The joke would've worked better for that collapsed bridge in Minnesota.

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

Why is that Jon? Is it because a taco-load of wetbacks were welding on that bridge without proper certification? Yeah, in that case, I guess the 'joke' would've worked better there...

CharlieDelta......

Jon is a dis-credited Global Warmer leftwing liberal & a refugee from high school .....His teachers do all his thinking & probably never acquaited him with how Swimmer got his name or who Mary Jo was.

If Kennedy had been at the bridge collapse, twenty people could have used him as a raft.

That's funny! Snorkle, snorkle, snorkle.

No I'm perfectly familiar with that incident with Ted Kennedy, alleged drunk driving, possible murder, and rumors she was pregnant with his child (which is why he supposedly murdered her).

Swimmer.....

1.I do not think there is any question as to being drunk...but no proof!
2.given how it unfolded ...it is murder but not pre-meditated!
3.Pregnant? don`t know or really care!
4. Intentional Murder... I do not think so!

What I believe is he really was drunk,was planning an intimate event, drove off the bridge,got scared,saved his ass & let Mary Jo fend for herself,then begin the cover up & subtrafuge.....used his power,money & influence to stonewall his way to absolution.
As far as I am concerned this arrogant bastard is a waste of the air he breathes& the people of Massachusetts are idiots to support him.

Woody: LOL! That's why I'm starting a "change his name from 'Swimmer' to 'Floater'" campaign.

I have always refered to him as "Gutless Lying Coward that thought more about his political career than another person's safety and life". However "Swimmer" does fine for a short form.

Wow you hadn't heard the pregnancy and murder rumors? That's what I was told; that it was a rumor, neither proved nor disproved. But unless she didn't know how to swim or something I think swimming to shore yourself is reasonable. Bad judgement? Yeah, but he was (probably) drunk.

If Ted Kennedy had been on that I-35W bridge it would've collapsed a Hell of a lot sooner!

But Ralph, if he had been under the bridge, it would still be standing. He contains enough hot air to lift the Nimitz.

Looks like ole Ted is trying to keep the bottle in his pocket from falling.

Jon - The pregnancy is total BS. What is true is that he left her in the car and saved his worthless ass. He then left the scene of the accident and didn't report it until he had sobered up over 12 hours later. He also tried to get another person to take the rap for it. He also convened a bunch of family and friends to concoct a reasonable story. He played the poor me card by showing up at court in a neck brace. Had you or I done what he did we would have served time for drunk driving, leaving the scene of an accident, and manslaughter. If he had any honor or shame, he would have resigned his Senate seat. It's like what I have been saying for years: Republican scumbags (and there are many) resign, as they should. Dimocrat scumbags, since they have no honor or shame don't. And Dimocrat voters keep voting for them.

Here's an example. Mark Foley. Had he not resigned, the voters in his district would have kicked him out. Now Gerry Studds, who didn't send dirty notes to pages but buggered them, was reelected by the fine voters of his district three times. I don't know how these assholes can live with themselves or how the voters can keep electing them.

What did it Den? What turned you into someone who just has to hate on someone? Was it Ted Kennedy all by himself?

I was along for your recent-ride -and will be along- and saw an open, caring, FREE individual meeting friends, making miles and sharing a unique journey.

Then you stopped. And out came the hate. At least, here in your blog.

Is it your meds? Cramps? Road-wearies? You will crucify Ted Kennedy (and rightfully-so) for causing the death of one Mary Jo Kopechne and not say a word about another Son of a Famous Family who is directly responsible for the deaths of -at a bare-bones-MINIMUM- of at least 255 THOUSAND innocent civilians. Perhaps only one named in Farsi as but "Mary Jo."

Is it different when one kills intimately? Is it different when one kills indiscriminate? Indeed, is it different when one kills with no thought in mind at all? And letting someone else do the dirty deed(s)?

Not every single citizen of Iran or Afghanistan is blameless; neither are they everyone guilty.

You would tar Ted Kennedy as you might tar Saddam Hussein; again, perhaps rightfully-so.

I put it to you:

Which of those two has more in common with the current occupant of the American White House?

As far as I'm concerned, most of them are scumbags, regardless of party affiliation. But I have to agree that Kennedy is certainly the poster boy for worthless criminal politicians. To me, the fact that this pumpkin-faced, rancid piece of shit keeps getting reelected every six years says quite a bit about the Democratic party.

F.:

Suppose one lil' tiny thing was different: suppose Kennedy was a Republican? Would that change things?

Dan - I've hated Ted Kennedy ever since he left Mary Jo to drown. As for Bush, don't you remember I'm for the war? I've always been for the war. Kill them fucking Moo-slimes. Send them off to meet their 72 virgins. Has Bush killed as many Iraqis as Saddam did?

I'm not road weary. I'm not off or on my meds. I'm the same old person as I've always been. The difference is yesterday I had more time to write since I wasn't on the road all day. What is the name of this site? Grouchy Old Cripple.

I don't know how F. feels, but if Ted Kennedy were a Republican, I would have wanted him thrown in jail and drummed out of office in disgrace. Remember, Republicans actually have shame and resign. Mark Foley, Richard Nixon, the dude who killed the motorcyclist(I know. He didn't get jail time, but he should have.) Duke Cunningham. Dimocrats don't. Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Ted Kennedy, William Jefferson.

May I be ever-so-bold and copy your post?

Let us read it together!

"As far as I'm concerned, most of them are scumbags, regardless of party affiliation. But I have to agree that GWB is certainly the poster boy for worthless criminal politicians. To me, the fact that this chimp-faced, rancid piece of shit keeps getting reelected every four years says quite a bit about the Republican party."

That's known as a 'hatchet-job'; it has no merit, no fact, no supporting nor buttressing argument. But the mere fact that I posted it, makes it true.

See how that works?

Den:

Has Bush killed as many Iraqis as Saddam did?

Did you mean personally?

Okay, I'll play: Has Saddam killed as many Bush's as American's did? Rather illogical, don't you think?

What is this??? a 'contest' to see who can kill more?? You cannot be serious and claim that more Iraqi's have been killed by Saddam than have been killed by American arms!

some people just have no stomach for war. I get that but I dont really respect it. some have their "war thermostats" set pretty high.. I.e. "you have to attack us before we have the right to attack you". I get that too, I just dont agree. Bush viewed Iraq as a danger to the country's security. Iraq ignored UN demands, there was never a formal end to GW1, and the bush doctrine made things clear.

I for one would much rather bush have attacked them when he did. He hung himself on a cross though for sacking up and not waiting for them to attack us. I could give a shit if Saddam killed 10 or 10 million arabs. some dims are genuine. "I hate war and I dont give a shit why you did it bush, you did it and thats bad." some like Barak karlmarx obama are disingenuous " I'd attack our friend Paksistan but you made a mistake on Iraq" wtf? at least with kucinich you get a pussy that looks like a pussy and sounds like a pussy he is what he is.....oh yes, this was about the floater. screw the floater

Patrick:

May I give you an insight?

What Dem's FEAR more than all else is Ron Paul getting the nod.

Ron Paul, as the Republican nominee, strikes fear into the hearts of every Dem-contender, most notably, Obama.

You want the White House in '08?

Ron Paul.

Dan - Twisted logic. First, your BDS kicked in. You don't think the war is justified. I do. If it is, the killings are justified. I guess that Roosevelt killed all those folks in WWII and that was bad. Or Truman dropped the bomb and that was bad. Apples and oranges. Kennedy killed Mary Jo. The Dims in Taxachusetts keep reelecting him and he is an honored member of the Dimocrat Party. Bush on the other hand, was elected by the American people, not the Republicans. Congress gave him authorization to invade Iraq.

And yes, I can be serious and claim that Saddam killed more of his own people than Bush has because it is true. I hope you are not using the Lancet's numbers.

OMFG! Ron Paul? You can't be serious. There is absolutely no way he can win.

Den:

Twisted logic ........-perhaps.

I claim that I developed-such from TRYING to understand the Presidency of one George W. Bush.

It is not BDS to understand that he's spent close to HALF of his Presidency (OUR PRESIDENCY!!!) on vacation at his pig-farm in Crawford that he calls his "ranch". How do I know? I went there and got as close as I could. There ain't no cows nor cattle at the "Crawford Ranch".

It is not BDS to understand that, literally, hundreds of THOUSAND's of Iraqi citizens have met their demise through no more guilt than being on the receiving-end of Raytheon missiles.

Your argument seems to be that GWB is no worse of a killer than Saddam.

It is not BDS to think of such as being but ABSURD! Criminal! ANTI-Republican Values!

You seem to consistently fail to note that I am far more Conservative than you give me credit for.

I just don't think that killing any & all who don't agree is a Conservative value.

Dan:

You're a funny guy. I actually got a good laugh out of that. But it doesn't change the underlying fact: I don't really like any of them, be they Republican or Democrat. And Ted Kennedy is one of the worst. And to answer your initial question, no. It wouldn't change anything if Kennedy were a Republican. I agree completely with Denny on this one. Party affiliation really doesn't affect criminal acts. It wouldn't make him any less of a waste of space if he'd had an "R" next to his name instead of a "D".

You should know by now that I'm not overly fond of GW either. We almost certainly have different reasons for disliking him, but come on! Let's find some common ground here. Do you really think what party Ted belongs to excuses him for what he did? Putting our political differences aside for a moment, I know that at your core you're a decent person, so you couldn't possibly believe that. Talk to me.

Incidentally, do you really think GW looks like a chimp? I always thought he looked more like a gorilla. But that's just me.

Party affiliation really doesn't affect criminal acts.

How can I make this point more bold?

I thank you with gratitude for acknowledging that.

And yes, I can be serious and claim that Saddam killed more of his own people than Bush has because it is true.

That's not what I said nor asked.

I'm beginning to understand how "Faux News" does what it does. What I can't understand is "why"

"Faux News"

Ah yes, this is what liberals fall back on every time they are up against the ropes. "Faux News."

DanS-
Here I thought you would have a substantial point to make, but again you make a blanket statement without anything to back it up with. Is it "Faux News" because it's faux, or is it "Faux News" because Prosper tells you it is?

I would love to see one of your candidates appear on Fox News and debate someone from "faux news."

I'll even buy the popcorn...

Buckle up everyone, DanS is on a roll...

Big Dan, So apparently we (the good old USA) or Bush (personally), have killed more than 250K Iraqi's huh? What orifice of your aging body did you pull that number out of. Daily KOS, the Democratic talking points play book, or your own naturally softening mass of neurons. Come on dude. Get give us some TRUE numbers. Please don't forget you can't include everyone that has died in Iraq in the last 6 years as a "victim" of the war. It don't work that way. First, you need to look at total number reported dead. Then you need to subtract total number of them that died of natural causes, because of their ass backwards lifestyle of fucking farm animals and stoning women for not covering up etc. then give me the number that were "innocent" and killed by our troops (or GWB personally). DanS, as a former military person I'm sure you heard the term war is hell. Well guess what. We brought the hell to them. They have two reasons to "thank us" for it. 1) Allowing a moron like Saddam to run their country for as long as they did and not taking him to task for trying to take over another countries OIL wealth (funny how you libs like to accuse the current administration of that when that scumbag was a perfect example of one that actually went to another country just for that reason). and 2) for being the backwards ass primitive civilizations that they are being unable to appreciate the new found freedom they might have now that their "leader" had his neck stretched. No Dan, opinions like yours are dying an agonizing death as the world is learning you can't treat animals the way you treat intelligent, caring human beings. You have to kill the animals. And that's what we are currently doing. As a matter of fact, IMHO, we ain't killing enough of them. That's why Bush has dropped several notches in my opinion book because he has obviously lost the will to do what is necessary to see this war to the logical end which is to stop trying to be "nice" to them and tell them how it's going to be or they die. Anyway, good to see you spewing the typical liberal, pacifist, left wing talking points and numbers even though there's no factual basis for any of it. But then, you think with your heart and not with your brain, so I would expect no less.

DanS........

MED ALERT!!!!!! Your drugs are out of kilter again.........You have been noticed with your latest tirade against Bush! Cindy Sheehan is challenging Nancy Pelosi, she wants you to handle the hate/get Bush segment of the campaign & help with the campfire out side of Bushs Green Home in Texas.

Is it "Faux News" because it's faux, or is it "Faux News" because Prosper tells you it is?

hmmm, I think you overestimate my persuasion ability and you denigrate Dans' reasoning. But what do I know...

Ray, some Brits think you're bullies in Afgahnistan too.

Those perfidious bastards!

Ok Prosper, I realize you are French which by definition makes you a little slow with respect to comprehension, but let me repeat, in capital letters so my shouting is heard on the other side of the ocean "WE DON'T CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OF US OR WHAT WE DO". We did not become the worlds richest, most righteous country (why else would more people immigrate here than anywhere else in the world) by worrying about what others thought of us. We do what we believe is right which for the past 230 years has suited us quite well thank you. So if others don't like it or agree with it, I suggest they shut their pie holes because their opinions don't mean diddly in our lives. When the other countries citizens that don't agree with us can claim the "greatest country on earth" status, then maybe we'll have to capitulate to their way of thinking. Until then, go suck an egg.

Ray, I love the way you debate !
- argument
- counter-argument
- SHUT THE FUCK UP !!

(just for fun. So you have choice : the world richest most righteous area in the world is Europe (raw datas) or Australia and New Zealand (migration per inhabitant))

No Prosper, I never said Shut the Fuck up, once again a liberals way of deflecting the argument at hand. I said we (the majority of us in the good old USofA) don't care what others think of us if we believe something is the right thing (or not) to do. If others have a problem with that, too bad, so sad. There's a big difference between that being said and shut the Fuck up. I have a personal philosophy that arguing and disagreement is the single most important way to exchange ideas and share values (ask my wife :) ) , so I don't look at these exchanges as "bad". However, you referred to the entirety of Europe and then Australia and New Zealand as the most rightous and prosperous. I clicked on your link but it didn't take me anywhere, so I'm not sure what it was about. I would like to know statistically how many immigrants (legal) the US takes in compared to those other countries, and how many people emmigrate from those same countries. Also, when you talk about people "moving" into Europe. Do you really count the thousands and thousands of Mooselimbs as a positive example. I wouldn't. Anyway, the fact of the matter are more people around the globe look to the Unites States for protection, money and ways to model their societies than any other. That's a fact that plainly obivious to anyone that has traveled and reads history. That was my point. BTW, how's your Koran lessons going? Are you one with Allah yet?

Yeah Ray, I pray Allah and you eat Tacos... I almost forgot you personnaly supported mexican immigration, legal or not...

MMMMM Tacos good!
Beheadings and burning cars in the street............not so good.

At least we still have relatively good control over our minority immigrants. Can France say the same?

Ray I was able to click on Prosper's link. It does indicate that those other nations have more immigration per capita then we do.. don't know about you but thats a contest I am happy to lose.

No righteous meter though. I guess thats subjecitve but I like our chances.

to tie back in to the initial thread... I think we and prosper would both be happier if we deported the floater to france.

DanS - Would it surprise you that I hardly ever watch Fox News? I'm trying to remember the last time I watched it. At least Fox News is on our side unlike all the other networks. I get most of my news from the (gasp!) AJC and the internet.

Once again, this post was about useless Ted. You fell victime to your BDS and hijacked the thread over to the Iraq War. Sometimes I feel like the Godfather when Sonny mouthed off at the meeting with the Turk and the Godfather said that he loved his children and sometimes he overindulged them. Because you are a long time reader and commenter, I do have a tendency to indulge you.

I actually post stuff about the Iraq War and that is where I request you display your BDS.

Den:

I thank you for that indulgence. As you know, I have been here every single day since 2004.

What I admire most about you is that you are as good as your word.

Ever heard of a fellow name-entitled of Newt Gingrich?

He thinks the we are not serious about our phony terror war; he thinks the best thing the President can do is keep his mouth shut; he thinks Republican political doctrine is a failure; and our next president is going to be Hillary Clinton.

Bob Barr does too.

I'm in agreement with both that this 'war' is the single-most important issue in the WORLD today. The World does not get ahead when everyone is seeking reasons to kill those who don't agree with them.

You often post something, I read it and consider it, I read the comments and then you finish it off by saying something like "It's satire!" or "I was making a joke!"

These are the things that get my blood a'boiling.

I take you at face-value; I comment on what I think is your serious-point when it first starts out. I have no desire to hijack any thread. I merely respond, as honestly as I can, to the thoughts expressed by your many-readers.

Yes, I am occasionally drinking my beer when I respond, As I've stated, I come here two, three maybe four times a day to see how one of your post's developes.

My question does remain, though: why do you have to hate on someone in order to stimulate your readership?

Your travelogue belies the need for such.

Dan - Read the description of this blog up in the left sidebar: Pushing the boundaries of bad taste and political incorrectness. I started this blog as an outlet. I still use it for that reason. My readers expect it from me. Not everyone feels as you do. Some of my travelogue has been boooooring. I brought the laptop along to blog about my trip, but to also blog about what I would be writing if I were still in Dunwoody.

I think Hillary will be our next president as well. I think the country will be the worse for it. On the upside, it will probably mean a Republican congress in 2010.

You and I differ on the war. I think it is a war that needs to be fought and Iraq is one of the places where it needed to be fought. I think this is gonna be a long war just as the Cold War was. The Dims were on the wrong side of history in that war and they are on the wrong side of history in this one.

Den:

OK, fine. You are "pushing the boundaries" as an outlet.

Why, EXACTLY, is Iraq the place that 'your' new Cold War needs to be fought???

What, EXACTLY, did Iraq do to us?

When, EXACTLY, will victory be declared?

You seem to be saying that your 'outlet' requires no answers to these serious questions.

My numbers on the Iraqi dead come from my own daily reading of the daily-dead. Again, I ask: WHY are we killing so many of them? Are they ALL terrorist's?

Turn it around; if, somehow, Iraq invaded America, would we be doing any different than they are? Our, MY, military loses, on average, 20 Citizen-Soldiers every day. The Iraqi populace loses, on average, SIXTY per day.

For WHAT???

I say it's plain & simple know-nothing HATE!

If "pushing the boundaries" fosters such hate, is that a postive-good for the World?

Sure, it's your blog & and you can post as you see fit.

You have not answered, tho, why you see fit to appeal to the baser-instincts; why you see fit to agitate HATE.

You give me but a slogan for why you post; what you don't address is the underlying reasons of WHAT you post AS YOU DO.

I have no fight with you; I'll read as long as you post.

Personally, I think you are scared-to-death that somehow Muslims will get control of your checkbook.

There was a young senator from Mass,
who wanted a fine piece of ass.
He lucked up and found one,
fucked up and drowned one,
and now his future is in the past.

DC bathroom wall, 1980

DanS, I can't answer for Denny, but let me tell you the average thinking man's take on some of your concerns. Without getting into specifics, let's all agree that Saddam Hussein was in violation of umpteen resolutions that the pussies at the UN never intended on enforcing in the first place. Now let me remind you, we lost men in Iraq 1 destroying that piece of shits army in Kuwait. As a result, the term "to the victor goes the spoils" applies to us. Ok, now, hopefully I haven't lost you yet, GW looks at the absolute "nothing" that Clinton did to see that 1)our military men did not die in vein in Iraq 1 and 2) that Saddam be held accountable for the surrender treaty he agreed to. So here comes GWB who knows the entire thing has been Fubar'ed by everyone involved (Mainly the UN and the last inept administration that was Clinton's). So he comes in and says, publicly, to the world and Saddam "Comply or die". Everyone in the freakin world tries to make excuses for why he hasn't/shouldn't/couldn't comply, but no one wants to "fix" the problem. So being the "man of his word" that he is, Bush say's screw you UN you useless POS, as usualy we'll handle this the way it should have been done years ago. And, boom, we decimate him and his army. While there, we realize that not only did Iraq have significant roles in contributing to the aiding and abetting of Islamic terrorists, but they were supportive of the groups that did. This goes toward his 9/11 comments, your either for us or against us. Iraq was obviously against us. So to leave after we removed the last regime would be contradictory to his word that we will fight this war on terror until the end. He had three choices after "victory" was ours, 1) either leave which means we'd have no way of monitoring whether Iraq was going to no longer support our enemies 2) Bomb the entire Middle East into oblivion (an option I would prefer, but apparently I'm too mean) or 3) stay and make sure we "keep and eye" on the insurgents and their plans for what they are doing. He chose the latter. So there, everthing is explained in nice easy to understand terms (Christ, I feel like I'm having to explain this my seven year old daughter instead of adults). You might not agree with the way it was carried out-hell neither do I-there are certainly not enough dead on their side-but what was done had to be done. It might not be pretty or fun, but pacifists don't understand that. It had nothing to do with hatred, or oil, or money, or power, it had to do with security and making good on our (USA's) promises. Now, my 1/2 day at work is done, I'm going to go home, take some beers to the neighborhood pool and drink with some kids just back from the ME and let them tell stories of their experiences there the past couple of years. That always improves my day rather than having to hear a bunch of liberal whining pacifists cry about how unfair the world is.

vetfromhell-
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

There once was a guy named DanS-
Who has an extreme case of B.D.S-
I hope he sees clear-
He needs one more beer-
Everything is George Bush's fault...

Dan - What? I can't hate murdering anti-American commie bastards? I can't hate Moo-slimes who have vowed to kill us? How will you feel about them when they manage to nuke an American city? It's not if, but when.

The rest - Dan is bummed from the Viet Nam War, as are a lot of us, therefore, he is pretty much against all wars. This was the mindset of England and France after WWI and you saw what happened then.