Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by Mr. MacPhisto » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:16 am
by hermanfontenot » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:26 am
Mr. MacPhisto wrote:Ted Kennedy did much good for others in his life
by British_Pharaoh » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:35 am
Mr. MacPhisto wrote:Not unexpected.http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/ ... index.htmlThoughts and prayers are with the Kennedy family. I may not have cared for Kennedy's politics, but I'd hoped for his recovery. Ted Kennedy did much good for others in his life and I'm amazed that he was able to hold it together after three of his brothers died too young tragically. There's been a lot of bad things that have happened to the Kennedy family and Teddy did manage to hold it together.This is truly the end of an era, the passing of a giant in politics and the last link to the fabled Camelot.RIP Teddy. I hope right now you are enjoying a joyful reunion with Joe, Jack, and Bobby.
by jack_tors » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:03 am
by peeker643 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:31 am
by jfiling » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:35 am
by stonepm » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:45 am
by skatingtripods » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:58 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:53 pm
by jamesownsdet » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:13 pm
HermanFontenot wrote:Mr. MacPhisto wrote:Ted Kennedy did much good for others in his lifeSpare me.I'll avoid saying anything unpleasant out of respect for the dead, but this is not a man we should be lionizing. I'll just leave it at that.
by OldDawg » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:07 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Kennedy embodied everything I hate about politicians.
by hermanfontenot » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:18 pm
by OldDawg » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:26 pm
HermanFontenot wrote:I like how Mr. Republican MacPhisto started off this thread with the boilerplate hagiography, and it's been a bi-partisan slam-fest ever since. Nice, nice. BTW, as long as we're going over Teddy's stellar record, let's not forget the Immigration Act of 1965. MS-13 says "Gracias, Senor Kennedy."
by Cerebral_DownTime » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:50 pm
OldDawg wrote:Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Kennedy embodied everything I hate about politicians.Would that include this dichotomy of views:a) When Mass Sen. John Kerry was running for president, the Mass. governor was a republican (Romney). State law had it that if a senate seat was vacated, the governor would select a replacement (see Rod Blagojevich and Obama). Since Mitt was a Republican, Teddy successfully lobbied to change state law so that if Kerry were elected, the Governor could not pick his replacement. I believe the seat would remain vacant until the next election. Teddy wanted to make sure the Republican governor wouldn't put a republican in Kerry's seat. This change in law Kennedy pioneered is still in effect.Flash forward to recent months...b) Teddy foreseeing his upcoming demise had petitioned Mass leaders to revoke this same law he had earlier politicked for ... to change it to the way it was. Why the 180??? Now he wanted the current Democratic governor to select a democratic replacement for him upon his passing. That way the seat would not remain vacant and the democrats could keep a stronghold with a super majority to push through Obama's policies.
If it weren't for Chapa-get-drunk-&-drive-off-the-road-into-a-lake-&-drown-your-female-misstress-&-don't-call-cops-till-morning-aquidick, he probably would have become president (or martyred trying). As it was, if he didn't have the name Kennedy, his political career would have been done right then and there (as it should have at the time).
by Ziner » Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:46 pm
OldDawg wrote:HermanFontenot wrote:I like how Mr. Republican MacPhisto started off this thread with the boilerplate hagiography, and it's been a bi-partisan slam-fest ever since. Nice, nice. BTW, as long as we're going over Teddy's stellar record, let's not forget the Immigration Act of 1965. MS-13 says "Gracias, Senor Kennedy."I feel a little bad about not respecting the deceased. But I would rather respect the living whilst they were alive. Being respected because you died is one thing, being respected for how you lived is quite another.
by exiledbuckeye » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:10 pm
Ziner wrote:OldDawg wrote:HermanFontenot wrote:I like how Mr. Republican MacPhisto started off this thread with the boilerplate hagiography, and it's been a bi-partisan slam-fest ever since. Nice, nice. BTW, as long as we're going over Teddy's stellar record, let's not forget the Immigration Act of 1965. MS-13 says "Gracias, Senor Kennedy."I feel a little bad about not respecting the deceased. But I would rather respect the living whilst they were alive. Being respected because you died is one thing, being respected for how you lived is quite another.No reason to feel bad at all about not respecting Kennedy. Save your compassion for those who deserve it. Kennedy was a slimeball, I think that opinion has been established without debate thus far. If there isnt one person who gives a shit to defend him from the comments said on here, it just furthers the point that he didnt live a life worth respecting. Self-serving is no way to go through life, at least not if you want to be respected.
by OldDawg » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:02 pm
exiledbuckeye wrote:Kennedy didn't ask to have the law changed back to exactly what it was. He asked them to change it to allow the governor to appoint a temporary seat holder (who would have to pledge not to run in the special election to fill the seat permanently) to represent the state until the permanent seat holder was elected. The timing on the original law change was obvious, though I would argue that it's obviously more democratic to elect a new seat holder than to have a governor appoint one. Massachusetts is certainly not the only state that's made this change recently.
by aoxo1 » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:18 pm
by hermanfontenot » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:30 pm
In his new book, "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism," Grove City College professor Paul Kengor sheds light on a letter written by KGB head Viktor Chebrikov to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov. The letter is dated May 14, 1983, right as the debate was heating up over Mr. Reagan's proposed deployment of intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe to counter the Soviets' medium-range rockets in Eastern Europe. Most Democrats and much of the left were universally opposed to Mr. Reagan's plan, which they argued would lead to nuclear war. Heading the list of critics was Mr. Kennedy, who had, according to the Soviet letter, sent former Sen. John V. Tunney to meet with Kremlin leaders. Chebrikov writes that Mr. Kennedy "charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to... Andropov." According to the letter, Mr. Kennedy was concerned with "Reagan's belligerence," which he felt was in part the result of the president's popularity. "The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," wrote Chebrikov, relaying Mr. Tunney's message. "These issues, according to [Mr. Kennedy], will without a doubt become the most important of the  election campaign." The letter goes on to say how Mr. Kennedy felt that the Soviets' peaceful intentions were being "quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted." Conversely, Mr. Reagan "has the capabilities to counter any propaganda." In other words, if the letter is to be believed, Mr. Kennedy felt his own president was the real aggressor. Mr. Kennedy had two proposals for Andropov, according to Chebrikov. First, he asked for a meeting later that summer in order "to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Second, that "Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize ... televised interviews with [Andropov] in the USA." If Chebrikov's account of events is accurate, it's clear Mr. Kennedy was actively engaging the Russians to influence the 1984 election. He also seems to have genuinely believed that Mr. Reagan's policies were endangering U.S.-Soviet relations and that the best solution was to get Mr. Reagan out of office. The letter closes with Chebrikov saying that "Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988," possibly suggesting Mr. Kennedy had other, more selfish motives.
by exiledbuckeye » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:33 pm
OldDawg wrote:exiledbuckeye wrote:Kennedy didn't ask to have the law changed back to exactly what it was. He asked them to change it to allow the governor to appoint a temporary seat holder (who would have to pledge not to run in the special election to fill the seat permanently) to represent the state until the permanent seat holder was elected. The timing on the original law change was obvious, though I would argue that it's obviously more democratic to elect a new seat holder than to have a governor appoint one. Massachusetts is certainly not the only state that's made this change recently.Semantics. OK, he wanted the current democratic governor to appoint his "temporary" replacement then. He would not want the seat being temporarily filled if the governor were a republican. If he was so worried about filling the seat solely to "represent the state" (as you suggest), he would never have lobbied for the change when Kerry ran. It was OK for the seat to be vacant if the governor was a Republican. Now that the gov is a democrat, we must make sure the state is fully represented in the senate. Please. This has to do solely with party politics.
by aoxo1 » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:41 pm
HermanFontenot wrote:I don't care if people want to classify his political motives as self-serving or not. Those are semantics. To me, Ted Kennedy was little more than a traitor. Attempting to pursuade the USSR to influence American elections is tantamount to treason. The Immigration Act of 1965 was tantamount to treason.
by hermanfontenot » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:11 pm
aoxo1 wrote:I AM curious about your second statement, however.
by FUDU » Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:38 pm
by aoxo1 » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:08 pm
HermanFontenot wrote:aoxo1 wrote:I AM curious about your second statement, however.The integrity of a country lies in its population having a shared culture, shared values, shared religion, and to as much extent as possible, a shared ethnicity. Look at history and see how often polyglot societies collapsed into social strife and civil war- from late-era Rome to the Austro-Hungarian Empire to Yugoslavia. I challenge you to find one polyglot nation that proved a long-term success. Prior to 1965 this country had that shared culture and society, based on a large white majority. We allowed immigration, but mainly from Europe, restricted to people who by culture, religion and ethnicity were easily digestible. We could turn Italians, Poles, Germans and Irish into Americans within a generation, because they wanted to be Americans, because they bought in. Yes, they had their own enclaves, their own particular customs, but those didn't override the basic values and ethncity that allowed them to become full-fledged citizens of the Republic.The Immigration Act has led to the destruction of the majority in this country. Our borders have been flooded by people who don't buy in, who have no intention of buying in. This country has been balkanized. Again, look back at history and see how well that works out. Destroy the productive majority, the country soon follows. That's Ted Kennedy's real legacy.
by hermanfontenot » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:15 pm
aoxo1 wrote:Go to hell.People said that about every wave of immigration in American history and history has rightly shown them to be bigoted jackasses.
by FUDU » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:47 pm
by Fire Marshall Bill » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:03 pm
jfiling wrote:Fuck Kennedy's family, and fuck anyone who considers themselves his "friend". The man was a self-entitled, self-righteous fuck who deserves an eternal piss stream on his grave. Everything he ever did in life was for himself, no matter how many other lives he fucked in the the process. I wish there was a hell specifically for people like Teddy.
by FUDU » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:39 am
Separating out his political accomplishments from Chappaquidick is difficult, and any description of him HAS to include it, but purely from a legislative standpoint he was an extremely effective senator, very capable of forming coalitions across the aisle, and his major accomplishments were FAR from self serving, but instead sought to aid the weakest among us.I realize most of the people here are on the other side of the ideological spectrum and thus probably disagree with his ideology, but you guys should be able to acknowledge he did work, more or less, for what he really believed in.
Return to No Holds Barred
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests