Bad political siblings

[Michchamp]

I guess this can be an ongoing thread. I posted that one on Hillary Rodham Clinton's opportunist brothers constantly getting in hot water for one political scheme or another... bribery, taking cash to lobby for pardons, etc.

Sam Brownback's brother Jim puts all the rest to shame though. Neal Bush, Roger Clinton, Billy Carter... none of them can hold a candle to this guy. He's also easily the most redneck of all political siblings: cattle rustling, defaulting on loans, drinkin' and drivin', harassing neighbors, feudin' with other neighbors, drinkin' and shootin' at neighbors, drinkin' and drivin' and shootin' at neighbors, failing to pay child support, etc. The local sheriffs are on a first name basis with him.

 

[byco42]

Driving a woman off a bridge and not reporting the incident to authorities is pretty much the bar we are setting here in regards to the miscreant acts of a famous president's brother.

 

[Michchamp]

Driving a woman off a bridge and not reporting the incident to authorities is pretty much the bar we are setting here in regards to the miscreant acts of a famous president's brother.

eh... Teddy was a US Senator himself, not really the same category.

And given Jim Brownback's drunken & reckless use of firearms towards the neighbors he's feuding with... it may be only a matter of time before he has a body count to match Ted's.

 

[byco42]

eh... Teddy was a US Senator himself, not really the same category.

Agreed. Accountability is not a requisite quality for a Senator, apparently.

 

[turok]

Agreed. Accountability is not a requisite quality for a Senator, apparently.

Edward apparently was a practicing Roman Catholic, and may have confessed his sin(s) to a priest prior to his death. He also expressed his lingering remorse for his part in her perishing @ a young age in his memoirs. But taking into consideration that he REALLY was in fact, one of those "godless" liberals and an elected Democratic heathen, his being waay too lightly punished for being an unrepentant sinner and un-recovered IRISH-notorious alcoholic...who VERY likely was too drunk and disoriented to "rescue" Mary Jo Kopechne from a watery death.

Kennedy should have been more seriously charged with, at the very least, committing negligent manslaughter, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 10+ years imprisonment...instead of merely leaving the scene of an injury accident and receiving a politically-privileged suspended sentence of only two months. Kopechne allegedly left her purse and house-keys behind @ the party. and it can then be extrapolated that Teddy had actually kidnapped, raped, and shrewdly murdered her by steering his car off of a bridge and into a pond, after he had jumped out of it just in the nick of time.

b/c accountability is strictly reserved for Democrats and their kinfolk, certainly not for example, the signers of the PNAC, George W. Bush and his Stepford wife Laura, who ALSO was involved in a "mysterious" car accident resulting in the death of her HS classmate, VP Cheney, and their neocon administration who lied repeatedly prior to, and during the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents, not including 5K+ US troops.

 

[Michchamp]

FWIW, there are plenty of other Kennedy family members who fit the "bad political sibling" category.

 

[byco42]

Edward apparently was a practicing Roman Catholic, and may have confessed his sin(s) to a priest prior to his death. He also expressed his lingering remorse for his part in her perishing @ a young age in his memoirs. But taking into consideration that he REALLY was in fact, one of those "godless" liberals and an elected Democratic heathen, his being waay too lightly punished for being an unrepentant sinner and un-recovered IRISH-notorious alcoholic...who VERY likely was too drunk and disoriented to "rescue" Mary Jo Kopechne from a watery death.

Ted, by his own accounts, was a Catholic who was selective in his believing what aligned with his own personal and political beliefs. The rest of your description of him and your speculation I cannot verify.

Kennedy should have been more seriously charged with, at the very least, committing negligent manslaughter, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 10+ years imprisonment...instead of merely leaving the scene of an injury accident and receiving a politically-privileged suspended sentence of only two months.

I guess that it's who you know.

Kopechne allegedly left her purse and house-keys behind @ the party. and it can then be extrapolated that Teddy had actually kidnapped, raped, and shrewdly murdered her by steering his car off of a bridge and into a pond, after he had jumped out of it just in the nick of time.

I doubt this expressly.

b/c accountability is strictly reserved for Democrats and their kinfolk, certainly not for example, the signers of the PNAC, George W. Bush and his Stepford wife Laura, who ALSO was involved in a "mysterious" car accident resulting in the death of her HS classmate, VP Cheney, and their neocon administration who lied repeatedly prior to, and during the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents, not including 5K+ US troops.

This is off topic. But the present administration has its own double-tongued rhetoric to explain. It's the nature of American politics and its corruptible influence on itself.

 

[turok]

Ted, by his own accounts, was a Catholic who was selective in his believing what aligned with his own personal and political beliefs. The rest of your description of him and your speculation I cannot verify.

Isn't that very similar to why and how many, if not most of the other Christian faiths came into being? Because there were certain precepts of the RCC that they disagreed with or opposed? Doesn't that make them heretics? How can practicing RCs, in good conscience, vote for candidates who profess to belong to any of these faux-faiths, much less for Mitt Romney who is a member of the LDS, that approves of the practice of polygamy, which is nearly as sinful as teh ghey marriage? It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve-Joan-Susan-Karen-Wendy!! (although the meaner and angrier OT God appeared to be okay, more or less, with men having multiple wives, mistresses, and concubines).

Rick Santorum should be the sole choice for practicing RCs to vote for. If he fails in his bid for the RNC's nomination, maybe they should still make him their write-in POTUS vote. (sticking to the true faith, yanno?)

This is off topic. But the present administration has its own double-tongued rhetoric to explain. It's the nature of American politics and its corruptible influence on itself.

No it isn't off-topic.

Democrats have never publicly laid claim to solely possessing the moral and spiritual high-road, unlike Republicans and especially their so-called Tea Party. You posted that the political "bar" was set @ Ted Kennedy's "accident" in 1969. So any misdeeds performed by this or any other Democratic administration is quite understandable, since they are spiritually "weak and immoral".

 

[Gulo Blue]

Rick Santorum should be the sole choice for practicing RCs to vote for. If he fails in his bid for the RNC's nomination, maybe they should still make him their write-in POTUS vote. (sticking to the true faith, yanno?)

How do you reconcile this line of thinking with the polls? You have an opinion on what another group of people should think, but the polls show overwhelmingly that they don't.

 

[byco42]

Isn't that very similar to why and how many, if not most of the other Christian faiths came into being? Because there were certain precepts of the RCC that they disagreed with or opposed? Doesn't that make them heretics? How can practicing RCs, in good conscience, vote for candidates who profess to belong to any of these faux-faiths, much less for Mitt Romney who is a member of the LDS, that approves of the practice of polygamy, which is nearly as sinful as teh ghey marriage? It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve-Joan-Susan-Karen-Wendy!! (although the meaner and angrier OT God appeared to be okay, more or less, with men having multiple wives, mistresses, and concubines).

Rick Santorum should be the sole choice for practicing RCs to vote for. If he fails in his bid for the RNC's nomination, maybe they should still make him their write-in POTUS vote. (sticking to the true faith, yanno?)

Abortion is the deal breaker for me. It's not a sin for vote for a candidate who is not Catholic. Remember what Jesus said to Pilate. Ultimately, that's the core of the issue to me.

No it isn't off-topic.

Democrats have never publicly laid claim to solely possessing the moral and spiritual high-road, unlike Republicans and especially their so-called Tea Party. You posted that the political "bar" was set @ Ted Kennedy's "accident" in 1969. So any misdeeds performed by this or any other Democratic administration is quite understandable, since they are spiritually "weak and immoral".

I make no distinction between the vast majority of federal- and even state-elected politicians in regards to their basic political premises, which, to me, are virtually indistinguishable, and not at all connected to the Constitution. Many Democrats and Republicans claim supremacy using their own standards. I do not make the mistake of thinking the differences are all that crucial.

 

[turok]

How do you reconcile this line of thinking with the polls? You have an opinion on what another group of people should think, but the polls show overwhelmingly that they don't.

Should is suggesting.

Must is expecting.

My post was predicated on practicing RCs sticking to those who most closely represent and actually will practice what they "speech".

 

[Gulo Blue]

Should is suggesting.

Must is expecting.

My post was predicated on practicing RCs sticking to those who most closely represent and actually will practice what they "speech".

"Should" can mean either. (Michigan's offense should look better this year.)

But I took your meaning the way you intended it. How do you make sense of suggesting that a group of people do something that you are, in reality, against? Seems like you just want to be at odds with Catholics. Catholics don't pick Santorum any more than you do. Why not see that as a point of agreement?

 

[turok]

"Should" can mean either. (Michigan's offense should look better this year.)

But I took your meaning the way you intended it. How do you make sense of suggesting that a group of people do something that you are, in reality, against? Seems like you just want to be at odds with Catholics. Catholics don't pick Santorum any more than you do. Why not see that as a point of agreement?

I intentionally have long used possibility and probability disclaimers in my posts, and moreso than most people do online.

i find it interesting that although I am a long-lapsed former RC, I have defended a dead RC Senator who, despite his political patrician privileges, inherited wealth, and still had his vices & flaws like most of us do, but he might well have been a better Catholic than some, if not many who have disparaged him. I have not walked a mile in his shoes, but I do know something about the horrific battle for sustained sobriety that a lifelong alcoholic faces with that disease, each and every day, up close and personal.

How anyone can claim to be a true Christian, and yet base their forgiveness quotient upon their own vs others' faith and/or their personal political ideology is beyond me, but w/e.

I have also defended a staunch Christan and Republican who has become a member of the LBGT community, and has used her celeb status to publicly flaunt her decision, much to the chagrin, anger, and derision of her fellow Christian conservatives.


I am adamantly in favor of the total separation of church and state, which obviously Santorum, along with likely the vast majority of Tea Party Republicans and their teabagger supporters are actively attempting to subvert and circumvent. There are also some "blue dog" Democrats who are not opposing this, but they are a very small minority.

I want churches to be much more closely monitored for their attempts to influence the outcome of elections through their congregations.
As well as those who have members who hold office, potentially creating and executing legislation that is favorable to them and/or is or will be detrimental to others who do not share their beliefs. If found to be doing so, then they would lose their tax-exempt status. This for a period of time, based upon the nature, amount, and degree/seriousness of the violation(s).

I might be somewhat off a bit here, but it appears that of those who at least somewhat frequently post on off-topic threads, there are ~6 who are probably liberals, and of those: 2 who claim to be atheists, 2 who may be Christians or agnostics, 1 who is agnostic. ~6 who are likely conservatives, and of those: 4 who probably are Catholic, and 2 who may be Christian. There is also 1 who might be Libertarian and unsure if he has a faith or not. Pretty balanced, but very tiny.

The US was not founded as a Christian nation, and it still is not and "should" never become a Christian nation. Any candidate who suggests or claims otherwise will not get my vote, and "should" not get anyone elses, for that matter.

 

[Rebbiv]

Hypocrisy by an individual doesn't make the religion less viable. And a church is a group of individuals practicing a given religion in unison. The terms should not be used interchangeably.

I grew up catholic, was later a baptist, was an agnostic for a long time and even spent time in the Mormon church. In a lot of cases, given choice, people of faith subscribe to a religion based on their sense of belonging and understanding of that religion's precepts.

Although I am no longer a catholic, does not mean the religion is wrong. It just isn't right for me. I last went to mass in June, while visiting my Mom and a the mass was said in memory of my father. I did not go to mass for me, but for my mother.

What was the reasons Ted went to mass? We can only guess. Obviously, he did not agree with all the precepts of the religion, which then makes him a hypocrite.

Then there are the Chreasters, those Christians who only show up to religious services on Christmas and Easter.

And the United States Constitution was based largely on Judeo-Christian beliefs, because the framers were all men of faith and had religious underpinnings to the Constitution, even if the word "God" does not appear.

Does the notion that certain religious precepts being a foundation of how our government was created cause it to be less viable some 239 years later? No.

The concern is the interruption by men as to what the framers wanted and it doesn't fit with their agenda. So we must "separate church and state", so that we can suggest the framers didn't mean something. We don't want religion neutral, we want religion void.

States were supposed to be more autonomous than they are and the federal government wasn't supposed to be encompassing as it is now. As amendments were added and judicial decision made, we have changed a lot of what the framers desired for this nation. You cannot fix spilled milk. So now that it is spilled, let's push for more milk spilling. But let's not say we disagree with the constitution, because then we won't ever get it changed. The real hidden agenda.

 

[byco42]

People are broken, no matter their faith or absence of it. It is my hope that Ted is in purgatory. That's all I want of myself and I deserve worse were it not for the infinite mercy of God, who can and does forgive all sins. Calling someone out, dead or alive, for a wrongful act is not judgement. Determining their fate as a result of it is. If you are going to "monitor" churches for "influencing" the outcome of elections through their congregations and remove their tax-exempt status for doing so, then those restrictions better be extended to all non-profits who do likewise. Let's just ban legislation that benefits some and not others, because most of it does.

There is already "separation of church and state." There is no "Church of the United States." And to expect of anyone to suspend their fundamental principles--whatever they are--when it comes to making decisions of any kind is nullifying them. The systematic removal of religious objects and the proscription of prayer is not an extension of the ratifiers' intentions, but rather a recent rejection of the God they firmly believed guided their actions and intent.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I intentionally...

Good thoughtful explanatory post, but I'm not sure why or how it responds to my question.

 

[Michchamp]

...
And the United States Constitution was based largely on Judeo-Christian beliefs, because the framers were all men of faith and had religious underpinnings to the Constitution, even if the word "God" does not appear.

...

not really.

not at all actually.

The principles in it that limited government power are traceable back to the Magna Carta, and philosopher John Locke's writings underpin a lot of the rest.

there's nothing about Judeo-Christian belief in the document.

and the idea that states have less power than they were supposed to is wrong, unless you're confusing the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution.

...

There is already "separation of church and state." There is no "Church of the United States." And to expect of anyone to suspend their fundamental principles--whatever they are--when it comes to making decisions of any kind is nullifying them. The systematic removal of religious objects and the proscription of prayer is not an extension of the ratifiers' intentions, but rather a recent rejection of the God they firmly believed guided their actions and intent.

Why is it so hard to see the BRIGHT LINE between public and private works and property when it comes to religious objects, prayer in school, etc.? Keep them off public property, and out of public schools. There are good reasons for this that people - in their "my religion is right, and I surround myself with only like-minded people - fail to see until they actually find themselves in the minority on some issue.

 

[byco42]

Why is it so hard to see the BRIGHT LINE between public and private works and property when it comes to religious objects, prayer in school, etc.? Keep them off public property, and out of public schools. There are good reasons for this that people - in their "my religion is right, and I surround myself with only like-minded people - fail to see until they actually find themselves in the minority on some issue.

It's not a BRIGHT LINE. It's an eraser. And the void is being filled by the "religion" of humanism and secularism. It's like-minded people asserting their particular beliefs of their particular faction. It's a defacto result of suppressing those of another. The display of the 10 commandments in a court house does not nullify other beliefs, but the removal of them does.

 

[biggunsbob]

We left our church many years ago when the preacher from her pulpit would non-stop berating any democrat and or liberal she could get her hands on. I find all religions in this world filled with just to much hypocrisy for my taste. I guess I am going to hell or purgatory..

 

[byco42]

We left our church many years ago when the preacher from her pulpit would non-stop berating any democrat and or liberal she could get her hands on. I find all religions in this world filled with just to much hypocrisy for my taste. I guess I am going to hell or purgatory..

If you do believe in Hell and Purgatory, I hope you are actually not this cavalier about your ultimate destination.