Chappaquiddick Ted dead

PeterCS wrote:LONG POST ALERT- and my last on this topic. Since I have drawn fire from three vociferous quarters - Allan D to an extent, but especially Merls and Growler - here we go.

M and G especially: I have to say, you seem, voluntarily or not, inclined to picking up what I write in a way that fits what you want to condemn …..


Allan D: "Surely you meant to write "my" encomium?"

No, yours: the one you were looking forward to appearing, and condemning, in the post previous to that!

Growler: "Peter, you seem to be accusing some of us as not using, or seeking to use - both eyes. It isn't the case .. we've used both eyes, ...."

Point taken. I could have phrased this better. My point was that it was useful when passing sentence to look beyond the (single) dimension of condemning Kennedy as Satan incarnate.

Growler again: "…. what has he done to deserve the adulation he gets from some quarters?"

No adulation from me. But my point was, you seem hellbent (so to speak) on the opposite pole from adulation – also a bit extreme as regards the whole picture (this was my point about the “two eyes”)

I do believe that I acknowledged Kennedy was NOT comparable with Hitler or Stalin or the like, and also that he had done some good things in domestic politics. I'm sorry you think that my view that his good doesn't outweigh his flaws make me "extreme", but I'll live with it.

"On the subject of lazy labelling ........ well if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - then its likely to be a duck, my friend. If someone shows left wing traits - like attacking the poster *for his views* rather than refuting said views - then we can assume they may well be left wing."

My previous point was that I was not setting myself to “refute your views”, as if it’s all black or all white. As if life were a court of law. Why do you look for Kennedy worshippers? Why do you label as a “leftist” anyone who finds your take a bit extreme, and steamed-up to boot?

And my point is that all you were doing is calling me names because you don't agree with me. Nobody's looking for Kennedy worshipers - people disagrreeing have not needed searching out. There's nothing wrong with being leftist, and I never inferred that there was - why are so many people so sensitive about the label ?

"Just out of curiosity ... what do you personally think of Kennedy?"

I took the time to try to do this. It took me long enough. But I fear it was a waste of time, your invitation looks a bit like entrapment now!

"....sniping from the sidelines on several occasions ....... even suggesting that we'll be doing the salutes next."

As far as I recall, I was not calling you “fascist”, or suggesting anything of the sort. I was suggesting: (a) you were resorting to extreme propagandist zeal in your damnation – like a revved-up (and decidedly anti-left) propaganda station. What does that tone remind you of?

And: (b) you seemed to be arguing with a great lather of loathing, even with to my mind slightly paranoid overtones about these pernicious evil-doing leftists not only under the bed but stalking abroad Hence my “cheap shot” (if you like) about the gunman in the hut, waiting for the Nazi/commie/whateverlabel Feds to come for him. You may think that comment was a cheap shot. But do you see what I was implying about your tone and to my mind obsessive identification of demons?

No - please go back to page 8, 3rd post up from bottom. " It's getting nastier by the minute. They'll be doing the salutes next" That was what I was referring to as a cheap shot.

If that isn't suggesting that we're secret Nazis, then what is?

Again - what overtones about "leftists"? I've made no comment on anyones political views at all.

A good example of the tone mentioned in (a) above is:

(Merls) “PeteyCS, the forums Senior Apologist”.

Senior Apologist for what, Merlin? Communist world revolution? Jay Dello? Humour?

I hope you don't mean for Edward Kennedy, or I wiill have to ask you to check your reading glasses.

(Merls again: ) "I just wonder what Nelson Mandela, the Mahatma and Martin Luther King thought (privately) about Edward Kennedy's 'bigger picture' after Chappaquiddick!"

If you mean would they have approved of such pusillanimous behaviour, an act of moral turpitude and an act tantamount to manslaughter, then it is of course a rhetorical question, and an absurd one at that. But this conflation had nothing to do with my point about Kennedy’s domestic political career. You seem prone to converting one point into another, to prove your unusual case against me.

(Allan: ) "Certainly the voice of justice seemed to be singularly absent when Mary Jo K was clawing at the upholstery of EMK's Oldsmobile."

Quite! I could not agree more – as I tried to make clear re: Mary Jo. But I was asking about the infallible cogency of your three voices in – so it seemed - attempting to represent the voice of righteous judgment over Kennedy’s life as a whole.

Growler: . "Oh come on Peter - yes he was terrified when he left the scene, so I'll accept that as a bad decision on the spur of the moment. Now justify him going back to his hotel after speaking with TWO people who later testified that they told him to notify the authorities. He chose not to, but it wasn't a "spur of the moment" decision."

This was your response to the bit you quoted from me, which said, clearly, and verbatim: "It doesn't excuse cowardice when it is a matter of life and death." I meant – was this not clear? – Mary Jo Kopechnie’s death.

Fair enough P

"Are you saying that you truly believe NORAID would have had 1/10th of the cash had he agreed with the aim of a united Ireland whilst unequivically condemning both the attitude of the British government **and** the setting of bombs and shooting of civilians."

I honestly do not know. Do you?

I can't be certain of course, but I think it's safe to assume you or me would be lucky to gat a few dollars in a tin were we to try fundraising for any cause. Famous people raise money far better than unknowns. Please lets not pretend otherwise.

"...... Still doesn't justify those 3,000+ deaths though."

Indeed it doesn’t. But political acts – and personal vendettas, chip-on-shoulder acts of violence and murder are fostered and given succour and protection in such conditions, was my point.

"Kennedy understood all right - but instead of putting pressure on the British government to change things.... ".

He knew what he was doing? Yes, I am sure he will have known that at least some the supposed relief fund woudl be abused militarily by the IRA, and turned a blind eye to that. I did mention the Irish-American blind spot – and its consequences with regard to the IRA - in somewhat less than favourable terms above, I think?

Inded you did

"We're still waiting for you - or anyone else for that matter - to put a counter argument, rather than attacking the messengers."

I’ll say it again then. I have no intention of putting a black-vs-white “couinter argument”. I believe there is substance to two of your key accusations – if you actually read what I have written, I am sure you will grasp what my problem with your arguments has been.

I've read what you've written Peter, and it strikes me that the main problem you have with my argument is the force with which I argue it. I'm sorry that you find it extreme ..... in contrast to lardy just a few posts later who, while (I think) not agreeing with me, did concede that I posted with a degree of equanimity. It isn't my intention to be offensive, and I don't believe I have been. I've certainly not got personal - with you or anyone else.

"That's f*****g rich coming from the person who all but accused us of being Nazis."

No, I did not – see above - , unless that “all but” is a piece of foggy elastic. But in the end, you can call my objections f*****g rich as much as you wish!

Likewise, see above. You didn't actually call us fascists - but your explanation suggests that we're acting like fascists. That's as close to calling us direct as damn it is to swearing.

While I've never crossed swords with you before - and in truth, don't expect to again as I generally find you an agreeable poster - I feel that your doing what furriner did ..... taking the moral high ground. I don't claim it, but I don't believe it's yours either.
After all, I am the Secretary General of the Red Crush Democracy Brigade (Tooting branch).

your words, not mine

horace wrote:

hmmn so Merlin has become Merlot, tho cant understand your antipathy to Taily

horace wrote:yes I blame jfk for the price of a decent cigar

Zat wrote:What about Flintoff?

Zat wrote:There's been worse...

JKLever wrote:Can't be arsed to read the whole thread again. Someone fill me in on how Allan D is a nazi hating nazi?

lardus mcflaherty wrote:

... sealing whacks? He's been puffing the magic dragon?

Brass Monkey wrote:... nudged it in the right erection.

lardbucket wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:... nudged it in the right erection.

Freudian. There's been a lot of rubbing on this thread, and now the inevitable result.