:cry:
I thought I'd say a few words.
Even though he had a few rough spots in his history, and was often the butt of jokes, the Democratic party has today lost one of its lions. I cannot imagine any person in the US qualified to follow him. It is an especially close loss for me, because American education has lost one of its most ferocious proponents in government.
Rest in peace.
He certainly had a ride, not always comfortable, RIP Ted.
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/26/sen-ted-kennedy-dies-at-77/
Anyway, RIP.
Reunited at last! :)
The end of a political dynasty. RIP.
RIP.
I've never been a fan (though I did vote for him :blush: ), but he's gonna be sorely missed, at least in Mass. where his cult of personality has been the strongest.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 26, 2009, 03:41:54 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 26, 2009, 03:33:16 AM
The end of a political dynasty.
Not completely.
Do you think someone of the next generation will have such high functions in politics?
Quote from: Jaron on August 26, 2009, 12:34:54 AM
It is an especially close loss for me, because American education has lost one of its most ferocious proponants in government.
Obviously not.
:nelson @ Senate Democrats
Now if only Byrd would kindly drop dead, they could start making some progress on health care legislation.
:cry:
:cry:
RIP to may State's senior Senator.
The FREEP's Headline:
Sen. Kennedy: Liberal lion leaves lasting legacy
:bleeding:
Hate alliteration, love Kennedy :)
RIP :(
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2009, 02:35:07 AM
Reunited at last! :)
:XD:
To be fair, though, Kennedy was catching too much flack for the accident. The girl was alive when he left.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2009, 09:51:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2009, 02:35:07 AM
Reunited at last! :)
:XD:
To be fair, though, Kennedy was catching too much flack for the accident. The girl was alive when he left.
:lmfao:
RIP. He could be entertaining at times.
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
This is an RIP thread, start your own Burn in Hell Ted Kennedy thread. :mad:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 26, 2009, 09:59:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
This is an RIP thread, start your own Burn in Hell Ted Kennedy thread. :mad:
No.
Let's try to remember the positives.
Ted Kennedy's life was about a driving need to cross bridges to make connections. It was about plunging deeply into the river of experience and leaving the dead weight behind. It was about drinking in fully the heady brew of politics, speeding widly into the hurly-burly without a care, taking some hard knocks, picking oneself up and heading into the twilight with no regrets and without looking back. Sure Ted was a big spender, but he had a big heart, and he knew you can't get anything worthwhile done without spending a few Kopechs. Who knows - he might have been President, if only he had hit the breaks.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2009, 10:36:13 AM
Let's try to remember the positives.
Ted Kennedy's life was about a driving need to cross bridges to make connections. It was about plunging deeply into the river of experience and leaving the dead weight behind. It was about drinking in fully the heady brew of politics, speeding widly into the hurly-burly without a care, taking some hard knocks, picking oneself up and heading into the twilight with no regrets and without looking back. Sure Ted was a big spender, but he had a big heart, and he knew you can't get anything worthwhile done without spending a few Kopechs. Who knows - he might have been President, if only he had hit the breaks.
:lmfao:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2009, 10:36:13 AM
Let's try to remember the positives.
Ted Kennedy's life was about a driving need to cross bridges to make connections. It was about plunging deeply into the river of experience and leaving the dead weight behind. It was about drinking in fully the heady brew of politics, speeding widly into the hurly-burly without a care, taking some hard knocks, picking oneself up and heading into the twilight with no regrets and without looking back. Sure Ted was a big spender, but he had a big heart, and he knew you can't get anything worthwhile done without spending a few Kopechs. Who knows - he might have been President, if only he had hit the breaks.
POTD.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2009, 10:36:13 AM
Let's try to remember the positives.
Ted Kennedy's life was about a driving need to cross bridges to make connections. It was about plunging deeply into the river of experience and leaving the dead weight behind. It was about drinking in fully the heady brew of politics, speeding widly into the hurly-burly without a care, taking some hard knocks, picking oneself up and heading into the twilight with no regrets and without looking back. Sure Ted was a big spender, but he had a big heart, and he knew you can't get anything worthwhile done without spending a few Kopechs. Who knows - he might have been President, if only he had hit the breaks.
Post reported to the Democratic party machine enforcers. :mad:
;)
Quote from: KRonn on August 26, 2009, 10:56:25 AM
Post reported to the Democratic party machine enforcers. :mad:
Thank you, we were already aware of it.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2009, 11:06:18 AM
Quote from: KRonn on August 26, 2009, 10:56:25 AM
Post reported to the Democratic party machine enforcers. :mad:
Thank you, we were already aware of it.
Wow, you guys move fast! :o
I'm glad that Obama called him the greatest senator of our time.
:( Last of the "Greatest Generation of Kennedys" RIP
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2009, 11:32:52 AM
I'm glad that Obama called him the greatest senator of our time.
I can't think of many other candidates. Part of it's longevity, but it's difficult to think of an area of American political life without legislation written or sponsored by Kennedy. In terms of real impact (as opposed to myth and cultural impact) I think he's by far and away the most consequential of the Kennedy clan.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2009, 10:36:13 AM
Ted Kennedy's life was about a driving need to cross bridges to make connections. It was about plunging deeply into the river of experience and leaving the dead weight behind. It was about drinking in fully the heady brew of politics, speeding widly into the hurly-burly without a care, taking some hard knocks, picking oneself up and heading into the twilight with no regrets and without looking back. Sure Ted was a big spender, but he had a big heart, and he knew you can't get anything worthwhile done without spending a few Kopechs. Who knows - he might have been President, if only he had hit the breaks.
:)
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2009, 11:32:52 AM
I'm glad that Obama called him the greatest senator of our time.
Who else even comes close?
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
What nerve.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2009, 10:36:13 AM
Let's try to remember the positives.
Ted Kennedy's life was about a driving need to cross bridges to make connections. It was about plunging deeply into the river of experience and leaving the dead weight behind. It was about drinking in fully the heady brew of politics, speeding widly into the hurly-burly without a care, taking some hard knocks, picking oneself up and heading into the twilight with no regrets and without looking back. Sure Ted was a big spender, but he had a big heart, and he knew you can't get anything worthwhile done without spending a few Kopechs. Who knows - he might have been President, if only he had hit the breaks.
Bravo. :lmfao:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:36:54 AM
I can't think of many other candidates. Part of it's longevity, but it's difficult to think of an area of American political life without legislation written or sponsored by Kennedy. In terms of real impact (as opposed to myth and cultural impact) I think he's by far and away the most consequential of the Kennedy clan.
Oh that's fair. I just have in my head that "greatness" has a connotation of one worthy of respect and/or admiration.
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2009, 02:35:07 AM
Reunited at last! :)
I think they went to different places
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
And yet a better man then you.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2009, 12:16:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
And yet a better man then you.
Not at all - I would certainly not have abandoned someone to their death. So no, not a better man than I - probably not even a better man than you.
Quote from: Jaron on August 26, 2009, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2009, 11:32:52 AM
I'm glad that Obama called him the greatest senator of our time.
Who else even comes close?
Depends on how you define "our time" but Mitchell and Dole were contemporaries with pretty good claims.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2009, 10:36:13 AM
Let's try to remember the positives.
Ted Kennedy's life was about a driving need to cross bridges to make connections. It was about plunging deeply into the river of experience and leaving the dead weight behind. It was about drinking in fully the heady brew of politics, speeding widly into the hurly-burly without a care, taking some hard knocks, picking oneself up and heading into the twilight with no regrets and without looking back. Sure Ted was a big spender, but he had a big heart, and he knew you can't get anything worthwhile done without spending a few Kopechs. Who knows - he might have been President, if only he had hit the breaks.
Hilarious. :lol:
Does anyone want to post the tribute on another forum (I'm thinking Huffington Post). :blush:
I am totally going to steal that and post it on facebook.
JR can sue me later if he wants.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 12:23:57 PM
I am totally going to steal that and post it on facebook.
I'll make several tweets! :w00t:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 26, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
Does anyone want to post the tribute on another forum (I'm thinking Huffington Post). :blush:
They have a "share your memories" piece, but they read the stuff before it is visible, so they'll probably not actually show it.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 12:18:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2009, 12:16:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
And yet a better man then you.
Not at all - I would certainly not have abandoned someone to their death. So no, not a better man than I - probably not even a better man than you.
Situation hasn't come up has it?
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 12:23:57 PM
I am totally going to steal that and post it on facebook.
JR can sue me later if he wants.
I'm stealing your idea. :D
I guess now is a good time to listen to the Dead Kennedys.
Bad news for Michelle:
QuoteIs Camelot's future in Obama's hands?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The young senator inspired a new generation of voters with his message of change and extended America's hand to the global community in an effort to promote a different kind of diplomacy.
One magazine characterized him as having a "quick charm, the patience to listen, a sure social touch, an interest in knowledge and a greed for facts."
A biographer recalled that he "had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation -- his message grounded on his own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal."
Those words could have been written about Barack Obama's rise to the presidency last year but actually come from coverage about the ascendancy of John F. Kennedy to the White House.
Kennedy's presidency is remembered as "Camelot," for the Broadway show about an idealized King Arthur's Court that opened the month after Kennedy won the presidency in November 1960.
After JFK's assassination in 1963, the Camelot legacy was handed down to younger brother Robert Kennedy, who served as John Kennedy's attorney general and was later elected to the Senate from New York.
Ted Kennedy assumed the mantle after Robert Kennedy was assassinated during his run for the presidency in 1968.
And with the death of the youngest Kennedy brother, the question arises: Has Obama become the Kennedy family's heir apparent?
Many saw Kennedy's endorsement of Obama in the Democratic primaries last year as his handing the keys to Camelot to someone outside the family.
Kennedy's son Patrick, a Democratic congressman from Rhode Island, has kept a relatively low profile in Congress and has faced substance abuse problems that have led to stints in rehab facilities.
JFK's daughter, Caroline, stepped into the political spotlight recently, only later to drop out of the running for Hillary Clinton's vacant Senate seat.
Robert Kennedy's son Joe was derailed after a messy personal life involving a high-profile annulment, and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, has largely stayed out of the spotlight.
Others, like Robert Kennedy Jr., have careers in public service outside of government.
But Stephen Hess, a former staffer in the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations and an adviser to presidents Ford and Carter, says that right now, there are no other Kennedys to assume Ted Kennedy's place in American politics.
"These families can kind of go into a quiet state and then can flare up again. ... It doesn't look like there is a Kennedy in the immediate future and the nation's political history," he said. "No one will ever count out the Kennedys, and so there will be others."
"We often keep turning to the same names. ... At the moment, it does not appear that there will be a Kennedy in the Congress other than his son," he added.
Hess, who wrote the book "America's Political Dynasties," says that while there are comparisons to be made, Obama is not necessarily the heir apparent.
"He's a voice of his own, had his own agenda. ... He will build his own legacy," he said of the president.
Sen. Kennedy, deemed the Lion of the Senate, was an early, vocal supporter of Obama's primary and general election campaigns, despite having a longtime history with the Clintons.
In late January 2007, Kennedy endorsed Obama and drew parallels to his brother's legendary Camelot and the "new frontier."
"I remember another such time, in the 1960s, when I came to the Senate at the age of 30. We had a new president who inspired the nation, especially the young, to seek a new frontier," Kennedy said. "I know what America can achieve. I've seen it. I've lived it. And with Barack Obama, we can do it again."
Douglas Brinkley, a well-known presidential historian and professor at Rice University, says it's not sure that Obama would have won the Democratic nomination without Kennedy's endorsement and that noteworthy part of his speech.
"At that famous moment when Sen. Kennedy endorsed Obama, it was handing over the Kennedy legacy to him," he said.
The Kennedy dynasty, known for a history of national public service, has spent decades championing the rights of working men and women, with an emphasis on health care, education and community service programs, among other things.
The family, often considered America's royals, has faced tragedy and success.
"The Kennedys have become the charismatic political family of the 20th century," Brinkley added."I think there are the Adamses and the Roosevelts and the Kennedys. They are one of the three great political families in American history."
And part of that greatness, observers say, is the family's dedication to public service and kitchen-table issues that may be at the core of Obama's fit in the Kennedy brand.
In the late 1980s, Obama was a community organizer on Chicago's South Side, advocating programs designed to help the poor and uninsured. That emphasis on community service, analysts say, is the bedrock of the Kennedy legacy.
"I have no doubt that wherever there is a Kennedy, they will be doing public service and they will be, I think, using their name -- the brand -- to help issues and causes that they care about," Hess said.
Obama took that message to heart as he steered through an endless maze of legislation during his first couple of months in the White House.
In late April, Obama signed a measure designed to strengthen national community service efforts by boosting federal funding for thousands of volunteers in fields ranging from clean energy to health care and education.
The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, recently renamed to honor the Massachusetts senator's sponsorship, will more than triple the number of positions in the AmeriCorps program, from 75,000 to 250,000, by 2017.
But Obama meets the Kennedy standard not only in substance; he also has its style and public appeal.
In 1961, Time magazine named JFK man of the year, after a tough election battle with GOP candidate Richard Nixon.
The article read: "The closeness of his victory did not disturb him; he took over the office with a youth-can-do-anything sort of self-confidence. He learned better; but learn he did. And in so doing," the article says, he made 1961 "the most endlessly interesting and exciting presidential year within recent memory."
Ted Sorensen, a former special counsel and adviser to President Kennedy, says there's no question about the similarities between the two.
"Both of them were compassionate and cared about the people at the bottom of the economic pyramid. ... Both Kennedy and Obama, by spending time abroad during their youth ... gave both of them a very good perspective of Americans' role in the world. ... Both of them were innovators."
And it's with those characteristics that Sorensen says Obama has lined himself up with the ideals of the Kennedy clan and has become a "natural fit."
Both Obama and Kennedy "reached out to young people; tried to get them involved in politics and government after a period of cynical indifference on the part of young people," Sorensen said. "Both Kennedy and Obama ... were idealists ... and paid less attention to the old politics and won by paying attention to the new politics."
It's sad that, with the passing of Ted, Camelot is no longer in the hands of Johnny Walker, but all things must pass.
Teddy dies and suddenly we're in Negro Camelot? This is worse than that Martin Lawrence movie "Black Knight" or whatever. :x
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:36:54 AM
In terms of real impact (as opposed to myth and cultural impact) I think he's by far and away the most consequential of the Kennedy clan.
I dunno, Joe Jr and John John made one hell of an impact when their planes went down.
Why do we have 2 dreads about the same topic?
Delete this shit!
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:36:54 AM
In terms of real impact (as opposed to myth and cultural impact) I think he's by far and away the most consequential of the Kennedy clan.
While certainly true, that isn't saying a whole lot.
CdM locked my Call To Jaron.
Now Jaron will be lost.
I could have changed his life for the better.
I could have been the instrument of making him a productive member of society.
Quote from: Siege on August 26, 2009, 06:56:58 PM
CdM locked my Call To Jaron.
Now Jaron will be lost.
I could have changed his life for the better.
I could have been the instrument of making him a productive member of society.
Jaron can be productive, and has been in the past. I need someone to make my fucking burger. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2009, 06:58:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 26, 2009, 06:56:58 PM
CdM locked my Call To Jaron.
Now Jaron will be lost.
I could have changed his life for the better.
I could have been the instrument of making him a productive member of society.
Jaron can be productive, and has been in the past. I need someone to make my fucking burger. :mad:
Illiterate immigrants can make your burgers.
Jaron can do something more productive than that.
He would make a good M240B gunner.
Or ammo carrier.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tactical.com%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2Fhi-res%2F30HH03OD_0.jpg&hash=d2584db352f08e9c778b247558a8fde3beeefef1)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvetsmemorialbtco.org%2FOperationIraq%2Firaq_photo1.jpg&hash=f9a7dfbb27752d224abd5e03ccef92d86f30b275)
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2009, 06:58:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 26, 2009, 06:56:58 PM
CdM locked my Call To Jaron.
Now Jaron will be lost.
I could have changed his life for the better.
I could have been the instrument of making him a productive member of society.
Jaron can be productive, and has been in the past. I need someone to make my fucking burger. :mad:
And fix the roof, and pick the crops.
Shut up, Tim. You are worst than Jaron.
Quote from: KRonn on August 26, 2009, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2009, 11:06:18 AM
Quote from: KRonn on August 26, 2009, 10:56:25 AM
Post reported to the Democratic party machine enforcers. :mad:
Thank you, we were already aware of it.
Wow, you guys move fast! :o
Unfortunately, they all move in different directions, twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom.
Quote from: Siege on August 26, 2009, 07:05:53 PM
Shut up, Tim. You are worst than Jaron.
I haven't posted on this page. :huh:
Have there been any confirmed acts of trollery with JR's piece yet?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2009, 12:20:02 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 26, 2009, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2009, 11:32:52 AM
I'm glad that Obama called him the greatest senator of our time.
Who else even comes close?
Depends on how you define "our time" but Mitchell and Dole were contemporaries with pretty good claims.
Mansfield certainly accomplished a fair bit as majority leader. And LBJ deserves credit for his dominance over a fairly short Senate term.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
Damn, Berkut, I don't have anything good to say about the guy, except maybe that he showed a bit of dignity during his battle with cancer, but it just ain't right to shit on him in a memorial thread like that.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 26, 2009, 11:35:03 AM
:( Last of the "Greatest Generation of Kennedys" RIP
The last generation of Kennedys, really. They were certainly greater than their father. Their children are so contemptible as to be beneath attention.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/26/littlest.refusenik.kennedy/ He saved this chick apparently.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2009, 10:36:13 AM
Let's try to remember the positives.
Ted Kennedy's life was about a driving need to cross bridges to make connections. It was about plunging deeply into the river of experience and leaving the dead weight behind. It was about drinking in fully the heady brew of politics, speeding widly into the hurly-burly without a care, taking some hard knocks, picking oneself up and heading into the twilight with no regrets and without looking back. Sure Ted was a big spender, but he had a big heart, and he knew you can't get anything worthwhile done without spending a few Kopechs. Who knows - he might have been President, if only he had hit the breaks.
:lmfao:
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2009, 07:39:21 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/26/littlest.refusenik.kennedy/ (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/26/littlest.refusenik.kennedy/) He saved this chick apparently.
Amazing how a single article in the web can change the opinion one have of a politician.
I mean, is that article for real?
Now it is your job to change it back to where it was.
The Chappaquiddick incident certainly wasn't his brightest moment, but don't you think it is a bit harsh to judge the man and his legacy based on an isolated act 40 years ago, especially if you take into account the amount of good he has done politically?
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2009, 04:51:00 AM
The Chappaquiddick incident certainly wasn't his brightest moment, but don't you think it is a bit harsh to judge the man and his legacy based on an isolated act 40 years ago, especially if you take into account the amount of good he has done politically?
Why? Grandstanding about the life of some worthless white chick is so much more fun.
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2009, 04:51:00 AM
The Chappaquiddick incident certainly wasn't his brightest moment, but don't you think it is a bit harsh to judge the man and his legacy based on an isolated act 40 years ago, especially if you take into account the amount of good he has done politically?
What did you have in mind?
I've been following politics the past decade and think of him in connection to two bills- an innocuous education bill that probably changed little, and an immigration bill that didn't manage to pass.
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2009, 07:34:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
Damn, Berkut, I don't have anything good to say about the guy, except maybe that he showed a bit of dignity during his battle with cancer, but it just ain't right to shit on him in a memorial thread like that.
Berkut hates commie pinko libruls.
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2009, 04:51:00 AM
The Chappaquiddick incident certainly wasn't his brightest moment, but don't you think it is a bit harsh to judge the man and his legacy based on an isolated act 40 years ago, especially if you take into account the amount of good he has done politically?
:lol:
If it had been some gayboy, you'd be saying 'Ted Kennedy entered hell on 08/26/2009', so don't you ever try and act reasonable.
Quote from: Neil on August 27, 2009, 06:23:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2009, 04:51:00 AM
The Chappaquiddick incident certainly wasn't his brightest moment, but don't you think it is a bit harsh to judge the man and his legacy based on an isolated act 40 years ago, especially if you take into account the amount of good he has done politically?
:lol:
If it had been some gayboy, you'd be saying 'Ted Kennedy entered hell on 08/26/2009', so don't you ever try and act reasonable.
:huh:
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 05:26:36 AM
Why? Grandstanding about the life of some worthless white chick is so much more fun.
:yeahright: Do you know anything at all about her life? She wasn't some "worthless white chick". She was a teacher, a civil rights activist, and a budding political consultant who had worked her ass off on RFK's presidential campaign.
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2009, 04:51:00 AM
The Chappaquiddick incident certainly wasn't his brightest moment, but don't you think it is a bit harsh to judge the man and his legacy based on an isolated act 40 years ago, especially if you take into account the amount of good he has done politically?
The problem is that there's hardly universal agreement that legislation sponsored by Kennedy has done a great deal of good.
Ahem.
Caliga.
You know theres only one type of legislation that brings Martinus to a politicians defense.
Only one.
Oh, right. -_-
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2009, 06:28:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 27, 2009, 06:23:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2009, 04:51:00 AM
The Chappaquiddick incident certainly wasn't his brightest moment, but don't you think it is a bit harsh to judge the man and his legacy based on an isolated act 40 years ago, especially if you take into account the amount of good he has done politically?
:lol:
If it had been some gayboy, you'd be saying 'Ted Kennedy entered hell on 08/26/2009', so don't you ever try and act reasonable.
:huh:
Hilarious.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2009, 07:39:21 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/26/littlest.refusenik.kennedy/ He saved this chick apparently.
Kennedy did a lot of things like this, took an active and personal interest to help out someone or a family. There will be a lot of stories like this. I guess many Senators and Representatives will have similar stories, but I think Kennedy may be high on the list.
As for his legislation. He was involved in everything, a huge legacy of issues that he's been into. His impact will be more than his brothers, though JFK is certainly the popular one. I didn't agree much with his left wing politics and big government views, but he's also certainly passed legislation that I can agree with as well.
I'm not even a supporter of Kennedy, but give him credit for what he's done.
He's received huge condemnation for Chappaquiddick, and rightly so; and he never really has been able to get out from under that deed. That incident has followed him everywhere. The Kopechne family paid the biggest price though, and I'm sure they never got over it.
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2009, 06:54:40 PM
While certainly true, that isn't saying a whole lot.
That's just not true. From the Telegraph obit, he was one of the first to push for consumer protection legislation, he was also very important in the abolition of the poll tax, the lowering of the voting age to 18 and the deregulation of airlines. He also apparently was one of the figures who were prominent in updating the Voting Rights Act in 1981. Those are the things I agree with him on. I believe he also wrote legislation limiting judges' discretion on sentencing, establishing mandatory sentences and restricting parole.
As issues he's pushed for healthcare, education and immigration reform and for more stem-cell research. He may not have got any seismic changes with those issues but that's because he's in the Senate, they don't do seismic change. And then there's his foreign policy views which have generally been about pressuring administrations.
I don't think you can call his career relatively inconsequential. As I say there's barely an area of America's political life that he hasn't shaped or touched with the laws he's written, sponsored and aggressively supported. What's more he was an excellent deal-maker so his often liberal bills would be negotiated on and often get some Republicans supporting them.
As I say a degree of that's to do with longevity. He helped abolish the draft and to fund stem-cell research. But I also think it's to do with the fact that he believed in what he was doing, took the work seriously and worked hard on it.
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2009, 06:54:04 AM
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 05:26:36 AM
Why? Grandstanding about the life of some worthless white chick is so much more fun.
:yeahright: Do you know anything at all about her life? She wasn't some "worthless white chick". She was a teacher, a civil rights activist, and a budding political consultant who had worked her ass off on RFK's presidential campaign.
What kind of person gets in a car with a serial drunk and womanizer? Obviously she's little more than Pennsylvanian white trash.
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 08:13:01 AM
What kind of person gets in a car with a serial drunk and womanizer? Obviously she's little more than Pennsylvanian white trash.
:lol: Ass.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2009, 05:46:44 AM
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2009, 07:34:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
Damn, Berkut, I don't have anything good to say about the guy, except maybe that he showed a bit of dignity during his battle with cancer, but it just ain't right to shit on him in a memorial thread like that.
Berkut hates commie pinko libruls.
No, but I do hate human beings who show an utterly callous disregard for the lives of others who THEY have placed into mortal danger.
His actions during that accident and afterward can never be over looked. The man is a coward and grossly immoral. I would no more show him any respect than I would Charles Manson.
And to be clear, this is not because he was responsible for an accident that killed someone - that CAN be forgiven.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:15:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2009, 05:46:44 AM
Quote from: dps on August 26, 2009, 07:34:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
He was a despicable human being and a coward, and I will remember him as such.
Damn, Berkut, I don't have anything good to say about the guy, except maybe that he showed a bit of dignity during his battle with cancer, but it just ain't right to shit on him in a memorial thread like that.
Berkut hates commie pinko libruls.
No, but I do hate human beings who show an utterly callous disregard for the lives of others who THEY have placed into mortal danger.
His actions during that accident and afterward can never be over looked. The man is a coward and grossly immoral. I would no more show him any respect than I would Charles Manson.
And to be clear, this is not because he was responsible for an accident that killed someone - that CAN be forgiven.
And to think, you voted for a man that will give Charles Manson a eulogy? I wouldn't sit in the same room as you. You disgust me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2009, 08:12:45 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2009, 06:54:40 PM
While certainly true, that isn't saying a whole lot.
That's just not true. From the Telegraph obit, he was one of the first to push for consumer protection legislation, he was also very important in the abolition of the poll tax, the lowering of the voting age to 18 and the deregulation of airlines. He also apparently was one of the figures who were prominent in updating the Voting Rights Act in 1981. Those are the things I agree with him on. I believe he also wrote legislation limiting judges' discretion on sentencing, establishing mandatory sentences and restricting parole.
As issues he's pushed for healthcare, education and immigration reform and for more stem-cell research. He may not have got any seismic changes with those issues but that's because he's in the Senate, they don't do seismic change. And then there's his foreign policy views which have generally been about pressuring administrations.
I don't think you can call his career relatively inconsequential. As I say there's barely an area of America's political life that he hasn't shaped or touched with the laws he's written, sponsored and aggressively supported. What's more he was an excellent deal-maker so his often liberal bills would be negotiated on and often get some Republicans supporting them.
As I say a degree of that's to do with longevity. He helped abolish the draft and to fund stem-cell research. But I also think it's to do with the fact that he believed in what he was doing, took the work seriously and worked hard on it.
None of that means jack in light of the fact that his moral character was revealed early on to be grossly broken. He killed some girl because he cared more about himself and his political career than he did her life.
I don't care if he turned into fucking Mother Theresa afterward. He should ahve spent the next 20 years in prison.
Ah, Berkut's GOP stripes start to show. One dumb white bitch is of greater importance than the negro's right to vote. :lol:
Hopefully Palin steps into the ring soon with another brilliant Twitter.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:18:59 AM
None of that means jack in light of the fact that his moral character was revealed early on to be grossly broken. He killed some girl because he cared more about himself and his political career than he did her life.
I don't care if he turned into fucking Mother Theresa afterward. He should ahve spent the next 20 years in prison.
Well we disagree on that, but I don't think this thread lacks for Chappaquiddick references.
And I was responding to someone who said he hadn't done much in the Senate - someone else said immigration and a weak education bill - they were wrong. He's done a lot, regardless of whether he turned into Mother Theresa or not and regardless of what you think of his record.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2009, 08:27:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:18:59 AM
None of that means jack in light of the fact that his moral character was revealed early on to be grossly broken. He killed some girl because he cared more about himself and his political career than he did her life.
I don't care if he turned into fucking Mother Theresa afterward. He should ahve spent the next 20 years in prison.
Well we disagree on that, but I don't think this thread lacks for Chappaquiddick references.
And I was responding to someone who said he hadn't done much in the Senate - someone else said immigration and a weak education bill - they were wrong. He's done a lot, regardless of whether he turned into Mother Theresa or not and regardless of what you think of his record.
There is no question as a legislator he has an incredibly impressive record.
Who said he hadn't done much in the Senate? That is crazy talk.
I am simply remarking on my evaluation of him as a human being. No matter what his accomplishments as a legislator, he is still the man who let a young woman he was responsible for drown because he cared more about covering his ass than saving her life.
I am frankly amazed that anyone could excuse that because he happens to be a successful politician on their side. I would certainly not, even if he was a moderate 'libertarian' (or whatever pigeonhole I fit into) who had just as much success.
If it wasn't the dead chick, Berkut would be alongside Hans and Palin decrying Ted's excoriation of Bork and the legions of terminated fetuses. It's the fact that Ted was a liberal and not any specific act that is prompting Berkut's trolls in a respectful RIP thread. For shame, sir.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:31:17 AM
There is no question as a legislator he has an incredibly impressive record.
Who said he hadn't done much in the Senate? That is crazy talk.
I said he was the most consequential Kennedy brother and Cal said:
QuoteWhile certainly true, that isn't saying a whole lot.
Which I think just isn't true. As I say I don't think there's an area of American political life he hasn't touched.
QuoteI am simply remarking on my evaluation of him as a human being. No matter what his accomplishments as a legislator, he is still the man who let a young woman he was responsible for drown because he cared more about covering his ass than saving her life.
I am frankly amazed that anyone could excuse that because he happens to be a successful politician on their side. I would certainly not, even if he was a moderate 'libertarian' (or whatever pigeonhole I fit into) who had just as much success.
I'm not trying to evaluate him as a human being, nor am I excusing Chappaquiddick. The more you read about it the more reprehensible Kennedy's position becomes. All I said was this:
QuoteQuote from: garbon on August 26, 2009, 04:32:52 pm
Quote
I'm glad that Obama called him the greatest senator of our time.
I can't think of many other candidates. Part of it's longevity, but it's difficult to think of an area of American political life without legislation written or sponsored by Kennedy. In terms of real impact (as opposed to myth and cultural impact) I think he's by far and away the most consequential of the Kennedy clan.
However I do think that the thing I try to do when someone dies is to remember them not to evaluate or judge them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2009, 08:40:16 AM
However I do think that the thing I try to do when someone dies is to remember them not to evaluate or judge them.
I agree with that sentiment in general, but there are limits, and Ted Kennedy is well beyond them.
The only thing more revolting is that apparently most Americans are so shallow that they are willing to ignore something as reprehensible as Chappaquidick. Yet another example of the negative power of tribalism in politics.
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 08:35:14 AM
If it wasn't the dead chick, Berkut would be alongside Hans and Palin decrying Ted's excoriation of Bork and the legions of terminated fetuses.
:lmfao:
I am well known for my concern for dead fetuses.
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2009, 04:51:00 AM
The Chappaquiddick incident certainly wasn't his brightest moment, but don't you think it is a bit harsh to judge the man and his legacy based on an isolated act 40 years ago, especially if you take into account the amount of good he has done politically?
I don't think it's unfair. A normal politician would have had his career completely destroyed by that incident. Many have had their careers ruined over much less. Kennedy was able to shrug it off in terms of his career because he was a Kennedy and the eldest remaining scion of that clan. But that benefit had a cost - because of his high profile, the incident - which otherwise might have become an obscure historical footnote - was never forgotten. Such is the price that fame demands even as it brings its benefits. You can't have one without the other.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:46:35 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2009, 08:40:16 AM
However I do think that the thing I try to do when someone dies is to remember them not to evaluate or judge them.
I agree with that sentiment in general, but there are limits, and Ted Kennedy is well beyond them.
The only thing more revolting is that apparently most Americans are so shallow that they are willing to ignore something as reprehensible as Chappaquidick. Yet another example of the negative power of tribalism in politics.
I don't think I ever really ignored that. I felt that Kennedy should have, certainly could have, been doing some prison time, same as anyone else, for that. And it could have ruined his political career. It was the Kennedy mystique and political connections that saved him, and that was so wrong. Maybe the incident was ruled an accident and it was properly handled by authorities. I never really got too deep into it. But still, others would have had to pay something for it while he pretty much did not.
I guess that I've heard so much bashing on Kennedy over Chappaquiddick that I've come to put it aside, to some extent, when considering his over all career. I've tried to give Kennedy his due for the positive things he's done, while still finding his getting away with Chappaquiddick a serious flaw.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2009, 08:27:00 AM
And I was responding to someone who said he hadn't done much in the Senate - someone else said immigration and a weak education bill - they were wrong. He's done a lot, regardless of whether he turned into Mother Theresa or not and regardless of what you think of his record.
The current crop on the left of the Democratic Party would do well to reflect on their fallen icon's willingness to make the necessary compromises to get deals done and legislation passed. Teddy understood politics and he understood that the perfect is the enemy of the good. I hope that in the rush to craft ornate eulogies that this critical point sinks through.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 27, 2009, 08:59:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2009, 08:27:00 AM
And I was responding to someone who said he hadn't done much in the Senate - someone else said immigration and a weak education bill - they were wrong. He's done a lot, regardless of whether he turned into Mother Theresa or not and regardless of what you think of his record.
The current crop on the left of the Democratic Party would do well to reflect on their fallen icon's willingness to make the necessary compromises to get deals done and legislation passed. Teddy understood politics and he understood that the perfect is the enemy of the good. I hope that in the rush to craft ornate eulogies that this critical point sinks through.
Senator Orin Hatch talked about this at some length. He being on the other side of politics but often working with Kennedy to over come tough obstacles in getting legislation passed.
Shelf, you misunderstood my earlier comment. I didn't mean to say "Kennedy did not do alot" but rather "it's not hard to best the accomplishments of his brothers". Like someone else said, the elder Kennedys were more flair than actual achievement.
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2009, 11:35:24 AM
Like someone else said, the elder Kennedys were more flair than actual achievement.
Not really fair to Jack and Bobby - both were murdered while they were still young.
Fuck one sheep etc. Nigga could have very easily avoided The Incident. He chose not to. End of story, prosecution breasts etc.
By all accounts he was scum.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 27, 2009, 11:46:55 AM
Not really fair to Jack and Bobby - both were murdered while they were still young.
Oh, I know, but it is what it is. In all honesty I would not have expected 'greatness' out of JFK, but I certainly would have expected it from RFK. I think he was the most gifted Kennedy brother and I would have liked to see him become President, even though I probably would have hated his political achievements (much like I dislike most of what FDR achieved on the domestic front, but recognize his greatness).
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:18:59 AM
None of that means jack in light of the fact that his moral character was revealed early on to be grossly broken. He killed some girl because he cared more about himself and his political career than he did her life.
I don't care if he turned into fucking Mother Theresa afterward. He should ahve spent the next 20 years in prison.
I thought he killed someone cause he drove off a bridge.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:46:35 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2009, 08:40:16 AM
However I do think that the thing I try to do when someone dies is to remember them not to evaluate or judge them.
I agree with that sentiment in general, but there are limits, and Ted Kennedy is well beyond them.
The only thing more revolting is that apparently most Americans are so shallow that they are willing to ignore something as reprehensible as Chappaquidick. Yet another example of the negative power of tribalism in politics.
:lol: Thank you "Mr. Republican".
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:18:59 AM
None of that means jack in light of the fact that his moral character was revealed early on to be grossly broken. He killed some girl because he cared more about himself and his political career than he did her life.
I don't care if he turned into fucking Mother Theresa afterward. He should ahve spent the next 20 years in prison.
I thought he killed someone cause he drove off a bridge.
Did she die from the impact or by drowning?
Quote from: citizen k on August 27, 2009, 02:38:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:18:59 AM
None of that means jack in light of the fact that his moral character was revealed early on to be grossly broken. He killed some girl because he cared more about himself and his political career than he did her life.
I don't care if he turned into fucking Mother Theresa afterward. He should ahve spent the next 20 years in prison.
I thought he killed someone cause he drove off a bridge.
Did she die from the impact or by drowning?
Drowning I think. Though it's unlikely he could have saved her. But then, that's murder. So long as you belong to a particular "tribe" in politics.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: citizen k on August 27, 2009, 02:38:51 PM
Did she die from the impact or by drowning?
Drowning I think. Though it's unlikely he could have saved her. But then, that's murder. So long as you belong to a particular "tribe" in politics.
I don't know if it's murder. Maybe negligent homicide? Our resident lawtalkers should know. I think he showed indifference and failed to render aid. That would mean some jailtime for most people.
Actually he claimed he tried to help, but simply couldn't. You could probably get him on the negligent homicide due to drunk driving. Though that's not exactly cowardice.
It is an established fact she likely drowned a couple hours after the accident. The controversy surrounds Teddys behavior that night. The behavior of a man in shock from a horrible accident or a politician desperately calculating how to cover his tracks?
No one demands that you save everyone yourself. It's leaving the scene and go sober up and meet with your spin doctors instead of getting help that's a bit controversial.
Waiting a day before you get help is perfectly normal. If you're a fucking ent, not if you claim to be human.
Quote from: citizen k on August 27, 2009, 02:44:53 PM
I don't know if it's murder. Maybe negligent homicide? Our resident lawtalkers should know. I think he showed indifference and failed to render aid. That would mean some jailtime for most people.
The irony is that if the same thing had occurred in today's moral climate it's doubtful he'd face the same sort of ridicule that he faced back then. He probably be viewed more as a survivor who went through a horrible ordeal. He'd go to rehab and be the Golden Boy once he got out.
Quote from: citizen k on August 27, 2009, 02:44:53 PM
I don't know if it's murder. Maybe negligent homicide? Our resident lawtalkers should know. I think he showed indifference and failed to render aid. That would mean some jailtime for most people.
Indifference and failing to render aid is not a crime.
Driving while intoxicated and getting into a crash that results in death is although I don't know how strict Mass law was on this in 1969.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 02:47:21 PM
Actually he claimed he tried to help, but simply couldn't. You could probably get him on the negligent homicide due to drunk driving. Though that's not exactly cowardice.
Cowardice is not even bothering to call the police who could have helped even if he was uncaring/unwilling/unable until the next morning.
He crashed somewhere around midnight, and did not call the authorities until AFTER the car was found by some guy out fishing the next morning.
The diver who investigated this car that mysteriously turned up upside down in the pond and found her body stated that he certainly could have saved her had he been called immediately after the accident (assuming she was still alive, which is udner some debate).
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: citizen k on August 27, 2009, 02:38:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:18:59 AM
None of that means jack in light of the fact that his moral character was revealed early on to be grossly broken. He killed some girl because he cared more about himself and his political career than he did her life.
I don't care if he turned into fucking Mother Theresa afterward. He should ahve spent the next 20 years in prison.
I thought he killed someone cause he drove off a bridge.
Did she die from the impact or by drowning?
Drowning I think. Though it's unlikely he could have saved her. But then, that's murder. So long as you belong to a particular "tribe" in politics.
Your tribe is showing Raz.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:02:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 02:47:21 PM
Actually he claimed he tried to help, but simply couldn't. You could probably get him on the negligent homicide due to drunk driving. Though that's not exactly cowardice.
Cowardice is not even bothering to call the police who could have helped even if he was uncaring/unwilling/unable until the next morning.
He crashed somewhere around midnight, and did not call the authorities until AFTER the car was found by some guy out fishing the next morning.
Could also be drunkenness or shock.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:03:39 PM
Your tribe is showing Raz.
So is yours. The problem with you is that you decided to cloud your political opinions in ideas about reason. So your end up seeing opinions as facts making politics a system of right and wrong answers.
Kennedy is bashed for the perception that, when the accident happened, he acted in such a manner as to give the impression he cared more for how it would affect his public career than about the dead chick.
I don't think he's a murderer or even necessarily a coward (he *claims* to have tried, and failed, to save her himself).
What it does do, is make him appear inordinately self-centred. I don't really buy the notion he was too drunk or concussed to contact the cops before calling his "people".
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:08:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:03:39 PM
Your tribe is showing Raz.
So is yours. The problem with you is that you decided to cloud your political opinions in ideas about reason. So your end up seeing opinions as facts making politics a system of right and wrong answers.
Actually, mine is not - 100% of my objections to Kennedy are perfectly defensible without a single mention of his political party.
And while I have no doubt that had he been a Republican, you would be here singing the tune I am singing, I also have no doubt that if he were a Republican, or any party for that matter, I would sing the precisely same tune I am singing right now - and have in fact sung about Republicans I find despicable as well, although to be honest there are precious few of any party who have shown themselves to be as morally reprehensible as Mr. Kennedy, so it is a little hard to compare.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2009, 03:13:22 PM
Kennedy is bashed for the perception that, when the accident happened, he acted in such a manner as to give the impression he cared more for how it would affect his public career than about the dead chick.
More to the point, before he even knew she was dead, he acted in a manner that made it either certain or extremely likely that she would die, rather than simply calling the police immediately, like 99.99% of all people would do, regardless of their political position.
There was a house with a phone a few hundred yards away from his car. Someone capable of saving her if in fact she could ahve been saved could have been on scene in a matter of tens of minutes had he simply walked over, knocked on the door, and said "There has been an accident, I need to use your phone."
It's not like he is knocked for not doing something heroic or exceptional.
You don't bring up Mr. Cheney drunkenly shooting a man in the face on a regular basis and using his people to create a barrier between himself and the police. While you've brought up the Kennedy thing many times.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:18:16 PM
You don't bring up Mr. Cheney drunkenly shooting a man in the face on a regular basis and using his people to create a barrier between himself and the police. While you've brought up the Kennedy thing many times.
Oh yeah, I am such a huge fan of Dick Cheney.
Why would I bring it up anyway? I don't care for Cheney, so I certainly don't defend him in any case, but his getting hammered and shooting someone in a hunting accident is pretty funny (since nobody died or was seriously hurt), but as far as I know he didn't abandon the guy to die afterward.
He was drunk enough to drive a car off a bridge but not drunk enough to be expected to not act rationally in a catastrophe. That's a very specific level of drunkenness.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:20:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:18:16 PM
You don't bring up Mr. Cheney drunkenly shooting a man in the face on a regular basis and using his people to create a barrier between himself and the police. While you've brought up the Kennedy thing many times.
Oh yeah, I am such a huge fan of Dick Cheney.
Why would I bring it up anyway? I don't care for Cheney, so I certainly don't defend him in any case, but his getting hammered and shooting someone in a hunting accident is pretty funny (since nobody died or was seriously hurt), but as far as I know he didn't abandon the guy to die afterward.
No but he didn't talk to the police right away and used a surrogate till he sobered up. Same motive as you ascribe to Kennedy.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:21:20 PM
He was drunk enough to drive a car off a bridge but not drunk enough to be expected to not act rationally in a catastrophe. That's a very specific level of drunkenness.
Actually, he claims that he was not drunk at all. He certainly has never claimed that he was so drunk that he could not think up the idea of calling the police after he crashed his car into a pond, and abandoned the woman in the car.
What an odd length to go to to defend him - you are making claims up for him that he has specifically stated were NOT the case.
Wow. Raz is trying to actually defend Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddick. I never would have thought that possible.
Now the "he should be judged for his legislative record" line I can understand, or the "its only one mistake against a lifetime of public service", sure. But to actually excuse his actions?
Wow.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:23:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:21:20 PM
He was drunk enough to drive a car off a bridge but not drunk enough to be expected to not act rationally in a catastrophe. That's a very specific level of drunkenness.
Actually, he claims that he was not drunk at all. He certainly has never claimed that he was so drunk that he could not think up the idea of calling the police after he crashed his car into a pond, and abandoned the woman in the car.
What an odd length to go to to defend him - you are making claims up for him that he has specifically stated were NOT the case.
Are you arguing he wasn't drunk?
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 03:24:46 PM
Wow. Raz is trying to actually defend Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddick. I never would have thought that possible.
Now the "he should be judged for his legislative record" line I can understand, or the "its only one mistake against a lifetime of public service", sure. But to actually excuse his actions?
Wow.
I'm arguing that it wasn't a murder.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:23:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:20:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:18:16 PM
You don't bring up Mr. Cheney drunkenly shooting a man in the face on a regular basis and using his people to create a barrier between himself and the police. While you've brought up the Kennedy thing many times.
Oh yeah, I am such a huge fan of Dick Cheney.
Why would I bring it up anyway? I don't care for Cheney, so I certainly don't defend him in any case, but his getting hammered and shooting someone in a hunting accident is pretty funny (since nobody died or was seriously hurt), but as far as I know he didn't abandon the guy to die afterward.
No but he didn't talk to the police right away and used a surrogate till he sobered up. Same motive as you ascribe to Kennedy.
...the difference being he didn't allow someone to die in the meantime. But like I said, you are going to ahve to ind someone else to champion Cheney, since I am not sitting here worshiping the guy, nor will I be once he is dead.
If Cheney had shot the guy while they were off alone, then refused to report it for hours while he bled to death, then I would be the first person to demand that he go to jail for it.
The reverse is rather interesting - you are making up explanations that Kennedy has not only never claimed, but has specifically denied to defend him when he DID kill someone, yet you are slamming Cheney for an offense that is clearly rather trivial in comparison.
Christ, why am I arguing with Raz? He hasn't even said anything funny! :mad:
Christ, why am I arguing with Raz? He hasn't even said anything funny! :mad:
[/quote]
Guess you got tired of getting stomped by JR and Martinus and wanted an opponent on your own level. ^_^
He was also with a large group of people. Who could prevent the man from dying.
Quote from: Jaron on August 27, 2009, 03:28:36 PM
Guess you got tired of getting stomped by JR and Martinus and wanted an opponent on your own level. ^_^
I will own up to getting beat up by JR on occasion, but Marty?
Why you gotta hurt me like that Jaron?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:25:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 03:24:46 PM
Wow. Raz is trying to actually defend Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddick. I never would have thought that possible.
Now the "he should be judged for his legislative record" line I can understand, or the "its only one mistake against a lifetime of public service", sure. But to actually excuse his actions?
Wow.
I'm arguing that it wasn't a murder.
It was reprehensible.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:28:48 PM
He was also with a large group of people. Who could prevent the man from dying.
True. But I operate under the presumption that pretty much everyone will in fact not worry about themselves when another human being is about to die, especially one they know and presumably care about. That is just a basic operating assumption I have.
So I am going to assume that Cheney is in fact a human being, until shown otherwise. Kennedy proved that he was not. Maybe Cheney would have done the same thing in the same situation, but until he does, I can only judge him on what he has done.
And while there are lots of reasons to despise Dick, his actions when he shot his buddy where pretty lame, but hardly anything approaching the level of callousness of Kennedy.
Drunk driving is. But it's still not murder or really cowardly.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 03:31:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:25:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 03:24:46 PM
Wow. Raz is trying to actually defend Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddick. I never would have thought that possible.
Now the "he should be judged for his legislative record" line I can understand, or the "its only one mistake against a lifetime of public service", sure. But to actually excuse his actions?
Wow.
I'm arguing that it wasn't a murder.
It was reprehensible.
Debatable.
Mary Jo certainly shares in the responsibility, although you GOPtards would like to write that all off. She knew he was drunk. She chose to get into the car. She knew the possible consequences of that poor choice. You don't jump into a cage with a polar bear and expect to come out alive.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 03:31:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:25:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 03:24:46 PM
Wow. Raz is trying to actually defend Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddick. I never would have thought that possible.
Now the "he should be judged for his legislative record" line I can understand, or the "its only one mistake against a lifetime of public service", sure. But to actually excuse his actions?
Wow.
I'm arguing that it wasn't a murder.
It was reprehensible.
The funny thing is that he is arguing that it wasn't murder with me, and I never said it was murder to begin with, as the quote that little Razzy responded to makes rather clear.
Now, if someone were to ask me if it WAS murder...well, that is an interesting question, but largely a legal one, and hence not really relevant to my evaluation of his humanity. I do know that there are plenty of murderers I can think of who I have more respect for than Ted Kennedy.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:33:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:28:48 PM
He was also with a large group of people. Who could prevent the man from dying.
True. But I operate under the presumption that pretty much everyone will in fact not worry about themselves when another human being is about to die, especially one they know and presumably care about. That is just a basic operating assumption I have.
So I am going to assume that Cheney is in fact a human being, until shown otherwise. Kennedy proved that he was not. Maybe Cheney would have done the same thing in the same situation, but until he does, I can only judge him on what he has done.
And while there are lots of reasons to despise Dick, his actions when he shot his buddy where pretty lame, but hardly anything approaching the level of callousness of Kennedy.
Your original assumption is faulty. Also you never answered my question. Are you arguing he wasn't drunk?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:33:25 PM
Drunk driving is. But it's still not murder or really cowardly.
The courts would disagree. Well, at least in the case where the woman hit the guy and left him to bleed to death sticking out of her windshield in her garage.
Although I suppose you could argue drowning and bleeding to death are two different things.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:35:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:33:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:28:48 PM
He was also with a large group of people. Who could prevent the man from dying.
True. But I operate under the presumption that pretty much everyone will in fact not worry about themselves when another human being is about to die, especially one they know and presumably care about. That is just a basic operating assumption I have.
So I am going to assume that Cheney is in fact a human being, until shown otherwise. Kennedy proved that he was not. Maybe Cheney would have done the same thing in the same situation, but until he does, I can only judge him on what he has done.
And while there are lots of reasons to despise Dick, his actions when he shot his buddy where pretty lame, but hardly anything approaching the level of callousness of Kennedy.
Your original assumption is faulty.
Perhaps - but that would just mean that a lot of people are scum, not that he isn't.
Quote
Also you never answered my question. Are you arguing he wasn't drunk?
I did answer that.
I don't know, and neither do you - what I do know is that he says he wasn't drunk, and that alcohol had no impact on his decision making processes. That seems like better information than your creating this claim for him, even over his objections, in an effort to excuse him.
*You* are claiming that he was SO drunk that he could not think to call the police, but he could do all the other things he claimed to do that night, and others saw him do - like operate the car to ebgin with, return to his hotel, talk coherently to his friends, supposedly even try to rescue her himself, yet too drunk to walk to a phone and pick it up to call the police? And this level of drunkenness persisted for 8 or more hours?
That explanation would not fly even if he was proffering it - the fact that he expressly denied it make sit rather weak.
Quote from: Strix on August 27, 2009, 03:37:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:33:25 PM
Drunk driving is. But it's still not murder or really cowardly.
The courts would disagree. Well, at least in the case where the woman hit the guy and left him to bleed to death sticking out of her windshield in her garage.
Although I suppose you could argue drowning and bleeding to death are two different things.
Was she a Democrat?
Raz won't be able to tell you if it was "murder" ore "reprehensible" till he knows that crucial detail.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:41:01 PM
Quote from: Strix on August 27, 2009, 03:37:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:33:25 PM
Drunk driving is. But it's still not murder or really cowardly.
The courts would disagree. Well, at least in the case where the woman hit the guy and left him to bleed to death sticking out of her windshield in her garage.
Although I suppose you could argue drowning and bleeding to death are two different things.
Was she a Democrat?
Raz won't be able to tell you if it was "murder" ore "reprehensible" till he knows that crucial detail.
Was she a dumb bitch that didn't have an ounce of sense? If you play with loaded guns...
What are the odds Kennedy was getting road head?
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 03:44:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:41:01 PM
Quote from: Strix on August 27, 2009, 03:37:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:33:25 PM
Drunk driving is. But it's still not murder or really cowardly.
The courts would disagree. Well, at least in the case where the woman hit the guy and left him to bleed to death sticking out of her windshield in her garage.
Although I suppose you could argue drowning and bleeding to death are two different things.
Was she a Democrat?
Raz won't be able to tell you if it was "murder" ore "reprehensible" till he knows that crucial detail.
Was she a dumb bitch that didn't have an ounce of sense?
Well, she was a liberal, so probably, yeah. Still not much of an excuse to leave her to drown.
Quote from: Jaron on August 27, 2009, 03:46:32 PM
What are the odds Kennedy was getting road head?
Maybe he slipped her a Mickey Finn?
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:40:05 PM
I did answer that.
I don't know, and neither do you - what I do know is that he says he wasn't drunk, and that alcohol had no impact on his decision making processes. That seems like better information than your creating this claim for him, even over his objections, in an effort to excuse him.
*You* are claiming that he was SO drunk that he could not think to call the police, but he could do all the other things he claimed to do that night, and others saw him do - like operate the car to ebgin with, return to his hotel, talk coherently to his friends, supposedly even try to rescue her himself, yet too drunk to walk to a phone and pick it up to call the police? And this level of drunkenness persisted for 8 or more hours?
That explanation would not fly even if he was proffering it - the fact that he expressly denied it make sit rather weak.
Okay, what do you think happened.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 04:03:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:40:05 PM
I did answer that.
I don't know, and neither do you - what I do know is that he says he wasn't drunk, and that alcohol had no impact on his decision making processes. That seems like better information than your creating this claim for him, even over his objections, in an effort to excuse him.
*You* are claiming that he was SO drunk that he could not think to call the police, but he could do all the other things he claimed to do that night, and others saw him do - like operate the car to ebgin with, return to his hotel, talk coherently to his friends, supposedly even try to rescue her himself, yet too drunk to walk to a phone and pick it up to call the police? And this level of drunkenness persisted for 8 or more hours?
That explanation would not fly even if he was proffering it - the fact that he expressly denied it make sit rather weak.
Okay, what do you think happened.
It would be much more entertaining to hear what you think happened first.
Quote from: Strix on August 27, 2009, 04:14:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 04:03:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 03:40:05 PM
I did answer that.
I don't know, and neither do you - what I do know is that he says he wasn't drunk, and that alcohol had no impact on his decision making processes. That seems like better information than your creating this claim for him, even over his objections, in an effort to excuse him.
*You* are claiming that he was SO drunk that he could not think to call the police, but he could do all the other things he claimed to do that night, and others saw him do - like operate the car to ebgin with, return to his hotel, talk coherently to his friends, supposedly even try to rescue her himself, yet too drunk to walk to a phone and pick it up to call the police? And this level of drunkenness persisted for 8 or more hours?
That explanation would not fly even if he was proffering it - the fact that he expressly denied it make sit rather weak.
Okay, what do you think happened.
It would be much more entertaining to hear what you think happened first.
Why? Berkut started this by talking about the man as scum or some such.
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 03:34:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 03:31:27 PM
It was reprehensible.
Debatable.
Mary Jo certainly shares in the responsibility, although you GOPtards would like to write that all off. She knew he was drunk. She chose to get into the car. She knew the possible consequences of that poor choice. You don't jump into a cage with a polar bear and expect to come out alive.
:ike:
Shoo.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 04:37:14 PM
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 03:34:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 03:31:27 PM
It was reprehensible.
Debatable.
Mary Jo certainly shares in the responsibility, although you GOPtards would like to write that all off. She knew he was drunk. She chose to get into the car. She knew the possible consequences of that poor choice. You don't jump into a cage with a polar bear and expect to come out alive.
:ike:
Shoo.
missing your mod powers? never give up power. NEVER.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 04:39:43 PM
missing your mod powers? never give up power. NEVER.
I pulled a Sulla and have retired to the countryside.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 04:46:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 04:39:43 PM
missing your mod powers? never give up power. NEVER.
I pulled a Sulla and have retired to the countryside.
You are no Sulla. Maybe Cato the Younger.
Both of Joan's posts on page 7 were very good. Stopped reading after that.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 04:37:14 PM:ike:
Shoo.
:mellow: Treat posts labelled as "Fate" like line noise.
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2009, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 04:37:14 PM:ike:
Shoo.
:mellow: Treat posts labelled as "Fate" like line noise.
I thought that's what I was doing. :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 05:40:49 PM
I thought that's what I was doing. :mellow:
You responded. That was bad. :mellow:
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2009, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 04:37:14 PM:ike:
Shoo.
:mellow: Treat posts labelled as "Fate" like line noise.
The only line noise in this thread is Berkut's despicable and tasteless trolling. :mellow:
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 06:35:51 PM
The only line noise in this thread is Berkut's despicable and tasteless trolling. :mellow:
:ike:
Shoo.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 06:35:51 PM
The only line noise in this thread is Berkut's despicable and tasteless trolling. :mellow:
:ike:
Shoo.
If you are only going to pollute this thread with nonsense, then I ask that you please cease and desist.
RIP Ted, you were the last of the great Senators.
Quote from: Strix on August 27, 2009, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: citizen k on August 27, 2009, 02:44:53 PM
I don't know if it's murder. Maybe negligent homicide? Our resident lawtalkers should know. I think he showed indifference and failed to render aid. That would mean some jailtime for most people.
The irony is that if the same thing had occurred in today's moral climate it's doubtful he'd face the same sort of ridicule that he faced back then. He probably be viewed more as a survivor who went through a horrible ordeal. He'd go to rehab and be the Golden Boy once he got out.
I disagree, drunk driving is viewed and dealt with far more harshly today then it was then. He'd be jailed for sure today.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2009, 07:10:03 PM
Quote from: Strix on August 27, 2009, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: citizen k on August 27, 2009, 02:44:53 PM
I don't know if it's murder. Maybe negligent homicide? Our resident lawtalkers should know. I think he showed indifference and failed to render aid. That would mean some jailtime for most people.
The irony is that if the same thing had occurred in today's moral climate it's doubtful he'd face the same sort of ridicule that he faced back then. He probably be viewed more as a survivor who went through a horrible ordeal. He'd go to rehab and be the Golden Boy once he got out.
I disagree, drunk driving is viewed and dealt with far more harshly today then it was then. He'd be jailed for sure today.
Tell that to Donte Stallworth.
Quote from: KRonn on August 27, 2009, 08:55:01 AM
I guess that I've heard so much bashing on Kennedy over Chappaquiddick that I've come to put it aside, to some extent, when considering his over all career. I've tried to give Kennedy his due for the positive things he's done, while still finding his getting away with Chappaquiddick a serious flaw.
I don't think he deserves the blame for getting away with Chappaquiddick though, or for people being willing to ignore it. I believe under Mass law at the time he should have been charged with manslaughter. He wasn't. But I don't think it's his fault that the state behaved like he was a Nehru-Gandhi. It was the states and it's shameful.
QuoteKennedy is bashed for the perception that, when the accident happened, he acted in such a manner as to give the impression he cared more for how it would affect his public career than about the dead chick.
This is something I never get. The Kennedy's always had a reputation for wildcatting around and it was 1969. Being found with a girl who may have been a mistress after crashing your car drunk driving surely would have meant he wouldn't be President; but then neither did crashing the car, repeatedly diving in to try and save her, not calling the emergency services - though there was a callphone on the bridge - but calling your nearby cousin, then going to a nearby motel where you wake up and are seen calmly reading the paper at 8 the next morning.
In what world is manslaughter and a seeming indifference to an individual's human life (especially his disgusting speech afterwards) less likely to end one's political career than drink driving and a mistress?
QuoteHe was drunk enough to drive a car off a bridge but not drunk enough to be expected to not act rationally in a catastrophe. That's a very specific level of drunkenness.
From the Kennedy obit, he acted rationally, but callously:
QuoteAll Teddy Kennedy's ambitions, however, foundered on the events of the night of July 18 1969, when he left a party with Mary Jo Kopechne (who had worked on Bobby Kennedy's presidential campaign the year before), and drove a big, black Oldsmobile off a rickety wooden bridge at Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts, into an 8ft-deep tidal pool. He managed to escape — he could not remember how — but Mary Jo Kopechne was trapped in the car.
Kennedy, on his own account, "repeatedly dove down and tried to see if the passenger was still in the car", but was unsuccessful. Rather than raise the alarm, however, he returned to the cottage where the party had been, slumped into a parked car, summoned two friends (both of them lawyers), and went back with them to the bridge, where they tried in vain to rescue Mary Jo Kopechne.
Although there was a pay-phone near the bridge, no one contacted the police. Instead, Kennedy swam back to the inn where he was lodged. At 2.25, some three hours after the accident, he emerged, dry and neatly dressed from his room, and asked the proprietor what time it was. Next morning, before breakfast at 8am, he was seen calmly reading a newspaper in the lobby of the inn.
He then returned to his room where he again met the two lawyers, and made several telephone calls. By the time he went to the police the car had already been found, with Mary Jo Kopechne dead inside it.
Kennedy himself later admitted that his behaviour was "inexplicable", even while attempting to account for it by saying that he must have been in a state of shock, and a neuro-surgeon did indeed diagnose "concussion". It could not but seem, however, that he had tried to save his own reputation before exhausting all means of saving Mary Jo Kopechne's life.
I think I broadly agree with Clive Crook. Apparently Americans don't like the truth in obituaries. Most British obits I've seen take several paragraphs to discuss Chappaquiddick. Anyway, Clive Crook:
QuoteA foreigner reflects on Ted Kennedy
I hesitate to say anything about his passing--least of all, anything addressed to American readers. I didn't grow up with the history, as Americans of my age did. I'm an outsider, so reverence for the dynasty and the deeper sense of loss that goes with it are things I cannot feel. I'll just point to a few of the articles I've read today that seemed to shed some light.
The Boston Globe has the fullest coverage, as you might expect, and it is very well done.
I thought this essay by Sean Wilentz for The New Republic was outstanding.
Quote
His political longevity testified to the love of his constituents, through thick and thin, but also to his persistence, his ability to learn and to grow, and then to surpass himself. The sadness, the squandering, the might-have-beens of his life would have crushed others, but Kennedy endured, his principles intact.
You ought to read the whole article, but that capsule sums the man up pretty well, I think. I'd have added charm and energy--he was phenomenal in both respects--to the summary list of assets, and I don't think "the sadness, the squandering, the might-have-beens" does justice to his lowest point, but still.
Speaking of that, how to deal with Chappaquiddick has been a problem for many commentators and obituarists. Many decided, I think, that decency requires a veil to be drawn and euphemisms deployed, such as Wilentz's in that snippet. I disagree. I think you have to look at it unflinchingly, because you cannot understand the miracle of Kennedy's redemption otherwise. What he did was terrible. He survived as a politician only because of his name--a disgusting thing. But it changed him, and see what he then did with his life. He was emphatically not, as Paul Krugman writes, always a great man. He was once much less than a great man. What is astonishing is that he nonetheless made himself a great man.
I admired EJ Dionne's column for several reasons, including for the way it captured unique, or at any rate very unusual, aspects of Kennedy's political personality. He was neither cynic nor soggy centrist. He was passionate, a liberal's liberal. Yet he was pragmatic, and was capable of liking and respecting people who disagreed with him. Firm principles married to a friendly tolerance of other views: on both sides of modern American politics, that is so rare.
Quote
And there was this Kennedy paradox: Precisely because he knew so clearly what he wanted and where he wished the country to move, he could strike deals with Republicans far outside his philosophical comfort zone...
[K]ennedy's liberalism was experimental, not rigid. Principles didn't change, but tactics and formulations were always subject to review. He gave annual speeches that amounted to a report on the state of American liberalism. He always sought to give heart to its partisans in dark times -- "Let's be who we are and not pretend to be something else," Kennedy said in early 1995, shortly after his party's devastating midterm defeat -- but he did not shrink from pointing to liberal shortcomings.
In that speech, he insisted that "outcomes," not intentions, should determine whether government programs live or die. In 2005, he criticized liberals for failing to harness their creed to the country's core values.
I think that last point is crucial. On the left of the Democratic party, it is not hard to find disdain and even contempt for "the country's core values", insofar as those values depart from the ones espoused by a progressive liberal.
As for the willingness to cut deals in the name of progress, one wonders of course what role Kennedy might have played in fashioning a compromise on healthcare. He strongly favored the public option, but I find it hard to believe he would have preferred no reform at all to a Massachusetts-style system, or that he would have committed himself to vote against any measure that did not contain a public plan--the position that many Democrats now seem to be adopting. In more ways than one, he will be missed.[/QUOTE}
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2009, 03:31:34 AM
I don't think he deserves the blame for getting away with Chappaquiddick though, or for people being willing to ignore it. I believe under Mass law at the time he should have been charged with manslaughter. He wasn't. But I don't think it's his fault that the state behaved like he was a Nehru-Gandhi. It was the states and it's shameful.
That's assuming the family didn't call in any favors.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2009, 03:25:29 PM
I'm arguing that it wasn't a murder.
How could it not be murder, unless you are arguing in a strictly legal sense which is largely irrelevant at this point. He's not going to face legal charges any time soon.
He knowingly committed a felony, and in so doing caused the death of another person. I don't see how you could argue that that is not the moral equivalent of murder. All this in addition to what he did or did not do afterward.
Drunkenness is not a defense.
In some states it is now theoretically possible to charge a drunk driver with felony murder if death results, but these kinds of cases are more typically charged as manslaughters or vehicular homicides because the state of mind is usually easier to prove.
Don't know what Mass law was like in 69 but generally speaking laws on these kinds of issues have gotten much more strict over time; I doubt a murder prosecution was even theoretically possible back then.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 10:37:59 AM
In many states it is now theoretically possible to charge a drunk driver with felony murder if death results, but these kinds of cases are more typically charged as manslaughters or vehicular homicides because the state of mind is usually easier to prove.
Don't know what Mass law was like in 69 but generally speaking laws on these kinds of issues have gotten much more strict over time; I doubt a murder prosecution was even theoretically possible back then.
I agree, which is why I was not arguing in a legal sense.
I was at the Gym last night and the cable "news" stations were all worshipping this guy like some sort of patron saint of all that noble and good about politics.
:x
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 06:41:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: Fate on August 27, 2009, 06:35:51 PM
The only line noise in this thread is Berkut's despicable and tasteless trolling. :mellow:
:ike:
Shoo.
If you are only going to pollute this thread with nonsense, then I ask that you please cease and desist.
RIP Ted, you were the last of the great Senators.
:ike:
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2009, 10:34:00 AM
How could it not be murder, unless you are arguing in a strictly legal sense which is largely irrelevant at this point. He's not going to face legal charges any time soon.
He knowingly committed a felony, and in so doing caused the death of another person. I don't see how you could argue that that is not the moral equivalent of murder. All this in addition to what he did or did not do afterward.
Drunkenness is not a defense.
You're arguing from a legal sense yourself, morally there's no such thing as a "felony."
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2009, 10:43:52 AM
I was at the Gym last night and the cable "news" stations were all worshipping this guy like some sort of patron saint of all that noble and good about politics.
:x
Yeah, it gets to be too much. Ceremonies, motorcades and such started yesterday, so there was probably even more coverage. But I mostly do what I usually do with uber coverage of events, celebs, etc. I change the station. At least it wasn't on 24/7 like is often done with some other events, as I seemed to have few problems finding other news.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2009, 10:43:52 AM
I was at the Gym last night and the cable "news" stations were all worshipping this guy like some sort of patron saint of all that noble and good about politics.
:x
Be sure to only ever watch FOX News. :)
Quote from: Caliga on August 28, 2009, 11:12:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2009, 10:43:52 AM
I was at the Gym last night and the cable "news" stations were all worshipping this guy like some sort of patron saint of all that noble and good about politics.
:x
Be sure to only ever watch FOX News. :)
FOX had plenty of fawning coverage also.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 28, 2009, 10:54:48 AM
You're arguing from a legal sense yourself, morally there's no such thing as a "felony."
Alright, fair point. I'll amend that part to a reprehensible act, known to put others at serious risk of death and bodily harm.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2009, 08:47:21 AM
I am well known for my concern for dead fetuses.
Please don't feed the troll.
Why Ted? Where does that nickname come from?
ITS SHORT FOR EDWARD YOU NIMROD
Quote from: Jaron on August 28, 2009, 05:39:48 PM
ITS SHORT FOR EDWARD YOU NIMROD
Ed is short for Edward
Ted is short for Theodore
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 28, 2009, 11:59:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2009, 11:45:32 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 28, 2009, 05:39:48 PM
ITS SHORT FOR EDWARD YOU NIMROD
Ed is short for Edward
Ted is short for Theodore
What about Ned?
QuoteNed (Non Educated Delinquent) is a term applied to certain people in Scotland, akin to the term chav in England. The stereotypical view of a ned is a white adolescent male (although this does not exclude females), of working class background, who wears fake brand names (particularly Burberry), tacky jewellery (females often wear their name in large gold lettering), and engages in hooliganism, petty criminality, loutish behaviour, fighting, underage drinking and smoking or general anti-social behaviour. They are often assumed to be unemployed.
QuoteChappaquiddick behavior 'inexcusable': Kennedy memoir
(AFP) – 49 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — US senator Edward Kennedy expressed regret over his "inexcusable" behavior in the 1969 car crash that killed a campaign worker in a memoir to be published posthumously, the New York Times reported Thursday.
The crash, in which Mary Jo Kopechne died when Kennedy drove off a bridge on Chappaquiddick island, Massachusetts, and the subsequent scandal, effectively destroyed Kennedy's presidential hopes. He lost the Democratic nomination to incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980.
In "True Compass," a memoir that goes on sale on September 14, the last of the four Kennedy brothers admitted he "made terrible decisions" when he left the scene of the accident.
Kennedy, who did not report the accident to police until Kopechne's body was recovered the following day, said the events may have also shortened the life of his then-ailing father, Joseph Kennedy, according to the Times, which obtained a copy of the memoir published by Twelve.
The Times said the account by Kennedy, who died aged 77 on August 25 after a battle with brain cancer, did not provide new details on the accident but rather reflected on how it impacted him and his family.
The 532-page book also delved into the senator's drinking and philandering episodes, as well as his relationship with his family, including his decision to not run for the presidency in 1984 after hearing objections from his children.
Kennedy's children, the book says, feared for his life in the wake of the assassinations of his older brothers -- president John F. Kennedy and senator Robert (Bobby) Kennedy. The eldest brother -- pilot Joe Kennedy Junior -- died during a World War II bombing mission.
Kennedy, the youngest of the nine Kennedy children of whom only one sister, Jean, now survives, said he did not question the official findings of the Warren Commission on JFK's assassination that gunman Lee Harvey Oswald alone was responsible for the killing.
He also wrote about his "self-destructive drinking," especially after Bobby's death. The tragedy, he said, initially left him unable to return to the Senate, where he eventually served a 47-year tenure.
Talk circulating this morning that someone is floating the idea of renaming Logan Airport to Kennedy Logan Airport. :bleeding:
Those Kennedy boys really had brain troubles, didn't they? Joseph got his vaporized, John and Robert got theirs scrambled by bullets, and Edward had the cancer.
:ultra: @ the Kennedy Logan airport idea :x
Quote from: Caliga on September 03, 2009, 08:14:13 AM
:ultra: @ the Kennedy Logan airport idea :x
Yeah, that's what I think too. And I even told my new cat, Teddy, how I felt about this naming stuff. ;)
Isn't there already a Kennedy Airport somewhere?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2009, 08:21:30 AM
Isn't there already a Kennedy Airport somewhere?
Bostonians need an airport named Kennedy where they can be their douchebag selves at too.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2009, 08:21:30 AM
Isn't there already a Kennedy Airport somewhere?
Yes, it's in New York City.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2009, 08:24:43 AM
Bostonians need an airport named Kennedy where they can be their douchebag selves at too.
:yes: I think it's about time the rest of us kicked Massachusetts out of the United States. :cool:
Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2009, 08:10:09 AM
Talk circulating this morning that someone is floating the idea of renaming Logan Airport to Kennedy Logan Airport. :bleeding:
How about Kopechne Kennedy Logan Airport?
Quote from: Caliga on September 03, 2009, 08:36:29 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2009, 08:24:43 AM
Bostonians need an airport named Kennedy where they can be their douchebag selves at too.
:yes: I think it's about time the rest of us kicked Massachusetts out of the United States. :cool:
Goddamn Massholes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2009, 08:38:11 AMGoddamn Massholes.
:yes: They can rename their newly-independent country 'Kennedyana' with the capital city of 'JFKburg', and currency called 'Tedwards'. :)
Quote from: Caliga on September 03, 2009, 08:43:52 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2009, 08:38:11 AMGoddamn Massholes.
:yes: They can rename their newly-independent country 'Kennedyana' with the capital city of 'JFKburg', and currency called 'Tedwards'. :)
Really, it gets nauseating. I'm hoping that Joe Kennedy doesn't run, son of Robert Kennedy. He runs Citizen's Energy, brings low cost heating oil to those in need, using mainly Venezuelan oil. I guess he's doing a good thing there. However, I don't want to see a Kennedy get elected based mainly on the name. Time to move on. Joe has been in some politics so he wouldn't likely be laughed off the stage like Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg, but he's no bright spark either.
Quote from: Caliga on September 03, 2009, 08:36:29 AM
:yes: I think it's about time the rest of us kicked Massachusetts out of the United States. :cool:
Kick out the home of John Adams?! NEVAH!
Now Thomas Jefferson sucked so we can boot out Virginia...except that would make Lettow happy.
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
Now Thomas Jefferson sucked so we can boot out Virginia...except that would make Lettow happy.
Valmy hates George Washington! :o
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2009, 11:27:27 AM
Valmy hates George Washington! :o
Ok fine keep Virginia. Boot out Delaware, Caesar Rodney wasn't that great and nobody would miss them.
Ok, boot out Massachusetts, so I'll finally have to join a more rational part of the nation. Darn frustrating being a moderate/centrist, fiscally conservative person in an ultra lefty state. Even so, there seems to be a lot of people and groups concerned with and keeping a watch on govt spending. Doesn't seem to be doing much good though. <_<
Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2009, 01:09:28 PM
Darn frustrating being a moderate/centrist, fiscally conservative person in an ultra lefty state. Even so, there seems to be a lot of people and groups concerned with and keeping a watch on govt spending. Doesn't seem to be doing much good though. <_<
You are welcome to come down here and debate evolution and posting the ten commandments everywhere.
Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2009, 01:09:28 PM
Ok, boot out Massachusetts, so I'll finally have to join a more rational part of the nation. Darn frustrating being a moderate/centrist, fiscally conservative person in an ultra lefty state. Even so, there seems to be a lot of people and groups concerned with and keeping a watch on govt spending. Doesn't seem to be doing much good though. <_<
:hug:
Contrary to what the rest of the United States thinks, there ARE some non liberal people in Massachusetts. :yes:
On a related note, I'm operating under the assumption that everyone that lives in San Francisco is homosexual. :)
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
Kick out the home of John Adams?! NEVAH!
Shoot, I'm part of the family (black sheep branch, thank god) and I wouldn't mind seeing many of the self-righteous schmucks get the boot.
The corrupt Massachusetts legislature is meeting to change the law to now allow governors to appoint a Senator, to fill Senator Kennedy's seat. That law was changed when Repub Romney was governor and Kerry was running for President. At the time the governor could appoint an interim Senator. The late Senator Kennedy then pushed the state to put through a law to prevent the gov from appointing a Senator, and for a vote to be had instead. Now though, the legislator wants to change the law back, for the convenience of the Dem party, in their arrogance, to change the law again! It was actually Sen Kennedy who, before he passed, wanted the law changed again, and again pushed for the law to be changed back as it was before, so the now Democratic governor could appoint a Senator. Lol... even comments passed from Dem legislators are suggesting how bad this all looks, and is. Saddest thing though is that I'm hearing that ex-Gov Dukakis (Dutaxus) will get the nod.
Yes. This is party politics at its worst. Felon Finneren was on the radio this morning deriding it while also admitting that he was the one who got the last change passed.
Dukakis?!? :w00t:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 17, 2009, 03:53:33 PM
Yes. This is party politics at its worst. Felon Finneren was on the radio this morning deriding it while also admitting that he was the one who got the last change passed.
Howie Carr is having a field day on it.
I imagine that even Eagan and Browdie are having fun with it, both moderates or Dem radio talk show hosts.
Well why shouldn't they? This is beyond what even the most die hard liberals should be able to accept.
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2009, 03:46:59 PM
The corrupt Massachusetts legislature is meeting to change the law to now allow governors to appoint a Senator, to fill Senator Kennedy's seat. That law was changed when Repub Romney was governor and Kerry was running for President. At the time the governor could appoint an interim Senator. The late Senator Kennedy then pushed the state to put through a law to prevent the gov from appointing a Senator, and for a vote to be had instead. Now though, the legislator wants to change the law back, for the convenience of the Dem party, in their arrogance, to change the law again! It was actually Sen Kennedy who, before he passed, wanted the law changed again, and again pushed for the law to be changed back as it was before, so the now Democratic governor could appoint a Senator. Lol... even comments passed from Dem legislators are suggesting how bad this all looks, and is. Saddest thing though is that I'm hearing that ex-Gov Dukakis (Dutaxus) will get the nod.
He's not drunk enough. Maybe his wife should be appointed instead. But hide the listerine and rubbing alcohol.
Will a change in the law be able to affect the current vacancy btw? I can understand Ted wanting them to do it before he kicked it, but it's a bit late now, right?
No. Its being made specifically to fill it now.
They did, however, put in a clause that future governors could only fill the slot with someone from teh same party as the departing senator. ;). That will prevent a Republican governor from appointing someone who doesn't have the People's best interests at heart.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 17, 2009, 04:24:52 PM
No. Its being made specifically to fill it now.
They did, however, put in a clause that future governors could only fill the slot with someone from teh same party as the departing senator. ;). That will prevent a Republican governor from appointing someone who doesn't have the People's best interests at heart.
I find it bizarre that there is no such clause normally. Why should it ever be acceptable for a seat to change parties due to someone's death?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 17, 2009, 03:53:33 PM
Yes. This is party politics at its worst. Felon Finneren was on the radio this morning deriding it while also admitting that he was the one who got the last change passed.
I thought it was for the Governor to appoint an interim Senator who resigns after the special election. Is that not the case?
I actually think that that system would be the best, the Governor appoints a Senator while an election's being set up and the campaign happening. I think Governors appointing Senators as standard seems like a throwback to when state legislatures elected Senators.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2009, 04:28:19 PM
I find it bizarre that there is no such clause normally. Why should it ever be acceptable for a seat to change parties due to someone's death?
Party affiliation is no guarantee that the new guy will follow in the old guy's footsteps. Heck, it's not even a guarantee that the new guy doesn't like the other party better.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 12:34:24 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 17, 2009, 03:53:33 PM
Yes. This is party politics at its worst. Felon Finneren was on the radio this morning deriding it while also admitting that he was the one who got the last change passed.
I thought it was for the Governor to appoint an interim Senator who resigns after the special election. Is that not the case?
I actually think that that system would be the best, the Governor appoints a Senator while an election's being set up and the campaign happening. I think Governors appointing Senators as standard seems like a throwback to when state legislatures elected Senators.
THe issue is that the legislature changed the law a few years back when we had a Republican governor so that he coulnd't appoint a temp. Now they want to change it back.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2009, 04:01:56 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2009, 04:28:19 PM
I find it bizarre that there is no such clause normally. Why should it ever be acceptable for a seat to change parties due to someone's death?
Party affiliation is no guarantee that the new guy will follow in the old guy's footsteps. Heck, it's not even a guarantee that the new guy doesn't like the other party better.
Obviously it has to go further than just "pick a Democrat". You can always find one guy with a D who's a Republican in every way, or you can even have a spontaneous party switch of some Republican. I just mean that there has to be some way to eliminate the possibility of a death causing a monumental shift in the balance of power. That's just a dangerous and sometimes inhumane situation.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 18, 2009, 06:14:35 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 12:34:24 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 17, 2009, 03:53:33 PM
Yes. This is party politics at its worst. Felon Finneren was on the radio this morning deriding it while also admitting that he was the one who got the last change passed.
I thought it was for the Governor to appoint an interim Senator who resigns after the special election. Is that not the case?
I actually think that that system would be the best, the Governor appoints a Senator while an election's being set up and the campaign happening. I think Governors appointing Senators as standard seems like a throwback to when state legislatures elected Senators.
THe issue is that the legislature changed the law a few years back when we had a Republican governor so that he coulnd't appoint a temp. Now they want to change it back.
Right, and it was Senator Kennedy both times who asked to change the law. Just a political party doing what is most expedient for it at the time, both of these times. Change the law to suit them, when ever the need arises? BS on that. The Mass Legistlators are lucky that there's almost no oppositiond to run against them, else they wouldn't try a stunt like this, twice. :mad:
I don't get it. Surely there's a Dem majority in legislature, no?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 09:48:43 AM
I don't get it. Surely there's a Dem majority in legislature, no?
Democrats are also lazy and don't want to go to the trouble of choosing Senators through legislatures.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 18, 2009, 06:14:35 AM
THe issue is that the legislature changed the law a few years back when we had a Republican governor so that he coulnd't appoint a temp. Now they want to change it back.
I'm not clear that they do.
If they were to change the law so you have to have an election to avoid Romney from appointing Kerry's successor and they now wanted to change it back to just Governor's appointment then I'd think that they were acknowledging that the first law was just a partisan act and behaving in a rather silly way.
If, on the other hand, they changed the law to require an election and they now wanted to make the Governor appoint an interim Senator then partisanship certainly plays a part but I'd argue they were enhancing the first law (which is right) by ensuring that it doesn't mean you only have one Senator.
Edit: I'd read that they wanted the Governor to be able to appoint an interim Senator which I think is a great idea but if not then yeah it's ridiculous.
So how much longer is Teddy's vacant term? When was he elected last?