PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Ted Kennedy: A life of debauchery


***SPRAYER
08-30-2009, 02:12 PM
It makes complete sense to me why moonbats would hero worship and deify a scumbag like Ted Kennedy...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/ted_kennedy_a_life_of_debauche.html


"Death makes angels of us all," wrote the author and poet, Jim Morrison. So it appears to be with the demise of the "Liberal lion of the Senate," Ted Kennedy. The man whose life reads like a manual for bad behavior is, in death, being lionized by those who continue to repudiate his myriad transgressions. What kind of a country are we if we willingly blind ourselves to evil because it masquerades as virtue?


For the past 40 years our country has, from time to time, been influenced by a man most notable for fleeing the scene of a negligent homicide and attempting to have someone else take the blame for him. Even with the entrenched power of the Kennedys in Massachusetts, they couldn't keep all the facts surrounding the drowning death of Mary Jo Kopechne from being publicized. God only knows what that poor woman went through as she waited in a watery grave, perhaps believing that the man who saved himself would come back to save her. If she expected a profile in courage from Ted Kennedy, she died disappointed.


When Kennedy drove off the Dyke Bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, his car landed upside down in 7 feet of water. Some ten hours later, when he had contrived a statement of the occurrence, the senator, who had been partying with the young woman and volunteered to drive her home, said he had been able to swim free of the vehicle, but wasn't able to save his passenger. Evidently, he also wasn't able to summon help from those who might have been able to save her life. In fact, he didn't even report the accident until conferring with friends and aides who assisted him with his statement.


During that time, which records indicate took about ten hours, Ms. Kopechne remained in the water. Two amateur fishermen, who came across the overturned car about 8 am, the following morning, called authorities, who immediately sent a diver to investigate. During testimony at the subsequent inquest, the diver said the woman's body was huddled into a spot where an air bubble must have formed. His interpretation was that she had survived in that bubble "for at least two hours down there." Furthermore, he concluded that, had he received a call soon after the accident, "there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive on removal from the submerged car."


Whenever I recall this tragic incident, what truly eats at me is the image of that woman huddled into a small space and struggling for each breath of life, while the coward who put her there was struggling to come up with an alibi to save his political future. How low on the evolutionary scale do you have to be to leave someone to drown in the dark, murky water, as you figure out an angle to free yourself of culpability?


The actions of Ted Kennedy that fateful night spoke volumes about the lack of courage and character in the man. The fact that he was continually reelected to his senate seat speaks volumes about the lack of character in the Massachusetts electorate. Rather than risk the loss of political power from a Kennedy, who could exert enough muscle to steer huge federal funds to the state, the voters evidently decided they could be bought, so they overlooked his pusillanimity as well as his misanthropy. Even the impact of that tragedy didn't stop this womanizing sot from continuing his life of debauchery.


There are those who say his senate career was fruitful for the country. I disagree on the grounds that a person who has demonstrated a complete absence of integrity is not capable of being productive in any commendable area of human endeavor. The fact remains that Ted Kennedy left a woman for dead as he ran away from the scene and didn't report it until he had no other option. Did he spend a minute thinking about the water rising to her mouth and choking off her oxygen?


If that had been your daughter, or my daughter, that he left to drown, how much torment and pain would we have suffered through the years as we watched this guy giving noble speeches for decades, and even having the temerity to run for president? All the contrived rhetoric since then about him having compassion for the little guy is nothing more than the liberal left in constant pursuit of a decent legacy for an unprincipled and pathetic excuse for a human being. Perhaps now, Mary Jo can rest in peace.

Bob Weir is a former detective sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He is the executive editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas.

HonestChieffan
08-30-2009, 02:38 PM
He was a scumbag.

kcfanXIII
08-30-2009, 02:45 PM
read sig, nuff said.

Stewie
08-30-2009, 02:52 PM
During his eulogy it was stated, "He was the voice of the voiceless." He chose who was "voiceless" with a clenched fist and water.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2009, 02:55 PM
Of course if you don't value and respect all human life these actions align with that thinking. And those who don't value and respect all human life, vote for such men.

WilliamTheIrish
08-30-2009, 11:14 PM
One of the greatest contradictions of the entire week of honoring the Senator, is the way the Catholic Church welcomed him with such a saintly exhibition.

Kennedy was a pro abortion guy. Committed a capitol crime that he was rich and powerful enough to avoid. He was a drunk. Was famous for the waitress sandwich, so he was also quite the misogynist.

And yet the Catholic Church sent him off the like he was a freaking Pope.

Ebolapox
08-30-2009, 11:18 PM
One of the greatest contradictions of the entire week of honoring the Senator, is the way the Catholic Church welcomed him with such a saintly exhibition.

Kennedy was a pro abortion guy. Committed a capitol crime that he was rich and powerful enough to avoid. He was a drunk. Was famous for the waitress sandwich, so he was also quite the misogynist.

And yet the Catholic Church sent him off the like he was a freaking Pope.

we're ignoring the years of womanizing (yeah, I know, he was a kennedy. shocker.) and drug abuse. poppers, cocaine, etc. fuck, we had a cokehead making some of the biggest decisions in the country for 40 years.

Boyceofsummer
08-30-2009, 11:32 PM
What do you kind souls think of former president Richard Nixon?

Ebolapox
08-30-2009, 11:39 PM
What do you kind souls think of former president Richard Nixon?

I don't hate libs. I didn't necessarily hate kennedy. I disdained a man who passed himself off as pious in public, paraded around as the 'lion of the senate' while maintaining a life in shambles (of his own doing). I'm not a fan of any man who negligently kills anyone just because of their own career.

as for nixon, I don't know enough about his personal life to really make a judgement. yeah, he made a private mistake (watergate) and tried to publically cover it up for his political career. did his mistake kill anybody? no. so he has that on ol' teddy.

googlegoogle
08-30-2009, 11:41 PM
How many days did his funeral last? His body lay in reprose longer than Lincolns. What was odd was nobody said anything about the over the top media coverage or his grandiose funeral and him being buried at a 'military' cemetary. found one that question it. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090826232834AASQJGg

Boyceofsummer
08-31-2009, 12:01 AM
I don't hate libs. I didn't necessarily hate kennedy. I disdained a man who passed himself off as pious in public, paraded around as the 'lion of the senate' while maintaining a life in shambles (of his own doing). I'm not a fan of any man who negligently kills anyone just because of their own career.

as for nixon, I don't know enough about his personal life to really make a judgement. yeah, he made a private mistake (watergate) and tried to publically cover it up for his political career. did his mistake kill anybody? no. so he has that on ol' teddy.

and then repeat the BS you posted previously. "MISTAKE?" The man had Kennedy tailed. In addition he ordered his henchmen to blame the Wallace shooting on a Kennedy supporter. It is right there for your ears to hear! On the tapes that DICK didn't destroy.

Kennedy and his family have been and always will be associated with compassion for the less advantaged. :clap: You don't get recognized for sticking-it to the little people and giving the richest 1 percent of Americans all the riches of massive tax breaks and tax loopholes. THAT'S UN-AMERICAN!

Mr. Kotter
08-31-2009, 12:25 AM
I don't hate libs. I didn't necessarily hate kennedy. I disdained a man who passed himself off as pious in public, paraded around as the 'lion of the senate' while maintaining a life in shambles (of his own doing). I'm not a fan of any man who negligently kills anyone just because of their own career.

as for nixon, I don't know enough about his personal life to really make a judgement. yeah, he made a private mistake (watergate) and tried to publically cover it up for his political career. did his mistake kill anybody? no. so he has that on ol' teddy.

Pretty much the truth, ugly as it may be; end of thread.... :shrug:

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 12:40 AM
Of course if you don't value and respect all human life these actions align with that thinking. And those who don't value and respect all human life, vote for such men.

Do blacks and gays fall under 'all human life'? Because when Jesse Helms died you waxed poetic, claiming that it was fitting that he died on Independence Day. You even rationalized looking past bigoted parts of his voting record just because he was anti-socialist.

You're allowed to be critical of Ted Kennedy and his failings in life. He was flawed. I just don't care for the intellectual dishonesty I notice from people after someone passes like this. The same people criticizing the appreciation being shown for Ted Kennedy are the ones who knobslob and glorify the Founding Fathers, reluctant to judge them by the standards they judge everyone else and willing to overlook the fact they were overwhelmingly racist and misogynistic individuals. No, you never hear about that, you just hear them revered as visionaries and great men.

CoMoChief
08-31-2009, 01:04 AM
Do blacks and gays fall under 'all human life'? Because when Jesse Helms died you waxed poetic, claiming that it was fitting that he died on Independence Day. You even rationalized looking past bigoted parts of his voting record just because he was anti-socialist.

You're allowed to be critical of Ted Kennedy and his failings in life. He was flawed. I just don't care for the intellectual dishonesty I notice from people after someone passes like this. The same people criticizing the appreciation being shown for Ted Kennedy are the ones who knobslob and glorify the Founding Fathers, reluctant to judge them by the standards they judge everyone else and willing to overlook the fact they were overwhelmingly racist and misogynistic individuals. No, you never hear about that, you just hear them revered as visionaries and great men.

Ted Kennedy was a piece of shit. PERIOD

And like the Michael Jackson death this was covered by the media waaaay too much and I have absolutely will have no respect for anyone who wants to celebrate either of their deaths like they're some American heroes.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 01:04 AM
Do blacks and gays fall under 'all human life'? Because when Jesse Helms died you waxed poetic, claiming that it was fitting that he died on Independence Day. You even rationalized looking past bigoted parts of his voting record just because he was anti-socialist.

You're allowed to be critical of Ted Kennedy and his failings in life. He was flawed. I just don't care for the intellectual dishonesty I notice from people after someone passes like this. The same people criticizing the appreciation being shown for Ted Kennedy are the ones who knobslob and glorify the Founding Fathers, reluctant to judge them by the standards they judge everyone else and willing to overlook the fact they were overwhelmingly racist and misogynistic individuals. No, you never hear about that, you just hear them revered as visionaries and great men.

You're misinformed.



One of the most frequent tactics employed to discredit America's Founding Fathers is to say that the Founding Fathers were all pro-slavery racists and hypocrites. Therefore, why should we care what their views were on any subject? African-American professor Walter Williams wisely explained the use of this tactic in these words:

“Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers' ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.”

These people paint a false picture of the Founding Fathers and the issue of slavery. The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers.

The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery - and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.

Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.

Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil--and their support went beyond words.

For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.

In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.

It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
-George Washington

Notice a few additional examples of the Founder's strong antislavery sentiments:

"[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known... [N]ever in my life did I own a slave."
-John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

"[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil."
-Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.

"As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they ...[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]."
-John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.

"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part."
-John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.

"Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts... by agreeing to this duty."
-Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.

"[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master."
-Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.

"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."
-Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four... (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. "To the Citizens of the United States."

"Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law... The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all."
-James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.

"It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others...and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force."
-John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, "Lectures on Moral Philosophy."

Mr. Kotter
08-31-2009, 01:06 AM
.... The same people criticizing the appreciation being shown for Ted Kennedy are the ones who knobslob and glorify the Founding Fathers, reluctant to judge them by the standards they judge everyone else and willing to overlook the fact they were overwhelmingly racist and misogynistic individuals...

Historical figures should be judged by the standards of their own day; to be polite, our founding fathers would be considered "radical" and "liberal" by any standard of THEIR day.

However, transporting any of the founding fathers to the 1970....I'm not sure any of them, aside from perhaps Franklin, would have been responsible for the poor judgement exercised by Teddy one night after a few cocktails, for instance. In fairness, he did spend the rest of his life....trying to make-up for that horrendous error in judgement. Well, good for him; hope Mary Jo Kopechne is a forgiving soul.

Ultra Peanut
08-31-2009, 01:35 AM
Do blacks and gays fall under 'all human life'? Because when Jesse Helms died you waxed poetic, claiming that it was fitting that he died on Independence Day. You even rationalized looking past bigoted parts of his voting record just because he was anti-socialist.

You're allowed to be critical of Ted Kennedy and his failings in life. He was flawed. I just don't care for the intellectual dishonesty I notice from people after someone passes like this. The same people criticizing the appreciation being shown for Ted Kennedy are the ones who knobslob and glorify the Founding Fathers, reluctant to judge them by the standards they judge everyone else and willing to overlook the fact they were overwhelmingly racist and misogynistic individuals. No, you never hear about that, you just hear them revered as visionaries and great men.Ding.

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 02:35 AM
Ted Kennedy was a piece of shit. PERIOD

Quality rebuttal.

You're misinformed.

Totally. This country had equal rights for blacks and women right from it's inception. My mistake.

Keep fighting the retarded fight, KC.

One of the most frequent tactics employed to discredit America's Founding Fathers is to say that the Founding Fathers were all pro-slavery racists and hypocrites. Therefore, why should we care what their views were on any subject?

An ad hominem strawmen? That's impressive. Unfortunately:

a) nobody claimed the Founding Fathers were all pro-slavery racists.

b) nobody is trying to discredit any of the other views they held. What we're talking about is the way they're remembered and revered, despite their collective flaws. And the fact that you're actually arguing against the idea that there might've been racist and misogynistic tendencies amongst the Founding Fathers only serves to prove my point.

Historical figures should be judged by the standards of their own day; to be polite, our founding fathers would be considered "radical" and "liberal" by any standard of THEIR day.

What I said didn't pertain to you then. I don't expect to be hearing an argument about moral/cultural/historical relativism from the conservatives I was describing. That would be incredibly convenient on their part considering everything else they tie themselves to ideologically.

J Diddy
08-31-2009, 03:54 AM
Historical figures should be judged by the standards of their own day; to be polite, our founding fathers would be considered "radical" and "liberal" by any standard of THEIR day.

However, transporting any of the founding fathers to the 1970....I'm not sure any of them, aside from perhaps Franklin, would have been responsible for the poor judgement exercised by Teddy one night after a few cocktails, for instance. In fairness, he did spend the rest of his life....trying to make-up for that horrendous error in judgement. Well, good for him; hope Mary Jo Kopechne is a forgiving soul.


you trying to translate the events 40 years prior to the current day is almost pathetic. You weren't there don't try to use unsubstantiated evidence to support your silly beliefs.

As far as the founding fathers go. The fact of the matter is the founding fathers regardless of their opinion on slavery were racists. They believed that black people were beneath them and anyone who believes otherwise is either naive or ignorant.

wild1
08-31-2009, 07:39 AM
He's lucky to have died at a time when a Dem president and a Dem congress so badly needed a diversion.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 07:48 AM
Do blacks and gays fall under 'all human life'? Because when Jesse Helms died you waxed poetic, claiming that it was fitting that he died on Independence Day. You even rationalized looking past bigoted parts of his voting record just because he was anti-socialist.
Where did anyone recommended any form of killing of a homosexual or leaving one to die because they're a homosexual? Certainly not me...get a clue.

You're allowed to be critical of Ted Kennedy and his failings in life. He was flawed. I just don't care for the intellectual dishonesty I notice from people after someone passes like this. The same people criticizing the appreciation being shown for Ted Kennedy are the ones who knobslob and glorify the Founding Fathers, reluctant to judge them by the standards they judge everyone else and willing to overlook the fact they were overwhelmingly racist and misogynistic individuals. No, you never hear about that, you just hear them revered as visionaries and great men.
Yup, we just don't like people who don't value human life enough to make some attempt to save a women who likely was salvagable due to an air bubble.

It's really just that simple for some of us. That is all.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 07:50 AM
One of the greatest contradictions of the entire week of honoring the Senator, is the way the Catholic Church welcomed him with such a saintly exhibition.

Kennedy was a pro abortion guy. Committed a capitol crime that he was rich and powerful enough to avoid. He was a drunk. Was famous for the waitress sandwich, so he was also quite the misogynist.

And yet the Catholic Church sent him off the like he was a freaking Pope.

Unfortunately, people always seem better once they're dead.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 07:51 AM
Oh and HolmeZz you're left wing'ism is showing with the way you dissed our Founders to support Kennedy. Please don't label yourself a moderate, again.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:08 AM
you trying to translate the events 40 years prior to the current day is almost pathetic. You weren't there don't try to use unsubstantiated evidence to support your silly beliefs.

As far as the founding fathers go. The fact of the matter is the founding fathers regardless of their opinion on slavery were racists. They believed that black people were beneath them and anyone who believes otherwise is either naive or ignorant.

Not all of them. They disagreed at the Convention and HAD to compromise or no Constitution would have ever been passed. You can't judge people from another time totally by our standards especially with an institution that had been around for thousands of years. Takes time to erase such things. But sentiment against slavery was there and was growing.

An it's not just a silly "belief" of Kotter's that they were considered radicals or liberals in their time because they absolutely were. The whole idea of a people being self-governing was a radical shift away from the authoritarianism that has ruled this planet most of its existence.

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 08:15 AM
you trying to translate the events 40 years prior to the current day is almost pathetic. You weren't there don't try to use unsubstantiated evidence to support your silly beliefs.

As far as the founding fathers go. The fact of the matter is the founding fathers regardless of their opinion on slavery were racists. They believed that black people were beneath them and anyone who believes otherwise is either naive or ignorant.
Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, including Jefferson. How can any modern day politican do worse than that?

I'm no Ted Kennedy fan or apoligist. He accidently killed someone and didn't serve any time. But a NFL reciever just did the same thing and got no jail time so that is our uneven justice system at work, not he got off because he was a kennedy alone.

His being a drunk was a well earned reputation. But he did turn it around, got married and from all reports, was a good family man, worked hard and looked after his family the last 18 years of his life.

Politicians are a bunch of hypocrites, especially pious fake religious neo-cons. I have such a low bar for their behaviour, not getting caught having an affair is good.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:23 AM
The founding fathers owned slaves.

Name which ones did please. ( I will wait forever for this too with frequent reminders.)
Tell me which one had written plans to free his slaves complete with a program to train them so they could survive on their own; because they could not just be freed and expect to survive immediately. And tell us which Founder (s) slaves gained their freedom in their wills upon their deaths—before the Civil War.


EDIT: I see you edited your sweeping generality. Now please let us know what Jefferson wanted to do with his slaves ultimately. Please tell us how it was difficult to speak out against this institution too publically in those times because of societal repercussions.

How can any modern day politican do worse than that?
Well, in case you didn't notice certain of our modern day politicians are making all of us of all color slaves again. Slaves to the state. Equality under the law except for the ruling elites.

I'm no Ted Kennedy fan or apoligist. He accidently killed someone and didn't serve any time.

No, no....no, the car wreck was an accident....her death was the result of criminal negligence....and a lack of concern for her life.

But a NFL reciever just did the same thing and got no jail time so that is our uneven justice system at work, not he got off because he was a kennedy alone.
Not exactly the same. Even if it was, two wrongs don't make it right including the the perks of privilege

His being a drunk was a well earned reputation. But he did turn it around, got married and from all reports, was a good family man, worked hard and looked after his family the last 18 years of his life.
I'm from Mass. I've had friends work on his campaign. He was another chronic debaucherer, chronic cheater and chronic sex fiend like the other Kennedy men, as well as a drunk. Family man, my arse. He's protected because he's a liberal man of the Establishment. You've fallen for the public image.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:31 AM
It amazes me how a negligent act resulting in homicide has turned into a debate on slavery. Major deflection off the point.

Life comes before liberty. It's "life, liberty and property" in that exact order for a reason. There is no comparison to slavery here.

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 08:31 AM
Name which ones did please. ( I will wait forever for this too with frequent reminders.)
Tell me which one had written plans to free his slaves complete with a program to train them so they could survive on their own; because they could not just be freed and expect to survive immediately. And tell us which Founder (s) slaves gained their freedom in their wills upon their deaths—before the Civil War.

Told you, Jefferson

Well, in case you didn't notice certain of our modern day politicians are making all of us of all color slaves again. Slaves to the state. Equality under the law except for the ruling elites.

We have a different idea on what "Liberty" is. I don't see "Liberty" as the individual being able to do whatever they want in society.

No, no....no, the car wreck was an accident....her death was the result of criminal negligence that led to her death....and a lack of concern for her life.


Not exactly the same. Even if it was, two wrongs don't make it right including the the perks of privilege

I agree. Just pointing out the facts.

I'm from Mass. I've had friends work on his campaign. He was another debaucherer, cheater and sex fiend like the other Kennedy men. You've fallen for the public image.

I didn't fall for chit. Didn't I say they all, or most a bunch of hypocrites? And where your evidence that the last 18 years or so was all BS?
see comments above

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:32 AM
see comments above

Those don't handle it for me.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:40 AM
BRC- Jefferson's grew up under slavery on a plantation, his views matured on the topic. As a Virginia legislature he unsuccessfully advocated allowing private citizens to free their slaves.As president, he signed a bill outlawing that trade.

Some of Jefferson's words on slavery:
"There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity."—
Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, September 1814

George Washington was another Founder who instituted a program to free his slaves but realized they could not survive on their own. He had programs to train them for this. ALL his slaves were freed upon his death as stipulated in his will. The same was true for his wife Martha's slaves.

Benjamin Franklin was against slavery, and it was one of the last things he fought for in his life as a senator of Pennsylvania. He was the President of Pennsylvania's Antislavery Society. However, most of the Founding Generation were against slavery (including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and, although a bit hypocritically, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington - who had his slaves freed after he and his wife, Martha, died), yet they realized that the country was too frail to really risk forcing the issue. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_Ben_Franklin's_view_on_

According to this wiki link at answer.com most of the Founding Generation opposed slavery.


Next myth......

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:53 AM
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/reviews/craig.html

Ample evidence to demonstrate that most scholars simply get the facts wrong or ignore inconvenient facts about the Founding generation, equally revealing is his analysis of why they get it wrong.

He demonstrates that the period 1776-1800 was the period of the greatest anti-slavery movement in American history until the Civil War.

West shows that the actions of the Founders in this period did in fact lead to freedom for many blacks.

In 1776 slavery was legal in all 13 colonies. In the following 30 years, eight states abolished slavery. Some of the state laws which abolished slavery explicitly recognized the connection between the principles of the Declaration of Independence and slavery abolition.

West further notes that even in those Southern States which did not abolish slavery, laws were passed which made it easier for individual slave owners to emancipate their own slaves.

In addition, West recounts other actions which the Founders, including especially Jefferson, took to roll back, isolate, and weaken slavery: the prohibition against slavery in the Northwest Ordinance, the abolition of the slave trade with Africa, and the proposed gradual emancipation of slaves in Virginia by Jefferson.

West argues that it was politically impossible to abolish slavery everywhere in America in 1787. He writes: "If liberty for anyone was to have a future in America, the indispensable first step was a stronger national government on a democratic basis . . . Frederick Douglass, the leading black spokesman against slavery during the Civil War era, favored continuation of the union, even with slavery, for the same reason: 'My argument against the dissolution of the American Union is this: It would place the slave system more exclusively under the control of the slaveholding states, and withdraw it from the power in the Northern states which is opposed to slavery.'"

West marshals the facts which most modern scholars conveniently ignore in their debunking of the Founders. He demonstrates that the Founders' approach to political problems was not utopian. Their actions were guided by an understanding of what is best and most desirable, tempered by an understanding of what good is possible in the circumstances.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:54 AM
You lefties have any more lies to propogate?

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 08:57 AM
Next myth......
Myth? All I said was Jefferson owned slaves. Thats an undeniable fact. Your points are that he was opposed to it, I agree. But, he still own slaves, just because he didn't like it, doesn't matter, he owned human beings.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:58 AM
Myth? All I said was Jefferson owned slaves. Thats an undeniable fact. Your points are that he was opposed to it, I agree. But, he still own slaves, just because he didn't like it, doesn't matter, he owned human beings.

Um, at first you said the Founders....then many of the Founders. This is the myth I'm debunking.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 09:01 AM
Oh and Red I posted post #39 before seeing #28 of yours. FYI if that appears out of sequence.

Chief Henry
08-31-2009, 09:07 AM
One of the greatest contradictions of the entire week of honoring the Senator, is the way the Catholic Church welcomed him with such a saintly exhibition.

Kennedy was a pro abortion guy. Committed a capitol crime that he was rich and powerful enough to avoid. He was a drunk. Was famous for the waitress sandwich, so he was also quite the misogynist.

And yet the Catholic Church sent him off the like he was a freaking Pope.



As a catholic. I too am just perplexed as why our church sends such
confusing actions to its membership. Its very disturbing to me. :grr:

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 09:10 AM
As a catholic. I too am just perplexed as why our church sends such
confusing actions to its membership. Its very disturbing to me. :grr:

Also, the RC church has automatic excommunication for those advocating legal abortion. But I guess when one is a liberation theology politician it's all forgiven. They've been infiltrated with false ideas even based on their own beliefs.

Baby Lee
08-31-2009, 11:54 AM
I'm no Ted Kennedy fan or apoligist. He accidently killed someone and didn't serve any time. But a NFL reciever just did the same thing and got no jail time so that is our uneven justice system at work, not he got off because he was a kennedy alone.
The same thing in the manner that apples are the same thing as oranges.
Teddy submerged a car by driving it off a levee and left someone still alive but trapped behind, and set about covering his tracks as she slowly suffocated. All actions completely his VOLITIONAL acts
The receiver ran into a man who jumped in front of his car suddenly, something that could HAPPEN TO any of us stone cold sober, and even though he was legally intoxicated, stayed right there and took full responsibility.

Baby Lee
08-31-2009, 11:57 AM
One of the greatest contradictions of the entire week of honoring the Senator, is the way the Catholic Church welcomed him with such a saintly exhibition.

Kennedy was a pro abortion guy. Committed a capitol crime that he was rich and powerful enough to avoid. He was a drunk. Was famous for the waitress sandwich, so he was also quite the misogynist.

And yet the Catholic Church sent him off the like he was a freaking Pope.

Speaking of the Pope, while the Boston diocese may or may not have feted him, Vatican City was conspicuously mum on the passing.

HC_Chief
08-31-2009, 12:14 PM
"It's a Holiday in Cambodia, where people dress in black. Meet a Holiday in Cambodia, where you'll kiss ass or crack!"

Donger
08-31-2009, 12:16 PM
"It's a Holiday in Cambodia, where people dress in black. Meet a Holiday in Cambodia, where you'll kiss ass or crack!"

Pol! Pot!

Pol Pot!

POLPOT! POLPOT! POLPOT! POLPOT! POLPOT! POLPOT!

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 12:21 PM
Speaking of the Pope, while the Boston diocese may or may not have feted him, Vatican City was conspicuously mum on the passing.

Interesting :hmmm:

Baby Lee
08-31-2009, 12:29 PM
Interesting :hmmm:

Partial retraction, as of last week a 'Vatican spokesman' was on the record saying Kennedy was 'just another man' in the view of the Vatican and the Pope. Googling today, the Pope at least provided a blessing, albeit in response to Teddy's humbly written plea.

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/08/30/the-pope-blessed-ted-kennedy/

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 12:30 PM
And BEP validates my point in her defense of and inability to be critical of the Founders. Thanks for playing.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 12:34 PM
And BEP validates my point in her defense of and inability to be critical of the Founders. Thanks for playing.

Right we would have been much better off if the founding fathers had been hung publically. We could be a monarchy, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. :eek:

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 12:34 PM
And BEP validates my point in her inability to be critical of the Founders. Thanks for playing.

Why should I be critical of them? They're men of honor in my book. I never said they were perfect; just men of their time. Your slavery point is invalid anyway as I have shown.

They still gave us something no one else ever got before: a govt of limited power. It may not have been given the power to intervene into the states to end slavery but it was a huge step in the right direction for not just us but mankind.

Degrade them all you want. You don't deserve what they left you ( even though a lot of it is gone)...AND you are no moderate. As your argument is one of the socialist/progressive left.

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 12:41 PM
Myth? All I said was Jefferson owned slaves. Thats an undeniable fact. Your points are that he was opposed to it, I agree. But, he still own slaves, just because he didn't like it, doesn't matter, he owned human beings.

I forget. How many slaves did that scoundrel Alexander Hamilton own?

:Poke: at BEP. o:-)

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 12:42 PM
I forget. How many slaves did that scoundrel Alexander Hamilton own?

LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 12:47 PM
I forget. How many slaves did that scoundrel Alexander Hamilton own?

:Poke: at BEP. o:-)

He had a few house slaves through his marriage into wealthy New York slave-owning Schuyler family.

However he did attend a slave auction where he purchased six slaves, watched them get manacled and delivered to a relative where they were enslaved for the rest of their lives. Heh! Not a big mention by his hagiographers.

But our Founders didn't really introduce slavery into America. It was brought here earlier. Even the three-fifths clause was an antislavery provision because it put some restriction on the south when the Con was formed. It also only applied to slaves not free black men. ( some of who also owned slaves)

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 12:56 PM
He had a few house slaves through his marriage into wealthy New York slave-owning Schuyler family.

However he did attend a slave auction where he purchased six slaves, watched them get manacled and delivered to a relative where they were enslaved for the rest of their lives. Heh! Not a big mention by his hagiographers.

But our Founders didn't really introduce slavery into America. It was brought here earlier. Even the three-fifths clause was an antislavery provision because it put some restriction on the south when the Con was formed. It also only applied to slaves not free black men. ( some of who also owned slaves)

Oh, damn. Total ClevelandBronco fail then.

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 01:08 PM
Why should I be critical of them? They're men of honor in my book. I never said they were perfect; just men of their time. Your slavery point is invalid anyway as I have shown.

They still gave us something no one else ever got before: a govt of limited power. It may not have been given the power to intervene into the states to end slavery but it was a huge step in the right direction for not just us but mankind.

Again, you're only reiterating what I had just argued. You're willing to overlook significant flaws in order to deify them, which is the exact same thing you're bitching about people doing with Ted Kennedy. You only approve of the tactic when it's dealing with someone you align with ideologically.

Degrade them all you want. You don't deserve what they left you ( even though a lot of it is gone)...

This is what I mean about you not being able to comprehend. You associate being critical of people with being unable to appreciate anything they did. They're not mutually exclusive. In the case of the Founders, you want to take the good without the bad.

AND you are no moderate. As your argument is one of the socialist/progressive left.

Pointing out racist and misogynistic tendencies amongst the Founders is not a liberal argument, it's a) a matter of fact and b) an easy way of showing the lengths you'll go in your willingness to overlook flaws so long as they advanced your beliefs(which again, is the exact same thing you're complaining is being done with Kennedy).

Yeah, I know how awful the concept of progressivism is. Why don't you forfeit your right to vote?

Afterall, THAT WAS WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED.

Donger
08-31-2009, 01:11 PM
Is this person seriously attempting to equate the Founding Fathers' position on slavery as it pertains to the creation of a new country and Teddy Kennedy leaving a still alive girl to drown in the car he drove off a bridge?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 01:11 PM
Again, you're only reiterating what I had just argued. You're willing to overlook significant flaws in order to deify them, which is the exact same thing you're bitching about people doing with Ted Kennedy. You only approve of the tactic when it's dealing with someone you align with ideologically.



This is what I mean about you not being able to comprehend. You associate being critical of people with being unable to appreciate anything they did. They're not mutually exclusive. In the case of the Founders, you want to take the good without the bad.



Pointing out racist and misogynistic tendencies amongst the Founders is not a liberal argument, it's a) a matter of fact and b) an easy way of showing the lengths you'll go in your willingness to overlook flaws so long as they advanced your beliefs(which again, is the exact same thing you're complaining is being done with Kennedy).

Yeah, I know how awful the concept of progressivism is. Why don't you forfeit your right to vote?

Afterall, THAT WAS WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED.

Facts fly in the face of your argument, i have posted many of the writings of the founding fathers and they seem to contradict what is stuck in your head.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 01:12 PM
Is this person seriously attempting to equate the Founding Fathers' position on slavery as it pertains to the creation of a new country and Teddy Kennedy leaving a still alive girl to drown in the car he drove off a bridge?

yes and attempting to paint those that don't see the founding fathers as slave trading bigots as delusional.

Baby Lee
08-31-2009, 01:14 PM
Is this person seriously attempting to equate the Founding Fathers' position on slavery as it pertains to the creation of a new country and Teddy Kennedy leaving a still alive girl to drown in the car he drove off a bridge?

Just think, 100 years from now there will be a guy who gunned down a 7-11 full of customers in the Senate and people will say that's OK because our leaders in our time didn't let gays marry.

Donger
08-31-2009, 01:17 PM
yes and attempting to paint those that don't see the founding fathers as slave trading bigots as delusional.

Well, I'm no expert on US history, but I think I recall that Jefferson had something like 73 references removed from his first draft of the DoI, by representatives from the southern states. So, their choice was:

1) Include the abolition of slavery and there would be no USA.

2) Exclude the mention of slavery and there would be a USA.

What were Kennedy's choices? Save my neck or Mary Jo's?

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 01:19 PM
Not all of them. They disagreed at the Convention and HAD to compromise or no Constitution would have ever been passed.

And WHY did they disagree, BEP?

You can't judge people from another time totally by our standards especially with an institution that had been around for thousands of years. Takes time to erase such things. But sentiment against slavery was there and was growing.

So now you like progressivism?

I am amazed at the Right's willingness to embrace moral/cultural/historical relativism. That totally jives well with a lot of the other stuff they embrace, like religion.

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 01:21 PM
Is this person seriously attempting to equate the Founding Fathers' position on slavery as it pertains to the creation of a new country and Teddy Kennedy leaving a still alive girl to drown in the car he drove off a bridge?

I know reading comprehension isn't easy, but don't give up the fight.

My initial point was pretty clear about people being willing to overlook flaws in order to revere the people they desperately want to remember fondly.

Donger
08-31-2009, 01:25 PM
I know reading comprehension isn't easy, but don't give up the fight.

My initial point was pretty clear about people being willing to overlook flaws in order to revere the people they desperately want to remember fondly.

I think you must take into account the reason behind those flaws, and the fact that when looking at the Founders, they were a group attempting to create a new nation, compromising as they went.

Kennedy was a single man, intent on ONLY HIS survival.

The two are hardly worth comparing, IMO.

Duck Dog
08-31-2009, 01:30 PM
The fact that he was continually reelected to his senate seat speaks volumes about the lack of character in the Massachusetts electorate.

It also speaks volumes about the posters here who will continue to speak for the man.

Frankie
08-31-2009, 01:33 PM
It's interesting how SHTSPRAYERs of the world drag a dead man through manure for an incident that he may or may not have been totally responsible for FOUR DECADES AGO while worshipping George and Dick who have the blood of more than 4000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis on their hands for their War profiteering just in the last few years. GET OVER IT DUDE! The man did a lot of good in his career and he is now dead.

They say the dumber you are the loudest you are too. SHTSPRAYER does nothing to disprove this with his tabloid threads.

HonestChieffan
08-31-2009, 01:34 PM
Well, I'm no expert on US history, but I think I recall that Jefferson had something like 73 references removed from his first draft of the DoI, by representatives from the southern states. So, their choice was:

1) Include the abolition of slavery and there would be no USA.

2) Exclude the mention of slavery and there would be a USA.

What were Kennedy's choices? Save my neck or Mary Jo's?

From the Kennedy lovers POV, how was Teddy to know she couldnt swim?

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 01:38 PM
I think you must take into account the reason behind those flaws, and the fact that when looking at the Founders, they were a group attempting to create a new nation, compromising as they went.

The fact they had to compromise on those things is ultimately the point. I'm not interested in directly comparing the actions, but I see a major disconnect in the outrage people are showing over Ted Kennedy's actions and the acceptance of the prolonging of slavery and women's suffrage in this country, all done in the name of compromise.

BEP earlier stressed the importance of having compassion for all human life, but she wasn't willing to criticize the Founders for the way they compromised, displaying a lack of compassion for all human life in the process.

KC Dan
08-31-2009, 01:39 PM
It's interesting how SHTSPRAYERs of the world drag a dead man through manure for an incident that he may or may not have been totally responsible for FOUR DECADES AGO while worshipping George and Dick who have the blood of more than 4000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis on their hands for their War profiteering just in the last few years. GET OVER IT DUDE! The man did a lot of good in his career and he is now dead.

They say the dumber you are the loudest you are too. SHTSPRAYER does nothing to disprove this with his tabloid threads.Agree with all of your post EXCEPT: "that he may or may not have been totally responsible for". He was DIRECTLY responsible for it. There is NO rational way to think or justify otherwise.

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 01:40 PM
From the Kennedy lovers POV, how was Teddy to know she couldnt swim?

And how was she to know Kennedy couldn't drive? Or bother to try to help her?

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 01:41 PM
Agree with all of your post EXCEPT: "that he may or may not have been totally responsible for". He was DIRECTLY responsible for it. There is NO rational way to think or justify otherwise.

The bridge moved at the last moment. And the water was all of seven feet deep. It couldn't be helped.

Donger
08-31-2009, 01:42 PM
The fact they had to compromise on those things is ultimately the point. I'm not interested in directly comparing the actions, but I see a major disconnect in the outrage people are showing over Ted Kennedy's actions and the acceptance of the prolonging of slavery and women's suffrage in this country, all done in the name of compromise.

BEP earlier stressed the importance of having compassion for all human life, but she wasn't willing to criticize the Founders for the way they compromised, displaying a lack of compassion for all human life in the process.

Yes, the Founders who opposed slavery most definitely compromised their position in order to achieve the creation of our new country.

What exactly did Kennedy compromise?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 01:42 PM
The fact they had to compromise on those things is ultimately the point. I'm not interested in directly comparing the actions, but I see a major disconnect in the outrage people are showing over Ted Kennedy's actions and the acceptance of the prolonging of slavery and women's suffrage in this country, all done in the name of compromise.

BEP earlier stressed the importance of having compassion for all human life, but she wasn't willing to criticize the Founders for the way they compromised, displaying a lack of compassion for all human life in the process.

Feel free to migrate to England, since that is where your heart is. They still have slavery over there via Kings and Queens, have fun with that.

mlyonsd
08-31-2009, 01:45 PM
It's interesting how SHTSPRAYERs of the world drag a dead man through manure for an incident that he may or may not have been totally responsible for FOUR DECADES AGO while worshipping George and Dick who have the blood of more than 4000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis on their hands for their War profiteering just in the last few years. GET OVER IT DUDE! The man did a lot of good in his career and he is now dead.

They say the dumber you are the loudest you are too. SHTSPRAYER does nothing to disprove this with his tabloid threads.

May not have been responsible for? It kind of makes the rest of your post a little hard not to laugh at.

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 01:50 PM
She grabbed the wheel. Actually she was a Cuban agent sent to assassinate the last brother.

Oops.

Simplex3
08-31-2009, 01:50 PM
It's interesting how SHTSPRAYERs of the world drag a dead man through manure for an incident that he may or may not have been totally responsible for...

ROFL

According to the police diver who brought her up she likely survived for two hours after the crash. Had Killer gone to get help for HER instead of going to get help for his career she'd likely have lived and he probably could have spun the whole thing to be about how he saved her life.

Frankie
08-31-2009, 01:53 PM
Agree with all of your post EXCEPT: "that he may or may not have been totally responsible for". He was DIRECTLY responsible for it. There is NO rational way to think or justify otherwise.

I have no doubt he bears a lot of responsibility for it due to his partying and womanizing. But there are those who believe that his shortcomings were the tools that the very forces who eliminated Jack and Bobby used to politically eliminate him too. After all it would be too hard to sell a third brother's assasination to the public but not too hard to put a drunk womanizer behind a wheel along with an equally drunk woman and pushed them off the road into the water.

I'm not saying I believe in the theory above, but to me it holds no less water (no pun intended) than the other versions of the story.

Frankie
08-31-2009, 01:53 PM
The bridge moved at the last moment. And the water was all of seven feet deep. It couldn't be helped.

See my previous post.

Donger
08-31-2009, 01:54 PM
I have no doubt he bears a lot of responsibility for it due to his partying and womanizing. But there are those who believe that his shortcomings were the tools that the very forces who eliminated Jack and Bobby used to politically eliminate him too. After all it would be too hard to sell a third brother's assasination to the public but not too hard to put a drunk womanizer behind a wheel along with an equally drunk woman and pushed them off the road into the water.

I'm not saying I believe in the theory above, but to me it holds no less water (no pun intended) than the other versions of the story.

And then when Soggy Teddy crawled to the shore, these assassins did what?

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 01:54 PM
I have no doubt he bears a lot of responsibility for it due to his partying and womanizing. But there are those who believe that his shortcomings were the tools that the very forces who eliminated Jack and Bobby used to politically eliminate him too. After all it would be too hard to sell a third brother's assasination to the public but not too hard to put a drunk womanizer behind a wheel along with an equally drunk woman and pushed them off the road into the water.

I'm not saying I believe in the theory above, but to me it holds no less water (no pun intended) than the other versions of the story.

Oh, God, Frankie. I was kidding.

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 01:55 PM
Yes, the Founders who opposed slavery most definitely compromised their position in order to achieve the creation of our new country.

What exactly did Kennedy compromise?

So getting something out of a deal makes a lack of compassion for human life justifiable? Do you believe the lives of people who endured slavery were worth it?

Frankie
08-31-2009, 01:56 PM
ROFL

According to the police diver who brought her up she likely survived for two hours after the crash. Had Killer gone to get help for HER instead of going to get help for his career she'd likely have lived and he probably could have spun the whole thing to be about how he saved her life.

I have no doubt that he was drunk and possibly disoriented. I say so was she. But before you refer to the man as "killer" read the rest of my post and tell me what you think of George and Dick?

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 01:57 PM
So getting something out of a deal makes a lack of compassion for human life justifiable?

Depends on how many lives they improved.

Donger
08-31-2009, 01:58 PM
So getting something out of a deal makes a lack of compassion for human life justifiable?

Huh? Many of them had compassion for the slaves. But, at the time, for the greater good of the new country, that compassion took a back seat to the throwing off the chains of British rule.

Again, the deal was the United States of America.

What was Teddy's deal? Nothing but his own survival, political and literal.

Simplex3
08-31-2009, 02:04 PM
I have no doubt that he was drunk and possibly disoriented. I say so was she. But before you refer to the man as "killer" read the rest of my post and tell me what you think of George and Dick?

I don't know that I would brand them killers, but I won't be putting them on my Christmas card list.

Donger
08-31-2009, 02:07 PM
It's interesting how SHTSPRAYERs of the world drag a dead man through manure for an incident that he may or may not have been totally responsible for FOUR DECADES AGO while worshipping George and Dick who have the blood of more than 4000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis on their hands for their War profiteering just in the last few years. GET OVER IT DUDE! The man did a lot of good in his career and he is now dead.

They say the dumber you are the loudest you are too. SHTSPRAYER does nothing to disprove this with his tabloid threads.

Out of curiosity, Frankie, do you think that we should continue our military efforts in Afghanistan?

Simplex3
08-31-2009, 02:09 PM
Out of curiosity, Frankie, do you think that we should continue our military efforts in Afghanistan?

Unless we're going to define hard objectives, achieve those despite collateral damage, and then leave then I think we need to just get out. Extended 'police actions' don't work. Never have and never will.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 02:10 PM
And WHY did they disagree, BEP?
I said so earlier.



So now you like progressivism?
Depends on what it's progressing towards.
That issue was not the Progressivism of the later part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th though. Totally different animal. One is a product of the Enlightenment the other of collectivism.

I am amazed at the Right's willingness to embrace moral/cultural/historical relativism. That totally jives well with a lot of the other stuff they embrace, like religion.
So you'd prefer the Articles of Confederation instead or remaining under a King who gave a shit about us but whose country got rid slavery with the stroke of a pen? Using the logic you're using on me, you hate that America was founded.

You're twisting what I said around to suit some personal anatagonism you have.

Now please quit equating killing someone due to reckless disregard for them and an institution that took time to die out.

Duck Dog
08-31-2009, 02:10 PM
what an embarrassing country we live in. I can't believe anyone would continue to justify his acts.

JonesCrusher
08-31-2009, 02:11 PM
George and Dick who have the blood of more than 4000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis on their hands for their War profiteering just in the last few years. .


By this logic Barack has some very bloody hands also. Must have just forgot to mention his name, or Nancy, vote for us and we'll bring the troops home, was also left out.

Duck Dog
08-31-2009, 02:13 PM
I have no doubt that he was drunk and possibly disoriented. I say so was she. But before you refer to the man as "killer" read the rest of my post and tell me what you think of George and Dick?

Jesus H. Christ, you pathetic vile of pork piss. Are you suggesting that if Mary Jo hadn't been 'drunk or disoriented' she may have been able to save her own life?

Liberals are pathetic and weak.

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 02:14 PM
Depends on how many lives they improved.

How many lives did the prolonging of slavery and women's suffrage in this country make worse?

I'm having a hard time sticking with the arguments being made in this thread. A lot of the same people who always stress the importance of compassion for all human life are now the ones arguing that it's expendable.

Huh? Many of them had compassion for the slaves. But, at the time, for the greater good of the new country, that compassion took a back seat to the throwing off the chains of British rule.

Again, the deal was the United States of America.

What was Teddy's deal? Nothing but his own survival, political and literal.

You're the only one here trying to justify the Founders in comparison to Ted Kennedy. I don't care what Ted Kennedy did, it's irrelevant to the Founders, which is what's being discussed.

You're justifying the standpoint of the Founders only from those who opposed slavery. You've avoided dealing with the mindsets of those who supported it, which is why compromises were even needed.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 02:16 PM
How many lives did the prolonging of slavery and women's suffrage in this country make worse?

I'm having a hard time sticking with the arguments being made in this thread. A lot of the same people who always stress the importance of compassion for all human life are now the ones arguing that it's expendable.



You're the only one here trying to justify the Founders in comparison to Ted Kennedy. I don't care what Ted Kennedy did, it's irrelevant to the Founders, which is what's being discussed.

You're justifying the standpoint of the Founders only from those who opposed slavery. You've avoided dealing with the mindsets of those who supported it, which is why compromises were necessary.

You're deflecting off the topic. Women's suffrage now too? Pluhease. The whole world didn't allow that either and this could be even longer to address. When women had to out of survival and necessity bear children to prolong the race, with many women dying and many babies and children dying there wasn't much time for much else.

You're using flawed logic as in putting something that is different into categories that are the same when they're not.

Simplex3
08-31-2009, 02:16 PM
How many lives did the prolonging of slavery and women's suffrage in this country make worse?

Had the slaves and women remained under British rule how well off would they have been? That was the other option.

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 02:18 PM
Had the slaves and women remained under British rule how well off would they have been? That was the other option.

The only two options were remain under British rule or be slaves?

This thread has produced some gems.

KC Dan
08-31-2009, 02:19 PM
I have no doubt he bears a lot of responsibility for it due to his partying and womanizing. But there are those who believe that his shortcomings were the tools that the very forces who eliminated Jack and Bobby used to politically eliminate him too. After all it would be too hard to sell a third brother's assasination to the public but not too hard to put a drunk womanizer behind a wheel along with an equally drunk woman and pushed them off the road into the water.

I'm not saying I believe in the theory above, but to me it holds no less water (no pun intended) than the other versions of the story.
omg....no words can describe this...........

Donger
08-31-2009, 02:19 PM
How many lives did the prolonging of slavery and women's suffrage in this country make worse?

I'm having a hard time sticking with the arguments being made in this thread. A lot of the same people who always stress the importance of compassion for all human life are now the ones arguing that it's expendable.



You're the only one here trying to justify the Founders in comparison to Ted Kennedy. I don't care what Ted Kennedy did, it's irrelevant to the Founders, which is what's being discussed.

You're justifying the standpoint of the Founders only from those who opposed slavery. You've avoided dealing with the mindsets of those who supported it, which is why compromises were necessary.

Considering it's a thread about Ted Kennedy being a selfish scumbag, you may want to re-assess that assertion.

Anyway, yes, as I've already stated, they compromised with the pro-slavery Founders in order to create our country. Life is icky like that sometimes.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 02:20 PM
You need to get outside of NE HolmeZz. Most Americans outside of that corridor disdain the Kennedys. Sorry but it's true.

Simplex3
08-31-2009, 02:22 PM
The only two options were remain under British rule or be slaves?

This thread has produced some gems.

Remain a slave under British rule OR remain a slave under US rule. There was another option of creating separate countries out of the states, but then the Civil War wouldn't have been fought and it probably would have taken much longer for the Southern slaves to be freed.

Would it have been great if everyone had stood up at the founding of the nation and stopped slavery, etc cold? Sure. They didn't, but frankly it was better than the other alternatives.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 02:28 PM
Holmezz The entire point you're trying to make is that the founding fathers were Mostly Slavers and that just isn't the case as witnessed in their writings.

***SPRAYER
08-31-2009, 02:28 PM
Remain a slave under British rule OR remain a slave under US rule. There was another option of creating separate countries out of the states, but then the Civil War wouldn't have been fought and it probably would have taken much longer for the Southern slaves to be freed.

Would it have been great if everyone had stood up at the founding of the nation and stopped slavery, etc cold? Sure. They didn't, but frankly it was better than the other alternatives.

The Founders needed all 13 colonies on board so they let the slavery stuff slide to get GA, SC and VA to declare independence. It took a while but we did resolve that problem with the Civil War.

As a result, nowhere on the planet are people of African descent as educated, wealthy, and free as they are here.

Donger
08-31-2009, 02:31 PM
Heh. I learned something today. We abolished the slave trade here on January 1, 1808. Which was the soonest possible date per the Constitution.

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 02:31 PM
Considering it's a thread about Ted Kennedy being a selfish scumbag, you may want to re-assess that assertion.

Our discussion had evolved into one about the Founding Fathers.

Anyway, yes, as I've already stated, they compromised with the pro-slavery Founders in order to create our country.

Yup.

Life is icky like that sometimes.

Reality is very icky, but it's necessary to operate in. Otherwise you convince yourself that all the Founders were all "great men of honor", which sounds like something you'd pick up after watching some educational video designed for 4th graders.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 02:31 PM
Ben Franklin was opposed to slavery especially on economic grounds and didn't think it would last because it was inefficient. It wouldn't have even without the Civil War. It ended just about everywhere with the stroke of a pen. It was dying out and continued to through the 19th century.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 02:33 PM
Yup.
Most of whom weren't for it. But you overgeneralized originally that it was the "Founders".

Donger
08-31-2009, 02:33 PM
Our discussion had evolved into one about the Founding Fathers.



Yup.



Reality is very icky, but it's necessary to operate in. Otherwise you convince yourself that all the Founders were "great men of honor", which sounds like something you'd pick up after watching some educational video designed for 4th graders.

I believe as a whole, they were, yes.

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 02:34 PM
Holmezz The entire point you're trying to make is that the founding fathers were Mostly Slavers and that just isn't the case as witnessed in their writings.

At this point I have to wonder if you're even reading the same thread as the rest of us. I haven't said anything close to that. And even ignoring that fact, slavery is not the extent of racism.

Frankie
08-31-2009, 02:36 PM
Out of curiosity, Frankie, do you think that we should continue our military efforts in Afghanistan?

I know we should have concentrated there in 2002 or 2003. Not iraq. As for weather we should continue there or not I'm not sure. It may be too little too late. But Afghanistan has always been the more legitimate of the two military entanglements.

Donger
08-31-2009, 02:36 PM
At this point I have to wonder if you're even reading the same thread as the rest of us. I haven't said anything close to that. And even ignoring that fact, slavery is not the extent of racism.

What would you have preferred, Holmez? The Founders who opposed slavery should have stuck to their guns and demanded that it be outlawed from day one?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 02:38 PM
At this point I have to wonder if you're even reading the same thread as the rest of us. I haven't said anything close to that. And even ignoring that fact, slavery is not the extent of racism.

Teddy couldn't hold a candle to the Founding Fathers, that is my point.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 02:39 PM
Teddy couldn't hold a candle to the Founding Fathers, that is my point.

Well, I do think Franklin may have matched his debauchery. ;)

Frankie
08-31-2009, 02:39 PM
By this logic Barack has some very bloody hands also. Must have just forgot to mention his name, or Nancy, vote for us and we'll bring the troops home, was also left out.

The Iraq war was unnecessary and bocus to begin with. Now it's the well we have fallen into. Coming out is not as easy as falling in. It will take time. Believe me, I will call out Obama too if I think he is staying longer than he should.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 02:39 PM
Well, I do think Franklin may have matched his debauchery. ;)

Although true he was a very productive member and had a few accomplishments to his name.

Donger
08-31-2009, 02:39 PM
Well, I do think Franklin may have matched his debauchery. ;)

Yeah, but French chicks are easy.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 02:40 PM
The Iraq war was unnecessary and bocus to begin with. Now it's the well we have fallen into. Coming out is not as easy as falling in. It will take time. Believe me, I will call out Obama too if I think he is staying longer than he should.

January 21st, 2009 was that date.

HolmeZz
08-31-2009, 02:41 PM
Most of whom weren't for it. But you overgeneralized originally that it was the "Founders".

Did a compromise that prolonged slavery display a lack of compassion for all human life?

Frankie
08-31-2009, 02:41 PM
Jesus H. Christ, you pathetic vile of pork piss. Are you suggesting that if Mary Jo hadn't been 'drunk or disoriented' she may have been able to save her own life?

Liberals are pathetic and weak.

As usual you totally ignored my point in favor of being "loud."

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 02:45 PM
Did a compromise that prolonged slavery display a lack of compassion for all human life?

Slavery seemed to be the norm back then, The FF favored dissent from it's practice.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 03:00 PM
Did a compromise that prolonged slavery display a lack of compassion for all human life?

I don't see what killing another human has to do with this or lack of regard for human life. ( slavery about lack of liberty)

HonestChieffan
08-31-2009, 03:01 PM
The Iraq war was unnecessary and bocus to begin with. Now it's the well we have fallen into. Coming out is not as easy as falling in. It will take time. Believe me, I will call out Obama too if I think he is staying longer than he should.

And no matter the fact the country falls back into the very hands we should stay and defeat. The lack of will to finish among liberals is never ending. Let the poor Iraqis die, thats your policy?

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 03:02 PM
Finish waht HC? We removed SH, the have to do the rest.

JonesCrusher
08-31-2009, 03:09 PM
The Iraq war was unnecessary and bocus to begin with. Now it's the well we have fallen into. Coming out is not as easy as falling in. It will take time. Believe me, I will call out Obama too if I think he is staying longer than he should.

Yes we Can is rapidly turning into not my fault Bush did it.

Frankie
08-31-2009, 03:15 PM
And no matter the fact the country falls back into the very hands we should stay and defeat. The lack of will to finish among liberals is never ending. Let the poor Iraqis die, thats your policy?

I did not say that. I said, the stupid and the evil undead got us into the wrong war or this whole thing would have perhaps wrapped up by now and OBL would have been dead. Now, no matter how late it is the war has to be taken to Afghanistan. By "too little too late" I only meant we might have to be engaged in a war that has less of a definition of purpose than 6 years ago.

Duck Dog
08-31-2009, 03:33 PM
As usual you totally ignored my point in favor of being "loud."

Why even mention your opinion on her being drunk or disoriented?

Adept Havelock
08-31-2009, 05:24 PM
My initial point was pretty clear about people being willing to overlook flaws in order to revere the people they desperately want to remember fondly.

Like the Reagan Admin. trading arms with a known state sponsor of terrorism, or overlooking Billy Clinton's perjury.

Let the poor Iraqis die, thats your policy?

More accurately it's along the lines of "We've spent a massive amount of blood and treasure to give you Iraqis your nation back. Now it's on YOU to decide if you want to bleed to keep it. If not, GFY." Hell, the Krauts had nothing left in '45, but four years later in the face of Soviet undermining they had a decent country (FRG) and a solid base for the Bundeswehr.

We've done our part. If they lose their country now, it's on them. Give 'em all the money, training, and intel they need. It's their turn to provide the blood.

HC_Chief
08-31-2009, 06:19 PM
California Uber Alles, California Uber Alles, Uber Alles, California!

Adept Havelock
08-31-2009, 06:32 PM
California Uber Alles, California Uber Alles, Uber Alles, California!
Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables was a great album. :thumb: