Kennedy clan´s history - Page 4

Reba · 06-02-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

Why do you brought those rape victim in first place up then ? We talk about responsiblity but you talk about rape victim which is not comparison.

I showed how it is wrong to blame victims for whatever befalls them. The responsibility for wrongdoing is still on the shoulders of the perpetrator.

Like you often say, "Is it forbidden" for me to make comparisons?

Reba · 06-02-2008, 05:17 PM

It's obvious that the two camps will never agree. Each camp has a totally different viewpoint of the Kennedy family in general, and Teddy specifically, so that's pretty much where it will stand.

When I was young and idealistic, I had high hopes for the Kennedy family. I was inspired by JFK's speeches and Jackie's grace. I was crushed when JFK was killed, and watching his funeral live on TV left an everlasting impression on me. Then, when Bobby was killed, that was another hard blow.

But the glorious promise of Camelot, and my empathy for the family's tragedies are not enough for me to ignore the shenanigans, personal ambitions and wrong use of power by the "clan".

It's really too bad. I wanted so much to believe in the Camelot dream but that's all it was--a dream, not reality.

Tousi · 06-02-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

It's obvious that the two camps will never agree. Each camp has a totally different viewpoint of the Kennedy family in general, and Teddy specifically, so that's pretty much where it will stand.

When I was young and idealistic, I had high hopes for the Kennedy family. I was inspired by JFK's speeches and Jackie's grace. I was crushed when JFK was killed, and watching his funeral live on TV left an everlasting impression on me. Then, when Bobby was killed, that was another hard blow.

But the glorious promise of Camelot, and my empathy for the family's tragedies are not enough for me to ignore the shenanigans, personal ambitions and wrong use of power by the "clan".

It's really too bad. I wanted so much to believe in the Camelot dream but that's all it was--a dream, not reality.

Mes sentiments and experience, too, Reba!! Whatta blow that was!

jillio · 06-02-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Maybe you don't call it "blame" but that's what you're doing. You're shifting culpability from the actor to the victim.

I don't call it "blame" because that isn't what it is. It is a request for all involved to accept responsibility for their actions on that night. It isn't a matter of "shifting culpability". It is a matter of accepting personal responsibility for decisions made from all parties, rather than creating a perpetrator and a victim, as would be the case with a crime involving intent.

Just because Mary Jo accepted a ride with Teddy doesn't mean Teddy is off the hook for leaving her to die in the car, or for his lies and cover up.

And again, as you cannot attest to his mental state at the time he left the car, you cannot determine intent. And rarely is the public informed af all details regarding any accident or crime scene, so the accusation of "cover-up" should perhaps be best applied elsewhere.

I didn't compare the accident itself with a rape act. I compared the wrongness of blaming a rape victim with the wrongness of blaming the victim of a DUI driving accident. Just as people (wrongly) say, "She wouldn't have been raped if she wasn't wearing those clothes (or walking that street, or drinking that spiked drink, or staying out that late, etc.)", it's wrong to say, "She wouldn't have died if she wasn't drinking or hanging out with married men." Teddy took the final action (or non-action) that resulted in her death. He tried to protect his reputation rather than get help for Mary Jo.

And again, one victim has been an actual victim of malicious intent (rape). The other bears responsibility for having gotten int he car with a drunk driver, and it does not involve malicious intent. Hence, it is called an accident. The comparisons remain fallicious.

Even though he was let off the hook by the authorities that doesn't mean he is morally innocent. Good lawyers, money, and political influence don't always equal justice.

To my way of understanding, man, by way of the legal system, judges criminal guilt and innocence. Moral judgements are left to a man and his God.

OK. After the wreck, Teddy had no intention of rescuing Mary Jo, or accepting any blame for her death.

And, once again, as you cannot attest to his mental state at the time of the accident, you can, in no way, determine intent. It is nothing more than conjecture on your part.

jillio · 06-02-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

It's obvious that the two camps will never agree. Each camp has a totally different viewpoint of the Kennedy family in general, and Teddy specifically, so that's pretty much where it will stand.

When I was young and idealistic, I had high hopes for the Kennedy family. I was inspired by JFK's speeches and Jackie's grace. I was crushed when JFK was killed, and watching his funeral live on TV left an everlasting impression on me. Then, when Bobby was killed, that was another hard blow.

But the glorious promise of Camelot, and my empathy for the family's tragedies are not enough for me to ignore the shenanigans, personal ambitions and wrong use of power by the "clan".

It's really too bad. I wanted so much to believe in the Camelot dream but that's all it was--a dream, not reality.

The Kennedy clan has never been pure and lily white. Their money was made through bootleg whiskey sales. I don't know why it came as such a surprise to you. JFK's womanizing was well known even prior to his death. Still he managed to put more social programs in place in this country than were seen since the New Deal, to the benefit of some of our country's most oppressed citizens.

Regarding shenanigans, personal ambitions, and wrong use of power, such is the game of politics.

Reba · 06-02-2008, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

[color="Red"]I don't call it "blame" because that isn't what it is. It is a request for all involved to accept responsibility for their actions on that night.

It's kind of hard for a dead person to accept responsibility.

Quote:

And again, as you cannot attest to his mental state at the time he left the car, you cannot determine intent.

His mental state was alert enough that he managed to contact his lawyers, friends, and family members. He made 17 long distance phone calls before he reported the accident.

Quote:

And rarely is the public informed af all details regarding any accident or crime scene, so the accusation of "cover-up" should perhaps be best applied elsewhere.

I guess you didn't read the whole report that I linked.

Quote:

And again, one victim has been an actual victim of malicious intent (rape). The other bears responsibility for having gotten int he car with a drunk driver, and it does not involve malicious intent. Hence, it is called an accident. The comparisons remain fallicious.

The initial plunge of the car might have been an accident but neglecting to rescue Mary Jo wasn't an accident.

Quote:

To my way of understanding, man, by way of the legal system, judges criminal guilt and innocence. Moral judgements are left to a man and his God.

People make moral judgments every day when they decide whether to do right or to do wrong.

A legal judgment is not always based on whether or not an action was right or wrong but on whether or not it can be proved to be illegal. A "not guilty" verdict is not always the same as "innocent".

Quote:

And, once again, as you cannot attest to his mental state at the time of the accident, you can, in no way, determine intent. It is nothing more than conjecture on your part.

The statements of many witnesses to the events that night and following day show that it would have been possible to rescue Mary Jo if Teddy had sought help for her. Teddy not only neglected to get help, he actually prevented others from helping. He also made false (not foggy) statements to the authorities after the trauma of the event had passed.

I don't find him or his story to be credible.

Reba · 06-02-2008, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The Kennedy clan has never been pure and lily white. Their money was made through bootleg whiskey sales.

Yes, I know that. So? Joseph wasn't the President. I gave JFK the benefit of the doubt at the time that he was President, and I had high hopes for the future.

Quote:

I don't know why it came as such a surprise to you. JFK's womanizing was well known even prior to his death.

I was almost 10 years old when he was sworn in, and only 12 1/2 when he was assassinated, so I was naive and positive in my outlook. I didn't know about "womanizing" back then.

Quote:

Regarding shenanigans, personal ambitions, and wrong use of power, such is the game of politics.

Which is still wrong.

Liebling:-))) · 06-03-2008, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

I showed how it is wrong to blame victims for whatever befalls them. The responsibility for wrongdoing is still on the shoulders of the perpetrator.

Like you often say, "Is it forbidden" for me to make comparisons?

No, we have no problem for you to use something to compare with but we also entitle our view as well why we disagree with you for try to compare... It's no forbidden...

Liebling:-))) · 06-03-2008, 05:03 AM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Just because Mary Jo accepted a ride with Teddy doesn't mean Teddy is off the hook for leaving her to die in the car, or for his lies and cover up.

All what we say is: It's Mary Jo's choice for accepted Ted's offer for drive her when she KNEW he was drunk, that's all. Of course we know Ted accepted his responsible for violated the DUI law.

Quote:

I didn't compare the accident itself with a rape act. I compared the wrongness of blaming a rape victim with the wrongness of blaming the victim of a DUI driving accident. Just as people (wrongly) say, "She wouldn't have been raped if she wasn't wearing those clothes (or walking that street, or drinking that spiked drink, or staying out that late, etc.)", it's wrong to say, "She wouldn't have died if she wasn't drinking or hanging out with married men." Teddy took the final action (or non-action) that resulted in her death. He tried to protect his reputation rather than get help for Mary Jo.

It's not right comparison. I would try to make a comparison...

Example: Would you say yes to stranger's offer to drive you home when you don't know him/her or know his/her bad reputation? It mean that it's your own responsible for your action when you know it's risk but you continue to take her/his offer to drive you home then end happened to you then is your choice because you should reject her/his offer... it does the same with Mary Jo. She choose to take Ted's offer to drive her home when she know it would be risk when he was drunk driver.

Accord your link in previous post, that Ted drank a lot... It could be that he was too drunk to rescue Mary Jo's life and fail.

Quote:

Even though he was let off the hook by the authorities that doesn't mean he is morally innocent. Good lawyers, money, and political influence don't always equal justice.

Yes, if they have good and expensive lawyer who know how to influence juries, then the judge listen juries's decision, that's why we don't have juries here in some Europe countries.

Quote:

OK. After the wreck, Teddy had no intention of rescuing Mary Jo, or accepting any blame for her death.

Yes, Ted accepted his responsiblity for his DUI driving to cause Mary Jo death. I really have no idea why anyone can't move on but obesse his past for... ?

Liebling:-))) · 06-03-2008, 05:15 AM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

It's kind of hard for a dead person to accept responsibility.

Each person accept his/her responsibly for his/her action when she/he knows it's risk to take someone's offer or continue to drive when he/she are overtired or alcohol or whatever... Example: when I drink a lot and prefer to stay overnight instead of risk my life when I want to drive... or reject to take drunk driver's offer to take me home... or stranger's offer or person with bad reputation... It's my own decision.

Quote:

His mental state was alert enough that he managed to contact his lawyers, friends, and family members. He made 17 long distance phone calls before he reported the accident.

He was kind of shock and don't know what should he do... He don't know what he do when he was drunk then after that he was sober...... and don't know what he do... that's why he made a lot of calls... If he really intended to do that... then he would never make calls, don't he?

Quote:

The initial plunge of the car might have been an accident but neglecting to rescue Mary Jo wasn't an accident.

Accord your link, he drank a lot. He was drunk to try to save her life.

Quote:

People make moral judgments every day when they decide whether to do right or to do wrong.

A legal judgment is not always based on whether or not an action was right or wrong but on whether or not it can be proved to be illegal. A "not guilty" verdict is not always the same as "innocent".

Judge listen juries's decision... and then punished Ted. It could be that Ted's lawyer made a very good to influence juries...

Quote:

The statements of many witnesses to the events that night and following day show that it would have been possible to rescue Mary Jo if Teddy had sought help for her. Teddy not only neglected to get help, he actually prevented others from helping. He also made false (not foggy) statements to the authorities after the trauma of the event had passed.

Again, he was too drunk to save her life.

Reba · 06-03-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

Accord your link in previous post, that Ted drank a lot... It could be that he was too drunk to rescue Mary Jo's life and fail.

He wasn't too drunk to call his lawyers.

Quote:

Yes, if they have good and expensive lawyer who know how to influence juries, then the judge listen juries's decision, that's why we don't have juries here in some Europe countries.

Ted didn't have a jury trial; it was a judge's decision.

Liebling:-))) · 06-03-2008, 08:33 AM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

He wasn't too drunk to call his lawyers.

He called his lawyer that's time he was a sober.

Quote:

Ted didn't have a jury trial; it was a judge's decision.

Oh I see...

Reba · 06-03-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

Yes, Ted accepted his responsiblity for his DUI driving to cause Mary Jo death....

No, he only plead guilty to leaving the scene of the accident. He did NOT admit to DUI.

Reba · 06-03-2008, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

He called his lawyer that's time he was a sober.

He called them immediately after the accident, several hours before he reported it to the police. If he was sober enough to make all those calls, he was sober enough to call the police or fire department to try to rescue her. But he never did.

Quote:

Oh I see...

It was only a 7-minute hearing before a judge.

jillio · 06-03-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

It's kind of hard for a dead person to accept responsibility.
Exactly. Which is why your attempt to paint her as a totally innocent victim are useless as well. Death does not absolve responsibility, either.

His mental state was alert enough that he managed to contact his lawyers, friends, and family members. He made 17 long distance phone calls before he reported the accident.

Yes, he did. And do you know that it was not on the advise of his lawyers that he delayed? Perhaps you should be looking in the direction of poor legal advise.

I guess you didn't read the whole report that I linked.
Yes, I did.

The initial plunge of the car might have been an accident but neglecting to rescue Mary Jo wasn't an accident.
And, again, not having been there, you cannot determine that it would have been possible, under the exact circumstances at that moment, for him to rescue anyone. Armchair quarterbacking about "should" and "would" is much simpler than acting in the moment.

People make moral judgments every day when they decide whether to do right or to do wrong.

People make moral judgements for themselves. Moral judgements made against them are best left to a man and his God. Unless, of course, the one making the moral judgement can claim infallibility, and I have yet to meet a human who can.

A legal judgment is not always based on whether or not an action was right or wrong but on whether or not it can be proved to be illegal. A "not guilty" verdict is not always the same as "innocent".

And, in this case, the only thing proved to be illegal was leaving the scene of an accident. Once again, ifyou have problems with this, then your problem is with the legal system.

The statements of many witnesses to the events that night and following day show that it would have been possible to rescue Mary Jo if Teddy had sought help for her. Teddy not only neglected to get help, he actually prevented others from helping. He also made false (not foggy) statements to the authorities after the trauma of the event had passed.

There were no witnesses to the actual accident. Post hoc reconsctruction is conjecture.

I don't find him or his story to be credible.

And that is certainly your right. You don'thave to find it credible. You simply have to accept the fact that the situation was dealt with whether it was to your satisfaction or not.

jillio · 06-03-2008, 10:17 AM

[quote=Reba;995523]Yes, I know that. So? Joseph wasn't the President. I gave JFK the benefit of the doubt at the time that he was President, and I had high hopes for the future.
Oh, I see. Its okay for Joe to engage in illegal acts, and engage in the sale and transport of illegal whiskey that has been linked to numerous social problems at the time, as well as more than one death because he wasn't president. And it is okay for JFK to have engaged in numerous affairs and to have been implicated in the death of Marilyn Monroe because he was President. Why would Joe and JFK be so much more deserving of benefit of the doubt than Ted? That is selectivley applied criteria, now isn't it?

I was almost 10 years old when he was sworn in, and only 12 1/2 when he was assassinated, so I was naive and positive in my outlook. I didn't know about "womanizing" back then.

Ah, but you know about it now. Apply some of that post hoc judgement you are making about Ted to the rest of the Kennedy family, and your position will be more valid.

jillio · 06-03-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

No, he only plead guilty to leaving the scene of the accident. He did NOT admit to DUI.

Because he wasn't charged with DUI. Why would anyone, Ted Kennedy included, admit to guilt of a criminal charge that has not been levied against them? Again, your problem here is with the legal system, and the inequities inherent, not with the man himself.

jillio · 06-03-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

He wasn't too drunk to call his lawyers.

Ted didn't have a jury trial; it was a judge's decision.

And the American public is responsible for the judges that sit the bench. But once again, if you don't like the way the legal system functions, then perhaps you should campaign to have it changed.

jillio · 06-03-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

He called them immediately after the accident, several hours before he reported it to the police. If he was sober enough to make all those calls, he was sober enough to call the police or fire department to try to rescue her. But he never did.

It was only a 7-minute hearing before a judge.

And his lawyers, and friends that he contacted could have easily have done the same. Where is your judgement against them?

Reba · 06-03-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Exactly. Which is why your attempt to paint her as a totally innocent victim are useless as well. Death does not absolve responsibility, either.

I never said that she was "totally innocent" as a person. She still didn't deserve to die that way. Dead people can't "accept" responsibility, nor can they defend themselves.

Quote:

Yes, he did. And do you know that it was not on the advise of his lawyers that he delayed? Perhaps you should be looking in the direction of poor legal advise.

Fine. That doesn't excuse Teddy but if you want to add his lawyers to the guilty list I'm OK with that. Anyone who suggests delaying or interfering with a rescue attempt should be prosecuted.

Quote:

And, again, not having been there, you cannot determine that it would have been possible, under the exact circumstances at that moment, for him to rescue anyone. Armchair quarterbacking about "should" and "would" is much simpler than acting in the moment.

I didn't say that just he could have rescued her. He didn't go for nearby help, or call any authorities who could have made a rescue attempt. That is documented.

Quote:

And, in this case, the only thing proved to be illegal was leaving the scene of an accident. Once again, ifyou have problems with this, then your problem is with the legal system.

The legal system was at fault for not conducting a proper investigation or hearing. I'm not letting them off the hook. They were wrong, and he was wrong. They covered up his past driving record and lack of valid license at the time of the incident. They allowed him to submit an improperly prepared statement. Yes, they all did wrong in the legal proceedings.

Quote:

There were no witnesses to the actual accident. Post hoc reconsctruction is conjecture.

Most convictions are made on testimonies, forensics and circumstantial evidence that are gathered after the fact, and have proven to be even more reliable than eye witness accounts. That is more than mere "conjecture."

Quote:

You simply have to accept the fact that the situation was dealt with whether it was to your satisfaction or not.

It depends on what you mean by "accept". If you mean keeping quiet about wrong doing and perpetuating a cover up, then no, I don't have to accept it. The "situation" was NOT dealt with; it was covered up. Why should I pretend otherwise? I have the right to present the other side of the story, and people can make up their own minds.

Reba · 06-03-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

And his lawyers, and friends that he contacted could have easily have done the same. Where is your judgement against them?

Right here, if you noticed. I never said it was OK for Teddy's friends to conduct a cover up. They are guilty to boot.

Reba · 06-03-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Oh, I see. Its okay for Joe to engage in illegal acts, and engage in the sale and transport of illegal whiskey that has been linked to numerous social problems at the time, as well as more than one death because he wasn't president.

Nope, never said that. We were discussing my feelings for the JFK presidency at the time he was in office. That had nothing to do with his father's history. I was judging the man that I knew at that time, thru a child's hopeful eyes.

I've never said that Joe Sr.'s actions were acceptable to me.

Quote:

And it is okay for JFK to have engaged in numerous affairs and to have been implicated in the death of Marilyn Monroe because he was President.

Did I say that? No. At the time that he was President and was assassinated, I wasn't aware of those things, so they didn't influence my impression of him, at that time.

Quote:

Why would Joe and JFK be so much more deserving of benefit of the doubt than Ted? That is selectivley applied criteria, now isn't it?

Probably because I was only 10 - 12 years old when JFK was President, and much more idealistic. By the time Teddy had his "problem" I was a little older (18) and wiser about the Kennedys.

Quote:

Ah, but you know about it now. Apply some of that post hoc judgement you are making about Ted to the rest of the Kennedy family, and your position will be more valid.

Which position would that be?

I described what my viewpoint about JFK was back then, at the time that it happened. That had nothing to do with my viewpoint of what Teddy did years later, other than to show that I didn't have some life-long agenda against the Kennedy family.

Joe Sr., JFK, and RFK are long dead, off the scene, and everyone knows their dirty "secrets." Teddy is still here, leaving his wake in the Senate, and in the lives of others. That's the difference.

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

06-02-2008, 05:17 PM	#92 (permalink)
Reba Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 17,287	It's obvious that the two camps will never agree. Each camp has a totally different viewpoint of the Kennedy family in general, and Teddy specifically, so that's pretty much where it will stand. When I was young and idealistic, I had high hopes for the Kennedy family. I was inspired by JFK's speeches and Jackie's grace. I was crushed when JFK was killed, and watching his funeral live on TV left an everlasting impression on me. Then, when Bobby was killed, that was another hard blow. But the glorious promise of Camelot, and my empathy for the family's tragedies are not enough for me to ignore the shenanigans, personal ambitions and wrong use of power by the "clan". It's really too bad. I wanted so much to believe in the Camelot dream but that's all it was--a dream, not reality.

06-03-2008, 10:17 AM	#106 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,197	[quote=Reba;995523]Yes, I know that. So? Joseph wasn't the President. I gave JFK the benefit of the doubt at the time that he was President, and I had high hopes for the future. Oh, I see. Its okay for Joe to engage in illegal acts, and engage in the sale and transport of illegal whiskey that has been linked to numerous social problems at the time, as well as more than one death because he wasn't president. And it is okay for JFK to have engaged in numerous affairs and to have been implicated in the death of Marilyn Monroe because he was President. Why would Joe and JFK be so much more deserving of benefit of the doubt than Ted? That is selectivley applied criteria, now isn't it? I was almost 10 years old when he was sworn in, and only 12 1/2 when he was assassinated, so I was naive and positive in my outlook. I didn't know about "womanizing" back then. Ah, but you know about it now. Apply some of that post hoc judgement you are making about Ted to the rest of the Kennedy family, and your position will be more valid.

06-03-2008, 12:01 PM	#113 (permalink)
Reba Premium Member