Well if you want sheer numbers Irie, Democratic president Harry Truman had a pretty fair civilian body count.
Following the dropping of atomic bombs:
Hiroshima - 40,000 killed immediately, radiation brought total later to 60,000 to 90,000
Nagasaki - 40,000 killed immediately, the final death toll was 73,884 officially.
But I regress, it's only tragic if a Republican kills them right?

[/quote] it just goes to show how elitism and liberalism are very connected, as much or more then the republican top leadership. [/quote]

Musta hit close to the mark as Todd is the first to respond, followed closely by Irie ( who was then issued a smackdown by Sal)

That's quite a stretch. Are you saying it was wrong of us to be in WWII or attack Japan? Decades of analysis all show that dropping the bombs, while horrific, saved lives in the end and ended the war.

Not at all, just keeping things consistent.
If you are shedding tears for innocent casualties of war, how can you pick & choose the situation that fits your argument?





Yes indeed, Teddy was a very busy man....

http://www.thesharkguys.com/2009/08/26/ted-kennedys-top-drunk-moments/





.

100,000 Japaese died in the firebombing of Tokyo before the a-bombs were dropped. Pales though in comparison to the millions of Asians that died at the hands of the Japanese.

Nothing consistent about comparing a right war versus a wrong war.

"If being drunk is so damned bad, at least half of the members posting in this forum are going to hell."

And GW would have had a diferent future....and probably not choked on a pretzel. We'll never know whether Laura Bush was drunk or not when she killed.

I won't shed a tear when OJ finally bites the dust, too. I bet he's a republican.....

Just goes to show that money and family power can get you out of anything.

If you or I pull either of those stunts, our asses our locked away for at least 10 years, if not life.

Still blows me away that Kennedy got away with killing someone and most of the huggers that are too stupid to know any better don't seem to give a rats ass and think that it's ok.

Do you also care that OJ is walking the streets a free man, or is that OK too?

Both of those two needed to do their time for their crimes. They can both rot in hell for all I care.

+1 Parquito!
Nice to see someone that thinks outside of the LWWJ mold!

I am neither to the left or the right. I am an equal opportunity asshole. I just call it like I see it.



Yeah, because vehicular manslaughter wasn't taken seriously in '69. How many manslaughter convictions did you beat back in '69 Aunty?

You or I would have gone to jail. Simple as that.

A Kennedy? Nofrakinway. Not in a million years.

Don't get me started on OJ.....

Actually if you look into the case they just didn't have the evidence. People wanted a conviction on moral grounds but that isn't valid in court then or now. Even today you'd have to prove drunk driving otherwise it's an accident. And leaving her there, the moral issue, could be defended as "I had been in an accident and didn't know what I was doing". He was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident. Not defending Kennedy or saying there wasn't shennanigans just looking at the FACTS instead of making [censored] up.

"Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment."

Regardless of his conviction or lack there of, the man left the woman in his car to drown, and didn't report the accident for 9 hours after it happened. A decent human being tries to save the woman in the car. A decent responsible human being calls for help. Obviously Teddy wasn't a decent human being. To Teddy the woman's death was little more than an inconvenience to what he wanted! He is a POS, and wasn't worthy of the office he held!

"hardly anyone"

Ted Kennedy was "hardly anyone". He had the name, power, and money.

He got away with killing someone due to gross negligence and YOU or I would have been put it jail.

Even taking away the alcohol. Let's say it wasn't involved. You or I would still go to jail in 1969 for vehicular homicide due to negligent driving and leaving the scene of an accident.

One wonders about the covered up skeletons of those who grew up uber rich brats. I bet Paris Hilton is an axe murderer.

You are giving Paris Hilton way too much credit.

I'd be willing to bet $100 that Paris Hilton has never TOUCHED an axe, let alone would actually know what to do with it if she had it.

The only pole Paris has touched probably rotted and fell off.

That poor SOB.

I can't believe some here would argue that the manner in which one is murdered is of any consequence.

Mary Jo had scratched at the upholstery while she was drowning...as evidenced by the scratches.

But yeah yer probably right...ol' Teddy was a great man and he only killed one person that we know of.

Myself...I didn't like him in life and I ain't gonna' weep for him in death...I also ain't gonna' piss on his grave 'cause it might offer him some respite from the heat.

Ok he killed her....

That still makes him a POS....a killing POS....not a murdering POS.

I think the thread was who is going to die next. Michael Jackson now Ted Kennedy. When is Rush Limbaugh going to die?

Hate to wake your azz up but OJ's ass is in 'The Stripey Hole.' & Has been since he was convicted in Vegas, so you can drop that little heap o' race bait.

Aunty is closest to accuracy re: Ted and Mary Jo. In 1969 DUI was a minor crime compared to today. A misdemeanor. 2nd degree manslaughter would result in small jail time for the average citizen in 1969. But you already know their is at least a two-tiered legal system in the US, one for average people and another for people with money, privilege, and power.

There was lack of evidence - as in real legally admissible in court evidence - for even a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, so no way was the DA gonna' touch that. And given all the Kennedy money and political power, he would have skated on the leaving the scene of an accident charge, but it would have been just too obvious and egregious. It's fairly likely Kennedy was guilty of 2nd degree man., but that's not the same as a legally admissible case.

Funny thing about 1969 is that the general public was more curious about the scandal of a potential affair between TK and MJK than they were about DUI. The gallows humor joke of the time was that as they were driving back to the mainland, MJ told TK that she was pregnant, causing Ted to drive off the bridge, the question being was it deliberate or not. All that aside, there was no indication of any affair since they were newly acquainted. However, had they made it back to the mainland and their hotel (they were staying at the same one), one may have been in the offing, but that's just nosy speculation.

Getting back to the US justice system, or lack of it, there was an interesting piece in the news a couple weeks ago following Michael Vic's reinstatement into the NFL. Really shows the disparities in justice. Vic received disproportionately harsher justice, 20 mo., for torturing and killing dogs than several NFLers who variously served zero, 23 days, and 90 days for forms of manslaughter and murder. You get the higher tier of justice if you're a rich celebrity in the US. And anyone thinks it's strange that an uber-rich senator from an uber-powerful political family would receive preferential treatment in the US legal system? He plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and that went on his record. Chances are if Teddy had made the Green Bay Packers (he was decent in college and got a look at from the GBP), he could have skated and dodged even that little blemish on his legal record.

Focusing on chappaquidic and ignoring the suite of cases of double standard justice, and the lack of legal evidence, suggests the protests may be more political in nature than a personal protest directed toward the legal system and the facts of the case.

Sg