Democrats: Honor Kennedy through civil debate
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 2 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 2 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 23 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
28 Comments
Login to comment
0
RomeoRamenII
The democrats do realize the Kennedys have corrupted every institution they have been involved with: legal system, the education system, the U.S. Senate and the Catholic Church.
It's not the smartest move for U.S. liberals to attach the Kennedy name to any piece of legislation they want to promote as it represents privledged elitists who live by a different set of rules than us regular folks.
0
seijichuudo9sha
Actually Kennedy was at his most effective when he used blatant propaganda.Look what he did to Robert Bork.Was it unethical?Of course it was.But it kept Bork off the Supreme Court. Democrats have the advantage until 2010 at least.Fair play is for repubs and centrists.
0
WhiteHawk
Let's keep it in context. We've seen time and again the Democrats' idea of "bi-partisanship", so you can just guess what they mean when they call for "civil debate".
RomeoRamenII:
You're right, but don't forget about the space program and lunar exploration. JFK got that one right.
0
RomeoRamenII
WhiteHawk:
You are correct, that was a good call on JFK's part. But it needs to be put into historical perspective. Remember, it was the height of the Cold War and the Soviets were beating us to the punch at the beginning of the space race: Sputnik; 1st man to orbit the planet; 1st space walk. While JFK's intentions are of course to be lauded, he was reacting to what was going on at that time in world history.
Back on topic: The democrats seem to be rather thick headed - again - since they don't seem to realize that if Obama were to get his way with socializing public healthcare, Teddy would have been given an end-of-life Counsuling instead of being able to freely spend as much as he wanted to prolong his life. Now the liberals want special Ed Kennedy to be their poster child of the plan that would have let him just slip away. How goofy is that?
0
RomeoRamenII
I hope the liberals do rename their socialized healthcare plan KennedyCare: It will go down in flames even faster than if it were called ObamaCare.
0
smithinjapan
"Now the liberals want special Ed Kennedy to be their poster child of the plan that would have let him just slip away. How goofy is that?"
The only thing goofy about that is the fact that the poster failed to actually look into the situation far enough (and by far I mean on the surface.... very far for said poster) to see that Kennedy himself was one of the main people championing the plan. Oh, and that said poster is going on about death panels and what not again.
0
smithinjapan
RomeoRamenII: "I hope the liberals do rename their socialized healthcare plan KennedyCare: It will go down in flames even faster than if it were called ObamaCare."
Since criticism of Kennedy for anything and everything is limited to only a few JT posters with little credibility to begin with, and since nearly ALL Americans, including GWB, Palin ('retired'), and a whole slew of Repubs, are lamenting the loss of the man and praising his politics, I'd say it would garner quite a bit of support. YOU wouldn't like it, but since you've been in an isolated and dying out minority on most issues for a while now it's to the point where pretty much everything is the opposite of what you say it is.
And now you're insulting JFK to boot, and saying that any of his successes were limited to the surroundings of the time, and therefore were not so much his.
Take the blinders off, my friend. Truth may be a little bright after having those things on for years, but you'll see it's whole lot nicer.
0
Badsey
With Ted Kennedy passing we might now be able to afford ObamaCare --> crunch those numbers again! T.K. Was a liability to any health plan --> a private insurer would have dropped him years ago.
0
skipthesong
T.K. Was a liability to any health plan --> a private insurer would have dropped him years ago." that shouldn't be taken as a joke. That is one big issue I have with any gov plan. There are far too many people in the US who don't take care of themselves. TK was a silver spoon fed kid, was always able to wiggle out of his own responsibilities and duties (about half of the 50 million, who simply refuse to get on some type of plan). The plan being named after him would be perfect. No more need to be a responsible public, we now got a big mommy!
0
seijichuudo9sha
Wow.Greenpeace really went after Kennedy.I had no idea.
Here is the linkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwasgPfsv4I
0
Badsey
With a medical IRA (HSA) tied to a high-deductible health plan = your premiums will get lower as your deductable gets higher. Plus you could move your Medical IRA around if needed (jump plans). =The interest on your deductable will eventually pay for the plan fully (if you want).
-one way to reward people that need health insurance, but don't use it.
-It's never smart to encourage the negative (unhealthy). -We must always encourage the positive.
0
adaydream
Either the congressional republicans are real hypocrits or they loved Ted Kennedy much more then the republican posters here do. I mean they could have bought a $5.00 Hallmark card and gone on with their lives. But they didn't. They helped pack the services with their presence. Ted Kennedy's farewell was packed with republican leaders all the way up to Orrin Hatch and george bush.
Teddy's brothers were taken out by republicans. I'm glad that he got to live a nice long life. RIP Teddy. < :-)
0
yabits
As much as I am opposed to the conservative agenda, I take great exception to that statement.
0
adaydream
Yabits, my comment is as correct as what the republicans are posting in their hate tyrades. My post is as truthful and accurate as theirs. I'll need some proof that Oswald wasn't, not that he was.
I'm not normallly this way. I'm just responding in kind to the post that they have been posting. < :-)
0
yabits
Well, there's about as low a standard as one could hope for.
0
yabits
I will agree that it was nice that at least one of Rose Kennedy's four sons could live to a decent age.
Since Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., was killed during WWII, one might say he was a bit out of the historical "gunsights" of the swift-boaters. (We remember the swift-boaters: those great patriots who were paid off to spit on the service of people like Max Cleland, John Kerry, and Al Gore.)
The men who took out Teddy's two other brothers might well be likened to the fanatical guy who went into that church earlier this year to take out that abortion doctor. All felt that their individual acts of murder was done to serve a higher cause.
The conservative fanatics who smear Ted Kennedy I sense are acting a lot out of the same motivation. As I believe it would have been very difficult to have had a civil debate with self-righteous lunatics like Oswald and Sirhan, so too we see how difficult it can be with many other fanatics on both extremes.
0
tigermoth
I'm not a 'conservative fantatic' - lunatic to a certain degree, but not conservative by a long shot. I certainly understand that those of a politically liberal bent do have a place in their hearts for Teddy's suppossed political abilities - and perhaps he was quite adept in this arena. I also realize that his....uummmm - 'indiscretions' do give conservatives a good opportunity to bash him. But I cannot understand the liberal ability to ignore something so morally corrupt as manslaughter and the use of political and social favoritism to cover this up. You decry the social injustice of a conservative system on the less fortunate masses through a social system that favors the rich and powerful, yet condone these practices when it comes to your own, and label anyone who points it out a 'conservative fanatic'. You don't find that hypocritical in the least? And certainly you would agree that if GBII had drown some poor girl in his car and run off to daddy you would want him crucified would you not? C'mon.
0
yabits
The dictionary definition of manslaughter is "The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury." If Ted Kennedy had run his car into another person and killed them, that would be manslaughter. As we know, that did not happen.
What we do know is that both Ted and Mary Jo were in a car that went off a bridge into water -- a very narrow bridge with no guardrail or lighting whatsoever and in the black of night. Manslaughter is not what happened that tragic night.
The tendency of right-wingers to make false accusations is even more morally corrupt than anything Ted Kennedy did.
Liberals decry the injustices in the sense that many poor people are falsely accused and inadequately represented to the point where they can't prove their innocence. That's a system that appears to be just fine with the reprobates who support it. There is nothing about Ted Kennedy's behavior on the night in question that liberals "condone." What we don't do is level the false charge of manslaughter on him.
Neither crucified nor president.
0
seijichuudo9sha
I used to wonder at times how Ted Kennedy got out of the car, but Ms. Kopechne didn't.However, now that the senator is gone I have to admit I never really wanted to know the truth.
0
SuperLib
Yeah I've often wondered what I would do if I found myself upside down in pitch black conditions with water rushing in to my car as it's sinking. I definitely know I'd be able to save anyone in the car, plus myself. Yeah, for sure. No problem.
0
tigermoth
Yabits - okay so technically not manslaughter perhaps. Admittedly all he could really be charged with legally is leaving the scene of an accident, and failure to report it (unless you consider the next morning to be timely). And I'm not one to throw to throw out morality claims as that can lead to much hypocracy as well. What I'm pointing out is that he wasn't some teenager out drinking with his girlfriend, or even a college kid; he was in his mid 30's when this happened. Yes, no doubt it was dark and perhaps a legitimate accident. But you have to assume one of two thing: either he was driving while drunk, and that's why he went home and didn't phone authorities for many hours to tell them there was a girl in his car in the lake - in which case
I would call that unlawful killing. Or just as bad if not worse, he chose to simply leave rather than make any attempt to save her, or go on the hope (however scientifically impractical) that there might be an air pocket in the car and she might just be alive. So he was either drunk driving and killed her, or he exhibited what most people would term as deplorable behaviour for not at the very least reporting the accident. I can buy that someone could be in shock after such an ordeal, but if a person had wits enough to find their way home certainly they would have the mental facilities to phone authorities.
Really? Interesting you would think that. I don't think my accusations are false, but even if they were I should think that driving off a bridge with someone in your car and then leaving the scene without attempting to, or call for help is a bit more serious that a statement of mere words. I suppose I'm twisted that way. How are my accusations false? It is fact that he did this, not supposition or some made up 'conservative fantasy'. Look up the police report.
Okay, throw out the manslaughter charges if you'd like. But fact is fact. You don't condone it you say, but at the same time you have no issue with canonizing a man who did such a thing, nor calling into question a family who's wealth has got them through questionable behavior on more than one occasion. My point, which you quite obviously failed to understand is that the Kennedy family should represent much that the liberal mind would find abhorent; great family wealth and positions of power that have at many times kept them from harm's way and even criminal prosecution.
There seems to be a double standard that liberals exercise unashamedly. Without getting off topic and causing the moderators to yank this, a quick example: GBII got out of active service in Vietnam through daddy's help. Liberals were all over him for this. Teddy did the same and is a saint in your eyes. Sure one was president and the other a senator, but still high public officials that we supposedly hold to higher standards. I see these standard only apply in the liberal mind when they suit your political needs.
And SuperLib:
If your implication here is that he would have been too much in shock after dragging himself out (which was a miracle in itself) to assist the girl, I can see that. But then to walk home and simply not report it until the next morning - that's where the criminality, or at least strong lack of moral fibre comes into play.
That being said, I hope the man does rest in peace.
Apparently you chose to ignore my statement of being neither right nor left, assuming the former because I'm not a fan of the Kennedys (except the Dead Kennedys - excellent punk band from the latter 1970's). So if we're going to revert to childish political classifications I'll say that it's typical of 'left wingers' to regard any statement or accusations other than their own as false. Of course, you are never wrong.
The tendency of right-wingers to make false accusations is even more morally corrupt than anything Ted Kennedy did.
0
tigermoth
Hmm - my last commnet above somehow became jumpled between typing and posting (the last part out of place; the point is still sound.
0
yabits
LOL! Yeah, sure you would.
0
yabits
I don't believe the 29-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne would have gotten into a car with a person too drunk to drive safely. I don't doubt that Kennedy had been drinking, but the fact that she ASKED to ride with him back to the hotel indicates something. She was reputed to be a very straight, serious-minded person.
I find your use of the word "canonizing" in this context ludicrous. A fair-minded person can evaluate Kennedy's many accomplishments as a Senator and praise him for that. There isn't a liberal on the planet who will deny that Chappaquiddick left a permanent stain on his legacy.
0
WhiteHawk
smithinjapan:
Of course he was championing it. It was meant for the "little people", he wasn't going to suffer under it even if it had passed years ago. If Kennedy would have given up his own health plan for this one, then I would be posting that he was a man of substance instead of reminding his defenders he was such a fraud.
yabits:
Sadly, it was the son she considered "the dumb one".
Hahaha... "smear"... hahaha... Yeah, no projection here! /sarcasm
"Smear" as in reminding the pathological defenders of this drunken, womaninzing fraud of the indisputable facts about his life. "Smear" as in refusing to bury the inconvenient truth about Teddy Kennedy along with his corpse. Hey, he didn't allow his political partishanship and abuse of power to be buried with him (having a state law concerning the appointment of his successor changed under Romney be changed back now under Patrick), so why should the truth about his corrupt soul be buried?
So if Kennedy killed someone on the outside of his car, it would be manslaughter, but since he killed someone on the inside of his car, it wouldn't be?
I'm not an attorney, but I think if you check other fatal accident reports in America, you'll find that the guilty driver gets charged for the deaths of his passengers just as he does for those on the outside of his vehicle.
In aviation, we have the term "Pilot in Command". On the plane, the pilot is dictator. He is also the one ultimately responsible.
Wow, how you contradict yourself, again. On another thread - you know, the one where you said Teddy had been drinking a good bit and less than two hours later was arguing with right-wingers that they couldn't prove he had been drinking at all - you actually claimed Kennedy didn't notify the authorities because he was "lost", in spite of the fact that he supposedly found his way back to the party, then back to the accident site, then swam 500' across the channel and found his way back to his hotel. Technically, you weren't "condoning" his actions. You were repeating his bovine scatology story and making excuses for him.
You accuse right-wingers of making false accusations while you make false defenses. Fascinating.
SuperLib:
I'm betting you would walk 300 feet back to the house you just passed and notify the authorities right away.
tigermoth
Actually, the investigation that CBS hired out determined that not only did Lieutenant George W. Bush volunteer for Vietnam (and was passed over for more experienced pilots), Mary Mapes knew about it before going forward with the story (and the forged National Guard documents) that brought about the end of Dan Rather. It's a good thing that very fabricated story didn't determine the election as Mapes intended.
Okay, time to bust another myth: Kennedy did not report the accident to the authorities the next morning, or ever. Two local fishermen found the car that morning and called the authorities. Kennedy only turned himself in to authorities when he saw the diver bring Kopechne's body to the surface.
yabits:
...who left her hotel key and purse at the party. In the 60's, drinking and driving was neither uncommon or taboo. Illegal, yes, but not enforced as it is today. Remember, this was only two years after seat belts were mandatory in cars. They were only lap belts, and we weren't required to wear them in most states, if any. Those were different times.
Nice attempt to cover your previous self-contradiction there, yabits.
So why have you lashed out at every "right-winger" who brings up inconvenient truths about Kennedy and exaggerate their statements about him?
0
yabits
That is totally untrue. I never claimed Kennedy hadn't been drinking. There is a difference between having a few drinks and "being drunk." A big difference, but one that appears lost on a lot of simple-minded folks with their nasty little agenda.
0
yabits
Indeed, the truth is very inconvenient to right-wingers. Note this phony "contradiction" about my supposedly claiming that Kennedy wasn't drinking on the night in question.
I don't believe anyone can't point to a single statement that I've made that is an exaggeration of what right-wingers say. After all, it is the right-wingers who claim liberals attempt to "canonize" Kennedy and would "crucify" Bush if he contributed to the accidental drowning of a passenger in his car. Pretty hard to exaggerate that rhetoric.
Back to top