Shameless :nope:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...o_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:

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

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

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.

Nobody is saying that anything could make up for it.

Yep.

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.

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:

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.

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.


What the hell does this mean?

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.

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:

Yep.

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

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.

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

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.

Though she died by drowning, not suffocation.

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

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.

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.

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

"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.

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

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:

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.

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?

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.


And why is that? Object to what the bill says (it's substance), not to what the name is (it's marketing slogan).

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.

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

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).


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.

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.

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.