Kennedy clan´s history

Ahh....Kennedy's conspiracist live's on.......
 
Reba said:
I never said that he deserved to get cancer. I wish that he didn't have cancer. Apparently it just makes him unjustifiably more "heroic" in the eyes of many people.

So, for the umpteenth time, I will state, "I NEVER SAID THAT TED KENNEDY 'DESERVED' TO GET CANCER, AND I NEVER CELEBRATED THE FACT THAT HE GOT CANCER."

It's too bad that people can't show more "empathy" for Mary Jo's tragic death. Gone and forgotten; "move on". Yep. :(
Click to expand...

IMO no one has shown less empathy for MayJo's death than they have for Kennedy's current situation. I don't recall any posters making comments like, "She shouldn't have been a an auotmoblie with a married man in the wee hours of the morning." There has been no personally directed judgement against her at all.

Quite frankly, Mary Jo's death has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor. To even bring the incident into a discussion regarding his health shows obvious intent to discount his situation. The majority have agreed that no one has all of the information into the events of that morning except the 2 that werre present, and that her family had choices, made them, and the incident has been dealt with both on a legal level and a personal level as far as the surviviors are concerned. There was absolutely no reason to even bring the incident back up unless the intent was to cast dispersions against a dying man.
 
jillio said:
IMO no one has shown less empathy for MayJo's death than they have for Kennedy's current situation. I don't recall any posters making comments like, "She shouldn't have been a an auotmoblie with a married man in the wee hours of the morning." There has been no personally directed judgement against her at all.

Quite frankly, Mary Jo's death has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor. To even bring the incident into a discussion regarding his health shows obvious intent to discount his situation. The majority have agreed that no one has all of the information into the events of that morning except the 2 that werre present, and that her family had choices, made them, and the incident has been dealt with both on a legal level and a personal level as far as the surviviors are concerned. There was absolutely no reason to even bring the incident back up unless the intent was to cast dispersions against a dying man.
Click to expand...

She also made the choice/decision to go home with a drunk driver as well.....so if it's anyone's faults, it's also hers as well.
 
Byrdie714 said:
She also made the choice/decision to go home with a drunk driver as well.....so if it's anyone's faults, it's also hers as well.
Click to expand...

And now we're into the issue of personal responsibility. If we ask one participant to take personal responsibility in a specific incident, we must ask all involved to take personal responsibility.
 
jillio said:
And now we're into the issue of personal responsibility. If we ask one participant to take personal responsibility in a specific incident, we must ask all involved to take personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more.

Sad thing is that nowadays, no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.
 
Byrdie714 said:
I couldn't agree with you more.

Sad thing is that nowadays, no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.
Click to expand...

:confused: What are you saying then? Are you saying Mary got what she deserved to get because she rode with a drunk? I do hope I'm wrong.
 
Chase said:
Quote: Originally Posted by Liebling:)))
There´re no situation comparison between Mary Jo and Nicole & Ron because they are total different.

Just so you know, in argument (not bickering but civil discussion) there are two accepted forms of comparison. It's the same for English and German. One is point-by-point comparison you mention. The other is analogy, signaled by "as," "like," or "rather than."

In analogy, the explanation is in the similarity of a few salient points. The reason I didn't choose point-by-point is obvious. For instance, Los Angeles is in California; Chappaquiddick is in Maine; different laws apply. Ron and Nicole were aggressively cut; Mary Jo was negligently left to drown (or suffocate, that part of the record isn't clear, either).

However, the false claim that one is the other is just another form of begging the question--to avoid the issue and misdirect. That's the false argument here.


Quote: Originally Posted by Liebling:))) Ted accept his responsibly for the death of Mary Jo which OJ doesn´t.

If you call accepting responsibility pleading "no contest" to watered down criminal decisions, then OJ also accepted the legal decision of a jury in criminal court "not Guilty." This is much closer to point-by-point comparison.

Another is I think both men in "accept his responsibilty" are examples of blatant miscarriages of justice.
Click to expand...


Well, I view is remain unchanged. Ron & Nicole did not know that their life end to the Killer, don´t they? It´s not their responsiblity to end/risk their life. Ron have to die because he returned Nicole´s glass back to her which she left at resturant. Nicole have to die because she decided to divorce OJ and built her new life. It´s not their responsiblity which is total different as Mary Jo.

Yes, I would say it´s also Mary Jo´s responsiblity for her action as well for take Ted´s offer to ride her to home when she KNEW Ted is drunk and would risk her life..., don´t she? I would say responsiblity on the both sides between Mary Jo and Ted... Mary Jo agreed to take Ted´s offer as the same as Ted violate the DUI law and neglect Mary Jo that´s time he was drunk.


If I see my friend who drunk to offer me to ride... I would firm No and order the taxi or overnight at friend´s house. This is sensible. It would be my responsible either for agree to take drunk driver´s offer to drive me home.

That´s why I said their comparison is total different.
 
Cheri said:
:confused: What are you saying then? Are you saying Mary got what she deserved to get because she rode with a drunk? I do hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Byrdie, and several others are saying that 2 bad decisions were made that evening. One of them was made by MaryJo. If you decide to get in the car with a drunk driver, then you accept the risk inherent in doing so. If you don't want to risk being in a fatal accident, then don't get in the car with a drunk driver behind the wheel. It's very simple. She was an adult, and she made a decision. It turned out to be a fatal one.
 
Reba said:
Do you know any of her relatives? I don't.
Click to expand...

I already said "It could be that Mary Jo have relatives who know them?" which mean is suggestion.

Well, their parents were still alive before and after their daughter was killed by car accident, don´t they?
 
jillio said:
Mary Jo's parents were not dead at the thime of the incident. They had the opportunity to pursue civil recourse at that time. The statue of limitations for civil action is limited. They allowed that time period to pass without action. It was their daughter and their decision. Had they wanted help with seeking justice, they had the opportunity to ask for assistance at that time. I do not recall them ever requesting that the public take up the cause for them. Perhaps they prefered to deal with this as a private matter within their family. That is their right to do so.

Attempting to play arm chair quarterback at this point in time is totally unproductive, and serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

Yes it make sense.
 
jillio said:
"At least he got to live to a ripe old age, which is more than poor Mary Jo Kopechne ever got to do."

As stated prior, perhaps this quote from another post reagarding the topic will explain it all. It is entirely without empathy, and seeks to distract from the issue of his health. It would appear to say, "So what. He desreves what he gets."
Click to expand...

Yes I feel the same when I read her post because we are supposing to talk about Ted´s health, not his past background. Those word sound like obsession to me which mean is care more about his negative past background than concern about his health issue.
 
Reba said:
It's too bad that people can't show more "empathy" for Mary Jo's tragic death. Gone and forgotten; "move on". Yep. :(
Click to expand...

Well, take a look at jew people who live in Germany and forgave Nazi what and how they did to them. They forgave and move on...

It doesn´t mean that we think less of Mary Jo but we are suppose to talk about Ted´s health, not his past.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by Byrdie714
She also made the choice/decision to go home with a drunk driver as well.....so if it's anyone's faults, it's also hers as well.
Click to expand...


jillio said:
And now we're into the issue of personal responsibility. If we ask one participant to take personal responsibility in a specific incident, we must ask all involved to take personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Yes I second that.
 
Kennedy families have experienced with successes, tragedies, cover up, and wealth.

For starters,

Joseph and Rose had 9 children. Joseph Jr was killed in plane crash. Kathleen ignored their parents' objection by get married to a Brit, but later she died in a plane crash.

John was US president until 1963 as he was gunned down in Dallas. He had four kids with Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis.

Rosemary was mild retarded at that time. Against Rose's wishes, Joe took Rosemary to get a lobotomy surgery, but it failed her. She was permanently severe retarded thereafter. She was lived for a long time until her death not a long ago. Rose never forgave Joe for that horrible lobotomy surgery incident.

Eunice established Special Olympics in honor of her sister, Rosemary. She has a famous daughter, Maria Shriver Schweggenzzer (sp).

Jean is the shyiest of kennedy clan and her son, William Smith was charged for rape, but later the charges against him were dismissed. Cover up, ofc

Patricia was married to the actor, Peter Lawford, later divorced him.

Robert was Attorney General during JFK presidential term. Marilyn Monroe was involved with both Robert and JFK at that time. MM committed suicide according to autopsy report, however, it speculated that she was murdered by Kennedy brothers or hired people by them.

Edward (Ted) is the youngest Kennedy clan and got involved in a car accident that killed Mary Jo in 1969. Cover ups of MM and Joan were eerily similar in my opinion. He was originally running for the president in 1980, but he bowed out. If he was stubborn, then he would be likely to be the next for assissation like his older brothers (JFK and RFK). He decided not to continue.. He decided to become a senator instead. Now, he has a cancerous brain tumor.


Successes: politics, marriages, and birth of children, grandchildren, etc.
 
Liebling:-))) said:


It sound that Ted drank quite a lot. Mary Jo should say No to his offer to drive her home, don´t she?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that Mary Jo shouldn't have went along with Ted if he was going to drive drunk. She knew he was drinking a lot.

Ted was very wrong to leave the scene of the accident and not reporting it until the next day but Mary Jo also made a mistake when she went along with him being drunk on that night.
 
Byrdie714 said:
She also made the choice/decision to go home with a drunk driver as well.....so if it's anyone's faults, it's also hers as well.
Click to expand...
So that let's him off the hook?

Counselor, you should know better than that.
 
Back
Top