• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Dry spell of no Kennedy in Congress will soon be over

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
I know it's not nearly as important as a House seat in Massachusetts, but please don't forget to explicitly oppose Jeb Bush for . . . PRESIDENT . . . in 2016 on the same grounds!

Maybe Jeb will go for the all important right wing lesbian vote by choosing Mary Cheyney as his running mate. :p

Bush/Cheyney 2016 . . . because Americans never learn! :cool:
Heh, I have no desire to see another Bush in office. In fairness to Jeb he couldn't have been the worst of the lot :p
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Kinda sexist to dismiss all the Bush women that may be interested in politics. Is Cheyney a slam on Cheney that I haven't heard about?
 

etrigan420

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,723
1
71
There's not a politician in this country that hasn't made a stand publicly for families. Their isn't a politician in this country that hasn't politicized behavior. There isn't a politician in this country who hasn't voted for legislation that is based on morality.

You just want every Democrat to get a pass on their bad behavior and every Republican to be condemned for their bad behavior. So you rationalize some category that allows you to attack Republicans, but leave your favored party alone.
Doc pointed out the obvious hypocrisy from the left/Democrats on these forums and I agreed.
Several points:

-Every politician has made a public stand for family values? No shit sherlock, they're politicians. Now, tell me that the Democrats run on "traditional family values" as often as Republicans, and that they make it as much a cornerstone of their platform.

...go ahead, say it. Prove yourself either a troll (if you know it's not true and yet say that it is...) or an idiot (if you honestly believe that it's true).

-Don't even presume to know what I want.

-What "category" have I rationalized? Now you're just making shit up.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
The category you rationalized is "traditional family values", just like I posted. You find a little catch phrase and say "only the ones using this phrase can be attacked for lying, cheating, banging a mistress or boyfriend.

Oh gosh only Republicans say that so only they can be smeared
 

modestninja

Senior member
Jul 17, 2003
753
0
76
About JFK.
http://news.discovery.com/history/john-f-kennedy-affair-intern-120206.html

Nothing like partying with a teen age intern while your wife mourns a dead child.
How about having group sex with a teen age intern and your buddy?
Asking your intern to have sex with your little brother while you watch?

Ahhh the good ole Kennedy days.
What does any of that have to do with good governance? I'd say the only people who would have a right to be upset at him for that would be his family. The only time, IMO, the public should get care about something like this is if he does something illegal and/or starts using public money to cover it up.

Personally, I'd much rather have a president that governs well and is morally flawed than a morally upright one that governs poorly.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
What does any of that have to do with good governance? I'd say the only people who would have a right to be upset at him for that would be his family. The only time, IMO, the public should get care about something like this is if he does something illegal and/or starts using public money to cover it up.

Personally, I'd much rather have a president that governs well and is morally flawed than a morally upright one that governs poorly.
When it's a Kennedy it's pretty much guaranteed to morally flawed and govern poorly.
 

dwell

pics?
Oct 9, 1999
5,190
0
0
dweel, IF your father was a convicted rapist, would it mean are equally guilty and should be forever damned.

Its a founding principle of US law, children are not guilty of the sins of their parents.
Huh? Just pointing out that the family is cursed. JFK's Mom was a psycho. His dad blew himself up. JFK got his face blown off. RFK was killed. Ted killed a woman. JFK Jr died in his prime. A bunch of others died tragically and young. A number of them were up for rape and other crimes.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Also, I always find myself amused when people like Craig slobber all over the dicks of the 1% who happen to throw him a few crumbs.

"Down with the 1%!!! Except this guy who's so considerate that he only pissed on me instead of dropping a deuce on my head."
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
Thank you. Yes, we probably do. As far as the people in this new Kennedy's district, if he's elected I hope he proves to be morally upright and govern responsibly.
He might be fine. As for me I have no problem with being elected if he's a Kennedy, but I do if he's picked because he is one.
 

dwell

pics?
Oct 9, 1999
5,190
0
0
I'd say it was an 'entitlement' feeling, just as movie stars - who JFK enjoyed spending time with - have the same issue commonly.
Which makes him, like I said, a borderline rapist.

"I'm entitled to sleep with you". Not rape but close enough IMO.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,553
1,763
126
Times were different and the Kennedy men had a different view of sex.

Joe Kennedy taught his sons to enjoy sex period, without much regard to 'fidelity'.

He married a devout catholic woman and she was expected to turn a blind eye to his mistresses while raising the family. His sons were taught accordingly.

There have been recent commentaries noting the high correlation between powerful men and adultery/sexual promiscuity.

It wasn't 'rape', any more than a rock star who has sex with groupies and tosses them aside is 'rape'.

It is viewed as despicable by many - it's not very 'respectful of women', but was consensual - and I suspect more objections by men are jealousy than morality.

I'd say it was an 'entitlement' feeling, just as movie stars - who JFK enjoyed spending time with - have the same issue commonly.

He expected Jackie to be a good mother and turn a blind eye to his adultery; her vacation with Aristotle Annassis on his yacht while First Lady, who she later married, says something.

He was taught that a lot of sex was good for him, and it may well be the case. Who doesn't 'feel like a million bucks' with that flattery and pleasure?

It raises questions about the role of sex and power. Some men don't - Carter and Bush, for example - while others do, Clinton/Eisenhower/FDR for example.
So it is OK if the Kennedy men molest young women, run illegal booze for the mob, kill young girls on and on and that is fine...

Wow!
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
So it is OK if the Kennedy men molest young women, run illegal booze for the mob, kill young girls on and on and that is fine...

Wow!
You mean you didn't have a friend get a young girl drunk then bang her while she was probably too drunk to object?
How did someone put it? jealousy?
 

etrigan420

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,723
1
71
The category you rationalized is "traditional family values", just like I posted. You find a little catch phrase and say "only the ones using this phrase can be attacked for lying, cheating, banging a mistress or boyfriend.

Oh gosh only Republicans say that so only they can be smeared
Wut?

So, Republican's *don't* run on the platform of "traditional family values" more than Democrats do?

I never said *only* Republicans can be attacked for lying, cheating, banging a mistress or boyfriend. Keep spouting shit that I didn't say...it really solidifies your credibility.

Like I said, you're either a fucking moron, or you're simply not paying attention.

I used to think the latter, now I'm not so sure.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Not really. Virulent outrage for this type of behavior is reserved solely for those who preach against, politicize, and legislate based on their abhorration of this behavior, *then* engage in it.

That the majority of those doing so have an (R) after their name is inconsequential.
I'm disputing your obviously untrue claim that the majority of people that engage in that behavior have an (R) next to their name. In fact I showed a pretty good example of that in the JFK story.
When Doc said that virulent outrage is reserved only for (R) on these forums he was pointing out the reality here at ATP&N is that the majority of posters hang out on the left side of the political spectrum and usually attack (R). A minority, including myself, occasionally reciprocate by bashing (D).
You, of course are (D) and resent the fact that someone is bashing your side, so you bash (R) and feel self righteously justified in doing so.
Welcome to politics in America.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,514
24
76
Times were different and the Kennedy men had a different view of sex.

Joe Kennedy taught his sons to enjoy sex period, without much regard to 'fidelity'.

He married a devout catholic woman and she was expected to turn a blind eye to his mistresses while raising the family. His sons were taught accordingly.

There have been recent commentaries noting the high correlation between powerful men and adultery/sexual promiscuity.

It wasn't 'rape', any more than a rock star who has sex with groupies and tosses them aside is 'rape'.

It is viewed as despicable by many - it's not very 'respectful of women', but was consensual - and I suspect more objections by men are jealousy than morality.

I'd say it was an 'entitlement' feeling, just as movie stars - who JFK enjoyed spending time with - have the same issue commonly.

He expected Jackie to be a good mother and turn a blind eye to his adultery; her vacation with Aristotle Annassis on his yacht while First Lady, who she later married, says something.

He was taught that a lot of sex was good for him, and it may well be the case. Who doesn't 'feel like a million bucks' with that flattery and pleasure?

It raises questions about the role of sex and power. Some men don't - Carter and Bush, for example - while others do, Clinton/Eisenhower/FDR for example.
Your right, times were different, especially for blacks. On one hand you want to give credit for Kennedy legislation like the Civil Rights Act, but on the other you dismiss wrongdoings against underage girls because "times were different". You wouldn't let anything slide against a conservative because "times were different", now would you? Or are any transgression done by conservatives that are consistent with the times okay too?

That is some serious rationalization you have going on. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
Times were different and the Kennedy men had a different view of sex.

Joe Kennedy taught his sons to enjoy sex period, without much regard to 'fidelity'.

He married a devout catholic woman and she was expected to turn a blind eye to his mistresses while raising the family. His sons were taught accordingly.

There have been recent commentaries noting the high correlation between powerful men and adultery/sexual promiscuity.

It wasn't 'rape', any more than a rock star who has sex with groupies and tosses them aside is 'rape'.

It is viewed as despicable by many - it's not very 'respectful of women', but was consensual - and I suspect more objections by men are jealousy than morality.

I'd say it was an 'entitlement' feeling, just as movie stars - who JFK enjoyed spending time with - have the same issue commonly.

He expected Jackie to be a good mother and turn a blind eye to his adultery; her vacation with Aristotle Annassis on his yacht while First Lady, who she later married, says something.

He was taught that a lot of sex was good for him, and it may well be the case. Who doesn't 'feel like a million bucks' with that flattery and pleasure?

It raises questions about the role of sex and power. Some men don't - Carter and Bush, for example - while others do, Clinton/Eisenhower/FDR for example.
Link to stories about Eisenhower and FDR's infidelity? That's news to me.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
Your right, times were different, especially for blacks. On one hand you want to give credit for Kennedy legislation like the Civil Rights Act, but on the other you dismiss wrongdoings against underage girls because "times were different". You wouldn't let anything slide against a conservative because "times were different", now would you? Or are any transgression done by conservatives that are consistent with the times okay too?

That is some serious rationalization you have going on. :thumbsup:
No, you're full of crap and misrepresenting what I said. I didn't 'dismiss' it.

It's so predictable someone will be disengenuos and say something like that.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,514
24
76
No, you're full of crap and misrepresenting what I said. I didn't 'dismiss' it.

It's so predictable someone will be disengenuos and say something like that.
And how am I misrepresenting your wall of rationalization? It is so predictable that you would attempt to rationalize someones behavior or past misdeeds as long as they have the right letter next to their name.

If one can have their misdeeds dismissed because "times were different then", why not another?
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
davmat I'm not going to bother to read you further, including past the first few words above, you are wasting my time. You could have done better and I'd read it.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,908
44
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally Posted by pcgeek11
So it is OK if the Kennedy men molest young women, run illegal booze for the mob, kill young girls on and on and that is fine...

Wow!


It helps them govern better. :p
Better than Republicans that proclaim against homosexuality and gay marriage and then are found messing with a gay prostitute in the mens bathroom.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY