Senator Ted Kennedy Dead at 77

[Stealth Hunter]

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

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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

No, just where common sense is concerned.

[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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

No, just where common sense is concerned.

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

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

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

The Iraq War is debatable.

And the Chappaquiddick Incident isn't?

It is...

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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

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]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2006...-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.