Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Depends, did either of them use their power and position to avoid responsibility and punishment for the death of a young woman?
|
Been over this. Kennedy didn't avoid anything during the hearings for the incident. He confessed to what he'd done. You do like to blow that over don't you?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by August
Do either of them owe that power and position to a bootlegging, admirer of Nazis?
|
You mean opposing Prohibition's unconstitutional ban on alcohol through underground trade? No. And I also pointed out that it was
Prescott Bush, not Joseph Kennedy, who dealt with traded with Fritz Thyssen's company in the Rhineland a year and a half after the United States had been at war with Germany. Joseph simply agreed with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain that negotiation and compromise was necessary with Nazi-Germany if war was to be avoided; he wasn't in it for business unlike Prescott. Furthermore, he didn't actually do any bootlegging himself. He had investments, RUMOR has it, in liquor imports. We can confirm, however, that he had legit investments in the movie production industry and real estate industry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by August
If the answer to both those questions is yes then yes we should object to them.
|
And why is that? Object to what the bill says (it's substance), not to what the name is (it's marketing slogan).