Heard any new Chappaquiddick jokes?

I actually think it is the former - he is too much of a wuss (and quite frankly, too sensible) to act like this in his purported real life in Manhattan - it would be too personally embarrassing to him and his family. Social occasions here are probably awful for him, he can't discuss politics (aside from maybe toss a single caustic comment every now and then) without being ashamed and coming off as rude and terrible. So he sits and grins and bears it, silently seething with jealousy and anger towards his friends and neighbors and what he feels is their naivete, not the least bit envious of their sizable apartments which he cannot afford to purchase. Then he comes over to the basketball BBS, after some really intense right wing blog reading, and tries to rile up strangers when he can't do it at home. It is very therapeutic for him.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure I nailed it. Did you show your wife this thread?

 

No, indeed, it was an honest question. I strongly disagreed with Jesse Helms, and when he passed away I looked in on the RIP thread, thought the better of it, and I just didn't post anything. I didn't make a semi-smartass remark either. I just closed the thread and moved on.

I also disagreed with many, but not all, of the hallmarks of Ronald Reagan's legacy. When he died, I am pretty sure that I didn't start threads just to try and irritate Reagan supporters.

That you do this sort of thing, and just seem so flippant about it, well, it just makes you look pretty pathetic. Other Conservatives who may have disagreed with Ted Kennedy and what he stood for have even called you out on it.

 

What's startling to me is the judgment of posters on this BBS. The sole purpose of Basso isn't to promote discussion, it's to humor himself behind a narrow minded agenda. Who cares what he's like in real life, he's definitely not someone you can take something away from (intellectually). So when I see posters like Pgabriel giving him serious responses in all of his threads, these are the people I blame for his sustained confidence in creating nonsensical threads.

It's like he's the deadly blue light who puts out the bait, and *fill in the blank* is the mosquito that keeps coming back to get fried over and over again. And the mosquitoes get some sick pleasure out of all of this, like they can pat each other on the back for providing the "other" side of the debate when the reality is they're talking to a brick wall just so they can hear themselves talk. Pathetic.

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

Why is it a prerequisite to be narrow minded to love politics?

 

I saw this yesterday and wondered if people were going to take the bait.

You guys enjoy replying to basso.

Admit your guilty pleasure and the D&D won't be half as angry.

 

I've enjoyed discoursing with Refman the past few days. Even where we disagree, he does debate in an intellectually honest manner. So, because clearly our replying to basso in order to point out how replying to him is a waste of time (and I am of course guilty as charged: yes, telling him to [deleted] was indeed momentarily, though only momentarily, cathartic) is a wasted strategy, in an effort to sequester the Chappaquiddick derail of the Kennedy thread here:

I have an extended family member (maybe basso and I are related?) who on Thanksgivings past would repeatedly bring up Kopechne/Chappaquiddick, as a way to complain about Kennedy. (I'm not sure what always brought on these diatribes, but past a certain age I started egging him on.) What I could never understand is that, in his and seemingly many's quests here to honor the woman's memory, one completely forgets that she worked in the RFK war room; she was, if anything, one of the true believers. Had she lived, it is highly unlikely she would agree, on politics or policy, with any of the people who regularly brought up her name, in an effort to discredit Ted Kennedy's policy proposals, policies that Kopechne at one point had volunteered to help his brother pass.

In fairness, she did leave her personal belongings at the house, and by the time they left the party the last ferry was probably gone for the night. At the inquest, a police officer reported seeing a car similar to Kennedy's on a back road, suspiciously parked, which took off when he approached.

So, that explanation likely was meant to either burnish Kennedy's standing, or Kopechne's memory, or both (Kennedy's wife was bedridden at the time, and in politics even the appearance of marital impropriety could have proven career-ending). Doesn't mean they were necessarily fooling around, but they were more likely heading for a midnight beach walk than for the ferry home.

Most likely, you're right; he'd admitted to having a few drinks earlier in the night, though whether he was legally over the limit / impaired cannot be known.

Or, he was otherwise distracted by driving away from the prying eyes of the police officer. Or, he was in conversation (a la cellphone accidents) with Kopechne. Or, Kopechne got frisky. Or, he simply didn't notice in the dark that the bridge angled oddly, and didn't have siderails to stop him.

Or, who knows, maybe he was thinking about the upcoming presidential election, his odds of possibly running/winning, and, boom, had a sudden flashback of his brothers' (plural) heads exploding by assassins' (plural) bullets.

Nothing that momentous has ever happened to one of my relatives, but I kinda think that sorta thing might stick with you. (I have Zapruder flashbacks every once in a while, and I am not JFK's brother.)

But yeah, improvable as it may be, T. Kennedy could have been drunk at the time.

He was a strong swimmer. Either she was knocked unconscious, or she wasn't. He reportedly was concussed by the accident, and had a hard time remembering afterward. Could be a lie to cover his tracks, and explain his behavior afterward, or not.

(I've had a concussion before: my memory for the event is extremely spotty, as if trying to remember a blackout/brownout after a bender, and my mind wasn't right for weeks. Troy Aikman used to talk as an announcer about the concussions he'd received: in one game, he was brutally hit, and after he got up, he started searching the stadium turf for his contacts, which he'd thought had been knocked out by the collision. He went on searching for a few minutes, then remembered, oh yeah, he'd had LASIK surgery a few years earlier, and no longer wore contacts. Then he went right back to searching the ground for the contacts he'd lost.)

 

aghast, if I could give you a hundred reps right now, I would still owe you a few. Respectful, intelligent and open to honest debate (your interaction with Refman comes to mind recently)...we could use a alot more like you in here.

Basso

As much as I would love to claim credit for intentionally saying that....it was a typo on my part...musta hit ctrl instead of shift...but you know what....I aint changin it.

If the shoe fits....yadda yadda yadda.

You toe the line of banishment day after day and then have the gall to act all butthurt when I give you hell?

When Im in the mood for it, Im gonna give you a hard time till you stop with the childish trolling you persist in doing every damn day in here....dont like it? Tough

 

A really excellent post, aghast, and certainly one of the best I've ever read regarding that night at Chappaquiddick.

Regarding Refman, I also enjoy reading his takes, as well as his willingness to engage in some "back and forth" on the issues. What strikes me the last couple of days is how he's been a bit "ganged up on" regarding Ted Kennedy's death and Afghanistan. To be fair, there aren't very many reasonable conservatives here, meaning conservatives that aren't a running joke, beside Refman, Mr. Clutch, and a few others. My fellow liberals might consider that dearth of good conservative posters in D&D before venting their passions in Refman's direction (and Mr. Clutch's, etc.). It'd be nice to add to the actual conservatives here, not drive them away, leaving only those who find this forum an avenue for their attempt at "wit."

Just a thought.

(and the "reasonable conservatives" I mentioned might prefer "moderate conservative!" )

 

^^

I lurked here for a long time; I like reading the earnest back-and-forth. (I registered when registrations became required to read the board, around Yao's arrival I think.) My bias is of course biased, but it seems like the ideological divide wasn't always this pronounced. Around the time from 9/11 to a year or so after the the Iraq War invasion, the split seemed about 70/30, but tilted the other way, conservatives to liberals. And it slowly shifted from there, to where it is now, with only a few reasonable conservatives around. (They don't necessarily have to be political moderates, though the ones on this board mostly are. I enjoy reading libertarians who are great at orchestrating their ideological arguments; I still think they're usually bat--- crazy, but it makes for good discussion.)

I'm pretty sure it's been said before, but it's kinda natural that there would be more vocal conservatives then, with patriotic fervor at its peak, and more vocal liberals now, with the pretty much undeniable collapse of the last administration. The mix that's here now won't last, as soon as Obama starts (or keeps) screwing up. Hopefully there will be less "Chappaquiddick" or "magic negro" jokesters, and more worthy critics. (At the president's current rate, I'll likely turn into one.)

Thanks R2K; I'll be sure to repay all that goodwill with my eventual vitriolic flame-out, in which I blame the mods and site owner for all the world's problems, and dare you, just dare you, to ban me: I don't drunk post, but I do often (as in now) insomnia post, which is worse, 'cause my sentences get constructed more and more elaborately (with no meaning/value added), and my regular self-filter goes all haywire.

[I've already backspaced over a snide "importance of language/meaning" flip-out out on FFB for misusing "incendiary" when he means "minority" or "controversial," "prurient" when he was aiming for "greedy" (or, who knows: "penurious," "parsimonious"), "disseminate" when he means "discourse." Then I look above, and realize in shortening "impossible to prove" in a run-on sentence, I end up inventing a new meaning for "improvable." D'oh, "unprovable." Glass houses.]

 

edit:

I see I got blamed for basso's threads. I don't mind engaging basso because he I think he represents the opinion of a not so small minority

 

I love you man, but you're dead wrong.

Do not give legitimacy to lunatics by acknowledging them.

 

I know people who'll use humor to cope with personal demons. So if this is true (and I'm not sure it is, given the source's reputation), it doesn't mean he's not feeling an appropriate level of guilt/remorse for what happened 40 years ago. I certainly wouldn't pass judgment based on such hearsay either.

As for basso's comment that Kennedy accomplished nothing notable as a legislator, well that's hard to take very seriously. But then I don't think it was basso's intention to be taken seriously.

 

To everyone in this thread:

 

^Hilarious.

Heard any new Downs baby jokes? "LOL."

 

Where were they?

Obviously not in the same place where you were: sitting on their fat keyboard warrior ass revolutionizing the world through blog copy pastes on A BASKETBALL INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD.