Hero of the left, Ted Kennedy, a lover of brothels

[Garry Walker]

So just being a filthy murderer was not enough, he couldnt get enough of brothels. What a surprise that this man had no morals. :roftlmao:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8353064/Ted-Kennedy-rented-entire-brothel-in-Chile.html


The FBI's file on Mr Kennedy states that he "made arrangements" to hire a bordello in Santiago, Chile, while visiting the region in 1961 - toward the end of his brother John's first year as US president.

Mr Kennedy, then a 29-year-old district attorney in Massachussets, also "invited one of the [US] Embassy chauffeurs to participate in the night's activities", according to a memo sent to Washington. At the time, he had been married to his first wife, Joan, for three years.

[ArrowsFA1]

...the fact that the FBI collected embarrassing details about Kennedy doesn’t mean he was the uniquely roguish figure imagined by his foes on the right. And we shouldn't assume that the allegations in the files are true.

That the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover collected information on one of the Kennedy clan should not be surprising to anyone. It was standard operating procedure for Hoover, who directed the agency from 1924 until his death in 1972, to keep tabs on the activities of prominent politicians. This information could prove useful to Hoover for a variety of reasons: to protect his position as FBI director; to leverage influence for FBI appropriations; or simply to satisfy Hoover’s own voyeuristic interest in the peccadilloes of the Washington elite.

What should we make of this?
Not much, beyond that it tells us far more about Hoover and the FBI than Kennedy.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/03/hoovers_fbi.html

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hoover was slime...and apparently so was Teddy Kennedy. Of course, you can be without morals or shame when you are the great defender of all things "progressive". That is the beauty of being a Democrat. They expect their leaders to have shady relations with the opposite sex!

[Starter]

Hoover was slime...and apparently so was Teddy Kennedy. Of course, you can be without morals or shame when you are the great defender of all things "progressive". That is the beauty of being a Democrat. They expect their leaders to have shady relations with the opposite sex!
I guess that means that Barney Frank isn't a progressive democrat. ;)

[Garry Walker]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/03/hoovers_fbi.html

The story was about Kennedy, not Hoover. But I guess thats the way lefties operate. Just ignore all the truths about their heroes.

[Garry Walker]

Hoover was slime...and apparently so was Teddy Kennedy. Of course, you can be without morals or shame when you are the great defender of all things "progressive". That is the beauty of being a Democrat. They expect their leaders to have shady relations with the opposite sex!

Apparently? Teddy was far worse than slime, thankfully by now he is with the worms.

[Roamy]

So just being a filthy murderer was not enough, he couldnt get enough of brothels. What a surprise that this man had no morals. :roftlmao:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8353064/Ted-Kennedy-rented-entire-brothel-in-Chile.html

Hey lighten up Garry - Ted is 365 days sober today!!

I posed a question to a moderator about what constitutes getting banned since I saw two people banned last week. A oerson named bob and another starting with the ketter g.

If what I see here on this thread is not worthy of a ban then I need to be educated.

It may not be any of my business , but as a member of this forum I believe I have a right to express an opinion. For one, it seems that you are selective in naming those that are morally cotupt based upon your political point of view but conveniently omit those from the Republican ranks that are as bad if not worse.

Anyone , no matter what their opinion should be banned for openly calling somone in an open forum a murderer when they were never charged.

I doubt if libel and slander would go over well with the people who run this place would like to have to answer a civil claim with costs. JMHO.

[Roamy]

Iona you need to go over the the "Forum for Jesus Christ" You will do very well there! This one is probably a bit "Raw" for you !

[ArrowsFA1]

The story was about Kennedy, not Hoover. But I guess thats the way lefties operate. Just ignore all the truths about their heroes.
"Lefties" :laugh: Recently things have to be put in those kind of devisive terms don't they.

Criticise Edward Kennedy all you like, that's fine, but don't ignore where the stories come from, who was compiling them, and why. It helps to understand the fuller picture.

[Bob Riebe]

"Lefties" :laugh: Recently things have to be put in those kind of devisive terms don't they.

Criticise Edward Kennedy all you like, that's fine, but don't ignore where the stories come from, who was compiling them, and why. It helps to understand the fuller picture.

What do where the stories come from have to do with Kennedy'd actions.

I agree the term lefties is self-defeating, it is as asinine as right-wing branding.

[ArrowsFA1]

What do where the stories come from have to do with Kennedy'd actions.
Two reasons. Firstly because Hoover's modus operandi is well known and secondly because, as the article I linked to earlier said, "we shouldn't assume that the allegations in the files are true".

They might be of course, and if they were true they'd be consistent with certain events in Kennedy's life which are established fact, but where Hoover and the Kennedys are concerned I'd be wary.

[Garry Walker]

If what I see here on this thread is not worthy of a ban then I need to be educated.
.
Please, go back to school then. I am not stopping you.

[Garry Walker]

"Lefties" :laugh: Recently things have to be put in those kind of devisive terms don't they.

Criticise Edward Kennedy all you like, that's fine, but don't ignore where the stories come from, who was compiling them, and why. It helps to understand the fuller picture.

So you are dismissing the whole report as crap, right?
Would you be so dismissive of a similar report about...lets say Berlusconi?

[Bob Riebe]

I posed a question to a moderator about what constitutes getting banned since I saw two people banned last week. A oerson named bob and another starting with the ketter g.

If what I see here on this thread is not worthy of a ban then I need to be educated.

It may not be any of my business , but as a member of this forum I believe I have a right to express an opinion. For one, it seems that you are selective in naming those that are morally cotupt based upon your political point of view but conveniently omit those from the Republican ranks that are as bad if not worse.

Anyone , no matter what their opinion should be banned for openly calling somone in an open forum a murderer when they were never charged.

I doubt if libel and slander would go over well with the people who run this place would like to have to answer a civil claim with costs. JMHO.Manslaughter would have been a better term for some one who gets drunk, crashes and leaves the woman he was with to drown.

Kennedy's have been held up as some sort of Democratic icon, when in fact from the father down they are cheats and whores, but when you are raised by a father like that it is hard to blame the off-spring entirely.
Bob