I love it. Fatty's like a dog. He does some stupid crap, and you yell at him, but you love him unconditionally, and he's totally loyal to you. And by "you", I mean the CF BBS.
A beautiful eulogy from President Obama -- Ted Kennedy has gone home now, guided by his faith and by the light of those he has loved and lost. At last he is with them once more, leaving those of us who grieve his passing with the memories he gave, the good he did, the dream he kept alive, and a single, enduring image - the image of a man on a boat; white mane tousled; smiling broadly as he sails into the wind, ready for what storms may come, carrying on toward some new and wondrous place just beyond the horizon. May God Bless Ted Kennedy, and may he rest in eternal peace.
It's not just one incident which forms my opinion about him. I'm more of a conservative and not thrilled by most liberals politicians - so that slants my view right there. Also - he was a Kennedy. Some people here like to bash the Bush family for their privilege. But the Kennedy sense of privilege goes far beyond that. I've never understood why liberals who espouse egalitarian virtues adore this "royal" family so much (ie. Camelot). Also - I had naturally assumed people here were pissing on Reagan's grave. I was totally wrong there. Am I glad he died? Of course not. His passing does mark the end of an era of sorts. And that is always a little sad - because it means we too are all growing older and that time is passing.
Let me explain it to you then. It's because they employed their privilege in a lifelong fight to help those less fortunate than themselves. It's funny that you would bring up the Bushes -- a legacy that engaged in a lifelong fight to help the privileged at the expense of the poor and the middle class. In trying to make your point, you helped make ours instead.
That is a pretty simplistic and dark view. It makes thing easy if we can look at a person and label "good" or "bad." It is not that simple. Kennedy had his less than stellar moments. So did Bush 41. Bush 41 was a much better President (and a much better person) than his son. JFK (I believe) would have proven to be a good President had he lived. I think Ted Kennedy did a lot of good things in the Senate, even though he had his missteps. It is not fair to lump JFK and Ted into the same bucket, as they were different people. Same goes with Bush 41 and W.
I'm so tired of the media coverage of this guy. He was a womanizer. He was an alcoholic. He never had to work a day in his life. He voted along party lines his whole career. Put me in as Senator, I could do all those things
I wasn't talking about who was a good president; I was talking about what was the cause of their lives (the Bushes and Kennedys). The top cause of the Kennedys was helping those who were less fortunate and that is evident in every single thing they did, especially Teddy; the top cause of the Bushes was cutting taxes, a thing that by definition benefits those who are fortunate enough to be in a high tax bracket. It might be simple (I reject the idea that it's "simplistic"), but it's true. I'm not sure why you would regard it to be dark, especially as someone who has traditionally supported the party that favors tax cuts over social programs. I'm not asking you to agree with the lifelong cause of the Kennedys, but it doesn't make sense to dispute such an indisputable thing.
Fatty doesn't understand the meanings of about ten percent of the words he uses. (See his complaint that people were overreacting to his posts, just because they were "incendiary.") It's part of his charm.
Off topic (from the original topic and the arguing), but how close was Bobby Kennedy to winning the election before he was killed?
He was a latecomer to the primaries (meaning also he didn't have a great nationwide organization/machine), entering after LBJ appeared done but before LBJ announced he would not seek re-election. So his win in the California primary (also South Dakota) earlier the day of his assassination was essential to him eventually getting the nomination. It was by no means a sure bet he would have won the Democratic nomination, but he had a decent shot of coming from behind. Of course, those were still the days when the national convention delegates' votes were largely unpledged, leading to chaos and deal-making and -breaking and candidates chosen on the umpteenth ballot, so nothing was ever a sure thing. MSNBC keeps re-airing a decent hour-long documentary on the Kennedy brothers' presidential aspirations that touches on this; Matthews' narration is definitely admiring, but it by no means descends into hagiography. It was made/cut before Ted Kennedy died, and originally aired a few days ago. It's no great shakes, but provides a good overview of the family.
Think of the changes we'd have to make to the senate chambers for Senator Rodan. Talk about new spending!
Your rhetoric seems to categorize the Kennedys as good and the Bushes as bad. It isn't that simple. It would be just as wrong and short sighted for me to say that... Bushes wanted to reduce corporate taxes so they could hire more people so they can provide for their families. Kennedy wanted more social programs to keep people dependent upon him being in the Senate. It is ludicrous. Not everything that you disagree with necessarily has a bad motive. We, as a nation, seem to have lost that concept. It is a shame, and the thing that will most likely lead to our societal downfall.
You're getting my bias right (duh, that's easy), but you're dodging my premise. Do you disagree that the Kennedys, especially Teddy, were mainly concerned with legislation that helped the less fortunate? Do you disagree that the Bushes were mainly concerned with tax cuts? Understand that this train of thought began in response to langal saying why do liberals like the privileged Kennedys and hate the privileged Bushes? My answer, in short form again, is that the Kennedys were obsessed with helping the underprivileged and the Bushes were mainly concerned with helping the privileged (and letting charities or 1000 points of light deal with the underprivileged). I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but those are the facts.
Sure...to the extent that it is also fair to say that the 1000 points of light, etc were meant to encourage EVERYBODY to do their share to help the less fortunate rather than to just leave it up to government. You can spin it any way you want. The fact of the matter is that we will never agree. The difference is that, while I disagree with the liberal view on this topic, I can agree that they have good motives. Meanwhile, most libs not only disagree with the opposing view, they assume that anybody that holds it is a heartless b*stard. Not productive. Back to the point at hand, it isn't just liberals that love the Kennedys. Most people loved JFK and RFK. Teddy was a little more polarizing. Overall, they were good people. They were extremely charismatic, particularly at a time (JFK Presidency) when our nation needed it most.
I wouldn't say they're heartless bastards, Refman. I'd say they prioritize the 'fairness' of letting the rich keep their money and the poor suffer the consequences of what they regard to be a choice not to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and the Democrats (the Kennedys in particular) prioritize helping the less fortunate. There's just no way to spin the GOP as being concerned for the downtrodden in this country. There just isn't.
p.s. to Refman: I don't include you when I talk about the Bushes or the GOP because, as I've said before, I don't really think you're a Republican anymore even if you vote that way. Your posts are those of a moderate Democrat. (That's a compliment, in case you didn't know.)
I figured that. Thanks for the compliment. I still maintain that the biggest problem with the GOP is the schism between the ran and file and those in charge of the party.
