I think that he was a great I think that he was a great leader. He represented the best of America and also some of the weaknesses of our society.
I will miss Ted Kennedy.
Hobie
August 26, 2009 @
1:54 PM
Of course, condolences to his Of course, condolences to his family.
While his mother was involved in many noble activities helping people he parlayed the family name into a power house of government control.
He lived the lavish lifestyle riding on his fathers wealth ( from legal liquor sales ) and probably the key player in shaping the direction of the current Democratic party. Specifically, policies that take money from those who earn it and give it to those who are not motivated. Not saying some social programs are good but I see so many that are non-ending and seem to encourage nothing in return for the benefits, other than a vote.
In my opinion he epitomizes the power and corruption of so many politicians. Is it any wonder that the Simpsons use his voice likeness in their parodies?
Can we use Chappaquiddick as an example?
CBad
August 26, 2009 @
2:31 PM
He should have done jail time He should have done jail time for felony drunk driving and manslaughter.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 26, 2009 @
3:38 PM
Hobie wrote:He lived the [quote=Hobie]He lived the lavish lifestyle riding on his fathers wealth ( from legal liquor sales )
In my opinion he epitomizes the power and corruption of so many politicians. Is it any wonder that the Simpsons use his voice likeness in their parodies?
Can we use Chappaquiddick as an example?[/quote]
Hobie: He (Joe Kennedy, Sr., the family patriarch) was into illegal liquor sales (bootlegging) during Prohibition, as well as being involved with various stock hustles and scams (such as pumping and dumping schemes). He was a noted philanderer during his day and the various Kennedy and Shriver apples didn’t fall from the tree. A quick reading on various lawsuits and allegations about rape, criminal misconduct, public drunkenness against the Kennedy clan should suffice to tell you what they’re all about.
He walked on what should have been a vehicular manslaughter charge for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969 (she was a campaign worker for his brother Robert F. Kennedy), when he drove his Oldsmobile into the drink after having too much to drink.
All in all, they represent the worst in American politics and the corrupting influence of too much money and power.
Hobie
August 26, 2009 @
3:58 PM
Allen, your absolutely Allen, your absolutely correct regarding the illegal liquor sales. I ment this but did not proof read. Thx and agree with your posting.
jpinpb
August 26, 2009 @
1:45 PM
I don’t know if I would say I don’t know if I would say he was a great leader. He had good and bad. I look at him as the last of a certain era. I think I would more miss the generation from which he stemmed and maybe simpler, hopeful times. I admit I am naieve in my thinking.
XBoxBoy
August 26, 2009 @
2:33 PM
I always find it hard to I always find it hard to believe anyone can idolize any politician in American politics today. They are all short making our world a better place and long providing favors to special interest groups. The only difference is which special interest groups they want to entertain.
I can’t think of a single politician I’d even want to have a beer with much less call a great leader.
Just my cynical 2cents worth
XBoxBoy
CDMA ENG
August 26, 2009 @
2:46 PM
Ask Mary Jo’s Family if they Ask Mary Jo’s Family if they miss him? Based on that… the only thing he should have been leading was the chant of a chain gang.
Not a nation or state.
C.E.
afx114
August 26, 2009 @
3:39 PM
How many here voted when they How many here voted when they were between 18-21 years old? How many received any kind of student financial assistance to attend college? How many ever had a job that paid minimum wage? Just curious.
an
August 26, 2009 @
3:50 PM
afx114 wrote:How many here [quote=afx114]How many here voted when they were between 18-21 years old? How many received any kind of student financial assistance to attend college? How many ever had a job that paid minimum wage? Just curious.[/quote]
My answers to those are no, no, and yes. What’s your thesis?
DWCAP
August 26, 2009 @
4:00 PM
afx114 wrote:How many here [quote=afx114]How many here voted when they were between 18-21 years old? How many received any kind of student financial assistance to attend college? How many ever had a job that paid minimum wage? Just curious.[/quote]
I agree what is your point?
my answers:
Yes, havnt missed an election yet.
No, financial aid to attend any school I have ever been to.
Yes, my first 4 jobs were minimum wage.
Aecetia
August 26, 2009 @
4:09 PM
Mine are the same as DWCAP, Mine are the same as DWCAP, except my first job was 10 cents above minimum wage and the next few were at minimum wage. Things were a lot less then.
Hobie
August 26, 2009 @
4:17 PM
Yes. Every election.
No. Yes. Every election.
No. Worked part time during college.
Yes. $1.80/hr! Convenience store clerk. Even robbed at gunpoint. Great motivator to hit the books.
Rant- minimum wage is just for first time workers–kids in high school. Become more valuable to your employer and you will quickly make more.
Don’t get me started on the living wage issue. š
afx114
August 26, 2009 @
4:28 PM
The point is that he helped The point is that he helped make those three things happen.
“Long ago, according to historians, the age of maturity was fixed at 21, because that was the age at which a young man was thought to be capable of bearing armor. Strange as it may seem, the weight of armor in the 11th century governs the right to vote of Americans in the 20th century.” – TK on why the voting age should be lowered to 18.
(I figured you’d appreciate that one Allan, being a military historian and all).
I understand that there are those out there who believe that minimum wage and educational assistance are tyranny or socialism or whatever, and of course the man had his faults (don’t we all), but credit should be given where credit is due (both good and bad).
I personally don’t have an opinion one way or another because he comes from a different era — one that to me is a bit like watching the history channel. If anything his passing means that I can no longer blame the crusty old dudes and my parents’ generation for the ills of the world. Now it’s on me and my generation, whatever that means.
an
August 26, 2009 @
4:46 PM
afx114 wrote:The point is [quote=afx114]The point is that he helped make those three things happen.[/quote]
What do you mean by he make those 3 things happen? Didn’t minimum wage start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act_of_1938?
“Passing this wage hike represents a small, but necessary step to help lift America’s working poor out of the ditches of poverty and onto the road toward economic prosperity.”
That quote I originally posted is from his testimony in front of the Subcommittee for Lowering the Voting Age to 18. It eventually led to the 26th Amendment.
Ultimately you have to ask yourself — when’s the last time you saw a well-off millionaire supporting the raising of minimum wage? Or healthcare for the poor? Or education for the poor? Whether or not you agree with his politics, I don’t see how anyone can acuse him of being a corrupt gasbag. The man spent his life fighting for those waaayyyy less fortunate than him. That’s a lot more than can be said about most of the people here (myself included).
briansd1
August 26, 2009 @
5:29 PM
Allan, I agree on RFK. Allan, I agree on RFK.
——-
I’m willing to bet that some people who hate Kennedy because they are absolutely against any kind of government “handout” are glad that we now have the financial bailout.
——-
Military child-care was also a Kennedy program. I’m sure that those hard-core Republicans in the military aren’t giving up some for their entitlements just on principles. They probably have even more kids and frequently use the VA.
——-
For those who think that Ted Kennedy was all about government intrusion, he was also instrumental in the deregulation of the airline industry. That democratized travel and allowed the common person to travel around the world. (The pilots’ union wasn’t too happy about that).
I don’t think it’s about government control. It’s about giving everyone a chance to succeed and to access the best that we produce.
an
August 26, 2009 @
5:52 PM
afx114, I don’t know much afx114, I don’t know much about the man, so I don’t have feeling one way or another toward him. I was just asking the question with regards to your assertion about his contribution to society. I personally would be more impressed by a millionaire who create jobs and spend his own money to give people jobs, instead of those who tell others how they suppose to spend their money. It’s always easier to tell others how they should spend and it’s always easier to spend others’ money than your own. I’m more impressed by people like Bill Gates, who hired thousands of people and pay them very well. Then after he amasses billions, he’ll give those billions to charity that directly aid poor people from 3rd world countries.
strawberryfields
August 26, 2009 @
6:37 PM
He’ll be missed.
In 2003, my He’ll be missed.
In 2003, my cousin who is in the Air Force suffered a head injury while in Hawaii. The care he received in the military hospital there (Trippler – also known as Crippler at the time) was, to put it mildly, terrible. One call to Sen. Kennedy’s office and the red tape of getting him on a medical flight to a better military hospital on the East Coast was gone.
I don’t think that my cousin would be alive today, never mind back to serving our country, if it weren’t for Ted Kennedy.
Aecetia
August 26, 2009 @
7:05 PM
I agree with Allan re. Robert I agree with Allan re. Robert Kennedy being the best and the brightest, if not Joe. I heard him speak in San Diego the night before he was killed in L.A. He would have been the President and I think things might be better. As for Ted, I always felt sorry for him. I think he drank to keep the nightmares blurry. I think he had pain from his plane crash and pain in his soul. All the Kennedy men had tragic lives and his was probably the most tragic of all. I hope he finds peace.
equalizer
August 26, 2009 @
10:29 PM
AN wrote:afx114, I don’t know [quote=AN]afx114, I don’t know much about the man, so I don’t have feeling one way or another toward him. I was just asking the question with regards to your assertion about his contribution to society. I personally would be more impressed by a millionaire who create jobs and spend his own money to give people jobs, instead of those who tell others how they suppose to spend their money. It’s always easier to tell others how they should spend and it’s always easier to spend others’ money than your own. I’m more impressed by people like Bill Gates, who hired thousands of people and pay them very well. Then after he amasses billions, he’ll give those billions to charity that directly aid poor people from 3rd world countries.[/quote]
Before Gore’s Internet there was the 1965 immigration Act that transformed the immigration patterns from anti-Asian to country neutral. The 1952 McCarran-Walter Act removed Asian from banned list but set āAsia-Pacific Triangleā quota where the people indigenous to the Triangle was capped annually at just 2,000, while each Asian country within the Triangle was permitted a mere 100 immigrants. Truman had the good sense to veto McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 (commie bashing in the Cheney spirit) as well as this vile 1952 McCarran Act. Unfortunately the bigots in Congress over-rid both the vetoes.
Ted Kennedy was big sponsor of the 1965 bill. So without Ted’s help, there likely would have been fewer Asians working at tech companies helping out good old Bill. So tech workers can blame Ted for job insecurity and Bill can thank Ted for endless supply.
Of course Pat Buchanan probably cites this Act as well as the 86 Amnesty as precursor to the downfall of civilization in USA. But his defense of Ivan the “so-called innocent” is shredded in Ivan Meets Pitchfork Pat. http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/132947.html
briansd1
August 26, 2009 @
10:55 PM
equalizer wrote:
Before [quote=equalizer]
Before Gore’s Internet there was the 1965 immigration Act that transformed the immigration patterns from anti-Asian to country neutral. The 1952 McCarran-Walter Act removed Asian from banned list but set āAsia-Pacific Triangleā quota where the people indigenous to the Triangle was capped annually at just 2,000, while each Asian country within the Triangle was permitted a mere 100 immigrants. Truman had the good sense to veto McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 (commie bashing in the Cheney spirit) as well as this vile 1952 McCarran Act. Unfortunately the bigots in Congress over-rid both the vetoes.
Ted Kennedy was big sponsor of the 1965 bill. So without Ted’s help, there likely would have been fewer Asians working at tech companies helping out good old Bill. So tech workers can blame Ted for job insecurity and Bill can thank Ted for endless supply.
Of course Pat Buchanan probably cites this Act as well as the 86 Amnesty as precursor to the downfall of civilization in USA. But his defense of Ivan the “so-called innocent” is shredded in Ivan Meets Pitchfork Pat. http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/132947.html%5B/quote%5D
Interesting.
So people of Asian decent owe their own well-being partly to Ted Kennedy?
an
August 26, 2009 @
11:08 PM
briansd1 wrote:
So people of [quote=briansd1]
So people of Asian decent owe their own well-being partly to Ted Kennedy?[/quote]
I guess people of Asian decent and hispanic decent owe their own well-being partly to the other 325 representatives who also voted for the bill as well. It was passed by an overwhelming 82.5%. Opposition mainly came from Southern legislators. So, it seems like it had a huge support. Would the bill pass if Ted Kennedy wasn’t there?
afx114
August 26, 2009 @
11:43 PM
AN wrote:Would the bill pass [quote=AN]Would the bill pass if Ted Kennedy wasn’t there?[/quote]
Kennedy was Senate immigration subcommittee chairman at the time, so you could argue that he played a more important role than many others in Congress.
an
August 27, 2009 @
12:05 AM
afx114 wrote:AN wrote:Would [quote=afx114][quote=AN]Would the bill pass if Ted Kennedy wasn’t there?[/quote]
Kennedy was Senate immigration subcommittee chairman at the time, so you could argue that he played a more important role than many others in Congress.[/quote]
Yes, I agree he played an important role. I was just wondering out loud, would a bill that got over 80% support fail to pass of Ted Kennedy wasn’t there to support it? It’s almost like the Gore/Internet thing. Do you think the Internet wouldn’t exist if Gore wasn’t there?
afx114
August 27, 2009 @
1:10 AM
AN wrote:Do you think the [quote=AN]Do you think the Internet wouldn’t exist if Gore wasn’t there?[/quote]
I think you’re splitting straw man hairs hairs here AN. Do you think that slavery would still exist if it wasn’t for Lincoln? Surely abolition would have inevitably happened even without him, but surely he deserves a lot of the credit, no?
Just admit that you can’t bring yourself to give credit to a hippie commie librul socialist. š
Allan from Fallbrook
August 27, 2009 @
8:43 AM
afx114 wrote:AN wrote:Do you [quote=afx114][quote=AN]Do you think the Internet wouldn’t exist if Gore wasn’t there?[/quote]
I think you’re splitting straw man hairs hairs here AN. Do you think that slavery would still exist if it wasn’t for Lincoln? Surely abolition would have inevitably happened even without him, but surely he deserves a lot of the credit, no?
Just admit that you can’t bring yourself to give credit to a hippie commie librul socialist. :)[/quote]
Afx: Slavery and the Civil War is an odious comparison. Do you, personally, think abolition would have eventually won out without violent conflict? I don’t. While we didn’t go to war over slavery (it was a clash of cultures between the industrialized North and the agrarian South), it was definitely the linchpin in the South’s key export, cotton, and the South wasn’t going to let that go without a fight.
I would also like your opinion on the percentage of Republicans versus Democrats that voted for key civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act. This whole “liberal versus conservative” argument tends to break down when you go back to the 1960s, especially considering how hawkish and conservative key Democratic figures, like JFK and LBJ, actually were.
afx114
August 27, 2009 @
9:47 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Afx: Slavery and the Civil War is an odious comparison. Do you, personally, think abolition would have eventually won out without violent conflict?[/quote]
I was talking about the man (Lincoln) not the conflict. I think the conflict and eventually abolition would have happened with or without Lincoln. Just like the Internet would have happened with or without Gore and immigration reform would have happened with or without Kennedy. The question is whether or not these men deserve any credit for the inevitable outcomes that would have eventually happened with or without them.
Does Neil Armstrong deserve credit for walking on the moon first? Surely that would have happened eventually with him or without him.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would also like your opinion on the percentage of Republicans versus Democrats that voted for key civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act.[/quote]
Not sure what you’re asking here? I thought we were talking about whether or not Kennedy deserves credit for helping get immigration reform passed?
Allan from Fallbrook
August 27, 2009 @
9:57 AM
afx114 wrote:Allan from [quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Afx: Slavery and the Civil War is an odious comparison. Do you, personally, think abolition would have eventually won out without violent conflict?[/quote]
I was talking about the man (Lincoln) not the conflict. I think the conflict and eventually abolition would have happened with or without Lincoln. Just like the Internet would have happened with or without Gore and immigration reform would have happened with or without Kennedy. The question is whether or not these men deserve any credit for the inevitable outcomes that would have eventually happened with or without them.
Does Neil Armstrong deserve credit for walking on the moon first? Surely that would have happened eventually with him or without him.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would also like your opinion on the percentage of Republicans versus Democrats that voted for key civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act.[/quote]
Not sure what you’re asking here? I thought we were talking about whether or not Kennedy deserves credit for helping get immigration reform passed?[/quote]
Afx: I disagree with your contention about Lincoln. The Civil War “happened” as a result of disunion by certain states (the Confederacy) leading to an act of war (the shelling of Fort Sumter). I think Lincoln is quite immaterial at that point, to be honest. Are we, as Americans, hugely fortunate to have had him as President at that time? Absolutely, and I would imagine another man at the helm might not have been as able to steer the course he did, which probably does support part of your argument.
My point on Dems versus Repubs during the Civil Rights era was simply to illustrate that “liberals” (Democrats) weren’t all that liberal, especially the Dixiecrat variety and that was in response to your earlier posting about “hippie commie libruls”.
And, for the love of God, please stop bringing up Al Gore and the frickin’ internet. He didn’t invent it (which I sincerely hope you know); it was around for years and years before Al Gore ever even graced the halls of government. My dad (an aerospace engineer in Palo Alto) had a DARPANet address dating back to the early 1970s. I will give Al Gore credit for inventing global warming and then profiting handsomely from it, though.
afx114
August 27, 2009 @
10:38 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]And, for the love of God, please stop bringing up Al Gore and the frickin’ internet. He didn’t invent it (which I sincerely hope you know); it was around for years and years before Al Gore ever even graced the halls of government. My dad (an aerospace engineer in Palo Alto) had a DARPANet address dating back to the early 1970s. I will give Al Gore credit for inventing global warming and then profiting handsomely from it, though.[/quote]
Of course I don’t believe Gore invented the internet. I would think that you’d know me enough by now to detect my sarcasm, although admittedly Gore’s Internets aren’t the best medium for the translation of such silliness.
No single person can lay claim to inventing the internet, but the “father of the internet” is Vinton Cerf. Guess what he says about Al Gore and his role?
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening.
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development. … No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Direct quote from Vint Cerf, father of the Internet. Stick that in your series of tubes and smoke it.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 27, 2009 @
10:53 AM
afx114 wrote:Direct quote [quote=afx114]Direct quote from Vint Cerf, father of the Internet. Stick that in your series of tubes and smoke it.[/quote]
Afx: Apropos of nothing, I met Dr. Cerf when I was 10 at PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). This was 1975 and I was there with my dad on a Saturday and he was picking up information on a DoD project he was working on. Dr. Cerf, who was at Stanford at the time, was working on a DoD project as well (not the same one) that was being coordinated through PARC. Cool dude.
Interesting quote on Gore and one I hadn’t seen before. Given that it’s from Cerf, I would attach a lot of credence to it. My point, however, is that that egocentric bombast Gore didn’t invent the internet. It appears that he certainly advanced the cause, but Gore has a terrible propensity to overstate his importance on various issues, much like he overstated global warming and he plays fast and loose with facts, as in “An Inconvenient Truth”.
BGinRB
August 27, 2009 @
10:09 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]While we didn’t go to war over slavery (it was a clash of cultures between the industrialized North and the agrarian South), it was definitely the linchpin in the South’s key export, cotton, and the South wasn’t going to let that go without a fight.[/quote]
This society is built around inequality. It is a rare modern society where it is socially acceptable to prosper on someone misery. Slavery survived long after it was abolished in other western societies. And segregation. Now you have illegal immigrants and H1B’s in limbo. And the entire health reform debate is just another aspect of the same phenomenon. In no other modern, wealthy society is acceptable to have a large group of people with no access to healthcare.
Sure, other societies have similar issues and you can find people arguing different points of view, but in no other country is acceptable to have entire industries staffed by illegal imigrants, or to argue that providing access to healthcare for 10% of population is too expensive.
Luckily, I am in the exploiting group. It would really suck if I was not.
On topic, the person was expected to run for president and get killed along the way. I think he carried the burden better than most would.
Zeit: Oh, God, how wrong was that? The mental picture alone is enough to make you hurl.
Or, go hiking in the Appalachians! Kidding. I’m just joshing the governor of the great state of South Carolina.
Zeitgeist
August 27, 2009 @
11:39 AM
Allan, not my fault. I am Allan, not my fault. I am just reporting this stuff. Good old Ted made it happen. Your father must have had a mensa level IQ from all the associates. Those folks do not hang out with deltas (not in the Frat. way). Wasn’t that Dr. Cerf in Thunderball?
Allan from Fallbrook
August 27, 2009 @
12:04 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:Allan, not my [quote=Zeitgeist]Allan, not my fault. I am just reporting this stuff. Good old Ted made it happen. Your father must have had a mensa level IQ from all the associates. Those folks do not hang out with deltas (not in the Frat. way). Wasn’t that Dr. Cerf in Thunderball?[/quote]
Zeit: Come to think of it, I think Blofeld lived down the street from us! Or was that Dr. Miguelito Loveless? I always get them confused.
Kidding aside, my dad worked in defense aerospace from the late 1950s to the late 1980s and most of his time was spent in either Pasadena/El Segundo (JPL and McDonnell Douglas) or Palo Alto (Ford Aerospace). That industry, along with the communications/computer industry, was a friggin’ hotbed of innovation and Uncle Sugar (US Gov’t) was throwing tons of money at it.
If you look at Stanford alone from the 1950s through the present, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of companies that have come out of there, either directly or indirectly, and largely as a result of government funding.
PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) is another great example of some amazing innovations and inventions over it’s existence, especially when it comes to computing.
Same goes for the old IBM Cottle Road campus, which was essentially a government funded development center and think tank.
My old man was smart (not Mensa smart, though), but it was more a matter of being involved during a period of time when the US was absolutely devoted to cutting edge engineering and development and was willing to pay for the best and brightest.
Aecetia
August 27, 2009 @
2:37 PM
Some of the later images were Some of the later images were not as flattering.
Do you think the Internet Do you think the Internet wouldn’t exist if Gore wasn’t there?
There is an easy litmus test this time. If a meaningful health care reform bill doesn’t pass through congress, I think you can say Kennedy was more than a figurehead.
an
August 26, 2009 @
10:57 PM
equalizer wrote:
Before [quote=equalizer]
Before Gore’s Internet there was the 1965 immigration Act that transformed the immigration patterns from anti-Asian to country neutral. The 1952 McCarran-Walter Act removed Asian from banned list but set āAsia-Pacific Triangleā quota where the people indigenous to the Triangle was capped annually at just 2,000, while each Asian country within the Triangle was permitted a mere 100 immigrants. Truman had the good sense to veto McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 (commie bashing in the Cheney spirit) as well as this vile 1952 McCarran Act. Unfortunately the bigots in Congress over-rid both the vetoes.
Ted Kennedy was big sponsor of the 1965 bill. So without Ted’s help, there likely would have been fewer Asians working at tech companies helping out good old Bill. So tech workers can blame Ted for job insecurity and Bill can thank Ted for endless supply.
Of course Pat Buchanan probably cites this Act as well as the 86 Amnesty as precursor to the downfall of civilization in USA. But his defense of Ivan the “so-called innocent” is shredded in Ivan Meets Pitchfork Pat. http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/132947.html%5B/quote%5D
I hope you’re being sarcastic about the Gore/Internet thing. But back to Ted Kennedy, like I said, I don’t know much about him, so I’m ambivalent about him. I’m glad he was a big supporter of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. However, it was proposed by Emanuel Celler, co-sponsored by Philip Hart. So the credit should go to those 2 gentlemen.
briansd1
August 26, 2009 @
4:39 PM
I think that Ted Kennedy was I think that Ted Kennedy was better than most of us.
He did not cater simply to the narrow interests that great wealth brought to his family. He worked for a better society.
He dedicated his whole life to public service. The length of his career and the totality of his work made him a great leader, in my opinion.
He was eloquent and spoke beautifully when called upon. The Kennedys were extremely gifted at public speaking. That, in itself, is an admirable talent.
I do admire the optimism of the 1960s. I’m not of that generation but I think that it was a great time in American life. At that time, America was admired around the world and there was always good will towards Americans abroad (so says my dad). Not so much so today.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 26, 2009 @
4:46 PM
briansd1 wrote:I think that [quote=briansd1]I think that Ted Kennedy was better than most of us.
He did not cater simply to the narrow interests that great wealth brought to his family. He worked for a better society.
He dedicated his whole life to public service. The length of his career and the totality of his work made him a great leader, in my opinion.
He was eloquent and spoke beautifully when called upon. The Kennedys were extremely gifted at public speaking. That, in itself, is an admirable talent.
I do admire the optimism of the 1960s. I’m not of that generation but I think that it was a great time in American life. At that time, America was admired around the world and there was always good will towards Americans abroad (so says my dad). Not so much so today.[/quote]
I think Robert (RFK) was truly a great loss to this country and more than JFK or Teddy. Teddy was a pale imitation and never lived up to expectations.
RFK’s speech in Indianapolis on the night of Martin Luther King Jr’s death is, to me, one of the single greatest speeches I have ever seen.
The courage and statesmanship on display that evening shows how much we truly lost when RFK was gunned down. To compare Teddy to RFK or even JFK is laughable. He was no statesman and was a Tax and Spend Dem from the jump.
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I think Robert (RFK) was truly a great loss to this country and more than JFK or Teddy. Teddy was a pale imitation and never lived up to expectations.
RFK’s speech in Indianapolis on the night of Martin Luther King Jr’s death is, to me, one of the single greatest speeches I have ever seen.
The courage and statesmanship on display that evening shows how much we truly lost when RFK was gunned down. To compare Teddy to RFK or even JFK is laughable. He was no statesman and was a Tax and Spend Dem from the jump.
briansd1 wrote:I think that [quote=briansd1]I think that Ted Kennedy was better than most of us.
He did not cater simply to the narrow interests that great wealth brought to his family. He worked for a better society.
He dedicated his whole life to public service. The length of his career and the totality of his work made him a great leader, in my opinion.
He was eloquent and spoke beautifully when called upon. The Kennedys were extremely gifted at public speaking. That, in itself, is an admirable talent.
I do admire the optimism of the 1960s. I’m not of that generation but I think that it was a great time in American life. At that time, America was admired around the world and there was always good will towards Americans abroad (so says my dad). Not so much so today.[/quote]
Absolutely agree with this. Though I certainly didn’t agree with all of his policies, there is no denying he was a powerful champion for the underdogs.
Though he was guilty of DUI/manslaughter, it appears he spent the rest of his life trying to make up for it, IMHO.
His death saddens me greatly. š
jonnycsd
October 9, 2009 @
7:09 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I do admire [quote=briansd1]
I do admire the optimism of the 1960s. I’m not of that generation but I think that it was a great time in American life. At that time, America was admired around the world and there was always good will towards Americans abroad (so says my dad). Not so much so today.[/quote]
The 1960’s were a “great time in American life”. Unfortunatley, they marked a turning point in our culture and strucutre of government that gave us systemic massive public debt, a 60% divorce rate, and the replacement of individual responsibility with big brother government. As a result:
1.America has diminished economic influence in the world,
2. We are dependant on China to fund our public debt even when our total tax rate is higher than most European countries
3. Have the highest rate of prison incarceration of any western democracy (and higher than all but a handful of dictaotrships such as Burma)
4. Have primary education performance that has slipped far behind our “wealthy nation” peers, with higher education starting to follow
5. A population that works many more hours for the same or declining standard of living
While there have been improvements in some areas of American life (racial equality, healthcare technology, workplace safety, etc.) all things considered the country is worse off today than it was in the 60’s, in no small part due to the kind of “leadership” Kennedy and his contemporaries provided.
NotCranky
October 9, 2009 @
9:01 AM
Interesting comments. In 1969 Interesting comments. In 1969 was it common to go to jail ,especially for a rich guy, if a passenger died as a result of drunk driving, or is he being judged on this by current standards?
Casca
October 9, 2009 @
9:44 AM
If she drowned because you If she drowned because you failed to report the accident for twelve hours, it sure was.
PatentGuy
August 26, 2009 @
8:18 PM
“Will [I] miss Ted “Will [I] miss Ted Kennedy?”
No.
sdgrrl
August 27, 2009 @
1:35 AM
I consider myself as liberal I consider myself as liberal as they come, but the whole Mary Jo event does mar his image in my eyes. The only person who could have evaded that was a wealthy something, anyone else would have burned…hmmm. Did the man do great things? Definitely. Did the violent deaths of three brothers probably help bring him to his unfortunate actions that night? Probably.
Casca
August 28, 2009 @
7:59 AM
Amazing, “I don’t know much Amazing, “I don’t know much about him, so this is how I feel”, or words to that effect. How about not having an opinion if you don’t know the facts?
I know plenty about the Kennedys, and American history in general. They were/are a pox upon America, if you have any constitutional cognizance.
Here’s a little walk down memory lane for those of you who don’t know much about history.
JFK was the original lightweight. All the stuff you’ve heard about the wonders of Camelot is absolute unadulterated bullshit. The 1960 election was stolen from Nixon in Illinois (with old Joe’s mob connections), and Texas (with LBJ’s corrupt vote stealing). If you find these assertions shocking, pick up a copy of Robert Caro’s “Means of Ascent”.
Sam Rayburn, the speaker of the house, at the time commented that he’d feel a whole lot better if at least one of them had once ran for county sheriff. JFK appointed Bobby as his AG, and Bobby went after organized crime in the unions. Bobby was a do-gooder, but it’s not safe to bite the hand that feeds you, particularly if that hand is organized crime.
One could go on and on, but the point is that Teddy was a joke even inside the family. The Kennedys may be liberal idols, but their feet are still of clay.
Finally, the ’60s was not a time of optimism. It was a decade of tumult.
briansd1
August 28, 2009 @
1:52 PM
Casca wrote: the ’60s was not [quote=Casca] the ’60s was not a time of optimism. It was a decade of tumult.[/quote]
It depends on how you look at it.
It was the time of sexual revolution, rock-n-roll and the hand-over of power from the old generation to new generation.
America was opening up to the world. Pan Am made world travel affordable and Americans traveled all over. The hippies, Peace Corps volunteers and tourists brought new culture and points of view to America. We became a much more open society. We first learned how to cook better and to dress better thanks to imports from Europe.
People were dreaming of space travel, tomorrow-land, and robotics to make our lives easier.
Appliances such as dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, and air-conditioning made it into the average house.
Middle class kids could go to college.
Think of you own family and reflect back on where your parents and great grand-parents came from before the bounty of the 1960s became available to average American.
Casca
August 28, 2009 @
2:04 PM
I suppose if one views the I suppose if one views the world strictly through a consumerist lens, then some of what you say is true. I take a more historical perspective, and see it as the beginning of the end of Western Civilization, and THAT is a bad thing. You must have missed the riots in all of the major cities, the destruction of the black family, and the cold war.
boomer
August 28, 2009 @
11:21 PM
A drunk and a murderer. I’m A drunk and a murderer. I’m having a hard time mourning the end of the Kennedys. The biggest joke is the left trying to spin the murder of his brothers as being done by the right wing….
(I guess wee still have the last Kennedy brother…)
kev374
August 29, 2009 @
12:13 AM
I don’t give a rat’s ass I don’t give a rat’s ass about Ted Kennedy and I hope they stop talking about him nonstop on the news, it seems CNN has no other news to cover…he died and was a great great great man, we got the idea.. now let’s move on…geez!
Chris Scoreboard Johnston
August 28, 2009 @
1:24 PM
Why is it when someone dies Why is it when someone dies who was a reprehensible human being, they all of the sudden become great human beings? It is relevant that he was basically a murderer.
This guy was a bad guy, good riddance. We should celebrate his loss not his life. I wonder how much of the formerly large family fortune he went through without ever literally earning a dime?
That would be the poll to conduct, which Kennedy has gone through the most of the hundreds of millions of dollars that their fortune has shrunk?
Anonymous
August 29, 2009 @
8:55 AM
I’ll miss him like a bad I’ll miss him like a bad toothache.
The Turtle
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2009 @
9:08 AM
I will miss him.
He was good I will miss him.
He was good at being an effective liberal.
His brothers were also.
I think that while his goals were not always popular (and he was a degenerate drunk), he was good at getting his shit done.
I respect him the same way I respect other effective politicians.
Flame that comment if you find it worthy.
bsrsharma
August 29, 2009 @
1:53 PM
He was good at being an He was good at being an effective liberal.
Looks like he took his readings a bit too seriously.
…But I asked him, “Where does this rabid concern about poverty come from?” And he looked at me like I was from Mars. And he said, “Have you never read the New Testament?”…
Perhaps it is about penance, Perhaps it is about penance, in search of absolution.
fredo4
August 30, 2009 @
12:16 AM
My friend Jon dressed up for My friend Jon dressed up for Halloween one year as Ted Kennedy. He wore the top half of a tux and boxer shorts on the bottom.
fredo4
August 30, 2009 @
12:17 AM
dupe dupe
Veritas
October 8, 2009 @
12:55 PM
Ted Kennedy Claimed to Have Ted Kennedy Claimed to Have Slept with over 1,000 Women
What a guy!
“In a chapter of his autobiography, the late Senator Ted Kennedy confessed to having slept with over 1,000 women and spending more than $10 million in hush money to keep his womanizing ways a secret. If you crack open the book, however, you won’t find a mention of this in there anywhere. That is because horrified family members and advisers cut it out before the book was published.”
“A close source also revealed to the National Enquirer that before he died of brain cancer at age 77 on August 25, Kennedy also revealed that he had planned to seduce Mary Jo Kopechne on the night she drowned. The source added that Kennedy even admitted to having planned to seduce Kopechne the night his car plunged off the road in Chappaquiddick.”
Veritas, even if this were Veritas, even if this were true, what’s the big deal?
Ted Kennedy was rich and if he wanted to squander his inheritance on women, what’s wrong with that? At least those women got “paid” for a good time. I’m sure they appreciated the luxurious meals and trips which they probably couldn’t afford on their own.
Only the social conservatives care about such crap. The difference is that those right-wing nuts all do it in secret.
If Kennedy slept with 1,000 women and spent $10 million, he got a deal. That works out to only $10,000 per woman. How much does a wife cost these days? I think people spend more than that for an engagement ring.
On Thursday, Ensign’s attorney said that the senator’s parents gave Doug Hampton, Cynthia Hampton and their two children gifts worth $96,000 in the form of a check. The attorney, Paul Coggins, said that each gift was limited to $12,000 and “complied with tax rules governing gifts.”
August 26, 2009 @ 1:27 PM
I think that he was a great
I think that he was a great leader. He represented the best of America and also some of the weaknesses of our society.
I will miss Ted Kennedy.
August 26, 2009 @ 1:54 PM
Of course, condolences to his
Of course, condolences to his family.
While his mother was involved in many noble activities helping people he parlayed the family name into a power house of government control.
He lived the lavish lifestyle riding on his fathers wealth ( from legal liquor sales ) and probably the key player in shaping the direction of the current Democratic party. Specifically, policies that take money from those who earn it and give it to those who are not motivated. Not saying some social programs are good but I see so many that are non-ending and seem to encourage nothing in return for the benefits, other than a vote.
In my opinion he epitomizes the power and corruption of so many politicians. Is it any wonder that the Simpsons use his voice likeness in their parodies?
Can we use Chappaquiddick as an example?
August 26, 2009 @ 2:31 PM
He should have done jail time
He should have done jail time for felony drunk driving and manslaughter.
August 26, 2009 @ 3:38 PM
Hobie wrote:He lived the
[quote=Hobie]He lived the lavish lifestyle riding on his fathers wealth ( from legal liquor sales )
In my opinion he epitomizes the power and corruption of so many politicians. Is it any wonder that the Simpsons use his voice likeness in their parodies?
Can we use Chappaquiddick as an example?[/quote]
Hobie: He (Joe Kennedy, Sr., the family patriarch) was into illegal liquor sales (bootlegging) during Prohibition, as well as being involved with various stock hustles and scams (such as pumping and dumping schemes). He was a noted philanderer during his day and the various Kennedy and Shriver apples didn’t fall from the tree. A quick reading on various lawsuits and allegations about rape, criminal misconduct, public drunkenness against the Kennedy clan should suffice to tell you what they’re all about.
He walked on what should have been a vehicular manslaughter charge for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969 (she was a campaign worker for his brother Robert F. Kennedy), when he drove his Oldsmobile into the drink after having too much to drink.
All in all, they represent the worst in American politics and the corrupting influence of too much money and power.
August 26, 2009 @ 3:58 PM
Allen, your absolutely
Allen, your absolutely correct regarding the illegal liquor sales. I ment this but did not proof read. Thx and agree with your posting.
August 26, 2009 @ 1:45 PM
I don’t know if I would say
I don’t know if I would say he was a great leader. He had good and bad. I look at him as the last of a certain era. I think I would more miss the generation from which he stemmed and maybe simpler, hopeful times. I admit I am naieve in my thinking.
August 26, 2009 @ 2:33 PM
I always find it hard to
I always find it hard to believe anyone can idolize any politician in American politics today. They are all short making our world a better place and long providing favors to special interest groups. The only difference is which special interest groups they want to entertain.
I can’t think of a single politician I’d even want to have a beer with much less call a great leader.
Just my cynical 2cents worth
XBoxBoy
August 26, 2009 @ 2:46 PM
Ask Mary Jo’s Family if they
Ask Mary Jo’s Family if they miss him? Based on that… the only thing he should have been leading was the chant of a chain gang.
Not a nation or state.
C.E.
August 26, 2009 @ 3:39 PM
How many here voted when they
How many here voted when they were between 18-21 years old? How many received any kind of student financial assistance to attend college? How many ever had a job that paid minimum wage? Just curious.
August 26, 2009 @ 3:50 PM
afx114 wrote:How many here
[quote=afx114]How many here voted when they were between 18-21 years old? How many received any kind of student financial assistance to attend college? How many ever had a job that paid minimum wage? Just curious.[/quote]
My answers to those are no, no, and yes. What’s your thesis?
August 26, 2009 @ 4:00 PM
afx114 wrote:How many here
[quote=afx114]How many here voted when they were between 18-21 years old? How many received any kind of student financial assistance to attend college? How many ever had a job that paid minimum wage? Just curious.[/quote]
I agree what is your point?
my answers:
Yes, havnt missed an election yet.
No, financial aid to attend any school I have ever been to.
Yes, my first 4 jobs were minimum wage.
August 26, 2009 @ 4:09 PM
Mine are the same as DWCAP,
Mine are the same as DWCAP, except my first job was 10 cents above minimum wage and the next few were at minimum wage. Things were a lot less then.
August 26, 2009 @ 4:17 PM
Yes. Every election.
No.
Yes. Every election.
No. Worked part time during college.
Yes. $1.80/hr! Convenience store clerk. Even robbed at gunpoint. Great motivator to hit the books.
Rant- minimum wage is just for first time workers–kids in high school. Become more valuable to your employer and you will quickly make more.
Don’t get me started on the living wage issue. š
August 26, 2009 @ 4:28 PM
The point is that he helped
The point is that he helped make those three things happen.
“Long ago, according to historians, the age of maturity was fixed at 21, because that was the age at which a young man was thought to be capable of bearing armor. Strange as it may seem, the weight of armor in the 11th century governs the right to vote of Americans in the 20th century.” – TK on why the voting age should be lowered to 18.
(I figured you’d appreciate that one Allan, being a military historian and all).
I understand that there are those out there who believe that minimum wage and educational assistance are tyranny or socialism or whatever, and of course the man had his faults (don’t we all), but credit should be given where credit is due (both good and bad).
I personally don’t have an opinion one way or another because he comes from a different era — one that to me is a bit like watching the history channel. If anything his passing means that I can no longer blame the crusty old dudes and my parents’ generation for the ills of the world. Now it’s on me and my generation, whatever that means.
August 26, 2009 @ 4:46 PM
afx114 wrote:The point is
[quote=afx114]The point is that he helped make those three things happen.[/quote]
What do you mean by he make those 3 things happen? Didn’t minimum wage start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act_of_1938?
Here’s what I found on minimum voter’s age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965. I couldn’t find Ted Kenedy’s name anywhere. Is Wiki missing something?
August 26, 2009 @ 5:06 PM
AN wrote:
What do you mean by
[quote=AN]
What do you mean by he make those 3 things happen? Didn’t minimum wage start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act_of_1938?
[/quote]
I’m talking more modern, as in the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ28/content-detail.html
“Passing this wage hike represents a small, but necessary step to help lift America’s working poor out of the ditches of poverty and onto the road toward economic prosperity.”
This coming from the lips of a millionaire.
[quote=AN]
Here’s what I found on minimum voter’s age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965. I couldn’t find Ted Kenedy’s name anywhere. Is Wiki missing something?[/quote]
That quote I originally posted is from his testimony in front of the Subcommittee for Lowering the Voting Age to 18. It eventually led to the 26th Amendment.
Ultimately you have to ask yourself — when’s the last time you saw a well-off millionaire supporting the raising of minimum wage? Or healthcare for the poor? Or education for the poor? Whether or not you agree with his politics, I don’t see how anyone can acuse him of being a corrupt gasbag. The man spent his life fighting for those waaayyyy less fortunate than him. That’s a lot more than can be said about most of the people here (myself included).
August 26, 2009 @ 5:29 PM
Allan, I agree on RFK.
Allan, I agree on RFK.
——-
I’m willing to bet that some people who hate Kennedy because they are absolutely against any kind of government “handout” are glad that we now have the financial bailout.
——-
Military child-care was also a Kennedy program. I’m sure that those hard-core Republicans in the military aren’t giving up some for their entitlements just on principles. They probably have even more kids and frequently use the VA.
——-
For those who think that Ted Kennedy was all about government intrusion, he was also instrumental in the deregulation of the airline industry. That democratized travel and allowed the common person to travel around the world. (The pilots’ union wasn’t too happy about that).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070101097.html
I don’t think it’s about government control. It’s about giving everyone a chance to succeed and to access the best that we produce.
August 26, 2009 @ 5:52 PM
afx114, I don’t know much
afx114, I don’t know much about the man, so I don’t have feeling one way or another toward him. I was just asking the question with regards to your assertion about his contribution to society. I personally would be more impressed by a millionaire who create jobs and spend his own money to give people jobs, instead of those who tell others how they suppose to spend their money. It’s always easier to tell others how they should spend and it’s always easier to spend others’ money than your own. I’m more impressed by people like Bill Gates, who hired thousands of people and pay them very well. Then after he amasses billions, he’ll give those billions to charity that directly aid poor people from 3rd world countries.
August 26, 2009 @ 6:37 PM
He’ll be missed.
In 2003, my
He’ll be missed.
In 2003, my cousin who is in the Air Force suffered a head injury while in Hawaii. The care he received in the military hospital there (Trippler – also known as Crippler at the time) was, to put it mildly, terrible. One call to Sen. Kennedy’s office and the red tape of getting him on a medical flight to a better military hospital on the East Coast was gone.
I don’t think that my cousin would be alive today, never mind back to serving our country, if it weren’t for Ted Kennedy.
August 26, 2009 @ 7:05 PM
I agree with Allan re. Robert
I agree with Allan re. Robert Kennedy being the best and the brightest, if not Joe. I heard him speak in San Diego the night before he was killed in L.A. He would have been the President and I think things might be better. As for Ted, I always felt sorry for him. I think he drank to keep the nightmares blurry. I think he had pain from his plane crash and pain in his soul. All the Kennedy men had tragic lives and his was probably the most tragic of all. I hope he finds peace.
August 26, 2009 @ 10:29 PM
AN wrote:afx114, I don’t know
[quote=AN]afx114, I don’t know much about the man, so I don’t have feeling one way or another toward him. I was just asking the question with regards to your assertion about his contribution to society. I personally would be more impressed by a millionaire who create jobs and spend his own money to give people jobs, instead of those who tell others how they suppose to spend their money. It’s always easier to tell others how they should spend and it’s always easier to spend others’ money than your own. I’m more impressed by people like Bill Gates, who hired thousands of people and pay them very well. Then after he amasses billions, he’ll give those billions to charity that directly aid poor people from 3rd world countries.[/quote]
Before Gore’s Internet there was the 1965 immigration Act that transformed the immigration patterns from anti-Asian to country neutral. The 1952 McCarran-Walter Act removed Asian from banned list but set āAsia-Pacific Triangleā quota where the people indigenous to the Triangle was capped annually at just 2,000, while each Asian country within the Triangle was permitted a mere 100 immigrants. Truman had the good sense to veto McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 (commie bashing in the Cheney spirit) as well as this vile 1952 McCarran Act. Unfortunately the bigots in Congress over-rid both the vetoes.
Ted Kennedy was big sponsor of the 1965 bill. So without Ted’s help, there likely would have been fewer Asians working at tech companies helping out good old Bill. So tech workers can blame Ted for job insecurity and Bill can thank Ted for endless supply.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/index.php?content=pr0604
http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/February/20080307112004ebyessedo0.1716272.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_legislation
Of course Pat Buchanan probably cites this Act as well as the 86 Amnesty as precursor to the downfall of civilization in USA. But his defense of Ivan the “so-called innocent” is shredded in Ivan Meets Pitchfork Pat. http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/132947.html
August 26, 2009 @ 10:55 PM
equalizer wrote:
Before
[quote=equalizer]
Before Gore’s Internet there was the 1965 immigration Act that transformed the immigration patterns from anti-Asian to country neutral. The 1952 McCarran-Walter Act removed Asian from banned list but set āAsia-Pacific Triangleā quota where the people indigenous to the Triangle was capped annually at just 2,000, while each Asian country within the Triangle was permitted a mere 100 immigrants. Truman had the good sense to veto McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 (commie bashing in the Cheney spirit) as well as this vile 1952 McCarran Act. Unfortunately the bigots in Congress over-rid both the vetoes.
Ted Kennedy was big sponsor of the 1965 bill. So without Ted’s help, there likely would have been fewer Asians working at tech companies helping out good old Bill. So tech workers can blame Ted for job insecurity and Bill can thank Ted for endless supply.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/index.php?content=pr0604
http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/February/20080307112004ebyessedo0.1716272.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_legislation
Of course Pat Buchanan probably cites this Act as well as the 86 Amnesty as precursor to the downfall of civilization in USA. But his defense of Ivan the “so-called innocent” is shredded in Ivan Meets Pitchfork Pat. http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/132947.html%5B/quote%5D
Interesting.
So people of Asian decent owe their own well-being partly to Ted Kennedy?
August 26, 2009 @ 11:08 PM
briansd1 wrote:
So people of
[quote=briansd1]
So people of Asian decent owe their own well-being partly to Ted Kennedy?[/quote]
I guess people of Asian decent and hispanic decent owe their own well-being partly to the other 325 representatives who also voted for the bill as well. It was passed by an overwhelming 82.5%. Opposition mainly came from Southern legislators. So, it seems like it had a huge support. Would the bill pass if Ted Kennedy wasn’t there?
August 26, 2009 @ 11:43 PM
AN wrote:Would the bill pass
[quote=AN]Would the bill pass if Ted Kennedy wasn’t there?[/quote]
Kennedy was Senate immigration subcommittee chairman at the time, so you could argue that he played a more important role than many others in Congress.
August 27, 2009 @ 12:05 AM
afx114 wrote:AN wrote:Would
[quote=afx114][quote=AN]Would the bill pass if Ted Kennedy wasn’t there?[/quote]
Kennedy was Senate immigration subcommittee chairman at the time, so you could argue that he played a more important role than many others in Congress.[/quote]
Yes, I agree he played an important role. I was just wondering out loud, would a bill that got over 80% support fail to pass of Ted Kennedy wasn’t there to support it? It’s almost like the Gore/Internet thing. Do you think the Internet wouldn’t exist if Gore wasn’t there?
August 27, 2009 @ 1:10 AM
AN wrote:Do you think the
[quote=AN]Do you think the Internet wouldn’t exist if Gore wasn’t there?[/quote]
I think you’re splitting straw man hairs hairs here AN. Do you think that slavery would still exist if it wasn’t for Lincoln? Surely abolition would have inevitably happened even without him, but surely he deserves a lot of the credit, no?
Just admit that you can’t bring yourself to give credit to a hippie commie librul socialist. š
August 27, 2009 @ 8:43 AM
afx114 wrote:AN wrote:Do you
[quote=afx114][quote=AN]Do you think the Internet wouldn’t exist if Gore wasn’t there?[/quote]
I think you’re splitting straw man hairs hairs here AN. Do you think that slavery would still exist if it wasn’t for Lincoln? Surely abolition would have inevitably happened even without him, but surely he deserves a lot of the credit, no?
Just admit that you can’t bring yourself to give credit to a hippie commie librul socialist. :)[/quote]
Afx: Slavery and the Civil War is an odious comparison. Do you, personally, think abolition would have eventually won out without violent conflict? I don’t. While we didn’t go to war over slavery (it was a clash of cultures between the industrialized North and the agrarian South), it was definitely the linchpin in the South’s key export, cotton, and the South wasn’t going to let that go without a fight.
I would also like your opinion on the percentage of Republicans versus Democrats that voted for key civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act. This whole “liberal versus conservative” argument tends to break down when you go back to the 1960s, especially considering how hawkish and conservative key Democratic figures, like JFK and LBJ, actually were.
August 27, 2009 @ 9:47 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Afx: Slavery and the Civil War is an odious comparison. Do you, personally, think abolition would have eventually won out without violent conflict?[/quote]
I was talking about the man (Lincoln) not the conflict. I think the conflict and eventually abolition would have happened with or without Lincoln. Just like the Internet would have happened with or without Gore and immigration reform would have happened with or without Kennedy. The question is whether or not these men deserve any credit for the inevitable outcomes that would have eventually happened with or without them.
Does Neil Armstrong deserve credit for walking on the moon first? Surely that would have happened eventually with him or without him.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would also like your opinion on the percentage of Republicans versus Democrats that voted for key civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act.[/quote]
Not sure what you’re asking here? I thought we were talking about whether or not Kennedy deserves credit for helping get immigration reform passed?
August 27, 2009 @ 9:57 AM
afx114 wrote:Allan from
[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Afx: Slavery and the Civil War is an odious comparison. Do you, personally, think abolition would have eventually won out without violent conflict?[/quote]
I was talking about the man (Lincoln) not the conflict. I think the conflict and eventually abolition would have happened with or without Lincoln. Just like the Internet would have happened with or without Gore and immigration reform would have happened with or without Kennedy. The question is whether or not these men deserve any credit for the inevitable outcomes that would have eventually happened with or without them.
Does Neil Armstrong deserve credit for walking on the moon first? Surely that would have happened eventually with him or without him.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would also like your opinion on the percentage of Republicans versus Democrats that voted for key civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act.[/quote]
Not sure what you’re asking here? I thought we were talking about whether or not Kennedy deserves credit for helping get immigration reform passed?[/quote]
Afx: I disagree with your contention about Lincoln. The Civil War “happened” as a result of disunion by certain states (the Confederacy) leading to an act of war (the shelling of Fort Sumter). I think Lincoln is quite immaterial at that point, to be honest. Are we, as Americans, hugely fortunate to have had him as President at that time? Absolutely, and I would imagine another man at the helm might not have been as able to steer the course he did, which probably does support part of your argument.
My point on Dems versus Repubs during the Civil Rights era was simply to illustrate that “liberals” (Democrats) weren’t all that liberal, especially the Dixiecrat variety and that was in response to your earlier posting about “hippie commie libruls”.
And, for the love of God, please stop bringing up Al Gore and the frickin’ internet. He didn’t invent it (which I sincerely hope you know); it was around for years and years before Al Gore ever even graced the halls of government. My dad (an aerospace engineer in Palo Alto) had a DARPANet address dating back to the early 1970s. I will give Al Gore credit for inventing global warming and then profiting handsomely from it, though.
August 27, 2009 @ 10:38 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]And, for the love of God, please stop bringing up Al Gore and the frickin’ internet. He didn’t invent it (which I sincerely hope you know); it was around for years and years before Al Gore ever even graced the halls of government. My dad (an aerospace engineer in Palo Alto) had a DARPANet address dating back to the early 1970s. I will give Al Gore credit for inventing global warming and then profiting handsomely from it, though.[/quote]
Of course I don’t believe Gore invented the internet. I would think that you’d know me enough by now to detect my sarcasm, although admittedly Gore’s Internets aren’t the best medium for the translation of such silliness.
No single person can lay claim to inventing the internet, but the “father of the internet” is Vinton Cerf. Guess what he says about Al Gore and his role?
Direct quote from Vint Cerf, father of the Internet. Stick that in your series of tubes and smoke it.
August 27, 2009 @ 10:53 AM
afx114 wrote:Direct quote
[quote=afx114]Direct quote from Vint Cerf, father of the Internet. Stick that in your series of tubes and smoke it.[/quote]
Afx: Apropos of nothing, I met Dr. Cerf when I was 10 at PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). This was 1975 and I was there with my dad on a Saturday and he was picking up information on a DoD project he was working on. Dr. Cerf, who was at Stanford at the time, was working on a DoD project as well (not the same one) that was being coordinated through PARC. Cool dude.
Interesting quote on Gore and one I hadn’t seen before. Given that it’s from Cerf, I would attach a lot of credence to it. My point, however, is that that egocentric bombast Gore didn’t invent the internet. It appears that he certainly advanced the cause, but Gore has a terrible propensity to overstate his importance on various issues, much like he overstated global warming and he plays fast and loose with facts, as in “An Inconvenient Truth”.
August 27, 2009 @ 10:09 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]While we didn’t go to war over slavery (it was a clash of cultures between the industrialized North and the agrarian South), it was definitely the linchpin in the South’s key export, cotton, and the South wasn’t going to let that go without a fight.[/quote]
This society is built around inequality. It is a rare modern society where it is socially acceptable to prosper on someone misery. Slavery survived long after it was abolished in other western societies. And segregation. Now you have illegal immigrants and H1B’s in limbo. And the entire health reform debate is just another aspect of the same phenomenon. In no other modern, wealthy society is acceptable to have a large group of people with no access to healthcare.
Sure, other societies have similar issues and you can find people arguing different points of view, but in no other country is acceptable to have entire industries staffed by illegal imigrants, or to argue that providing access to healthcare for 10% of population is too expensive.
Luckily, I am in the exploiting group. It would really suck if I was not.
On topic, the person was expected to run for president and get killed along the way. I think he carried the burden better than most would.
August 27, 2009 @ 10:13 AM
He was a great
He was a great sandwich:
http://sonsoftherepublic.blogspot.com/2005/08/kennedy-dodd-waitress-sandwich.html
I will not miss him.
August 27, 2009 @ 11:30 AM
Zeitgeist wrote:He was a
[quote=Zeitgeist]He was a great sandwich:
http://sonsoftherepublic.blogspot.com/2005/08/kennedy-dodd-waitress-sandwich.html
I will not miss him.[/quote]
Zeit: Oh, God, how wrong was that? The mental picture alone is enough to make you hurl.
Or, go hiking in the Appalachians! Kidding. I’m just joshing the governor of the great state of South Carolina.
August 27, 2009 @ 11:39 AM
Allan, not my fault. I am
Allan, not my fault. I am just reporting this stuff. Good old Ted made it happen. Your father must have had a mensa level IQ from all the associates. Those folks do not hang out with deltas (not in the Frat. way). Wasn’t that Dr. Cerf in Thunderball?
August 27, 2009 @ 12:04 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:Allan, not my
[quote=Zeitgeist]Allan, not my fault. I am just reporting this stuff. Good old Ted made it happen. Your father must have had a mensa level IQ from all the associates. Those folks do not hang out with deltas (not in the Frat. way). Wasn’t that Dr. Cerf in Thunderball?[/quote]
Zeit: Come to think of it, I think Blofeld lived down the street from us! Or was that Dr. Miguelito Loveless? I always get them confused.
Kidding aside, my dad worked in defense aerospace from the late 1950s to the late 1980s and most of his time was spent in either Pasadena/El Segundo (JPL and McDonnell Douglas) or Palo Alto (Ford Aerospace). That industry, along with the communications/computer industry, was a friggin’ hotbed of innovation and Uncle Sugar (US Gov’t) was throwing tons of money at it.
If you look at Stanford alone from the 1950s through the present, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of companies that have come out of there, either directly or indirectly, and largely as a result of government funding.
PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) is another great example of some amazing innovations and inventions over it’s existence, especially when it comes to computing.
Same goes for the old IBM Cottle Road campus, which was essentially a government funded development center and think tank.
My old man was smart (not Mensa smart, though), but it was more a matter of being involved during a period of time when the US was absolutely devoted to cutting edge engineering and development and was willing to pay for the best and brightest.
August 27, 2009 @ 2:37 PM
Some of the later images were
Some of the later images were not as flattering.
[img_assist|nid=11796|title=Kennedy boys|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=376|height=250]
August 27, 2009 @ 6:59 AM
Do you think the Internet
Do you think the Internet wouldn’t exist if Gore wasn’t there?
There is an easy litmus test this time. If a meaningful health care reform bill doesn’t pass through congress, I think you can say Kennedy was more than a figurehead.
August 26, 2009 @ 10:57 PM
equalizer wrote:
Before
[quote=equalizer]
Before Gore’s Internet there was the 1965 immigration Act that transformed the immigration patterns from anti-Asian to country neutral. The 1952 McCarran-Walter Act removed Asian from banned list but set āAsia-Pacific Triangleā quota where the people indigenous to the Triangle was capped annually at just 2,000, while each Asian country within the Triangle was permitted a mere 100 immigrants. Truman had the good sense to veto McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 (commie bashing in the Cheney spirit) as well as this vile 1952 McCarran Act. Unfortunately the bigots in Congress over-rid both the vetoes.
Ted Kennedy was big sponsor of the 1965 bill. So without Ted’s help, there likely would have been fewer Asians working at tech companies helping out good old Bill. So tech workers can blame Ted for job insecurity and Bill can thank Ted for endless supply.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/index.php?content=pr0604
http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/February/20080307112004ebyessedo0.1716272.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_legislation
Of course Pat Buchanan probably cites this Act as well as the 86 Amnesty as precursor to the downfall of civilization in USA. But his defense of Ivan the “so-called innocent” is shredded in Ivan Meets Pitchfork Pat. http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/132947.html%5B/quote%5D
I hope you’re being sarcastic about the Gore/Internet thing. But back to Ted Kennedy, like I said, I don’t know much about him, so I’m ambivalent about him. I’m glad he was a big supporter of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. However, it was proposed by Emanuel Celler, co-sponsored by Philip Hart. So the credit should go to those 2 gentlemen.
August 26, 2009 @ 4:39 PM
I think that Ted Kennedy was
I think that Ted Kennedy was better than most of us.
He did not cater simply to the narrow interests that great wealth brought to his family. He worked for a better society.
He dedicated his whole life to public service. The length of his career and the totality of his work made him a great leader, in my opinion.
He was eloquent and spoke beautifully when called upon. The Kennedys were extremely gifted at public speaking. That, in itself, is an admirable talent.
I do admire the optimism of the 1960s. I’m not of that generation but I think that it was a great time in American life. At that time, America was admired around the world and there was always good will towards Americans abroad (so says my dad). Not so much so today.
August 26, 2009 @ 4:46 PM
briansd1 wrote:I think that
[quote=briansd1]I think that Ted Kennedy was better than most of us.
He did not cater simply to the narrow interests that great wealth brought to his family. He worked for a better society.
He dedicated his whole life to public service. The length of his career and the totality of his work made him a great leader, in my opinion.
He was eloquent and spoke beautifully when called upon. The Kennedys were extremely gifted at public speaking. That, in itself, is an admirable talent.
I do admire the optimism of the 1960s. I’m not of that generation but I think that it was a great time in American life. At that time, America was admired around the world and there was always good will towards Americans abroad (so says my dad). Not so much so today.[/quote]
I think Robert (RFK) was truly a great loss to this country and more than JFK or Teddy. Teddy was a pale imitation and never lived up to expectations.
RFK’s speech in Indianapolis on the night of Martin Luther King Jr’s death is, to me, one of the single greatest speeches I have ever seen.
The courage and statesmanship on display that evening shows how much we truly lost when RFK was gunned down. To compare Teddy to RFK or even JFK is laughable. He was no statesman and was a Tax and Spend Dem from the jump.
RFK speech is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYNb4ex6Ko
August 26, 2009 @ 8:59 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I think Robert (RFK) was truly a great loss to this country and more than JFK or Teddy. Teddy was a pale imitation and never lived up to expectations.
RFK’s speech in Indianapolis on the night of Martin Luther King Jr’s death is, to me, one of the single greatest speeches I have ever seen.
The courage and statesmanship on display that evening shows how much we truly lost when RFK was gunned down. To compare Teddy to RFK or even JFK is laughable. He was no statesman and was a Tax and Spend Dem from the jump.
RFK speech is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYNb4ex6Ko%5B/quote%5D
Yes, that was a great speech in same spirit as the “Loving Your Enemies” speech by MLK in 1957.
http://www.ipoet.com/archive/beyond/King-Jr/Loving-Your-Enemies.html
August 27, 2009 @ 2:22 AM
briansd1 wrote:I think that
[quote=briansd1]I think that Ted Kennedy was better than most of us.
He did not cater simply to the narrow interests that great wealth brought to his family. He worked for a better society.
He dedicated his whole life to public service. The length of his career and the totality of his work made him a great leader, in my opinion.
He was eloquent and spoke beautifully when called upon. The Kennedys were extremely gifted at public speaking. That, in itself, is an admirable talent.
I do admire the optimism of the 1960s. I’m not of that generation but I think that it was a great time in American life. At that time, America was admired around the world and there was always good will towards Americans abroad (so says my dad). Not so much so today.[/quote]
Absolutely agree with this. Though I certainly didn’t agree with all of his policies, there is no denying he was a powerful champion for the underdogs.
Though he was guilty of DUI/manslaughter, it appears he spent the rest of his life trying to make up for it, IMHO.
His death saddens me greatly. š
October 9, 2009 @ 7:09 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I do admire
[quote=briansd1]
I do admire the optimism of the 1960s. I’m not of that generation but I think that it was a great time in American life. At that time, America was admired around the world and there was always good will towards Americans abroad (so says my dad). Not so much so today.[/quote]
The 1960’s were a “great time in American life”. Unfortunatley, they marked a turning point in our culture and strucutre of government that gave us systemic massive public debt, a 60% divorce rate, and the replacement of individual responsibility with big brother government. As a result:
1.America has diminished economic influence in the world,
2. We are dependant on China to fund our public debt even when our total tax rate is higher than most European countries
3. Have the highest rate of prison incarceration of any western democracy (and higher than all but a handful of dictaotrships such as Burma)
4. Have primary education performance that has slipped far behind our “wealthy nation” peers, with higher education starting to follow
5. A population that works many more hours for the same or declining standard of living
While there have been improvements in some areas of American life (racial equality, healthcare technology, workplace safety, etc.) all things considered the country is worse off today than it was in the 60’s, in no small part due to the kind of “leadership” Kennedy and his contemporaries provided.
October 9, 2009 @ 9:01 AM
Interesting comments. In 1969
Interesting comments. In 1969 was it common to go to jail ,especially for a rich guy, if a passenger died as a result of drunk driving, or is he being judged on this by current standards?
October 9, 2009 @ 9:44 AM
If she drowned because you
If she drowned because you failed to report the accident for twelve hours, it sure was.
August 26, 2009 @ 8:18 PM
“Will [I] miss Ted
“Will [I] miss Ted Kennedy?”
No.
August 27, 2009 @ 1:35 AM
I consider myself as liberal
I consider myself as liberal as they come, but the whole Mary Jo event does mar his image in my eyes. The only person who could have evaded that was a wealthy something, anyone else would have burned…hmmm. Did the man do great things? Definitely. Did the violent deaths of three brothers probably help bring him to his unfortunate actions that night? Probably.
August 28, 2009 @ 7:59 AM
Amazing, “I don’t know much
Amazing, “I don’t know much about him, so this is how I feel”, or words to that effect. How about not having an opinion if you don’t know the facts?
I know plenty about the Kennedys, and American history in general. They were/are a pox upon America, if you have any constitutional cognizance.
Here’s a little walk down memory lane for those of you who don’t know much about history.
JFK was the original lightweight. All the stuff you’ve heard about the wonders of Camelot is absolute unadulterated bullshit. The 1960 election was stolen from Nixon in Illinois (with old Joe’s mob connections), and Texas (with LBJ’s corrupt vote stealing). If you find these assertions shocking, pick up a copy of Robert Caro’s “Means of Ascent”.
Sam Rayburn, the speaker of the house, at the time commented that he’d feel a whole lot better if at least one of them had once ran for county sheriff. JFK appointed Bobby as his AG, and Bobby went after organized crime in the unions. Bobby was a do-gooder, but it’s not safe to bite the hand that feeds you, particularly if that hand is organized crime.
One could go on and on, but the point is that Teddy was a joke even inside the family. The Kennedys may be liberal idols, but their feet are still of clay.
Finally, the ’60s was not a time of optimism. It was a decade of tumult.
August 28, 2009 @ 1:52 PM
Casca wrote: the ’60s was not
[quote=Casca] the ’60s was not a time of optimism. It was a decade of tumult.[/quote]
It depends on how you look at it.
It was the time of sexual revolution, rock-n-roll and the hand-over of power from the old generation to new generation.
America was opening up to the world. Pan Am made world travel affordable and Americans traveled all over. The hippies, Peace Corps volunteers and tourists brought new culture and points of view to America. We became a much more open society. We first learned how to cook better and to dress better thanks to imports from Europe.
People were dreaming of space travel, tomorrow-land, and robotics to make our lives easier.
Appliances such as dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, and air-conditioning made it into the average house.
Middle class kids could go to college.
Think of you own family and reflect back on where your parents and great grand-parents came from before the bounty of the 1960s became available to average American.
August 28, 2009 @ 2:04 PM
I suppose if one views the
I suppose if one views the world strictly through a consumerist lens, then some of what you say is true. I take a more historical perspective, and see it as the beginning of the end of Western Civilization, and THAT is a bad thing. You must have missed the riots in all of the major cities, the destruction of the black family, and the cold war.
August 28, 2009 @ 11:21 PM
A drunk and a murderer. I’m
A drunk and a murderer. I’m having a hard time mourning the end of the Kennedys. The biggest joke is the left trying to spin the murder of his brothers as being done by the right wing….
(I guess wee still have the last Kennedy brother…)
August 29, 2009 @ 12:13 AM
I don’t give a rat’s ass
I don’t give a rat’s ass about Ted Kennedy and I hope they stop talking about him nonstop on the news, it seems CNN has no other news to cover…he died and was a great great great man, we got the idea.. now let’s move on…geez!
August 28, 2009 @ 1:24 PM
Why is it when someone dies
Why is it when someone dies who was a reprehensible human being, they all of the sudden become great human beings? It is relevant that he was basically a murderer.
This guy was a bad guy, good riddance. We should celebrate his loss not his life. I wonder how much of the formerly large family fortune he went through without ever literally earning a dime?
That would be the poll to conduct, which Kennedy has gone through the most of the hundreds of millions of dollars that their fortune has shrunk?
August 29, 2009 @ 8:55 AM
I’ll miss him like a bad
I’ll miss him like a bad toothache.
The Turtle
August 29, 2009 @ 9:08 AM
I will miss him.
He was good
I will miss him.
He was good at being an effective liberal.
His brothers were also.
I think that while his goals were not always popular (and he was a degenerate drunk), he was good at getting his shit done.
I respect him the same way I respect other effective politicians.
Flame that comment if you find it worthy.
August 29, 2009 @ 1:53 PM
He was good at being an
He was good at being an effective liberal.
Looks like he took his readings a bit too seriously.
…But I asked him, “Where does this rabid concern about poverty come from?” And he looked at me like I was from Mars. And he said, “Have you never read the New Testament?”…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec09/5kennedytrio_08-26.html
August 29, 2009 @ 8:22 PM
Perhaps it is about penance,
Perhaps it is about penance, in search of absolution.
August 30, 2009 @ 12:16 AM
My friend Jon dressed up for
My friend Jon dressed up for Halloween one year as Ted Kennedy. He wore the top half of a tux and boxer shorts on the bottom.
August 30, 2009 @ 12:17 AM
dupe
dupe
October 8, 2009 @ 12:55 PM
Ted Kennedy Claimed to Have
Ted Kennedy Claimed to Have Slept with over 1,000 Women
What a guy!
“In a chapter of his autobiography, the late Senator Ted Kennedy confessed to having slept with over 1,000 women and spending more than $10 million in hush money to keep his womanizing ways a secret. If you crack open the book, however, you won’t find a mention of this in there anywhere. That is because horrified family members and advisers cut it out before the book was published.”
“A close source also revealed to the National Enquirer that before he died of brain cancer at age 77 on August 25, Kennedy also revealed that he had planned to seduce Mary Jo Kopechne on the night she drowned. The source added that Kennedy even admitted to having planned to seduce Kopechne the night his car plunged off the road in Chappaquiddick.”
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/11555
October 8, 2009 @ 3:48 PM
Veritas, even if this were
Veritas, even if this were true, what’s the big deal?
Ted Kennedy was rich and if he wanted to squander his inheritance on women, what’s wrong with that? At least those women got “paid” for a good time. I’m sure they appreciated the luxurious meals and trips which they probably couldn’t afford on their own.
Only the social conservatives care about such crap. The difference is that those right-wing nuts all do it in secret.
If Kennedy slept with 1,000 women and spent $10 million, he got a deal. That works out to only $10,000 per woman. How much does a wife cost these days? I think people spend more than that for an engagement ring.
Compare to what John Ensign spent on his one mistress. And the guy had to get his parents involved. Pretty lame for a grown-up Born-Again Republican senator.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091006/ap_on_go_co/us_ensign
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24748.html#ixzz0TO8slLRi