Senator Ted Kennedy Dead at 77

[Aramike]

Just got word of this around now. Like him or not, this is going to usher in a new look of American politics.

In any case, my respects to the family.

[SteamWake]

Nothing will change although they will lose the 'super majority' which doesent seem to matter anyhow.

At any rate Rest In Peace.

[August]

Nothing will change although they will lose the 'super majority' which doesent seem to matter anyhow.

Depends whether the heavily Democratic Massachusetts state legislature honors his request to change the law (again).

[SteamWake]

Ms. Pelosi show a little respect. She could have waited a day or two at least... :nope:


US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed Wednesday to push through embattled health reform legislation this year following the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, who called the effort "the cause of my life".

[August]

I always saw the cause of Ted Kennedys life as avoiding all responsibility for murdering poor Mary Jo Kopechne.

That ought to be his true legacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

[AVGWarhawk]

I always saw the cause of Ted Kennedys life as avoiding all responsibility for murdering poor Mary Jo Kopechne.

That ought to be his true legacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident


Whenever I heard his name that is all I ever thought of....Chappaquiddick. In the true sense..got away with murder.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ms. Pelosi show a little respect. She could have waited a day or two at least... :nope:


Pelosi is an opportunist. :03:

[Jimbuna]

As a kid I always saw them as a very powerful family in political terms.

I wonder if this death will change anything?

[Frame57]

RIP Ted. Ted was a sterling example why American's need to set term limits in all political offices. :salute:

[SteamWake]

RIP Ted. Ted was a sterling example why American's need to set term limits in all political offices. :salute:

We already did that... no its a testiment to the cluelessness of the average american voter.

Ted did his fair share of good work. Then again he did his fair share of destructive nany state fostering.

I wasent going to bring up the Mary Joe thing but yea thats one of the first things that comes to my mind.

[August]

I wasent going to bring up the Mary Joe thing but yea thats one of the first things that comes to my mind.

You'll have to forgive me. I'm from Massachusetts and i've been voting against Ted Kennedy all my life.

[Aramike]

I always saw the cause of Ted Kennedys life as avoiding all responsibility for murdering poor Mary Jo Kopechne.

That ought to be his true legacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incidentMe too, really. Its a sad state the people kept voting for the guy.

[Sea Demon]

Pelosi is an opportunist. :03:

It's not the first time Democrats have exploited the death of a fellow colleague to push a political agenda. Remember the Paul Wellstone funeral?

Anyway, I wish they would just let Ted Kennedy RIP. And not view it as an opportunity to achieve a political end. I don't like Ted Kennedy, and I think he worked diligently against my personal interests, but I do believe he doesn't deserve his death to be turned into a political sideshow.

RIP.

[mookiemookie]

It's not the first time Democrats have exploited the death of a fellow colleague to push a political agenda. Remember the Paul Wellstone funeral?

Kind of like the exploitation of the deaths of 3000 on 9/11/01 by the Republicans, eh?

[Aramike]

Kind of like the exploitation of the deaths of 3000 on 9/11/01 by the Republicans, eh?Yeah, right ... this time you've gone to Loonville... :yeah:

[FIREWALL]

Kind of like the exploitation of the deaths of 3000 on 9/11/01 by the Republicans, eh?


When I think you can sink no lower...

You always prove me wrong. :roll:

[mookiemookie]

Yeah, right ... this time you've gone to Loonville... :yeah:

I guess you missed the intro video to John McCain's acceptance speech at the RNC last year. Or every mention of "In the post 9/11 world..." by any Repub, or using 9/11 to push through the Patriot Act, or the fundraiser titled "$9.11 For Rudy" for Guiliani's presidential bid where the admission fee was $9.11...I could keep going. There's plenty of evidence.

If I'm in Loonville, you're the governor of the state of Loonachusetts :O:

Face it - politicians of every stripe use fear, emotion and death as a tool. Not limited to one side or the other.

When I think you can sink no lower...

You always prove me wrong. :roll:

Nice rebuttal. :roll:

[FIREWALL]

Thank You :D I thought so too. :yep:

[Sea Demon]

I guess you missed the intro video to John McCain's acceptance speech at the RNC last year. Or every mention of "In the post 9/11 world..." by any Repub, or using 9/11 to push through the Patriot Act, or the fundraiser titled "$9.11 For Rudy" for Guiliani's presidential bid where the admission fee was $9.11...I could keep going. There's plenty of evidence.

If I'm in Loonville, you're the governor of the state of Loonachusetts :O:

Face it - politicians of every stripe use fear, emotion and death as a tool. Not limited to one side or the other.



Nice rebuttal. :roll:

Uhh. No. There is simply no comparison of bringing up the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 in keeping the nation focused on the war (which of course national security should be non-partisan :03:), and the Democrat moonbats at the Paul Wellstone memorial. Also, compare Republican behavior at Reagan's funeral. The Republicans did it right. You have an empty bag mookie. 9/11 is an issue that both parties should be onboard with. You have gone off the deep end with this one........ totally. I wish Democrats would put some actual real focus and emphasis on the 9/11 attacks. I wish Democrats would take 9/11 and National Security seriously.

And I also wish Democrats wouldn't view their dead colleagues as political opportunities to exploit. It's low class and plain sickening.

Anyway, watch and listen to the looney Al Franken here and contrast the images of the service at the end of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJAcui_dmXk

[mookiemookie]

Oh good lord. If you all refuse to see the plain truth in front of your eyes how 9/11 has been used as a political tool to advance an agenda, you're willfully blind.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/billboardweb2.jpg

Absolutely stunning how this is even debatable.

[Aramike]

I guess you missed the intro video to John McCain's acceptance speech at the RNC last year. Or every mention of "In the post 9/11 world..." by any Repub, or using 9/11 to push through the Patriot Act, or the fundraiser titled "$9.11 For Rudy" for Guiliani's presidential bid where the admission fee was $9.11...I could keep going. There's plenty of evidence.

If I'm in Loonville, you're the governor of the state of Loonachusetts :O:

Face it - politicians of every stripe use fear, emotion and death as a tool. Not limited to one side or the other.There's a difference between responding to a major event with specific steps related to that event, and the exploitation of an event.

I don't disagree that politicians of all ideologies exploit events for their own gain ... however, I don't see 9/11 as anything close to that.

[SteamWake]

Its a real shame a memorial thread gets instantly derailed into a political mud fight.

But then again I realize it was Ted Kennedy the liberals poster boy.

[mookiemookie]

Its a real shame a memorial thread gets instantly derailed into a political mud fight.

But then again I realize it was Ted Kennedy the liberals poster boy.

I never really cared for him one way or another, but I couldn't miss a chance to wind y'all up by throwing in my two cents. :03:

[Sea Demon]

Oh good lord. If you all refuse to see the plain truth in front of your eyes how 9/11 has been used as a political tool to advance an agenda, you're willfully blind.


Mookie, there is simply no equivalence to the national security aspect. Although, I see the sign you post as harshly worded, and perhaps not particularly effective in message, it simply doesn't compare to the loud booing of members of the opposing party at a dead colleague's memorial service, or pushing partisan legislation by exploiting the dead body of a fallen colleague. Did you see Republicans do this type of sick action during Reagan's or Nixon's service? No you didn't. Did you see any Republican Senator get up there and say anything like...."lets win the next election for the Gipper!!!"??? No you didn't. The fact that you don't understand the difference, confirms to me completely what I know to be true about Democrats vis a vis National Security and ethics in general.

[Aramike]

Its a real shame a memorial thread gets instantly derailed into a political mud fight.

But then again I realize it was Ted Kennedy the liberals poster boy.Its kind of what I expected. Ted Kennedy was one of the most polarizing figures in the country on both politics and personal morality.

[FIREWALL]

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/743/maykmudslinging.gif


:yeah: :haha:

[mookiemookie]

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/743/maykmudslinging.gif


:yeah: :haha:

Hey, its the official mascot of GT! :yeah:

[mookiemookie]

Mookie, there is simply no equivalence to the national security aspect. Although, I see the sign you post as harshly worded, and perhaps not particularly effective in message, it simply doesn't compare to the loud booing of members of the opposing party at a dead colleague's memorial service, or pushing partisan legislation by exploiting the dead body of a fallen colleague. Did you see Republicans do this type of sick action during Reagan's or Nixon's service? No you didn't. Did you see any Republican Senator get up there and say anything like...."lets win the next election for the Gipper!!!"??? No you didn't. The fact that you don't understand the difference, confirms to me completely what I know to be true about Democrats vis a vis National Security and ethics in general.

Agreed on the Wellstone funeral. Bad taste. But to be fair, Nixon and Reagan weren't sitting senators at the time of their death.

But there's a difference in pushing legislation is that it was their life's work. Kennedy came out back in (March I believe?) and basically said it was his dying wish to get the health care issue done.

[Sea Demon]

But there's a difference in pushing legislation is that it was their life's work. Kennedy came out back in (March I believe?) and basically said it was his dying wish to get the health care issue done.

I just simply disagree. While I have hope that this won't turn into another Wellstone thing, as nobody deserves that upon their death, Pelosi has come out and apparently has seen it as a means to get some kind of sentiment on the issue to get it passed. Perhaps Kennedy wanted to be exploited on his death. Who knows? But regardless, politics shouldn't be a part of their passing from this world, and used as means to push political agendas. It's poor form.

The reason why it's wrong is because it forces the agenda with the choice of if "you oppose the bill, you oppose Ted Kennedy". It would have been wrong if Republicans invoked Reagan to pass their agenda upon his death for the same reason.

I'll never agree to this regardless if we're talking about Democrat or Republican people dying. Politics don't matter when you leave this world.

[AVGWarhawk]

Next it will be called the Ted Kennedy Healthcare Bill :88) This family has been mixed up in things like women drowning in the back seat of cars and rape on the family compound. But, we will remember the man as 'The Lion'. Yea, ok. :88)

[August]

Next it will be called the Ted Kennedy Healthcare Bill :88) This family has been mixed up in things like women drowning in the back seat of cars and rape on the family compound. But, we will remember the man as 'The Lion'. Yea, ok. :88)

I don't see Ted Kennedy being remembered for much of anything.

Once his usefulness as a martyr dies along with nationalized health care his faults, manslaughter, alcoholism, etc, will make him politically toxic.

[mookiemookie]

I don't see Ted Kennedy being remembered for much of anything.

Once his usefulness as a martyr dies along with nationalized health care his faults, manslaughter, alcoholism, etc, will make him politically toxic.

As I said before, I wasn't much of a fan because he did bring a lot of baggage to the table, but I found this list interesting:

Do you like your state and not the federal government controlling the curriculum of your kids' schools? Thank Ted Kennedy.

Do you like being able to vote starting at age 18? Thank Ted Kennedy.

Do you think low-income people should get help with heating their homes in the winter? Thank the man.

Do you think the federal government should fund cancer (http://www.emaxhealth.com/1/24/33089/american-cancer-society-statement-senator-ted-kennedy.html) research? Yep.

Do you believe that Meals on Wheels is a good thing? Ditto.

Does your daughter (or you, if you're female) like playing soccer or basketball or softball at school (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2009/08/sen_kennedy_a_champion_of_educ.html)? That'd be because of Ted Kennedy.

Do you think that disabled people should (http://www.dredf.org/) be able to go to school? Have access to buildings? Not be discriminated against for housing and loads of other things? Kennedy, big time.

You like your cheap (http://www.heritage.org/research/smartgrowth/ib22.cfm) airfares? You know the answer.

You think people on welfare (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/EM149.cfm) oughta get jobs? So did Kennedy.

You think mental institutions should treat people humanely? Yeah, so did your new friend, Ted Kennedy.

You believe that the Defense Department should provide child care for the kids of soldiers? Kennedy did.

[AVGWarhawk]

I don't see Ted Kennedy being remembered for much of anything.

Once his usefulness as a martyr dies along with nationalized health care his faults, manslaughter, alcoholism, etc, will make him politically toxic.


He got away with murder as far as I can tell. But hey, we all know people who can help cover up and get us off the hook right? Well...no we don't. :-?

[Aramike]

As I said before, I wasn't much of a fan because he did bring a lot of baggage to the table, but I found this list interesting:I agree, he was on board for a lot of policies I support (even though the vast majority of his work I do not). That being said, it is very, VERY hard for me to get passed the Chappaquiddick incident to which I believe amounts to manslaughter at the very least.

Someone who did that being entrusted as a US senator is mind-boggling, to me.

To be honest, while I'll never say that I'm glad that he's dead, I'm really hoping this signals the end of this era of the Kennedy-name entitlement. I saw some good signs with the way Caroline Kennedy was shot down for the senate seat, but still ...

Funny enough that many lefties loved to liken the US to an empire, but they also love treating the Kennedy's as royalty.

[mookiemookie]

That being said, it is very, VERY hard for me to get passed the Chappaquiddick incident to which I believe amounts to manslaughter at the very least.

Agreed - His name got him out of that one. Did he panic? Sure. Was it intentional malicious murder? No, it was an accident. A stupid one, but an accident nonetheless. But you're right...that would be enough to sink any politician not named Kennedy.

[AVGWarhawk]

Agreed - His name got him out of that one. Did he panic? Sure. Was it intentional malicious murder? No, it was an accident. A stupid one, but an accident nonetheless. But you're right...that would be enough to sink any politician not named Kennedy.


From what I understand he was drunk off his rocker. Just came from a party. Accident that was self imposed as I see it. In todays world he would be doing 10-20 with good behavior.

[Aramike]

From what I understand he was drunk off his rocker. Just came from a party. Accident that was self imposed as I see it. In todays world he would be doing 10-20 with good behavior.Precisely. Why do you think is panic resulted in him running home?

Sure, most normal people would panic in the same situation ... but that doesn't mean they'd just go home and try to pretend nothing happened and leave someone to die.

I don't think it was panic due to the accident ... I think it was panic due to him knowing that he was responsible and trying not to be found sauced off his ass.

[mookiemookie]

From what I understand he was drunk off his rocker. Just came from a party. Accident that was self imposed as I see it. In todays world he would be doing 10-20 with good behavior.

Like I said, a stupid accident. Due to his own poor judgment. And yes, his name kept him out of jail.

The privileges of power.....

[Max2147]

Let's just pay our respects to Senator Kennedy in this thread. If you want to argue about his mistakes, save it for another day. If you want to argue about the political ramifications of his death, start another thread.

[Aramike]

Like I said, a stupid accident. Due to his own poor judgment. And yes, his name kept him out of jail.

The privileges of power.....Indeed.

But what really gets me is that we live in a democratically-elected society. These aren't members of some royal family that get away with murder due to their own decrees. This is a man who ultimately had to answer to the public - his constituents to be specific - and that public basically said, "no problem".

I apologize, but I can't get over the fact that the people who gave Kennedy a pass are mostly individuals from the far-left. We're not talking about a small percentage, either ... we're talking about millions of people over a few generations.

Mookie, I doubt you're one of them, but I have to ask ... would YOU have voted for Kennedy?

[SteamWake]

Can anyone state some good things about poor ole Teddy, no really a positive piece of legislation or something... anything?

[FIREWALL]

Let's just pay our respects to Senator Kennedy in this thread. If you want to argue about his mistakes, save it for another day. If you want to argue about the political ramifications of his death, start another thread.


I beleive Aramike started this thread.

Start your own thread and then dictate the terms. :yep:

[Aramike]

The way I see it, life's like this: no one should have to pay more respects to someone in death than they do in life.

While I would find it to be bad form for someone to say something akin to being glad that someone died, I don't see that happening here. Also, I feel bad for the family but I doubt that they really care about that one way or the other. In any case, who can blame a familiy for loving one of their own?

The bottom line is that Kennedy used every ounce of his public image to his benefit and will continue to do so in death. As such, only he is to blame for such criticism.

Generally speaking, I've loathed the man overall. I've always found him to be lacking any sense of personal integrity. While I've agreed with some of his policy decisions, I find his character to be questionable, at best.

On the other hand, I have to respect the fact that this man was a political institution unto himself. I try to be someone who's personal feelings doesn't cloud my perspective of reality.

Besides, I would have far preferred if he'd been voted out of office versus leaving by default. It's a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this nation that he was allowed to remain in office.

[FIREWALL]

Let the Kennedy Polictical Dynasty die with him.

[GoldenRivet]

The way I see it, life's like this: no one should have to pay more respects to someone in death than they do in life.

While I would find it to be bad form for someone to say something akin to being glad that someone died, I don't see that happening here.

agreed, and even though i dont rejoice in his death.

all i will say is... the man was a dirt bag.

[mookiemookie]

Can anyone state some good things about poor ole Teddy, no really a positive piece of legislation or something... anything?

I thought I did?

I don't see Ted Kennedy being remembered for much of anything.

Once his usefulness as a martyr dies along with nationalized health care his faults, manslaughter, alcoholism, etc, will make him politically toxic.

As I said before, I wasn't much of a fan because he did bring a lot of baggage to the table, but I found this list interesting:

Do you like your state and not the federal government controlling the curriculum of your kids' schools? Thank Ted Kennedy.

Do you like being able to vote starting at age 18? Thank Ted Kennedy.

Do you think low-income people should get help with heating their homes in the winter? Thank the man.

Do you think the federal government should fund cancer (http://www.emaxhealth.com/1/24/33089/american-cancer-society-statement-senator-ted-kennedy.html) research? Yep.

Do you believe that Meals on Wheels is a good thing? Ditto.

Does your daughter (or you, if you're female) like playing soccer or basketball or softball at school (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2009/08/sen_kennedy_a_champion_of_educ.html)? That'd be because of Ted Kennedy.

Do you think that disabled people should (http://www.dredf.org/) be able to go to school? Have access to buildings? Not be discriminated against for housing and loads of other things? Kennedy, big time.

You like your cheap (http://www.heritage.org/research/smartgrowth/ib22.cfm) airfares? You know the answer.

You think people on welfare (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/EM149.cfm) oughta get jobs? So did Kennedy.

You think mental institutions should treat people humanely? Yeah, so did your new friend, Ted Kennedy.

You believe that the Defense Department should provide child care for the kids of soldiers? Kennedy did.[
Mookie, I doubt you're one of them, but I have to ask ... would YOU have voted for Kennedy?

That's really a good question. I have no idea who ran against him in all of his years, and that (given our "lesser of the two evils" system) would be a major factor in who I would have voted for.

Kennedy lived on his name. That's a powerful force in politics where the American public votes on emotion, rather than facts and analysis.

I would have had qualms voting for someone who let someone else die through their own stupid actions, of course. But (and NOT to excuse it, please don't take it that way) Thomas Jefferson was banging his slaves, Ulysses S Grant was involved in the Whiskey Ring, Harding had his Teapot Dome scandal....it seems to be a thread of commonality with those in power.

I guess the ultimate decision came down to the people of Massachusetts who elected him and reelected him...as I said, I would have had serious qualms voting for the guy, but if you look at his legislative record (at least from the list I posted here), it's hard to fault the guy's positions. They're pretty bipartisan and common sense across the board.

Good question though.

[Frame57]

We already did that... no its a testiment to the cluelessness of the average american voter.

Ted did his fair share of good work. Then again he did his fair share of destructive nany state fostering.

I wasent going to bring up the Mary Joe thing but yea thats one of the first things that comes to my mind.Uh-no we did not do that. What planet are you from.

[Onkel Neal]

As I said before, I wasn't much of a fan because he did bring a lot of baggage to the table, but I found this list interesting:





Does your daughter (or you, if you're female) like playing soccer or basketball or softball at school (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2009/08/sen_kennedy_a_champion_of_educ.html)? That'd be because of Ted Kennedy.



You think people on welfare (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/EM149.cfm) oughta get jobs? So did Kennedy.

You think mental institutions should treat people humanely? Yeah, so did your new friend, Ted Kennedy.

You believe that the Defense Department should provide child care for the kids of soldiers? Kennedy did.

Plus 5 for ol Ted on these, if true.

Do you like being able to vote starting at age 18? Thank Ted Kennedy.

Not so sure that was, like, such a great idea, now that I'm, like, surrounded by college kids, like, all day :haha:

[August]

The privileges of power.....

Sorry, I seem to have missed that part of the constitution. Does this exception extend to all Democratic party politicians or just the sons of anti-semite bootleggers? :)

Seriously, it was more than just a stupid accident. He left that girl to die when he could have saved her. There was a house with a phone just a hundred yards away, it even had it's porch light on, but he walked right past it and 3 others to hike all the way back to the party he had just come from. Had he gone to that first house and called Island Rescue she would likely have survived.

No privilege of power in America should include a pass on that.

[mookiemookie]

or just the sons of anti-semite bootleggers? :)


:DL You want a nice portrayal of Joe Kennedy, check out The Rat Pack (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146165/)movie that was originally on HBO. What a bastard that guy was!

Plus 5 for ol Ted on these, if true.

Title IX in 1972, the Jobs for Employable Dependent Individuals Act in 1987, the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act in 1997, and the National Military Child Care Act in 1989

[sunvalleyslim]

Well it all comes down here in the U.S.of A. to what is your party of choice. He was a murderer who got away, just like O.J. He never gave a thought to what was morally right. Just what was good for Ol' Ted Kennedy. And he was able to throw it right into our faces....What a Crock.........

[FIREWALL]

I imagine most people feel ... J.F.K. & R.F.K > R.I.P.

T.M.K. > R.I.H.

[Aramike]

That's really a good question. I have no idea who ran against him in all of his years, and that (given our "lesser of the two evils" system) would be a major factor in who I would have voted for.

Kennedy lived on his name. That's a powerful force in politics where the American public votes on emotion, rather than facts and analysis.

I would have had qualms voting for someone who let someone else die through their own stupid actions, of course. But (and NOT to excuse it, please don't take it that way) Thomas Jefferson was banging his slaves, Ulysses S Grant was involved in the Whiskey Ring, Harding had his Teapot Dome scandal....it seems to be a thread of commonality with those in power.

I guess the ultimate decision came down to the people of Massachusetts who elected him and reelected him...as I said, I would have had serious qualms voting for the guy, but if you look at his legislative record (at least from the list I posted here), it's hard to fault the guy's positions. They're pretty bipartisan and common sense across the board.

Good question though. Good answer. I can't fault anything you said.

My take is that I'd likely have voted against him just to get him out of power. But, when it comes to politics, it is indeed tough to seperate the person from the policy.

Obviously, I believe what he did was did wrong, regarding the accident. However, I'm not sure if I'm upset with the voters who kept putting him into office or the Democratic Party who never really substantively opposed him, leaving his voters with no real choice.

[Aramike]

I guess the ultimate decision came down to the people of Massachusetts who elected him and reelected him...as I said, I would have had serious qualms voting for the guy, but if you look at his legislative record (at least from the list I posted here), it's hard to fault the guy's positions. They're pretty bipartisan and common sense across the board.I missed this.

I agree that, from the positions you posted, its hard to fault him. Yet, after the decades he spent in the senate, the positions you posted represent only a minority of the positions he voted on.

His record is decisively partisan.

[Tribesman]

but they also love treating the Kennedy's as royalty.
The Kennedy's and the fairytale Court of Camelot, even included a version of the Lady in the Lake for constistancy.

[Skybird]

Let the Kennedy Polictical Dynasty die with him.
And the several other political dynasties as well, most prominently the Bushs. ;) Dynasties do not go well with conventional conceptions of democracy. It is a form of neo-feudalism, and a kind of lobbyism of a clan for the purpose of staying in power - for the sake of that power itself.

For Obama's policy, this is a loss difficult to be compensated.

[AVGWarhawk]

i imagine most people feel ... J.f.k. & r.f.k r.i.p.

t.m.k. R.i.h.

m.i.c.k.e.y.m.o.u.s.e.

[Tchocky]

I imagine most people feel ... J.F.K. & R.F.K R.I.P.

T.M.K. R.I.H.

If Bobby was RFK then Teddy is surely EMK.

And what's the H?

[AVGWarhawk]

If Bobby was RFK then Teddy is surely EMK.

And what's the H?

Hell? :D

[Frame57]

Yeah, reading the news this morning about how Teddy's life cause was healthcare. WTFO? Maybe the power that government can gain over people is what his life cause was about. What the hell did this rum runner ever do for the people???

[Max2147]

I come from a family of doctors, so I know quite a few of them. I've never heard any of them say a bad word about Ted Kennedy, even though a lot of them are from the conservative side of the spectrum. When his obituaries talk about his support for health care, they're not making it up.

I've personally benefited from his strong support of teaching hospitals. Without teaching hospitals you don't have the next generation of doctors, but they've been a dying breed as of late because they're not as profitable as other things hospitals can do. Ted Kennedy was easily the strongest supporter of teaching hospitals in national office, and our nation's academic physicians will miss his tireless support of their profession.

[SteamWake]

The Kennedy's and the fairytale Court of Camelot, even included a version of the Lady in the Lake for constistancy.

Oh thats just so wrong :har:

[CastleBravo]

Named after his father’s chauffer and, as one biographer uncharitably called him, “whoremaster,” Edward Moore Kennedy never had a chance to be anyone but Edward Moore Kennedy. Joe Kennedy’s ambition to be president, jeopardized by his burning affair with starlet Gloria Swanson, moved the family patriarch to offer more money, trips, and servants to his alienated wife in return for a ninth child that would keep the scandal sheets off his back. As biographer Joe McGinniss explained, Ted Kennedy’s “very existence was the result of an act of political calculation on his father’s part.”

“He was my baby,” mother Rose remembered, “and I tried to keep him my baby.” When he was a man, this showed. He cheated his way out of Harvard. He led police on drunken high-speed chases while at law school in Charlottesville, Va. He bedded the most available women. When he finally settled down with Joan Bennett, his virgin bride surmised that he did so mainly because she refused to give him what so many of his girlfriends had “The only reason he wanted to marry me,” Joan reflected, “was because he couldn’t get me any other way.”

Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory said the trick in discussing the neophyte’s senate run was “to keep an absolutely straight face.” Prof. Mark De Wolfe Howe of Harvard Law School, a sometime advisor to John F. Kennedy, found the youngest Kennedy’s candidacy “preposterous and insulting.” But the pedigree of the 30-year-old kid brother of the President bested that of Edward McCormack, the nephew of the Speaker of the House, in the Democratic primary.

Despite his intellectual and character deficiencies, Ted was the family’s natural politician. His glad-handing and gregarious nature showed him as a Fitzgerald and not a Kennedy.

In the wee hours of July 18, 1969, Ted Kennedy drove Mary Jo Kopechne to her death and, rather than report the accident to the police, spent the next ten hours or so sobering up, attempting to cajole his drinking buddies to vouch for his innocence in the matter, and calling his lawyer, a German girlfriend, and political cronies. The indifference was particularly galling to many involved in the case. “She didn’t drown,” the diver who retrieved Kophechne’s body from Kennedy’s Oldsmobile Delmont 88, steadfastly held. “She died of suffocation in her own air void. It took her at least three or four hours to die. I could have had her out of that car in 25 minutes after I got the call. But he didn’t call.”

Happy?

[Tchocky]

You should get onto this guy, CastleBravo. He's stolen your post.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33298

[August]

Hey CastleBravo. It's not very ethical to post someone elses writing like it was your own. There's a quote feature, use it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hey CastleBravo. It's not very ethical to post someone elses writing like it was your own. There's a quote feature, use it.

Quoted or not, Castlbrave only proves the point the Teddy was a slouch. I even thought that when I was a kid. Now Pelosi wants a full court press for a healthcare bill with Kennedy's name on it and the guys is not even cold yet. :doh: Opportunist at it's worse. This is just another visage of what DC is like and how it operates. :down: Were is the change?

[Tchocky]

Well, yeah. I mean, Ted Kennedy was always adamantly against healthcare reform.

[August]

Quoted or not, Castlbrave only proves the point the Teddy was a slouch. I even thought that when I was a kid. Now Pelosi wants a full court press for a healthcare bill with Kennedy's name on it and the guys is not even cold yet. :doh: Opportunist at it's worse. This is just another visage of what DC is like and how it operates. :down: Were is the change?

And the USA Patriot act wasn't? Seriously, I don't care what they want to call the bill. It's not going to help win any public support.

[August]

Quoted or not, Castlbrave only proves the point the Teddy was a slouch. I even thought that when I was a kid. Now Pelosi wants a full court press for a healthcare bill with Kennedy's name on it and the guys is not even cold yet. :doh: Opportunist at it's worse. This is just another visage of what DC is like and how it operates. :down: Were is the change?

And the USA Patriot act wasn't? Seriously, I don't care what they want to call the bill. It's not going to help win any public support. When it fails it can join Hillerycare and Obama care in the dustbin of history.

[CastleBravo]

Many apologies for not posting correctly in my earlier passages. I have fixed it.

Does anyone think that saying it was Teddy's effort to reform healthcare really make obamacare sound less onerous or unaffordable?

[SteamWake]

Well, yeah. I mean, Ted Kennedy was always adamantly against healthcare reform.

Untill recently.

Ted was actually against a number of tax and spend programs I'll have to give him that.

But he was adamantly for the Barrack take over .... er... health plan.

[FIREWALL]

I imagine most people feel ... J.F.K. & R.F.K > R.I.P.

T.M.K. > R.I.H.

fixed:DL

[AVGWarhawk]

And the USA Patriot act wasn't? Seriously, I don't care what they want to call the bill. It's not going to help win any public support. When it fails it can join Hillerycare and Obama care in the dustbin of history.

True-dat:salute:

[Tchocky]

Untill recently.

I was joking.


"This is the cause of my life," Ted Kennedy wrote. "For four decades I have carried this cause — from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society."
Kennedy was talking about health care. But then, Kennedy was always talking about health care. He was talking about it when he helped pass Medicare and Medicaid in the '60s. When he tried to reach a deal with Richard Nixon in the '70s. When he made it the center of his challenge to Jimmy Carter in the '80s. When he created the Children's Health Insurance Program in the '90s. When he directed his staff to begin educating senators and stakeholders for President Obama's effort late last year.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/the_cause_of_ted_keenedys_life.html

[Aramike]

So, those of you from the area (August?): who's going to be his replacement?

[CastleBravo]

So, those of you from the area (August?): who's going to be his replacement?

That is the hypocracy of the democratic party. In 2004 they changed the law so Mit Romney couldn't appoint a republican. now they will change the law again so a republican cannot be elected.

[Aramike]

That is the hypocracy of the democratic party. In 2004 they changed the law so Mit Romney couldn't appoint a republican. now they will change the law again so a republican cannot be elected.Yeah, that was a Kennedy move.

[AVGWarhawk]

That is the hypocracy of the democratic party. In 2004 they changed the law so Mit Romney couldn't appoint a republican. now they will change the law again so a republican cannot be elected.

I heard this point this morning on the news:doh: Our government is something else.....

[Platapus]

Yeah, that is just wrong. You can't just change the laws around when it is convenient.

The laws were changed in 2004, now MA has to follow them in 2009.

[SteamWake]

That is the hypocracy of the democratic party. In 2004 they changed the law so Mit Romney couldn't appoint a republican. now they will change the law again so a republican cannot be elected.

Oh no they wont. They changed the law and now they have to live with it.

Should be interisting.

Have you noticed a sudden sense of urgency to get the health care bill passed? After all its what Teddy woulda wanted ;)

[August]

That is the hypocracy of the democratic party. In 2004 they changed the law so Mit Romney couldn't appoint a republican. now they will change the law again so a republican cannot be elected.

A republican wouldn't be elected even if there was an election. This is for all intents and purposes a one party state and has been for years. True, Mass has elected Republican governors in the past but that was just the electorate trying to stick it to the politicians. But with open primaries the local GoP is never going to nominate their best possible candidate anyways so all they get is a Mitt Romney.

So, those of you from the area (August?): who's going to be his replacement?

The heir apparent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Patrick_Kennedy_II

[LiveGoat]

Gawker had the best most blunt yet fair obit. A few F-bombs so I'll just link it.

http://gawker.com/5317300/ted-kennedy-an-assessment

[Aramike]

Gawker had the best most blunt yet fair obit. A few F-bombs so I'll just link it.

http://gawker.com/5317300/ted-kennedy-an-assessmentThat is a pretty good write up. My only problem with the idea that, even though Kennedy was a pig, he ended up working incredibly hard on some policies. Indeed he had, but for one I don't agree with many of his ideas.

More importantly, though, I'm sure there are plenty of qualified people out there who aren't killing woman and sandwiching waitresses that would work as hard.

[OneToughHerring]

More importantly, though, I'm sure there are plenty of qualified people out there who aren't killing woman and sandwiching waitresses that would work as hard.

George Bush & Dick Cheney? Oh wait...

[FIREWALL]

George Bush & Dick Cheney? Oh wait...


Your like a looping tape. :roll:

Do you ever have an original thought of your own ? :nope:

[OneToughHerring]

Your like a looping tape. :roll:

Do you ever have an original thought of your own ? :nope:

What do you mean? Has somebody already mentioned George & Dick in this thread?

[Aramike]

What do you mean? Has somebody already mentioned George & Dick in this thread?He meant that your world seems to revolve around hating the US, Bush, Cheney, Palin, etc.

And he's right.

This thread is about Kennedy.

[OneToughHerring]

He meant that your world seems to revolve around hating the US, Bush, Cheney, Palin, etc.

And he's right.

This thread is about Kennedy.

Are you two like a hive-mind or something? You know what each one thinks?

Kennedy was just another US politician and probably crooked but I see very little in the republican party having any kind of moral high ground from which to criticize him.

[Aramike]

Are you two like a hive-mind or something? You know what each one thinks? Umm, no, there's this wonderful human invention called ... wait for it ... "The Written Word" which enables us to understand what one another is thinking, in a process we like to call "communication". We can even use context clues to fill in the blanks!

It's a wonderous invention and I'd like to take a moment to thank the first caveman who drew a buffalo on a wall of rock several thousand years ago. :yeah:Kennedy was just another US politician and probably crooked but I see very little in the republican party having any kind of moral high ground from which to criticize him. Luckily no one here is criticizing from the perspective of the Republican party. :doh:

[OneToughHerring]

Umm, no, there's this wonderful human invention called ... wait for it ... "The Written Word" which enables us to understand what one another is thinking, in a process we like to call "communication". We can even use context clues to fill in the blanks! It's a wonderous invention and I'd like to take a moment to thank the first caveman who drew a buffalo on a wall of rock several thousand years ago. :yeah:

Even cavemen knew to answer when spoken to and let their buddies answer when they were asked.

Luckily no one here is criticizing from the perspective of the Republican party. :doh:

What then, the Green party? And don't give me that "we're non-political", everything's political.

[Aramike]

Even cavemen knew to answer when spoken to and let their buddies answer when they were asked. Yeah, right ... now you're going to try to tell us to only speak when spoken to?

Its up to Firewall to object to my interpretation of what HE said ... not you.What then, the Green party? And don't give me that "we're non-political", everything's political. Then by your logic no one can criticize anybody. Your failure is epic.

[SteamWake]

This thread is about Kennedy.

Well at least it was.


http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/derail.jpg

Congrats

[OneToughHerring]

Ok, peace for now! :rock:

R.I.P. Ted Kennedy, although not really a fan of his.

[Platapus]

De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est

Of the dead, nothing but good should be spoken

[Aramike]

De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est

Of the dead, nothing but good should be spokenOkay, we should all agree with that, why?

[Max2147]

Okay, we should all agree with that, why?
It's called respect and courtesy. Give the guy a week at least.

[August]

It's called respect and courtesy. Give the guy a week at least.

I understand your point but how can anyone do this when his promoters are already using his rapidly cooling corpse as a tool to advance their political agenda?

[mookiemookie]

I understand your point but how can anyone do this when his promoters are already using his rapidly cooling corpse as a tool to advance their political agenda?

Because then it just makes your side look petty and like you're slandering a dead man. Attack the issue, not the deceased. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Max2147]

I understand your point but how can anyone do this when his promoters are already using his rapidly cooling corpse as a tool to advance their political agenda?
Criticize the people who are using the dead person all you want. Just stay away the person themselves, at least for now.

[Aramike]

Because then it just makes your side look petty and like you're slandering a dead man. Attack the issue, not the deceased. Two wrongs don't make a right.It doesn't make anyone look petty to discuss the truth. It DOES make someone look petty to use a death to artificially advance their cause.

I doubt anyone here is saying anything about Kennedy that they wouldn't if he were still alive. This man has benefited mightily from the public's largesse, thrusting himself and his ideas (some of which were good) upon Americans for years. However, doing so means he's going to recieve the public's scrutiny for his misbehaving adventures.

[August]

Criticize the people who are using the dead person all you want. Just stay away the person themselves, at least for now.

Nope Sorry. Ted Kennedy was a self serving sociopath who does not deserve any accolades, especially when the Democrats are using him as a modern day Horst Wessel to advance their political agenda.

[Thomen]

Not sure if this was allready posted or not, but.. WTH?


Still, ignorance doesn't preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn't automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?blogid=95&entry_id=46306) for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted's death, and what she'd have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.

Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-lafsky/the-footnote-speaks-what_b_270298.html

[mookiemookie]

Nope Sorry. Ted Kennedy was a self serving sociopath who does not deserve any accolades, especially when the Democrats are using him as a modern day Horst Wessel to advance their political agenda.

BOOM! goes the Godwin

[Platapus]

Nope Sorry. Ted Kennedy was a self serving sociopath who does not deserve any accolades, especially when the Democrats are using him as a modern day Horst Wessel to advance their political agenda.

I will quote you the next time a republican invokes the ghost of Reagan.:nope:

[Max2147]

Nope Sorry. Ted Kennedy was a self serving sociopath who does not deserve any accolades, especially when the Democrats are using him as a modern day Horst Wessel to advance their political agenda.
Really August, I thought you were better than that. Have some class, like this rather prominent Republican: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7I8lUeJwQY

[Aramike]

I will quote you the next time a republican invokes the ghost of Reagan.:nope:There's a difference between admiring the ideas of a past individual and using an individual's death to further a cause.

[Aramike]

Really August, I thought you were better than that. Have some class, like this rather prominent Republican: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7I8lUeJwQYDude, this guy killed a young woman and got away with it, not to mention his other dalliances. One not respecting him as a result is understandable.

[August]

I will quote you the next time a republican invokes the ghost of Reagan.:nope:

Fine by me. You can quote me anytime a Republican invokes a dead party leader who drove off a bridge in a drunken haze, left a young woman to slowly suffocate, then used his political connections to avoid prosecution.

or as Mookie puts it "the privileges of power..."

[mookiemookie]

or as Mookie puts it "the privileges of power..."

Hey now, I wasn't saying that in admiration. More of a "shake your head with a frown" kind of way. I wish it wasn't so, but people in power do get a lot more leeway than us shmoes.

[Sea Demon]

I will quote you the next time a republican invokes the ghost of Reagan.:nope:

Not an issue. If Republicans put Ronald Reagan's name on a tax cut bill, tried to invoke sympathy for that cause during his funeral by mentioning that it was his lifelong dream to see a 15% tax cut reduction ad nauseum before he died, (and how sad he didn't get to see it) the day he died, and do these things as a mean to pass it by exploiting his death, I might find some equivalence.

There simply is none here. Republicans have not done anything like this.

[SteamWake]

Hey now, I wasn't saying that in admiration. More of a "shake your head with a frown" kind of way. I wish it wasn't so, but people in power do get a lot more leeway than us shmoes.

The more power they get moreso.

Which is why the current trends in american politics concearns me.

[August]

Hey now, I wasn't saying that in admiration. More of a "shake your head with a frown" kind of way. I wish it wasn't so, but people in power do get a lot more leeway than us shmoes.

Fair enough, it's just the nonchalant way you put it that was a bit striking to me.

[OneToughHerring]

Luckily no one here is criticizing from the perspective of the Republican party. :doh:

Not an issue. If Republicans put Ronald Reagan's name on a tax cut bill, tried to invoke sympathy for that cause during his funeral by mentioning that it was his lifelong dream to see a 15% tax cut reduction ad nauseum before he died, (and how sad he didn't get to see it) the day he died, and do these things as a mean to pass it by exploiting his death, I might find some equivalence.

There simply is none here. Republicans have not done anything like this.

:doh:

[OneToughHerring]

Fine by me. You can quote me anytime a Republican invokes a dead party leader who drove off a bridge in a drunken haze, left a young woman to slowly suffocate, then used his political connections to avoid prosecution.

or as Mookie puts it "the privileges of power..."

What about the ones who are guilty of the deaths of, well, hundreds of thousands or even millions? Are they 'safe' because they are republicans?

[Stealth Hunter]

Fine by me. You can quote me anytime a Republican invokes a dead party leader who drove off a bridge in a drunken haze, left a young woman to slowly suffocate, then used his political connections to avoid prosecution.

You do know that Kennedy confessed to the charges the police brought up on him... right?

Dude, this guy killed a young woman and got away with it, not to mention his other dalliances. One not respecting him as a result is understandable.

What about the tens thousands of civilians our last president got killed in his reckless actions against Iraq- specifically Fallujah in which hundreds of innocents were bombed and killed with white phosphorous? I'm not saying that Kennedy's actions were right. Far from it. But we both know the only reason you're making this big of a deal about what Kennedy did over Bush is because he was a Democrat.

[Aramike]

What about the tens thousands of civilians our last president got killed in his reckless actions against Iraq- specifically Fallujah in which hundreds of innocents were bombed and killed with white phosphorous? I'm not saying that Kennedy's actions were right. Far from it. That comparison is just downright stupid. Every single national leader in the world is going to make policy decisions that affect the lives (and deaths) of others. We are not all ever going to agree on those policies, but people with this particularly pointless thought process would handicap every leader's decision making process if they have their way.

What Kennedy did was not a policy decision - it was personal misbehavior. And the fact that you have to stretch all the way to Bush and Iraq shows an odd desperations to justify a man simply because you share a political ideology.But we both know the only reason you're making this big of a deal about what Kennedy did over Bush is because he was a Democrat. Wrong. I'm not a Republican.

Furthermore, I have a problem with ANYONE who'd do such a thing, and I for damned sure would say the same thing.

My morality isn't guided by my political views, unlike you I suppose.

[Stealth Hunter]

Every single national leader in the world is going to make policy decisions that affect the lives (and deaths) of others.

Politics is unimportant when discussing either person; the simple fact of the matter is that lives were lost (in both cases) because of reckless stupidity and flawed decision-making. The focus issue, however, is which person's bad decision cost more?

but people with this particularly pointless thought process would handicap every leader's decision making process if they have their way.

Hardly, when it's substantiated by factual reason. But what was the reason for the Iraq War? Afghanistan I can understand, because we knew for a good two decades that terrorist militant groups operated there.

What Kennedy did was not a policy decision - it was personal misbehavior.

Well... the effect seems to be the same... for Kennedy and Bush. Again, the politics are irrelevant in the end. Quite simply, both men's bad decisions got people killed. That's what matters to me.

And the fact that you have to stretch all the way to Bush and Iraq shows an odd desperations to justify a man simply because you share a political ideology.

I never said what Kennedy did was right nor did I attempt to justify it as you claim; I already said I agreed that it was a horrid decision on his part and I did not condone it. I just find it odd that people like August can call a person like Kennedy a "sociopath" so freely for his one s*** decision which ended up in getting one person killed, yet he/they completely blow over the one s*** decision a person like Bush made that ended up in getting thousands of people killed.

Furthermore, I'm a Social Democrat, but that doesn't make me a member of the Democratic Party. I do agree with you that they and Obama are using Kennedy's death to push their agenda for health care reform. HOWEVER, do not be so quick to forget that Bush and the Republican Party used 9/11 to push their agenda for going to war with Iraq. My point being, both sides are filled with s*** and both sides will use whatever they can to try and gain victory. They both disgust me.

Wrong. I'm not a Republican.

Then what are you?

Furthermore, I have a problem with ANYONE who'd do such a thing, and I for damned sure would say the same thing.

Well at least we agree on something then.

My morality isn't guided by my political views, unlike you I suppose.

Not quite, but this also makes us similar in another manner.

[August]

You do know that Kennedy confessed to the charges the police brought up on him... right?

He only confessed to leaving the scene of an accident. Read up on it yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

[Stealth Hunter]

He only confessed to leaving the scene of an accident.

...after causing injury. Though by reporting the accident, 10 hours later unfortunately, he was also admitting to vehicular negligence, which is defined as failing "to operate a vehicle in a comprehensive and safe manner, causing property damage, injury and/or death".

[AVGWarhawk]

Geez, is the discussion still going on about Ted and his drinking ways? Let face it, he was DUI, crashed the car in the water and left the scene. He left her there die also. That is as close to summing up the story. I remember this incident and hearing about it when I was a kid. I lived on Long Island and was quite the topic of discussion. Simply put, he got away with murder.

[Stealth Hunter]

Actually, he was not DUI. Not as far as the law and evidence is concerned.

[Aramike]

Actually, he was not DUI. Not as far as the law and evidence is concerned.No, just where common sense is concerned. :up:

[Aramike]

Well... the effect seems to be the same... for Kennedy and Bush. Again, the politics are irrelevant in the end. Quite simply, both men's bad decisions got people killed. That's what matters to me.It's not even close to the same ... not in principle, nor fact. But we could debate that all day.

The question is, why bring it up? This thread was about Ted Kennedy, not Bush nor the Iraq War.I never said what Kennedy did was right nor did I attempt to justify it as you claim; I already said I agreed that it was a horrid decision on his part and I did not condone it.Then again I must ask, why bring Iraq up?I just find it odd that people like August can call a person like Kennedy a "sociopath" so freely for his one s*** decision which ended up in getting one person killed, yet he/they completely blow over the one s*** decision a person like Bush made that ended up in getting thousands of people killed.There's a difference here: one is something that we ALL agree was absolutely wrong.

The Iraq War is debatable.

In fact, if you want to discuss it, please start a thread and I'll follow you in. I highly doubt you'll see a thread discussing whether or not Kennedy's behavior in the incident in question was justifiable.Furthermore, I'm a Social Democrat, but that doesn't make me a member of the Democratic Party. I do agree with you that they and Obama are using Kennedy's death to push their agenda for health care reform. HOWEVER, do not be so quick to forget that Bush and the Republican Party used 9/11 to push their agenda for going to war with Iraq.I haven't forgotten that. However, I also haven't forgotten the national mood in the days leading up to the war, so I have some perspective. The Iraq War was by and large supported ... people didn't NEED 9/11 to be shoved down their throats. Healthcare reform is far more contentious.My point being, both sides are filled with s*** and both sides will use whatever they can to try and gain victory. They both disgust me.I'm not going to completely disagree with that.Then what are you?Independant. I have conservative views/I have liberal views. And they are subject to change.

[Stealth Hunter]

No, just where common sense is concerned. :up:

One man's "common sense" is another's folly.:up:

Personally, I wouldn't doubt he was drinking. But I cannot prove that he was. So... yeah.

[Aramike]

One man's "common sense" is another's folly.:up:

Personally, I wouldn't doubt he was drinking. But I cannot prove that he was. So... yeah.Well, if he wasn't drinking and ran off on that girl ... he's an even worse human being than I thought.

[Stealth Hunter]

It's not even close to the same ... not in principle, nor fact. But we could debate that all day.

As you said, we could debate it all day. But whatever.

The question is, why bring it up?

Because the thread diverged 4 pages ago before I got here and turned from a thread in remembrance of Ted into a Democrat vs. Republican/political slamfest.

This thread was about Ted Kennedy, not Bush nor the Iraq War.

I know. 'Course I- there again-- didn't derail it and turn it into a political thread to begin with.

Then again I must ask, why bring Iraq up?

Because it was a dumbass mistake made by Bush, just as it was a dumbass mistake to run from the scene of an accident like Kennedy did.

There's a difference here: one is something that we ALL agree was absolutely wrong.

Right and wrong are merely points of view, which differ from person to person. I was focusing on which person's stupid decision had more repercussions. I find it... odd to say the least that you could call Kennedy a sociopath with no problem for getting one person killed while you could completely skip Bush and the thousands of people he wound up getting killed in Iraq, hundreds of thousands if you count civilian casualties as a result of subsequent terrorist attacks there. Point being, both men caused someone to die with their stupid decisions... one killed more than the other, though.

The Iraq War is debatable.

And the Chappaquiddick Incident isn't?

It is...

In fact, if you want to discuss it, please start a thread and I'll follow you in.

I might, if the mods don't mind.

I highly doubt you'll see a thread discussing whether or not Kennedy's behavior in the incident in question was justifiable.

Well I certainly wouldn't make one to justify it; rather, to simply defend the stance that he was not a "sociopath". Not compared to some other American politicians anyway.

However, I also haven't forgotten the national mood in the days leading up to the war, so I have some perspective.

Years is more like it.

The Iraq War was by and large supported ... people didn't NEED 9/11 to be shoved down their throats.

But Bush shoved it down their throats anyway.

More importantly, though, what "facts" did they use to try and justify it? Wild allegations of WMDs, terrorist group support from Hussein, chemical warheads, if you did indeed pay attention then you heard all this stuff too.

Arguing on the basis of facts, did they ever confirm their allegations? Did they ever confirm that Hussein supported any terrorist groups directly involved in 9/11, had WMDs, chemical warheads. . .? They made a lot of claims, but they never did back them up with any evidence.

It was a stupid decision all the way around based on little more than half-assed claims and scare tactics.

I'm not going to completely disagree with that.Independant. I have conservative views/I have liberal views. And they are subject to change.

So a Heinz '57, lol. That's cool.:up:

[Stealth Hunter]

Well, if he wasn't drinking and ran off on that girl ... he's an even worse human being than I thought.

Probably the safest thing to say is that we'll never know what happened that night. And we never will. We can agree, however, that he had his dark moments and his great moments.

He pioneered the campaign for civil rights with Martin Luther King, women's rights and gay rights, and HIV/AIDS funding; he fought for things like the Americans with Disabilities Act and against things like the Defense of Marriage Act.

I don't know about anybody else, but for me, that's what I'll remember him for.

[Aramike]

Mostly we'll have to agree to disagree (even though I do think you're a tad short-sighted and, well, off about Iraq), but this is telling:Because it was a dumbass mistake made by Bush, just as it was a dumbass mistake to run from the scene of an accident like Kennedy did.There are plenty of people who make dumbass mistakes. This was about Kennedy's. Why you feel to interject Bush is still baffling to me...

[Sea Demon]

Because it was a dumbass mistake made by Bush, just as it was a dumbass mistake to run from the scene of an accident like Kennedy did.


A war most Democrats voted for, intelligence at the time from many sources said WMD were being made by Saddam Hussein, Many prominent Democrats are on record calling Saddam Hussein a "threat", and are in favor of military action (before voting for war), A coalition of countries decided themselves to send their armed forces into action there, and Saddam was in complete violation of the cease fire agreements from Gulf War 1. I guess these things and many more things are easily forgotten by liberals. No equivalence at all.

[August]

One man's "common sense" is another's folly.:up:

Personally, I wouldn't doubt he was drinking. But I cannot prove that he was. So... yeah.


If he wasn't drinking then he was cold sober when he left that woman to die. That's somehow better?

[AVGWarhawk]

Actually, he was not DUI. Not as far as the law and evidence is concerned.

What law and evidence means at this point is moot. He was at a party. He was a known drinker (alcoholic). After 10 hours and what was available at the time to detect alcohol in the human body made what determination? There was nothing. He got shaken and was in shock thus running off? Personally, I think he was blind drunk. Here is a guy who leaves a party, dumps his car in lake with a women inside and does not tell anyone for 10 hours. :shifty:

[CastleBravo]

The Kennedy legacy............

Getting rich by bootlegging in the era of prohibition.

Supporting Hitler during the rise of the Nazis.

Losing “the chosen son” during WWII.

Ghostwriting Profiles In Courage.

Winning the first televised debate (gloss takes the lead over message as those who listened on radio gave the win to Nixon).

1960 election is “close”. Father jokes about not buying anymore votes than necessary.

Having numerous affairs with secretaries and maybe an actress or two. Doing drugs in the White House. Sharing a sexual plaything with a mobster.

Bailing support for the invasion of Cuba.

The Cuban missile crisis.

Wiretapping MLK Jr.’s phones.

Marilyn Monroe is driven to suicide or murdered, the death scene is compromised (shades of Vince Foster’s office).

JFK gets assassinated.

Ted opens the immigration floodgates.

RFK is talked as the “heir”.

RFK is assassinated.

Teddy is talked as the “heir”.

Teddy takes a trip with the Lady of the Lake.

Ted forgoes the White House to hold power in the Senate for 40+ years.

Ted invents Borking.

Ted sends a memo to the Soviets pledging support against the Reagan Administration (this should bar him from burial in Arlington; it was treason).

Ted blocks Bush’s judicial nominees to affect the outcome of a pending court case and blocks other nominees specifically because they are Hispanic.

[Aramike]

Ted sends a memo to the Soviets pledging support against the Reagan Administration (this should bar him from burial in Arlington; it was treason).I was unaware of this. Do you have a citation?

[CastleBravo]

I was unaware of this. Do you have a citation?

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2006/oct/27/20061027-084248-4386r/


Text of KGB Letter on Senator Ted Kennedy
Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR 14.05.1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow
Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov:
Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvements of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that may bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov.
1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefit of a meeting with Y.V. Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA. (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project resolution to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and the USSR and published a book on this theme as well.)
2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.
If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military terms. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understanding between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.
President of the committee V. Chebrikov

[Platapus]

Be interested if this was confirmed with other sources.

A most interesting piece of information. :shifty:

[August]

Be interested if this was confirmed with other sources.

A most interesting piece of information. :shifty:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

ttp://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWExYmM0Njk2YjNjMWJmNzJlNzliZmQ1ZjhkNGJhNzE=

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14176

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/31/legacy-considering-the-kennedy-andropov-gambit/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/the_soviet_era_memo_showing_te.html

[Stealth Hunter]

A war most Democrats voted for,

But not Ted.

intelligence at the time from many sources said WMD were being made by Saddam Hussein,

But later turned out to be wrong when none were found.

Many prominent Democrats are on record calling Saddam Hussein a "threat", and are in favor of military action (before voting for war),

But not Ted.

A coalition of countries decided themselves to send their armed forces into action there, and Saddam was in complete violation of the cease fire agreements from Gulf War 1.

Uh no. The peace agreement specifically stated that:

-Iraq was to dismantle all WMDs and long-range missiles (ones with a range of 150km or less were fine)
-Iraq was to abandon all future WMD programs
-Was required to comply with UN restrictions on the importing of "conventional weapons"
-Had to forever abandon support for terrorist groups

He dismantled all his WMDs and long-range missiles (you know- SCUDs and the like) under the supervision of UN weapons inspectors (as per Article C), he shut down all his WMD programs (as per Article C), and he did not support terrorist groups (as per Article H). It was an extreme crime in Iraq for anyone to collaborate with terrorists actually; punishable by death.

There was an incident in 1995 in which the Jordanians intercepted two shipments of gyroscopes bound for Iraq, which supposedly violated the "conventional weapons" point in the agreement (under Article F). However, they were purchased by a private businessman, not the government, so nothing was actually broken.

I guess these things and many more things are easily forgotten by liberals.

If it's bull, there's nothing to "forget".

If he wasn't drinking then he was cold sober when he left that woman to die. That's somehow better?

Personally, I feel it neither better nor worse. The end result was the same, and that's what matters to me: his accomplice died. Although it is quite bold to claim that he "left that woman to die" there. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he thought she got out? Maybe he thought she was already dead? I don't claim to know what was specifically running through his mind; I'm just throwing food out there for thought. But to say that he left her there to die... that's claiming to know exactly what was going through his mind in the event that he was sober.

With that said, as far as the law is concerned, it's much more severe to have something like this happen whilst you're under the influence of alcohol.

What law and evidence means at this point is moot. He was at a party. He was a known drinker (alcoholic).

And that proves... what exactly about this night? It gives you plenty of reason to be suspicious, but it does not give anything to confirm your suspicions.

After 10 hours and what was available at the time to detect alcohol in the human body made what determination? There was nothing.

He got shaken and was in shock thus running off? Personally, I think he was blind drunk. Here is a guy who leaves a party, dumps his car in lake with a women inside and does not tell anyone for 10 hours. :shifty:

Couple of things:

A) If he was "blind drunk", how did he manage to escape his car as it sank into the lake? Let me link you to a test Mythbusters did on this topic, to give you an idea how difficult it is to escape a sinking vehicle when you're sober:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgvNgwJHcmg

Imagine how hard it would be if you were drunk.

B) He did not "dump" his car.

With that said, where are you getting the you-had-10-hours-to-test-for-alcohol-being-present-in-a-human's-bloodstream figure? Just curious.

Getting rich by bootlegging in the era of prohibition.

I'm surprised you don't like this. You make a big deal about the government wanting to make/collect reports on guns mandatory, yet you don't support their bootlegging of liquor after the government banned it.

Supporting Hitler during the rise of the Nazis.

Wrong. That would be Fritz Thyssen, who Prescott BUSH (father of presidents G.H.W. and grandfather of G.W.) traded it. Thyssen supported Hitler and the Nazi Party during the 1920s and 1930s. He was one of Germany's wealthiest industrial barons, and owned quite a few factory complexes there. Prescott forged three business deals with him in the '20s, calling for the trading of resources.

When World War II began, Thyssen told Hermann Goering of his disapproval of the war. For this, his company was taken from him and nationalized. However, Prescott Bush continued trading with the company for several more years after the Nazi Party took control of it, up to a year and a half after the United States declared war on Germany.

With that said, Joseph Kennedy did not support the Nazis in any way, shape, or form. He DID support, however, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's attempts to compromise with the Nazis.

Losing “the chosen son” during WWII.

He did his part just like many others; and like many others, he gave his life. The same nearly happened to John when PT-109 was sunk; even George H. W. Bush nearly died during the Battle of the Phillipine Sea. The ones who served in combat I've got respect for, no matter what their political affiliation.

Ghostwriting Profiles In Courage.

Actually, historians are pretty sure today that Ted Sorensen wrote it, not John. Not that it really matters. It's a good book honoring such American politicians as Daniel Webster, John Adams, Robert Taft, and Sam Houston.

Winning the first televised debate (gloss takes the lead over message as those who listened on radio gave the win to Nixon).

As if Nixon had a "message". Well- scratch that. Watergate certainly gave us a message about him... he was a two-faced bastard. I have no respect for Nixon simply because of what he did there and because he supported Joseph McCarthy's trials, which were a mockery to the American justice system to say the least (comparable to the Salem Witch Trials, I would argue).

1960 election is “close”. Father jokes about not buying anymore votes than necessary.

It was a joke, not a political statement...

Dear Jack. Don't buy a single vote more than necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide.

Having numerous affairs with secretaries and maybe an actress or two.

Something which all of them publicly joked about. With that said, how is their sexual life any of our business? It isn't. What they do in the bedroom is none of my concern, or your concern for that matter.

Doing drugs in the White House.

None of them did drugs in the White House. Not one. Robert Jr. was caught with heroin in 1983 in some airport, but not in the White House. Furthermore, need I remind you of the cocaine and pot binges of Bush? How about Nixon's abuse of dilantin?Sharing a sexual plaything with a mobster.

Giacana's girl Judith? They never confirmed their relationship was sexual. The FBI (or CIA... it was one of the two) tapped their phones and knew they talked to each other a lot, but they never did prove that anything they did was sexual. And once again, I would cite the matter that it's not any of our business what his sex life consisted of.

Finally, she made a lot of wild claims in her BOOK about her and Kennedy. Didn't back any of it with proof, like photographs or written documents, but she certainly had no problem telling the stories that made up her book.

Bailing support for the invasion of Cuba.

Because they knew it would fail. And guess what? The Bay of Pigs Invasion DID fail. Epically.

The Cuban missile crisis.

Which came to an end on John's watch.

Wiretapping MLK Jr.’s phones.

After the FBI blackmailed Robert into giving them permission to do so, on suspicions that he was a Communist. That was J. Edgar Hoover for you: nationalist, racist, expert negotiator, and hypocrite.

Marilyn Monroe is driven to suicide or murdered,

The woman was a well-known pill-popper for years. There's no evidence that it was suicide or murder. Lots of conspiracies, but no actual evidence to back these up.JFK gets assassinated.

Last president to be killed. May he rest in peace.

Ted opens the immigration floodgates.

Thank you, Ted.

RFK is talked as the “heir”.

And he could have made it to president...

RFK is assassinated.

If it wasn't for this.

Teddy is talked as the “heir”.

Only makes sense. He was the only surviving Congressional Kennedy.

Teddy takes a trip with the Lady of the Lake.

That's not funny. Not at all.

Ted forgoes the White House to hold power in the Senate for 40+ years.

In your point of view, but this amounts to little more than opinion... contradictory at times even. When Democrat Clinton was in the White House, Congress had a Republican majority at one point.

Ted invents Borking.

Ernest Goes to the Beach.

Ted sends a memo to the Soviets pledging support against the Reagan Administration

That reminds me, where are the photoscans of this memo? I read your other post, but I didn't see any actual pictures of them.(this should bar him from burial in Arlington; it was treason).
According to United States law, treason is:

...consisting only in levying war against the state, or in adhering to our enemies by giving them aid and comfort.

From what I read of your copy, he was not supporting them against Reagan as you claim. Rather, he was stating that he too disliked the man, especially over his lack of trying to improve relations between the US and USSR. Where does it say that he would take up arms against Reagan in the event the Soviets were to help him?

Ted blocks Bush’s judicial nominees to affect the outcome of a pending court case and blocks other nominees specifically because they are Hispanic.

A) Citation please?

B) Hispanic? Not because of a disagreement in opinions?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

ttp://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWExYmM0Njk2YjNjMWJmNzJlNzliZmQ1ZjhkNGJhNzE=

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14176

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/31/legacy-considering-the-kennedy-andropov-gambit/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/the_soviet_era_memo_showing_te.html

What about CNN or the BBC? Like... someone with a respectable history or minimal amount of bias? I'm seeing an opinion article from Forbes that doesn't cite any sources or show any pictures of the document, "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion" (National Review), "A Conservative Free Press" (Canada Free Press), Hot Air (which gets its info from Forbes), and a blog that has a main article stating "Here's a great idea: Let's give Obama control of the internet" that reads inside "But don't worry. Obama would only take over the internet in an 'emergency.' Then why does it make me uneasy that this Chicago Way pol gets to define what an 'emergency' might be?"

It certainly gives us reason to question their reliability and accuracy.

[August]

Personally, I feel it neither better nor worse. The end result was the same, and that's what matters to me: his accomplice died. Although it is quite bold to claim that he "left that woman to die" there. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he thought she got out? Maybe he thought she was already dead? I don't claim to know what was specifically running through his mind; I'm just throwing food out there for thought. But to say that he left her there to die... that's claiming to know exactly what was going through his mind in the event that he was sober.

With that said, as far as the law is concerned, it's much more severe to have something like this happen whilst you're under the influence of alcohol

Kennedy lied, Mary Jo Kopechne died. That's all that's important here. You're just attempting to whitewash the incident because he's a fellow Democrat.

[FIREWALL]

A UFO did everything useing that line of thinking SH. :haha:

[OneToughHerring]

Kennedy lied, Mary Jo Kopechne died. That's all that's important here. You're just attempting to whitewash the incident because he's a fellow Democrat.

Nevermind he'd been in the accident himself, tried to save her and was in a state of shock and had concussion etc. according to the doctors.

Like I said I'm no friend of the Kennedys but try not to distort the truth too much. Btw, Bush DUI'd as well or possibly drove in coke, and Cheney DUI'd too. All proven not just 'hearsay'. Not to mention Laura Bush who murdered a dude who wouldn't poke her lovenest. Yes, it's true. How about that for an 'incident'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dutton_Douglas

Can you Americans imagine that we have a president who hasn't killed anyone, personally or otherwise? :)

[Aramike]

@Stealth Hunter: Holy crap, that might be the longest quote-post consisting of mostly one-liners of the year.From what I read of your copy, he was not supporting them against Reagan as you claim. Rather, he was stating that he too disliked the man, especially over his lack of trying to improve relations between the US and USSR. Where does it say that he would take up arms against Reagan in the event the Soviets were to help him?Dude, that's totally "aid and comfort to the enemy". If treason was defined soley as taking up arms, that'd be what it says.

OTH:Nevermind he'd been in the accident himself, tried to save her and was in a state of shock and had concussion etc. according to the doctors. :har::har:

[AVGWarhawk]

Nevermind he'd been in the accident himself, tried to save her and was in a state of shock and had concussion etc. according to the doctors.

Like I said I'm no friend of the Kennedys but try not to distort the truth too much. Btw, Bush DUI'd as well or possibly drove in coke, and Cheney DUI'd too. All proven not just 'hearsay'. Not to mention Laura Bush who murdered a dude who wouldn't poke her lovenest. Yes, it's true. How about that for an 'incident'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dutton_Douglas

Can you Americans imagine that we have a president who hasn't killed anyone, personally or otherwise? :)


State of shock...attempted to save? Yeah sure...he was blind drunk and wandered off. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. According to what the doctors opinions were or did they just spill the opinion Ted's good buddies wanted them to have?


How in the heck did you get Laura Bush as a murder from that wiki article:


Not to mention Laura Bush who murdered a dude who wouldn't poke her lovenest. Yes, it's true. How about that for an 'incident'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dutton_Douglas

[August]

Nevermind he'd been in the accident himself, tried to save her and was in a state of shock and had concussion etc. according to the doctors.

You believe a physical examination given many hours afterwards, given by Kennedy doctors, is valid? You would never let a Republican get away with that. Why the flip flop oth?

Not to mention Laura Bush who murdered a dude who wouldn't poke her lovenest. Yes, it's true. How about that for an 'incident'. I see no mention of intent there at all but is that the best you can do to compare a private citizen (and at the time a minor) with the actions of Senator Saint Teddy?

[FIREWALL]

Nevermind he'd been in the accident himself, tried to save her and was in a state of shock and had concussion etc. according to the doctors.

Like I said I'm no friend of the Kennedys but try not to distort the truth too much. Btw, Bush DUI'd as well or possibly drove in coke, and Cheney DUI'd too. All proven not just 'hearsay'. Not to mention Laura Bush who murdered a dude who wouldn't poke her lovenest. Yes, it's true. How about that for an 'incident'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dutton_Douglas

Can you Americans imagine that we have a president who hasn't killed anyone, personally or otherwise? :)


Your flatout CERTIFIABLE. :o :yep:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

The Kennedy legacy............

Getting rich by bootlegging in the era of prohibition.

Yeah, so? Alcohol should never have been made illegal (like many other things)

Supporting Hitler during the rise of the Nazis.

So did Prescott Bush

Losing “the chosen son” during WWII.

Your point?

Ghostwriting Profiles In Courage.

Perhaps.

Winning the first televised debate (gloss takes the lead over message as those who listened on radio gave the win to Nixon).

Yep, that IS stupid.

1960 election is “close”. Father jokes about not buying anymore votes than necessary.

Yep. Dirty. Though I'd MUCH rather have JFK as President than Nixon.

Having numerous affairs with secretaries and maybe an actress or two. Doing drugs in the White House. Sharing a sexual plaything with a mobster.

Our business...how?

Bailing support for the invasion of Cuba.

Yep. He shouldn't have done that.

The Cuban missile crisis.

Masterfully handled.

Wiretapping MLK Jr.’s phones.

Um, you DO know J. Edgar Hoover did what he wanted? And that he blackmailed every President above him to stay in power?

Marilyn Monroe is driven to suicide or murdered, the death scene is compromised (shades of Vince Foster’s office).

Conjecture.

JFK gets assassinated.

Your point?

Ted opens the immigration floodgates.

I don't care for that.

RFK is talked as the “heir”.

Your point?

RFK is assassinated.

Your point?

Teddy is talked as the “heir”.

Your point?

Teddy takes a trip with the Lady of the Lake.

Classy way to put that. He should have helped her.

Ted forgoes the White House to hold power in the Senate for 40+ years.

Your point?

Ted invents Borking.

Is that like Swiftboating? Or Saxby Chambliss calling Max Cleland unAmerican? Saxby sat out the Vietnam war, citing a "bad knee," while Cleland lost three out of four limbs.

Ted sends a memo to the Soviets pledging support against the Reagan Administration (this should bar him from burial in Arlington; it was treason).

I'd like to see a source on that. If it was something like Fox, or the Washington Times, I'd have to take it w/a truckload of salt.

Ted blocks Bush’s judicial nominees to affect the outcome of a pending court case and blocks other nominees specifically because they are Hispanic.

Good for the former, I don't know about the latter.

[Aramike]

Yeah, so? Alcohol should never have been made illegal (like many other things)So now we can all decide what laws we abide?

[Stealth Hunter]

[/b]So now we can all decide what laws we abide?

They did. And in the end, prohibition was repealed.:yeah:

[Aramike]

They did. And in the end, prohibition was repealed.:yeah:So?

[Stealth Hunter]

Kennedy lied,

About what lol?

Mary Jo Kopechne died.

Yep.

That's all that's important here.

The facts surrounding the incident are just as important. You alleged that he lied about drinking that night, but that was never proven by officers of the law. So, once more, as far as the facts are concerned, he didn't lie about that.

You're just attempting to whitewash the incident because he's a fellow Democrat.

So because I'm a Social Democrat (/slash Democratic Socialist), and because the term "Democrat" is in the party's name, I must be a member of the United States Congressional Democratic Party...

Brilliant deduction.:haha:

Holy crap, that might be the longest quote-post consisting of mostly one-liners of the year.

Naw, Subman's got some longer ones.

Dude, that's totally "aid and comfort to the enemy".

Comfort? No. Aid? How did he give aid? Did he send the Russians weapons? Did he give them a map of the eastern seaboard? Did he give them statistics of American troop displacements throughout the nation? Etc.?

Nope. So he was not aiding them. He was conversing with them but not aiding them.

If treason was defined soley as taking up arms, that'd be what it says.

Which is why we have the Supreme Court there to determine the definitions of hazy legal terms. And according to them after the Haupt case in '47, you're only aiding the enemy if you give them information or direct support which will help them against the nation. Though he was also hiding a spy in his home, so it also ties into the comfort thing.

Furthermore, why is it that none of these people bothered to give sources or photocopy images of these documents that they reported on? I find that a bit odd. Why didn't someone like Fox News cover this? I name them simply because discovering something like this would be like finding oil in a goldmine for them. Very skeptical that this is the entire story, if it even happened.

OTH::har::har:

I also lol'd.

Herring, do you by chance have a citation for this?

[Stealth Hunter]

So?

So all people who had been imprisoned for breaking Prohibition laws/brought up on charges were released after it was repealed. In short, they may as well not have been doing anything wrong.

I find it odd that someone who opposes the government's desire for gun bans would have such a problem with the Kennedy family opposing Prohibition and the government's nation-wide ban on alcohol...:hmm2:

[August]

So all people who had been imprisoned for breaking Prohibition laws/brought up on charges were released after it was repealed. In short, they may as well not have been doing anything wrong.

I find it odd that someone who opposes the government's desire for gun bans would have such a problem with the Kennedy family opposing Prohibition and the government's nation-wide ban on alcohol...:hmm2:

Probably the same reason he wouldn't have supported Alphonse Capone who, according to your reasoning, was only guilty of tax evasion.

[Stealth Hunter]

Probably the same reason he wouldn't have supported Alphonse Capone who, according to your reasoning, was only guilty of tax evasion.

If I had to reason about Capone but I don't. It's been a well-known fact for nearly 75 years that, asides from the tax evasion, he had people killed, for various reasons. He killed this one fellow himself by beating him mercilessly to death with a baseball bat. And then there's the infamous Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in '29.

[Aramike]

So all people who had been imprisoned for breaking Prohibition laws/brought up on charges were released after it was repealed. In short, they may as well not have been doing anything wrong.

I find it odd that someone who opposes the government's desire for gun bans would have such a problem with the Kennedy family opposing Prohibition and the government's nation-wide ban on alcohol...:hmm2:I have no problem with opposing a law. I have a problem with violating it. These are two very distinct things.

[Stealth Hunter]

Sometimes, you have to violate a law to oppose it. The Founding Fathers were opposing and violating the law when they separated from England and declared independence to establish this nation- let alone when they protested against the Crown by not paying their taxes (they also liked to tar and feather tax collectors as another form of protest lol; the collectors died most of the time from burns from the tar... but... nevermind).

[Aramike]

Sometimes, you have to violate a law to oppose it. The Founding Fathers were opposing and violating the law when they separated from England and declared independence to establish this nation- let alone when they protested against the Crown by not paying their taxes (they also liked to tar and feather tax collectors as another form of protest lol; the collectors died most of the time from burns from the tar... but... nevermind).I don't necessarily disagree, but surely you see how that logic presents a catch-22.

[Stealth Hunter]

True, it is an odd situation.

[Aramike]

True, it is an odd situation.After thinking about it, I believe that perhaps its okay to violate a law in order to oppose it on principle, should someone be prepared to accept the consequences.

BUT, I do not believe it is okay to PROFIT from it.

[Stealth Hunter]

After thinking about it, I believe that perhaps its okay to violate a law in order to oppose it on principle, should someone be prepared to accept the consequences.

BUT, I do not believe it is okay to PROFIT from it.

I agree with you on these points, especially the latter.

[August]

Actually, he was not DUI. Not as far as the law and evidence is concerned.

If I had to reason about Capone but I don't. It's been a well-known fact for nearly 75 years that, asides from the tax evasion, he had people killed, for various reasons. He killed this one fellow himself by beating him mercilessly to death with a baseball bat. And then there's the infamous Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in '29.

Actually he did none of that. Not as far as the law and evidence is concerned, right? ;)

Whatever Ted Kennedy did in later life does not make up for the fact that he killed that girl. Maybe not with a baseball bat but just as dead. I'd say the baseball bat was more merciful than the two hours of hell Mary Jo went through before she finally succumbed. This is not a man we should be honoring.

[OneToughHerring]

August,

ok we get it, you have a personal problem with Kennedy. You're beginning to sound a little obsessed about this, and not just a little.

[Aramike]

I agree with you on these points, especially the latter.Heh, we found a middle ground ... that's something new for the internet. :know:

[Aramike]

August,

ok we get it, you have a personal problem with Kennedy. You're beginning to sound a little obsessed about this, and not just a little.I find it difficult to find fault with a man who's supremely disgusted by the actions in question. I suspect that, deep down, you do too.

[OneToughHerring]

I see no mention of intent there at all but is that the best you can do to compare a private citizen (and at the time a minor) with the actions of Senator Saint Teddy?

Where's the intent on Kennedy's part?

Laura Bush broke the law by driving recklessly and refusing to stop at a stop sign and causing the death of a human on purpose and got away without even a ticket? WTF?

And of course George's and Dick's DUI's.

http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/i/partypictures/07_29_08/carol/DK1976_CheneyBumper.jpg

[Aramike]

Where's the intent on Kennedy's part?

Laura Bush broke the law by driving recklessly and refusing to stop at a stop sign and causing the death of a human on purpose and got away without even a ticket? WTF?

And of course George's and Dick's DUI's.

Holy crap, OTH ... usually you're wait out in left field, but this time I'm not even sure you're in the ballpark. :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

Where's the intent on Kennedy's part?

Laura Bush broke the law by driving recklessly and refusing to stop at a stop sign and causing the death of a human on purpose and got away without even a ticket? WTF?

And of course George's and Dick's DUI's.



You don't get it. That day in age what Laura Welsh did was an accident. In todays world she would probably gotten vehicular manslaughter. Accidents do happen and people do not pay attention all the time while driving. Go find someone on a cell phone while driving and you will undertand. Furthermore, she had no political affiliations that I'm aware of and had no backing as Kennedy did if the law was after her. Now, we have the same situation for Kennedy as the laws for DUI where the penalty was not as bad as today's. Kennedy was leaving a party. Kennedy was a known drinker...really a drinker. Drives off a bridge and leaves the scene for 10...count them, 10....hours to do what? Sober up and form a a good alibi to get off the hook. He had the connections and was successful in getting away with murder. Here is a guy who dunked his car off a bridge with a girl left to die, waits 10 hours and makes an alibi. When the day is over and he starts to head home the ferry he needs to use to get across the water to his home is not called for. He swims the 500 yards to the other shore to make it home. This guy has a loose nut up top. Kennedy's doings is not even remotely close to Laura Welshes accident. This day in age Kennedy would be doing some time in the pokie for sure.

[SteamWake]

Shameless :nope:


Harry Reid : Kennedys death is going to help us


http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Reid_Teddys_death_going_to_help_us.html

[AVGWarhawk]

Shameless :nope:



http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Reid_Teddys_death_going_to_help_us.html


It is a sad day when you need a dead person to help you pass a bill. WTH, is the bill so bad in it's own merit they need to hang their success on a dead person? If it is that bad to need that then the bill need not pass. :nope:

[mookiemookie]

It is a sad day when you need a dead person to help you pass a bill. WTH, is the bill so bad in it's own merit they need to hang their success on a dead person? If it is that bad to need that then the bill need not pass. :nope:

How long before they prop up Teddy "Weekend at Bernies" style in front of the cameras with a copy of the bill in his hand?

[AVGWarhawk]

How long before they prop up Teddy "Weekend at Bernies" style in front of the cameras with a copy of the bill in his hand?

Yeah, at least get Ted to raise his hand to vote on the bill. :o

[mookiemookie]

Yeah, at least get Ted to raise his hand to vote on the bill. :o

I'm sure Pelosi and Reid are sketching out a pulley and fishing wire system to accomplish this.

[Stealth Hunter]

Actually he did none of that. Not as far as the law and evidence is concerned, right? ;)

You know that some of his former... "employees" came forward after he died of syphilis and confirmed that the allegations of murder, right? Guess not. We don't just pin things like the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre on him for no reason lol. We know he orchestrated it, because people who worked for him acted as witnesses in confirming that he was the one responsible.

Whatever Ted Kennedy did in later life does not make up for the fact that he killed that girl.

Nobody is saying that anything could make up for it.

Maybe not with a baseball bat but just as dead.

Yep.

I'd say the baseball bat was more merciful than the two hours of hell Mary Jo went through before she finally succumbed.

I'd rather take drowning, simply because you will in most cases lapse out of consciousness before you can even process what's going on. But whatever.

This is not a man we should be honoring.

Why is it always about honor with you people? Isn't it only fair to let people's honor die with them when they do? But on to the point: we're not saying you should honor him; just don't forget the good contributions he made to society. There is a difference.:shifty:

[August]

You know that some of his former... "employees" came forward after he died of syphilis and confirmed that the allegations of murder, right? Guess not. We don't just pin things like the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre on him for no reason lol. We know he orchestrated it, because people who worked for him acted as witnesses in confirming that he was the one responsible.

Yeah years later when it wasn't suicide to do so. But nobody is pinning Chappaquiddick on Teddy for no reason either. We know he's responsible. A better analogy would be knowing what Al Capone did but ignoring it because he gave money to the poor.

I'd rather take drowning, simply because you will in most cases lapse out of consciousness before you can even process what's going on. But whatever.So would I SH but Mary Jo didn't die from drowning. She suffocated. At least a couple hours trapped in a pocket of increasingly foul air, alone in the pitch black, terrified, waiting for a rescue that never came. It's not "whatever" it's a nasty way to die, end of story.


Why is it always about honor with you people? What the hell does this mean?

Isn't it only fair to let people's honor die with them when they do? But on to the point: we're not saying you should honor him; just don't forget the good contributions he made to society. There is a difference.:shifty:Then tell your party to quit trying to make him into a saint. The pomp and ceremony, burial at Arlington, naming bills after him, changing laws that he originally forced passage of because he doesn't trust the voter to make their own decisions? C'mon. Your attempt to make this a Republican issue fails on so many levels it's just not funny.

As for the rest of his contributions to this country. Bah, the man was a senator for, what, 40 some odd years? Given that ridiculously long term of office the good is far and few between.

[AVGWarhawk]

Then tell your party to quit trying to make him into a saint. The pomp and ceremony, burial at Arlington, naming bills after him, changing laws that he originally forced passage of because he doesn't trust the voter to make their own decisions? C'mon. Your attempt to make this a Republican issue fails on so many levels it's just not funny.



Amen! It has turned into a opportunistic venture on capitol hill for Reid and Pelosi. Shameful. As far as Arlington, many folks I know who were Cold War vets really hate the fact Ted is being buried at Arlington. This is not a Republican issue...this is dems doing their best to pull at the heart strings. Personally I have not heart string to pull for Ted. I do not want to glorify Ted and or his family for the things they go away with over the years.

[Aramike]

Amen! It has turned into a opportunistic venture on capitol hill for Reid and Pelosi. Shameful. As far as Arlington, many folks I know who were Cold War vets really hate the fact Ted is being buried at Arlington. This is not a Republican issue...this is dems doing their best to pull at the heart strings. Personally I have not heart string to pull for Ted. I do not want to glorify Ted and or his family for the things they go away with over the years.I second that! :salute:

[Stealth Hunter]

Yeah years later when it wasn't suicide to do so.

Yep.

But nobody is pinning Chappaquiddick on Teddy for no reason either. We know he's responsible.

But to the extent where he's a "sociopath"? Please, stop being so overly dramatic.

A better analogy would be knowing what Al Capone did but ignoring it because he gave money to the poor.

Chappaquiddick was hardly "ignored". It caused one of the biggest political controversies in the United States' history, let alone one of the more infamous scandals. Go to Google News and check their archives. You'll see just how many papers alone reported on it. And it's A LOT.

Furthermore, comparing Kennedy to Capone is very unrealistic as well, not to mention just as overly dramatic as your statement that Kennedy was a sociopath. Capone had dozens of people killed because of money issues and trust issues (among other things; he shot this Joe Howard chap because he called him a "dog pimp"); Kennedy got Kopechne killed from his own stupidity. Asides from the ratio differences, the reasons behind the ratios were also different. If you want to apply the term to anybody, then call Capone a sociopath- not Kennedy.

So would I SH but Mary Jo didn't die from drowning. She suffocated. At least a couple hours trapped in a pocket of increasingly foul air, alone in the pitch black, terrified, waiting for a rescue that never came.

She drowned. Check Dr. Donald Mills' autopsy report again and Judge Bernard Brominski's exhumation ruling.

It's not "whatever"

Nobody said it was. I was simply saying that I'm not going to argue about it anymore, because the only thing that matters to me is that she died. That's it.

it's a nasty way to die, end of story.

Though she died by drowning, not suffocation.

What the hell does this mean?

What the do you think it means? You know what forget it. It's not even important.

Then tell your party to quit trying to make him into a saint.

Still haven't learned that a Social Democrat is not a member of the United States Congressional Democratic Party? Can't really say I'm surprised.

The pomp and ceremony, burial at Arlington,

I've got no problem with these. It's customary to hold a remembrance service about the deceased, and since John and Robert are buried at Arlington, it's only fitting that he be buried there with them as well.

naming bills after him,

I assume you object to all bills that have names in them, right? I mean, it's not just the Democrats and Ted, right?

changing laws that he originally forced passage of because he doesn't trust the voter to make their own decisions?

"Doesn't trust the voter"? Well the correct form is "didn't", but that's not important. What is important is that, since you can make this claim, you've got some sort of evidence to back it with... right? I mean, you can prove that he didn't trust the voters. Right?

Furthermore, what laws? Name three. Just three.

Your attempt to make this a Republican issue fails on so many levels it's just not funny.

It IS an issue for REPUBLICANS, just as it IS an issue for DEMOCRATS.

As for the rest of his contributions to this country. Bah, the man was a senator for, what, 40 some odd years? Given that ridiculously long term of office the good is far and few between.

Here's SOME of the ones he helped to pass/contributed to:

Equal Rights Amendment in 1972
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1972
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988
Fair Pay Restoration Act
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Affirmative Action of 2003
Employment Non-Discrimination Act since 1994
Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2007
Ryan White CARE Act
1994 Violence Against Women Act
Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990
National Military Child Care Act
State Children's Health Insurance Program
Affordable Health Care Act
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000
Minority Health Improvement Act
Health Disparity Elimination Act
NIH Revitalization Act of 1993

I have to ask you, on the Matthew Shepard and Ryan White Acts... should we object to them because they have the names of people in them? Furthermore, how many bills should he have passed then? Just curious.:hmmm:

[August]

on the Matthew Shepard and Ryan White Acts... should we object to them because they have the names of people in them?

Depends, did either of them use their power and position to avoid responsibility and punishment for the death of a young woman? Do either of them owe that power and position to a bootlegging, admirer of Nazis?


If the answer to both those questions is yes then yes we should object to them.

[Stealth Hunter]

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?

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.

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).

[August]

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.

First off anything passed by constitutional amendment, such as prohibition is interently NOT "unconstitutional" That's why they had to amend the constitution again to repeal it.

Second, this is not about Prescott Bush, Charles Lindberg, Bozo the Clown or anyone else and you know it. Joseph Kennedy's admiration for the nazis and and his blatant antisemitism are well established so quit trying to deny it.

And why is that? Object to what the bill says (it's substance), not to what the name is (it's marketing slogan).I object to every underhanded tactic your side is using to ram this mess down the throats of the American people.

[Stealth Hunter]

First off anything passed by constitutional amendment, such as prohibition is interently NOT "unconstitutional" That's why they had to amend the constitution again to repeal it.

Though the repeal didn't officially remove it throughout the United States immediately. The government had to step in and make all the states drop Prohibition laws. Some kept them for a short while, but they're all gone now. Ratified it in December of 1933. Furthermore, it was found to be in violation of 14th Amendment's point on no state being allowed to make/enforce any law that removes priveleges of the people, on the grounds that the banning of alcohol was in violation of the United States Constitution to begin with because it prohibited a form of private conduct (in this case, the consumption of intoxicating beverages).


Second, this is not about Prescott Bush, Charles Lindberg, Bozo the Clown or anyone else and you know it. Joseph Kennedy's admiration for the nazis and and his blatant antisemitism are well established so quit trying to deny it.

No- it is. It correlates perfectly. Both men (Joseph Kennedy and Prescott Bush, I mean) are the fathers and grandfathers of famed politicians, but you're misrepresenting who did what. Why you've felt the need to be dishonest about this twice now is beyond me. But, with that said, I don't need to deny anything lol. Joseph Kennedy didn't deal with the Nazis. He thought that Chamberlain should negotiate with them. End of story. Prescott Bush traded with them (Thyssen's company was nationalized after he spoke out against the war in 1939 and was exiled), for a year and a half after we'd declared war on them.

Yet he didn't have any problem with Harold Laski and that Frankfurter chap. If he was "blatant", then he would have damned them as well. Pick up a dictionary sometime.

I object to every underhanded tactic your side is using to ram this mess down the throats of the American people.

You object to EVERYTHING which comes from the opposing side of the spectrum, regardless of what it has to say (assuming you even pay attention to what is has to say- the details and substance that is). And it's not "my side"; don't kid yourself like a naiive know-it-all teenager. They both do it: Democrats and Republicans. You know as well as I do that they're only looking out for themselves at the end of the day, raising their pay grade and taking half-month long vacations. How people can see one side as infallible and always in the right and the other as always fallible and in the wrong is beyond me. Closed-mindedness? Egotism? Underlying motives? Maybe a mix of them all.

Have you even gone to Washington and sat in one of the senate's daily sessions? You can when you take a tour of the capitol. There's like 30 people in there. Hell- you could watch CSPAN and see how few there are. That's not how it used to be in the days of Hamilton and Jefferson, a time when people got things done. Sure, you had politicians who were in it for their own greedy motives, but you had a lot more that were concerned with the good of the nation and not their own benefit. Like Washington. They offered to make him king, and he refused them. You think that Congress sucks, I think that Congress sucks- for different reasons. And that's the simplistic beauty of it.

[August]

This thread is about Kennedy. Prescott Bush is not related to him and is therefore immaterial to the discussion. Neither is this discussion about me. For the record i'm not related to either of them.

To recap:

Edward Kennedy was a murderer.

His father was a bootlegger and nazi sympathizer.

The Democrats are trying to pass a pork loaded health care spending bill that will fail to achieve their objectives and likely ruin the country financially.

They are willing to use, not only the name but the very corpse of Kennedy in a Horst Wessel-like burial pagent to generate public sympathy for it.

You and I are never, ever going to agree.

Further discussion with you about this is useless.

[SteamWake]

Hey is he still dead ? :cool:

[Aramike]

Hey is he still dead ? :cool:No, he was spotted walking out of a Michigan diner with some fat waitress.

[AVGWarhawk]

No, he was spotted walking out of a Michigan diner with some fat waitress. Elvis and Mike Jackson also. They were all shopping at Walmart prior to the restaurant sighting. :D

[Stealth Hunter]

This thread is about Kennedy.

Till you decided to dishonesty change the facts.

BTW, if it was about Kennedy, why did you decide to throw Al Capone into the mix? I explained Prescott's presence already (on the ground that the parallels between the Kennedy family and Bush family were startling; not to mention, the Nazi thing you claimed about the Kennedys actually involved the Bushs), but Capone... I'm amiss.

Prescott Bush is not related to him and is therefore immaterial to the discussion.

Then why did you say that Joseph Kennedy was the wealthy businessman who did dealings with the Nazis and was the father of a line of famous politicians? That was incorrect, and the parallel was Prescott Bush. Ergo I simply corrected you. Deal with it.

Neither is this discussion about me.

Actually, it is. Very much so. When someone like you chooses to willingly ignore and/or distort fact of any kind (scientific, historical, you name it) incorrectly so, and when they're doing that for political and personal reasons, then it matters who is doing the talking.

For the record i'm not related to either of them.

Neither am I.

To recap:

Edward Kennedy was a murderer.

Noun



S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=murder&i=0&h=000#c) (n) murder, slaying (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=slaying), execution (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=execution) (unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being)

Verb



S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=murder&i=1&h=000#c) (v) murder, slay (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=slay), hit (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=hit), dispatch (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=dispatch), bump off (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=bump+off), off (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=off), polish off (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=polish+off), remove (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=remove)"The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered" (kill intentionally and with premeditation)
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=murder&i=2&h=000#c) (v) mangle (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=mangle), mutilate (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=mutilate), murder (alter so as to make unrecognizable) "The tourists murdered the French language"


http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=murder

Not murder. He ****ed up, and she got killed. But he didn't do so with premeditated thought- or bludgeon her to death with a golf trophy. You get the point. It's quite simple.

His father was a bootlegger and nazi sympathizer.

A) Allegedly had INVESTMENTS in bootlegging during Prohibition, but this was never confirmed (though I personally think it quite likely he did). Again, I'll ask you nicely to stop with the factual dishonesty. You failed to mention that his father had large investments in the movie production industry and real estate business as well.

B) Joseph Kennedy was not a Nazi sympathizer. He agreed with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain that they should try and negotiate with the Nazis if they wanted to keep positive relations with them; the man's own sons went to fight in the war FFS. Both nearly died on several occasions, and Pat finally did die. Again, the parallel to Joseph is Prescott, who did support the Nazi Party financially by trading with Thyssen's nationalized business- up to a year and a half after we'd declared war on them.

The Democrats are trying to pass a pork loaded health care spending bill that will fail to achieve their objectives and likely ruin the country financially.

Have you even bothered to read the bill? Wait- why did I bother to ask that? I already know the answer. You didn't. Have you ever even read a book relating to this topic and issues inside? You were wrong about Capone, Joseph Kennedy, Prescott Bush, the reason why Prohibition was repealed... onlookers, do I really need to go on?

And how do you know it's going to ruin the country financially? Are you basing that off the Limbaugh-Beck BS that it's "Socialist" because it's "universal"? It's not. It's nearly universal, but it's not universal. It's almost exactly like Germany's medical care system that Otto von Bismarck created... 125 years ago... that they're still using today... and yet they haven't collapsed financially.

They are willing to use, not only the name but the very corpse of Kennedy in a Horst Wessel-like burial pagent to generate public sympathy for it.

Will you stop, for the love of god, with the dramatics. They're not working. If you really think Kennedy was like Wessel, then I submit to you that the Republicans and Bush used 9/11 as their own "Horst Wessel" for passing the Patriot Act of 2003 and for justifying war with Iraq.

You and I are never, ever going to agree.

Did you just figure that out?

Further discussion with you about this is useless.

Run then. I don't care. Assuming you do come back, I view the Health Care Reform, On the Back of Napkins slideshow. Good rundown of what it proposes, in simple, non-Congressional/formal lingo for the... disadvantaged:

http://digitalroam.typepad.com/

Right there, front page. Don't even have to scroll all the way down.

[August]

As I said further discussion with you is useless. You aren't changing my mind and i'm not changing yours. We'll see whose side prevails.

[Stealth Hunter]

As I said further discussion with you is useless.

And so it is useless with you.

You aren't changing my mind and i'm not changing yours. We'll see whose side prevails.

Well that is how it's all going to be settled in the end. We can agree on that at least.

[Aramike]

Let's reset here for a moment...

Stealth Hunter, what is your take of the Chappaquidick incident, without using quotes as a mechanism to respond (I'm not trying to be a smartass)? Please reply with your full view on it, morally and legally...

[Stealth Hunter]

You've already got it. From halfway down page 5 on to where we... post now.

As far as morals are concerned though, I'm going to avoid that issue. Everyone's got different values and morals and ethics, which are matters of personal opinion. Rather, I'd stick more to the legal aspect than anything.

[Aramike]

You've already got it. From halfway down page 5 on to where we... post now.

As far as morals are concerned though, I'm going to avoid that issue. Everyone's got different values and morals and ethics, which are matters of personal opinion. Rather, I'd stick more to the legal aspect than anything.I think that's kind of a cop-out. Societies are founded upon combined and shared morals. Sure, some of the minor details vary, but I can't imagine anyone could really morally justify this particular incident.

[Sea Demon]

I think that's kind of a cop-out. Societies are founded upon combined and shared morals. Sure, some of the minor details vary, but I can't imagine anyone could really morally justify this particular incident.

Agreed. I don't know what kind of morality one has, to justify someone leaving a dying person in a car while they paced back and forth on a bridge while worrying about they're own career.

[Sea Demon]

By the way....the Democrats exploited Ted. They even used Ted's grandchildren as props.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T75L9KvTlcY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fidiots4obama%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F search%3Fupdated%2Dmax%3D2009%2D09%2D02T06%253A59% 253A00%2D07%253A00%26max%2Dresults%3D10&feature=player_embedded#t=11

This is just utterly pathetic. And downright embarrassing. Just like Wellstone's memorial.

[Stealth Hunter]

I think that's kind of a cop-out.

How so? I don't want to retype another three and a half pages of stuff I've already said; it's easy enough just to go back and look. At least you have my clarification on my mannerism as to going about judging a case like this.

Societies are founded upon combined and shared morals.

But again, it's difficult to find people who truly share the exact same morals, simply because all people are different in their morals and values and ethics for whatever overlying reason; easier to find ones who identify themselves with similar/common needs, wants, and political idealisms.

Sure, some of the minor details vary, but I can't imagine anyone could really morally justify this particular incident.

Again, I wouldn't even bother with the moral aspect, for precisely the reason I mentioned earlier: everybody has got different morals.

And furthermore, which moral code should you follow? How would one be able to justify which one would be the "correct" one to follow? When you've got something like Jewish morals vs. Christian morals or Christian morals vs. Islamic morals, they're all different. But what not look at the bigger picture between the two: yeah- their morals are different, but they've got similar needs don't they? And wants? And political idealisms?

Agreed. I don't know what kind of morality one has, to justify someone leaving a dying person in a car while they paced back and forth on a bridge while worrying about they're own career.

If that is indeed what happened. Like I said, we don't really know what happened that night, and the safest and most correct conclusion we can draw is that we'll never really know. Maybe he smashed his head into the steering wheel and did really have a concussion, maybe he did come back with some friends and try to get her out of the car, we don't know. I certainly won't claim to know, anyway. I will, however, toss ideas out there as food for thought and speculate, but that is all I am doing. And speculation has very little merit as far as facts and truth are concerned.

By the way....the Democrats exploited Ted. They even used Ted's grandchildren as props.

They might have, and they might not have. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if this were the case. But we're not absolute here, simply because we can't prove a thing. We can speculate, sure, but that does nothing really to prove anything. Maybe this is how the kids really felt. Maybe not. We don't know. Maybe something or someone will come forward in the future and admit to it.