay up all night thinking up that one?

    • Donna C.
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 11:32 am
    • Permalink

    Jake…seriously, you have some issues. My comment about what a friend has been known to say clearly hit home with you. Of course, you will note, that I directed that towards NO ONE. You need to get off your high horse…you are fooling no one with the superiority complex you are attempting to portray…albeit poorly. Get over it, and mostly, get over yourself. Perhaps if you spent less time being offended at every little word you misperceive to include some sort of veiled innuendo or implication, and focused that energy on positives things, you might actually make a difference in someone’s life.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 12:07 pm
    • Permalink

    Ah Donna, good to see you. I was wondering, do you have to wear a helmet while you pound your thesaurus against your keyboard in an attempt to make yourself sound intelligent?

    As anyone who has proofread a great deal of academic research articles can tell you, after a while you learn to recognize those individuals who possess less than stellar writing skills but attempt to abuse their thesauri in order to give their writings the illusion of intelligence. There is just something unnatural about the form and flow of their comments that makes it clear that the language they are attempting to use exceeds their actual ability. I call these people “GEDs in PhD clothing.”

    Unlike you, I am confident enough in my beliefs to readily admit that I am including you in the aforementioned category. Perhaps one day you shall develop the courage to take ownership of your comments instead of trying to hide from any and all criticism by disowning your words.

    I am sure there are courses out there that are designed to help improve your self-esteem. Maybe you should consider signing up for one. It may help you accept your limitations and be proud of yourself for who you truly are. Then you will finally be free from feeling the need to put on airs in an attempt to present yourself as someone you are not.

    Wishing you all the best.

    Love,
    Jake

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 8:07 pm
    • Permalink

    Owe. Owsh. No rilly. That hertz jake. *Sniff* Do I uze da razeor blayde two kut acrozz da vain, are up in douwn da vane? Culd ewe halp mee ouwt pleez?

    (I’m supposed to be offended by your soliloquy, right? As I stated previously, you should consider focusing your energy in a positive manner…as wound up as you clearly are, you’re certainly a walking stroke…you never know when your next tomorrow is. And since you seem to always need clarification, no…that comment is not a threat. *Rolls eyes*)

    • Jake
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 8:32 pm
    • Permalink

    I like pizza.

    • Mark
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 9:25 pm
    • Permalink

    Wow Jake, do you have any idea how stupid you come across. Waffle absolutely destroys your argument, but you claim about 1500 words is “too long” for you (but spending time here trolling you DO have time for? – go figure) but then – HILARIOUSLY – you write “As anyone who has proofread a great deal of academic research articles can tell you…” I think you just blew up the irony meter here, so, in your honour, I’m going to post a quote from Evil Otto on Moonbattery who came up with this assessment of tedious trolls like you. It’s not quite how I’d put it, but you’re not worth the time to adjust it.

    1) The leftist troll always believes himself to be smarter than his opponent. Always. No matter how idiotic his arguments, no matter how easily they are torn apart, he never wavers in this belief.
    2) Similarly, the troll knows that he is better educated. Even if he is a high school freshman arguing against someone with multiple degrees, his opponent is always an ignorant, illiterate boob with a third-grade education.
    3) His opponents are racists. ALL of them. This is not even guilty-until-proven-innocent, since there is no way for the opponent to prove to the leftist that he isn’t racist.
    4) His opponents are fascists. The leftist troll doesn’t even truly understand the meaning of the word, but nonetheless labels everyone who disagrees with him as fascists or Nazis.
    5) The troll believes himself to be tolerant, yet shows no respect whatsoever for anyone’s opinion that doesn’t agree with his. He is perfectly willing to indulge in the vilest accusations and basest insults, all the while believing in his heart that he is a tolerant and open-minded person. Leftists HATE. They hate with a pure, single-minded passion that would impress a member of the KKK.
    6) There is NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in their political views. Quiz them on a subject, and you can always predict the answer they will give you. The trolls are interchangeable.
    In the end, nothing we say matters to them. They don’t care what we think, don’t have any intention of listening to anything that casts doubts on their view that government (at least, when they are in charge of it) is the solution to all of life’s problems. They’re here to dazzle themselves with their own brilliance. Coming here and stirring up shit is just a form of masturbation to them, and we’re the props in their sick fantasies.

    http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/09/ed_schultz_jesu.html#comments

    • Jake
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 10:01 pm
    • Permalink

    Yeah, waffles idiotic rants are clearly comparable to academic writings. I hope reading this post causes your sarcasm meter to explode, too.

    “1) The leftist troll always believes himself to be smarter than his opponent.”

    But I am.

    “2) Similarly, the troll knows that he is better educated.”

    See my response to 1.

    “3) His opponents are racists. ALL of them. This is not even guilty-until-proven-innocent, since there is no way for the opponent to prove to the leftist that he isn’t racist.”

    I’m pretty sure Davey is the one here who constantly calls people racists.

    “4) His opponents are fascists. The leftist troll doesn’t even truly understand the meaning of the word, but nonetheless labels everyone who disagrees with him as fascists or Nazis.”

    This applies to Donna and the other wingnuts here, not me.

    “5) The troll believes himself to be tolerant, yet shows no respect whatsoever for anyone’s opinion that doesn’t agree with his.”

    Oh good, the “tolerate my intolerance” argument. A favorite of unsavory right-wingbats.

    “In the end, nothing we say matters to them. They don’t care what we think”

    This is true. You, Donna, Waffles, etc aren’t particularly important to me. I am here solely for my own amusement. No matter how much hate you think I am showing, I am actually laughing at all of you.

    Love,
    Jake
    XOXOXO

    • TKwafls
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 10:15 pm
    • Permalink

    Another victory for the GOOD GUYS today. I was at a party where some guy started talking about
    the public “option.” Boy, did he dazzle the ill-informed with the depth of his knowledge on the subject. Of course, he was only dazzling people who are knee jerk leftists – emphasis on jerk.
    One of his points was that the public OPTION must cover pre-existing conditions. At this point I simply asked how that was possible. He turned slowly to see try and “profile me” by looking at me, you know, like a BIGOT. He said, “simply, it gets written into law.” And gave a half eye roll to his sycophants. I continued, “but that’s ludicrous. That provision is in there to achieve single payer.” The guy turned again as if to say, “do I have to put up with this obvious low intellect know-nothing? Okay. I’ll indulge you while I eat a california roll. Explain”
    I said “how in the world would an insurance company be able to exist if they were forced to take people with pre-existing conditions? I would simply wait until I got ill to purchase insurance. The insurance companies would have nobody but people enrolled that instantly exceed in costs what they’ve paid in premiums. They’d go under in a year. THAT is why the government insists that people without insurance are automatically enrolled in the public “option.” Because THEY would never allow people to play THEIR system like that.
    I’ve never seen a lefty get so incensed when his former sycophants all collectively said, “you know, I never thought of that. You’re right. Wow, it was never explained to me better. This IS a scheme to usher in single payer.”
    As I snickered, I named the lefty douche, Jake.

    • Mark
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 10:15 pm
    • Permalink

    Thank you for removing any doubt. I posted this just-in-case you there might be a tiny part of you interested in discussing issues rationally. However, you admit you get some perverted rush from your own writing regardless of the responses.
    But you’re not getting to waste my time any more. You don’t own my time, I do. Others should take my lead and Zack should even consider banning someone who openly admits to not even holding to a modicum of respect in debate. But that’s entirely up to him.

    Jake = troll.

    • TKwafls
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 10:24 pm
    • Permalink

    Yeah, waffles idiotic rants are clearly comparable to academic writings>>

    Which idiotic rants were those?
    The ones you said you didn’t read? Or the ones that others read and said you were decimated by?
    Just curious.

    Tell us all again how the Laura Bush accident was just like Kennedy’s.
    (Hey Jake, psst, the Kennedy fiasco STARTED after the accident. It was the things done AFTER the accident. Dontcha get that, big brain? The Laura Bush accident didn’t escalate into an ethics nadir after the dust settled. Still don’t get it, do ya Chachi? Go read some important “academic” writings, like Ward Churchill, or Cornell West, or Eric Dyson – real scholars. lol

    • TKwafls
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 10:29 pm
    • Permalink

    Mark,
    I was onto Jake from “hello.”
    Manny, if he really isn’t Jake, had the good sense to cut and run when it became apparent he was in over his head. That makes him much smarter than Jake. So, kudos to Manny, (or to Jake for creating a sock puppet smarter than he.)
    The, “I am only here to rile you guys” is the last refuge of a completely battered individual.” So, I like the smell of verbal napalm in the morning, smells like… another dead liberal.

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 11:15 pm
    • Permalink

    I predict a post by Jake, very soon, claiming he’s not going to be run off/leaving/whatever. If not here, then he will post commentary on other threads, “blatantly” ignoring yourself, Mark; TK; and of course, me. Anything to contradict what he believes we’re perceiving. He’s attempted every other step, in order…and failed. We’ve all seen it before: trying to come across intellectually; picking & choosing the points he will address, because he believes he can make a valid argument; ignoring the requests of others to back up his claims, etc; accusing those that hold differing viewpoints of the very things he, himself, is guilty of; deflection and red herring; “stooping” to a level that he has proclaimed himself above…of course, this is NOT his fault; all out attack; and nonchalance. Clearly, his time here is winding down. Of course, he will tell his “friends” something along the lines of how he just couldn’t handle being around all the , and he will be able to go to bed feeling good about himself, doing his darndest to pat himself on the back for a job well done. Trying hard to ignore the reality that he is nothing more than a faceless name on the WWW. Bravo. Accolades.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 11:30 pm
    • Permalink

    “Trying hard to ignore the reality that he is nothing more than a faceless name on the WWW.”

    We are all just faceless names on the web. That is not a particularly profound insight. As long as I continue to get a reaction out of you clownshoes, I will consider my comments to be a job well done. My last remark was obviously a big success. See, it is really up to you whether I stay or go. Continue to make posts in which you put on airs to hide your rage, and I shall continue my comments, because your posts are quality entertainment. I tried to give intelligent arguments, but I was labeled a troll. So, I have decided to give the people what they want and what they deserve.

    Cheers,
    Jake

    • Mark
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 11:42 pm
    • Permalink

    Did you hear anything? Donna? Waffles?

    Me neither.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 6, 2009 at 11:46 pm
    • Permalink

    Haha, nice try.

    • TKwafls
    • Posted September 7, 2009 at 12:20 am
    • Permalink

    You know what I heard? The retched whistle of an overripe banana fart. What else do you call a guy who’s had everyone of his points addressed and then refuses to discuss them but still claims to be SMAUGHT?
    This shmuck is an undersized colostomy bag.
    Yawn…… I’ve moved on.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 7, 2009 at 12:28 am
    • Permalink

    Really? It doesn’t sound like you’ve moved on. People who have moved on wouldn’t bother posting about how they’ve “moved on,” they would just stop posting, Chuckles.

    • Donna C
    • Posted September 7, 2009 at 12:34 am
    • Permalink

    “I predict a post by Jake, very soon, claiming he’s not going to be run off/leaving/whatever.” -Donna C

    That took all of what…15 minutes from my post, to Jakey-boys?

    “See, it is really up to you whether I stay or go. Continue to make posts in which you put on airs to hide your rage, and I shall continue my comments…” -Jake

    See how he tries to put the burden of whether he stays or goes, anywhere else, but upon himself? Mark, TK…I have to inquire…how does it feel to know that you hold so much sway over Jakey-boy? He’s clearly stated that he is not in control of himself, and that it will be none other than we three who decide his fate. And all along I thought the term “puppet” was
    proverbial!

    • Jake
    • Posted September 7, 2009 at 12:44 am
    • Permalink

    “That took all of what…15 minutes from my post, to Jakey-boys?”

    Like I said in my earlier post, I try to give my fans what they want.

    You conveniently omitted the part where I say “because your posts are quality entertainment.” I think it is a rather critical part. Clauses are your friend.

    Love,
    Jake

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 7, 2009 at 8:49 am
    • Permalink

    I didn’t cut and run Waffles my boy, nor do I know who Jake is. It’s just no use trying to debate with you :3. I’m still reading tho, and watching. Like…some… Marvel character, who watches things. (or is The Watcher DC? No idea.)

    • Jake
    • Posted September 7, 2009 at 8:54 am
    • Permalink

    Maybe you are one of the Watchmen?

    Comment 100 sniper.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 7, 2009 at 8:58 am
    • Permalink

    P.S. pee-pee doo-doo, waffles is a terrible poster.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted September 7, 2009 at 3:50 pm
    • Permalink

    can I be The Comedian? Oh wait he’s dead, damn. Dibs on Jon then.

    • Tyrone
    • Posted September 11, 2009 at 5:45 am
    • Permalink

    yo can i be the black one?

    oh wait there aint any brothas in watchmen, my bad

    • Steve T
    • Posted September 11, 2009 at 8:34 am
    • Permalink

    Tyrone,
    What is important about your, mine, or anyone elses skin color-?

    This blog – all the cartoons Zack posts are political, satirical in nature (sorry, I should let Zack speak for himself).

    For all you or I know, any number of these folks could be of any race/people group.

    In my experience here, this place is about what YOU think,…
    Do you ever read Thomas Sowell-?
    I really, really like what he says – and he happens to be black.

    It is (should be) about the content if idea’s.

    How about that-?

    • Jiakk
    • Posted September 14, 2009 at 11:00 pm
    • Permalink

    Only a complete chithead would keep claiming that all I did was hurl ad hominem attacks –
    I wrote a long post decimating his ridiculous assertions regarding Bush/Kennedy and all the effete dickwad did was complain that it was too much information for his pee brain to digest.
    In the end, all you have to do is fool yourself. The eyerolling behind your back can be made to your face and it still wouldn’t register with you.
    We’re are not even discussing the merits of who is right and eho is wrong here. We are merely discussing the tactics of a worm – before we even get into the discussion of the issues. Confronted with a laundry list of refutations the ASSHOLE (ya, I said it, it’s warranted – that nullifys it as Ad Homnem, jerky) sniggers that he didn’t read it. Ya, that’s laudable, in the liberal arena.
    Jerkoff.

    • Jake
    • Posted September 17, 2009 at 11:24 am
    • Permalink

    “ASSHOLE (ya, I said it, it’s warranted – that nullifys it as Ad Homnem, jerky)”

    You do not appear to know the meaning of “ad hominem”. Then again, maybe “Ad Homnem” means something else altogether. I can’t say that I am familiar with “Ad Homnem”.

    It’s cute that you find me so attractive that you have decided to rename yourself in homage to me, but it’s a bit stalker-ish, isn’t it? I know you can’t resist my rugged good looks and tremendous intellect, but you’re getting a bit creepy.

    After all, a waffles post by any other name would be as foul.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: