Posted on 01/26/2004 11:25:39 AM PST by Pharmboy
He was a correspondent for GMA giving reports. What difference do the particulars make?
You said the Reagan kids didn't get doors opened for them due to who their father was. They most certainly did.
I'm not putting it down. Just pointing it out.
Aside from some forums that are dedicated to religion,FR is the only chat room I watch and to which I contribute.I have never seen anything,positive or negative on the religious forums about the family.
Every political discussion that even tangentially touches on the Kennedy's here evokes a spate of responses full of vitriol,scorn and sarcasm.
I have come to wonder if many posters are conservative or just anti anything that does not agree with their preconceived notions of what is/was or should be.
If someone could link me with material that supports the contention of most on this forum;that is,the Kennedy's are held up as national icons,heroes and are coddled and spared rough treatment by the media and the public,I would appreciate it.
Likewise anything on FR that gives them the benefit of the doubt.In case I'm not clear,I am talking about responses to articles,not the articles themselves,unless they are total puff pieces,which few are but if they are I am happy to look at those too. Thanks.
I never said $1500 was lavish (though it does seem roughly appropriate), but the concept of "fair and equitable support" should not be a function of a person's income, except perhaps if a person's income is too low. His income should be immaterial as long as he has "enough". The child support payment of someone making $1M should be identical to that of someone making $75k, not more and not less. It is a pernicious kind of socialism that asserts that a child effectively owns a percentage of their parent's assets, and is fraught with moral hazards. Yet I see many people advocating this as though it is "right" or a good idea.
At this point, it is no longer about the "needs" of a child, as a children have roughly the same needs on average regardless of the income of their parents. One can make a similar argument about alimony. It is blatantly obvious in many of these cases that the nominal stated reason for the specifics of the judgment are a load of crap; the details of the action speak far louder than the nominal pronouncements regarding the theoretical justifications.
Are you that poor, or hate your ex and kids that much?
Huh? I've never been in the position of ever needing to pay child support, alimony, or any other similar obligation. Financially I've been all over the map, though dirt poor for three-fourths of my life. This isn't personal for me at all; I'm merely pointing out that many of the presumptions about support obligations I see come up in these discussions are patently absurd and arguably immoral.
My point is that from my observations Freepers seem rabidly anti Kennedy,and I think it redirects the discussions and takes focus off of the facts in the articles and leads the discussion away from the issues posed by the article.
I do think comparing Clinton's brother and brothers-in-law is more related.
The fact that teddy wasn't run out of office is proof alone that he was "coddled." Trent Lott was run out of office on far less and so were other non-dems. Not only was Lott not coddled, he was unfairly villified. Afterall, we still have a former kkk member -- a demoncrat -- still in the Senate. My point is the Republicans and Conservatives are not given passes like the kennedys and all dems.
I do not mean this to be rude, but -- as far as your requesting proof -- sorry, a few posts cannot educate anyone in the same way a lifetime of even casual observation would.
By the way, did you watch the State of the Union? Did you admire and approve of how teddy acted? Quite becoming for a statesman, no? If ANY non-dem or non-kennedy had pulled that childish and rude behavior, well it would have been on every leading newscast....
Oh please. He made over a million dollars in shady penny stocks and fishy "consulting" jobs, and he can't provide $750 per month for each child who bears his name? Give me a f**king break.
Yes, there are injustices in the family-court world, like the guys who have to pay child support even when DNA proves it's not their kid, but this is not one of them.
-ccm
He doesn't *quite* fit the bill for the Insider Fraud list, at least not yet; but I'm sure he'll manage to get on somebody's list or other before long. LOL.
Wowzer! So weary, after only 27 days?
You either have an abnormally low pain threshold, or there's something about you that simply screams "attack me!"
I dunno, maybe it's your profile page...
Definitely the latter. A cyber "Kick Me Hard!" sign.
The Alamo Hotel has several memories for me. I was at Fire Station 1 at 5th and Trinity during the early eighties, when downtown Austin was very rough. Punches Lounge, where you went when you were too burned out to be a Bandito anymore, was still running. Anyway, the Alamo Hotel had become a by the week or by the hour place, quite a comedown from it's proud beginnings. The Willie Nelson-Merle Haggard music video, "Pancho and Lefty" filmed the sequence where they filmed the line "the poets tell how Pancho fell, Lefty's livin' in a cheap hotel, the desert's quiet and Cleveland's cold" at the Alamo Hotel. Nelson was out front, and Haggard was up in the room. We hosed down the streets to make it look like it was raining. We refused to hose down the cars, as they were antiques, so the producer did that himself (later it turned out the water swelled the doors on one of the woodies to the point they wouldn't close). Anyway, the hotel used to have a drug store and a liquor store inside, and the original signs were still up. If you see the video, it pans across the sign and shows the original text: "Alamo Hotel: Drugs, Liquor".
Woman + wearing high heels + wall = ?
All I can say is, didn't work for me.
Heh, heh; what is this an election year or somethin'???
The titillating details have made barely a splash in Texas...
Well Ms. Easton, sweetheart, you gotta go some to make a splash in Texas. The, er, material you AP writers produce is barely worth scrapin' off our boots....
FGS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.