Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was reading some information how Ted Kennedy went to Russia to discuss how to hurt Reagan after he got elected.
Ted Kennedy, to me, always seem to have some great anger issues towards this country. Maybe because JFK and RFK got killed and he blames the nation for that or just that he was a bad seed. Certainly, after reading about his less than loving father and mother, growing up in a very competitive household, poor student, tossed out of Harvard for cheating, sort of a reckless person that never really earned his own way in life.
NPR revealed after his death he used to joke about Chappaquiddick affair with his staff , 'Hey have you heard the latest Chappaquiddick joke?"....a pretty sick mind....
Certainly, he never accomplished much in the Senate other than to rant and rave, spend other people's money and get fat. He certainly did have a pretty mean side under his cover "Lion of the Senate"...but was his efforts to actually help the USA or hurt it? Was he a closet commie/socialist or just a big dummy frustrated that his he never lived up to his brothers fame....?
Ted Kennedy was, personally, a morally bankrupt alcoholic, but I hardly think you can say he hated america. He had political leanings that I strongly disgaree with, but I don't question his dedication to those leanings and his belief that it would help his country.
NPR revealed after his death he used to joke about Chappaquiddick affair with his staff , 'Hey have you heard the latest Chappaquiddick joke?"....a pretty sick mind....
....
You mean the one which goes..
What did Ted say when Mary Jo told him that she might be pregnant?
"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
You know, totsuka, this post sure seems more of a political rant than a historical contribution.There are still too many living Kennedy haters and champions to conduct an unbiased discussion. Now if it was "I want to discuss how David Lloyd George really screwed up England", that could be discussed without partisan passions.
I think that we should have a minimum 20 year passage of time before a political subject becomes a historical subject. Otherwise the discussions tend to be the same people who were yelling at one another while the politician was in office, are continuing to yell at one another now that he or she has left the arena.
[quote=Grandstander;19739928]You mean the one which goes..
What did Ted say when Mary Jo told him that she might be pregnant?
"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
You know, totsuka, this post sure seems more of a political rant than a historical contribution.There are still too many living Kennedy haters and champions to conduct an unbiased discussion. Now if it was "I want to discuss how David Lloyd George really screwed up England", that could be discussed without partisan passions.
Actually, not a political rant but a simple observation about our past. Ted did visit Russia to discuss trying to hurt Regan. A person that loves his country simply does not do this. That type of behavior indicates something about Ted that is beyond his radical liberal ideas and agenda.
A problem with waiting is the situation we have with JFK. To many, he is without flaw based on the image built up about him by his family, friends, and especially the media. There will always be heated debates about history which is a good just so nobody goes off the deep end and blow something up.
Another point, I don't see the radicals of the 1960's being looked at very seriously. You have people that were robbing banks, setting off bombs etc..etc...that pretty much get a free pass. Just look at the picture of Bill Ayers standing the American flag proudly saying "I wish I had done more"...more bombings?...and had it not been the election of Obama, very few people would have known about that guy.
Actually, not a political rant but a simple observation about our past.
You apparently are unable to distinguish simple observations from political rants.
If I am incorrect, it may be demonstrated by your writing an essay on Senator Kennedy where you explore his positive contributions along with what you perceive as his negatives.
An angry, agenda driven list of complaints about politician ...is a political rant. It is not history.
History is....here is everything we know about Ted Kennedy, good and bad.
Rant is....here is why Ted Kennedy was an asswipe.
If you are unable to recognize that your post belongs in that latter class, then there is probably little hope of getting you to understand.
The actions of "Ted" define his legacy. What did he accomplish other than spend other people's money? You are too quick to give that guy a free pass. He was in the Senate for nearly 50 years and what is the positive aspects of that long tour? Not much...other than running off his dead brothers names, he never accomplished much for this country.
The actions of "Ted" define his legacy. What did he accomplish other than spend other people's money? You are too quick to give that guy a free pass. He was in the Senate for nearly 50 years and what is the positive aspects of that long tour? Not much...other than running off his dead brothers names, he never accomplished much for this country.
Did you actually read my post? If so, you obviously misread it. I did no defending of Ted Kennedy at all, much less giving him a free pass.
What I wrote wasn't about Kennedy, it was about you. It was about your thread and how it is inappropriate for this forum, especially the way you have constructed it. Do you not understand that it is not a historical discussion when it begins with "Ted Kennedy Really Hate America?" That is a political rant. Take it to the politics board where the ranters hang out.
And fer chrizze sake, if you are going to particpate in a public forum, read what is written before you respond to it. Don't just make a knee jerk response to what you assume must have been written. Okay?
What did Ted say when Mary Jo told him that she might be pregnant?
"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
You know, totsuka, this post sure seems more of a political rant than a historical contribution.There are still too many living Kennedy haters and champions to conduct an unbiased discussion. Now if it was "I want to discuss how David Lloyd George really screwed up England", that could be discussed without partisan passions.
I think that we should have a minimum 20 year passage of time before a political subject becomes a historical subject. Otherwise the discussions tend to be the same people who were yelling at one another while the politician was in office, are continuing to yell at one another now that he or she has left the arena.
Ted Kennedy may have made some bad decisions regarding his own life but he did not hate America.
Minimum 20 year passages of time don't always lead to more balanced and reasoned discourse. The Six Day War and the Nabka still stir up passions. So does Bloody Sunday, and so does the Irish War of Independence. So does the American Civil War. For that matter, Oliver Cromwell's actions still create considerable controversy, as does the Fall of Constantinople - to say nothing of the question of who would succeed Mohammed (there are still people getting killed today over the question of who was Mohammed's rightful heir). So the passage of time does not always cool passions.
). So the passage of time does not always cool passions.
It helps. For example, in 2011 we here are doing nothing worse than indulging in cyper thought warfare over the morality of the Southern cause. 150 years ago they were killing one another in a highly organized manner.
And even if it does not always cool passions, it sometimes does , and we should always make it a goal.
Every great man is flawed. US Grant was a drunk, Harding had affairs while in the White House, Eisenhower before the White House, Cleveland had a child out of wedlock, President Van Buren had the nickname "blue wiskey van" and his drinking contributed to his loss of the election for his second term. Had these men been living in the 1980's and more recently we would know more and I am sure it would not be pretty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
