Forums | MacLife

::searches for where Patrick Kennedy rants about how people driving on Ambien should be drawn and quartered::

::finds nothing::

Sorry res, but you fail again.

eh, too lazy. got a link?

Shocking!

resedit wrote:

If he was Rush Limbaugh - there would be incredible outrage.
Talk about how the rich white man gets off easy.
Etc.

Limbaugh was criticized for being incredibly hypocritical.  Why does this undeniable fact constantly elude you?

bratboy wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

Different situation completely and you know it.

Correct...one involves your arch-nemesis Kennedy, and the other doesn't.

This "explanation" of yours for why the capitol police didn't do anything (and if they actually did "nothing," we wouldn't even know about this)––because people would ask why different police in a different town didn't "do anything" (in fact, you're wrong on that account as well) 30 years ago?

That's ridiculous.

Actually no, the situations are completely different, and your ignorance or blind biased viewpoints show me that you can't see them.

And my explanation is not bunk, it has been proven time and time again, any one with the last name of Kennedy has always received special treatment. (or is related to the Kennedy Clan, around here)

Last edited by Cyberpawz (2006-05-06 1:18 pm)

Fried Chicken wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Fried Chicken wrote:

I believe Patrick Kennedy 100%.  Ambien and cough medicine will make you get up and do something for no apparent reason.
I can tell you this from experience, and that's the exact combination of drugs that I have witnessed.  Ambien should be better regulated.
It is a really addictive drug, and the manufacturers know this.  They will send you a 1 week free trial, and after that 1 week you will be hooked.

smurfing Ambien.

Might be a good idea not to drive after taking it then eh?

You don't get it, do you.  Patrick Kennedy said he needed to go to Congress to vote for something.  He wasn't in his conscious self while he did that.
You can't control it.

So if he ended up murdering someone on the highway it would be ok because he wasnt his "conscious self"?

Im sure that would make the family of the victim feel better.

bratboy wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

And my explanation is not bunk, it has been proven time and time again, any one with the last name of Kennedy has always received special treatment. (or is related to the Kennedy Clan, around here)

....so there's an unspoken rule amongst the police and prosecutors of every different jurisdiction throughout the country that states that Kennedy's cannot be charged with crimes?

You're wrong again, of course.

Per your link...

He is a member of the prominent Kennedy political family and is famous for a well-publicized 1991 rape trial in which he was acquitted..

Last time I checked, being acquitted means to free or clear from a charge or accusation...

Not to mention that it seems the police themselves said that it looked like a sex crime... yet he was able to get off scott free... bet ya if you or I did the same thing we would be in prison still... not to mention that is seriously looks like that some political muscle was thrown around in the background to keep things from going forward.

There are several things that looked like that happened, and yet no one was held accountable... wonder why? Hmm the Kennedy name anyone?

Also looks like William Kennedy Smith is in trouble again, looks like there is a case that has a pending date for him for ohh... guess what... another rape... boy what an idol to look up to..

Oh, and before you respond back, I remember that case... and I watched it... hate to tell ya, there was more than enough evidence to show that he did the crime... I really can't imagine why they didn't accuse him of the crime.

Last edited by Cyberpawz (2006-05-06 3:37 pm)

Ribtorus wrote:

Typical Kennedy-eastern-liberal-elite getting out of a serious DUI offense because of family connections...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/ … shdui1.gif

Back in 1976 

Last edited by Ra (2006-05-06 3:38 pm)

Ra wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

Typical Kennedy-eastern-liberal-elite getting out of a serious DUI offense because of family connections...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/ … shdui1.gif

Back in 1976 

Which part, the DOB or when it happened?

And it looks like that this isn't the first time "Pat Kennedy" was in an accident for this type of situation.
tiny link

And now his story has changed again... just on TV there seems to now to be a mystery woman who told him not to drive...boy the story changed quickly.

Last edited by Cyberpawz (2006-05-06 4:08 pm)

Cyberpawz wrote:

Per your link...

He is a member of the prominent Kennedy political family and is famous for a well-publicized 1991 rape trial in which he was acquitted..

Last time I checked, being acquitted means to free or clear from a charge or accusation...

Not to mention that it seems the police themselves said that it looked like a sex crime... yet he was able to get off scott free... bet ya if you or I did the same thing we would be in prison still... not to mention that is seriously looks like that some political muscle was thrown around in the background to keep things from going forward.

There are several things that looked like that happened, and yet no one was held accountable... wonder why? Hmm the Kennedy name anyone?

Also looks like William Kennedy Smith is in trouble again, looks like there is a case that has a pending date for him for ohh... guess what... another rape... boy what an idol to look up to..

Oh, and before you respond back, I remember that case... and I watched it... hate to tell ya, there was more than enough evidence to show that he did the crime... I really can't imagine why they didn't accuse him of the crime.

Well, first you're trying to say the police do nothing, then claim that the police charged him with rape but that he was acquitted - was that the police again? Are they the ones who acquit suspects now?

How many more holes are you going to poke into your own "logic" (and I use the term under duress)?

Ra wrote:

Actually, Limbaugh had to spend millions to defend himself. If if would have had no money, he would have been toast. The prosecutor even too his medical records, but even so they could not find him guilty.

Ummm....prosecutors bring charges and prosecute cases.  They don't determine guilt.

The LCLU wanted to defend him on grounds relating to the right for privacy (medical records), but I believe that he never accepted the offer, since his defender is perhaps one of the most successful lawyers in the US. The prosecutor could not prove that he was "shopping" for doctors to get pain killer, and so he only got a slap on the hand for admitting a dependency on drugs.

The ACLU did file a brief on his behalf (specifically concerning the records).  He was charged with "doctor shopping" (not "admitting a dependency on drugs," whatever that means) and prosecution of the charge was suspended pending his completion of a treatment program and the payment of about $30,000 in fines.

Criminal trials are the exception in this country, not the rule.  Prosecutors nearly always seek plea agreements.  His deal might have been somewhat dependent on the skill of his legal representation, but it would be a mistake to assume that they simply didn't have any evidence against him (he was quite clearly obtaining these drugs illegally) because they cut a deal.