The Good and Bad about Ted Kennedy

[Trien Chieu]

I am saddened that the last of the Kennedy brothers have passed. He was perhaps the greatest Kennedy among the brothers in terms of years of public service and influence. JFK’s fight for civil rights was important too of course, and he may very well have been a great President had that a-hole not assassinated him.
Can’t believe how lax the security was back then.

Do you know the dark side of Ted Kennedy?

http://lovelifelikeyourself.wordpres...ugust-25-2009/

Kennedy was driving a 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 with one of the women, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne, as his passenger, when Kennedy drove off Dike Bridge into the Poucha Pond inlet. Kennedy escaped the overturned vehicle and swam to safety, but Kopechne died in the car. Kennedy left the scene and did not call authorities until after Kopechne’s body was discovered the following day.

I wonder how can people keep voting for the guy after that incident. I won't blame him for not risking his life to save the lady, but as a human being he should call the authority. That is the minimum that a human being should do.

[jiang bao]

Did you know your hero GWB’s “dark side”? Kennedy should have alerted the authorities of the accident, but he was thinking of his career first. He was clearly wrong.

Nobody said Ted Kennedy was a saint. That doesn’t take away his years of service to this country.

Before I even clicked on this thread, and I saw TC’s name as the person who responded, I knew that he was gonna mention the accident or mention the drinking before I even saw it. Never mind that he was one of the greatest US senators in history.

[Suet Seung]

Why do ignorant people keep persecuting people who already dead for their past is beyond my understanding. It's like they have fun criticizing and cursing at people who can't fight back or defend themselves because they're already dead. It's fine by me if you like to voice your opinion on someone living, but once they're dead, let them be and let them rest in peace. This thread is not to discuss the dark side of a dead person.

Why is it that people keep focusing on the negativity and the bad of someone's past and ignoring the OBVIOUS good that people have contributed to the world?

I've never followed politics a lot, and so I'm not a supporter of Ted Kennedy in anyway, but geez, let the man rest in peace.

[Trien Chieu]

Did you know your hero GWB’s “dark side”?

I don't know but you have every right to talk and debate about it.

Kennedy should have alerted the authorities of the accident, but he was thinking of his career first. He was clearly wrong.

Nobody said Ted Kennedy was a saint. That doesn’t take away his years of service to this country.

Before I even clicked on this thread, and I saw TC’s name as the person who responded, I knew that he was gonna mention the accident or mention the drinking before I even saw it. Never mind that he was one of the greatest US senators in history.

Drinking and womanizing are personal matters and they are none of anyone else business. However, leaving another human being to die for the sake of his own career is cruel, heartless, and inhumane. Perhap, he was a great politician, but as a man he was failed to be a human being.

Why do ignorant people keep persecuting people who already dead for their past is beyond my understanding. It's like they have fun criticizing and cursing at people who can't fight back or defend themselves because they're already dead. It's fine by me if you like to voice your opinion on someone living, but once they're dead, let them be and let them rest in peace. This thread is not to discuss the dark side of a dead person.

Why is it that people keep focusing on the negativity and the bad of someone's past and ignoring the OBVIOUS good that people have contributed to the world?

I've never followed politics a lot, and so I'm not a supporter of Ted Kennedy in anyway, but geez, let the man rest in peace.

If it's ok for people to criticise Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, ect... after they are long gone, why is it not ok to criticise Ted Kennedy?

[Suet Seung]

If it's ok for people to criticise Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, ect... after they are long gone, why is it not ok to criticise Ted Kennedy?

I guess the reason why people has been having a problem with you "bashing" Kennedy or Jackson is because this isn't the thread to create debates and argue about horrible or good person Kennedy/Jackson was.

If you want to discuss and debate on whether Kennedy and/or Jackson is a bad human being, you can go ahead and create your own thread in the OPEN DEBATE forum where it is more appropriate than in threads on their deaths. Because we're not debating about the morality of Kennedy's life, we're acknowledging his death and other stuff.

[jiang bao]

I try not to flip out on TC, but it's really hard when he's comparing Ted Kennedy to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. It's like the people comparing Obama's health plan to Nazism. WTF! Do you even understand anything about history and what the Nazis did?

And as SS said, if he wants to knock the man's morality, create a thread at the debate forum.

Lastly, no one, other than Ted himself, knows exactly what happened. Was the girl still alive/conscious? Who knows. Did he try to save her? Who knows. COULD he have saved her? Who knows. He testified that he did try to save her, but who knows.

If you crash a car into water. Give me a ring if you don't panic. Maybe he just panicked and try to save himself, not thinking of the girl at all until he was safe. Not everyone is a selfless hero. I don't even know if I would think of saving the passenger first in that situation unless it was a person dear to me. I mean, it's extremely easy to say or think that you will be a hero in a life and death situation, but the real situation is very different than what when you are just imagining. Unless you have been in a life and death situation and acted altruistically, don't judge because you don't know what happened. It wasn't like he walked by a dying person and kicked dirt in her face.

Knowing what I know of TC based on his views and posts here, do I think in the same situation, he would do everything in his power to save the girl (placing her life before his)? Hell no. He'd swim up there faster than a friggin eel high on coke.

I am not excusing what Ted did or did not do. No one knows what really happened. That's all. The event is certainly not enough to define his life.

[Trien Chieu]

If you want to continue this debate, go to the open debate forum and create a new thread.

[jiang bao]

He was wrong. Nobody is excusing it. He panicked. He probably thought that she was dead already and was afraid what that’d do to his career. He testified he and a couple of friends tried to dive down and save her but failed. He testified he found no houses along the way where he could make a call. Still doesn’t take away his 40+ years of service in the Senate.

Cheney once shot a dude in the face while out “hunting.” Accidents happen.

[Trien Chieu]

Knowing what I know of TC based on his views and posts here, do I think in the same situation, he would do everything in his power to save the girl (placing her life before his)? Hell no. He'd swim up there faster than a friggin eel high on coke.

I am not excusing what Ted did or did not do. No one knows what really happened. That's all. The event is certainly not enough to define his life.

I am not a selfless hero and I don't expect others to be one. I do not expect Ted Kennedy risking his life or put the life a the lady before his, but he is a human being. I expect him to do what a human being should do. That is, report the accident to the authority ASAP after he got off the water. Perhap, that is still to late to save the lady, but that is what a human must do. I wouldn't surprise that he was drunk (or at least beyond the limit) when he got into accident. I suspect he had something to hide. You are right that no one knows what really happened but we do know that he got into car accident and left the lady behind without report to the authority.

He was wrong. Nobody is excusing it. He panicked. He probably thought that she was dead already and was afraid what that’d do to his career. He testified he and a couple of friends tried to dive down and save her but failed. He testified he found no houses along the way where he could make a call. Still doesn’t take away his 40+ years of service in the Senate.

Cheney once shot a dude in the face while out “hunting.” Accidents happen.

He can say whatever and show how remorse he was but that doesn't take away the fact that he left the woman to die without report to the authority. I think everyone can agree that his action was cruel, heartless and inhumane.

Yes, accidents happen everyday but that is not an issue here. In NY city alone, I can bet there is at least one person a day due to car accident. The issue is not about he got into car accident, it is about lelf someone to die afterward without report to authority.

[levendis d'orange]

Do you know the dark side of Ted Kennedy?

http://lovelifelikeyourself.wordpres...ugust-25-2009/


I wonder how can people keep voting for the guy after that incident. I won't blame him for not risking his life to save the lady, but as a human being he should call the authority. That is the minimum that a human being should do.

This is really weak sauce, but I shouldn't be surprised that it's coming from TrienChieu who're rather prone to making inane arguments.

First, it's maybe not even be a crime for the failure to report immediately about accidents after they have occurred. For TC to make the case, he has to point out to us the relevant state or federal laws/statutes which were violated.

Second, there are entirely perfect psychological reasons why people might fail to alert the authority immediately after a traumatic accidents. They probably are experiencing PTSD and might have be in the most rational state of mind.

Third, Ted Kennedy was not found guilty of any crime.

Fourth, once again TC made a very weak sauce argument in order to smear one of the greatest senator in US history, and I fully expect him to epically fail to respond to any points raised on this post.

[Trien Chieu]

This is really weak sauce, but I shouldn't be surprised that it's coming from TrienChieu who're rather prone to making inane arguments.

First, it's maybe not even be a crime for the failure to report immediately about accidents after they have occurred. For TC to make the case, he has to point out to us the relevant state or federal laws/statutes which were violated.

Second, there are entirely perfect psychological reasons why people might fail to alert the authority immediately after a traumatic accidents. They probably are experiencing PTSD and might have be in the most rational state of mind.

Third, Ted Kennedy was not found guilty of any crime.

Fourth, once again TC made a very weak sauce argument in order to smear one of the greatest senator in US history, and I fully expect him to epically fail to respond to any points raised on this post.

According to the Ex-police Chief, if the incident occurs today, he would have charged Kennedy with vehicular homicide.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...day/index.html

I don't think it's a crime if Kennedy hits a tree and go home then report about the accident the next day. However it would definitely a crime to leave another person in a car to die without calling the authority.

[levendis d'orange]

According to the Ex-police Chief, if the incident occurs today, he would have charged Kennedy with vehicular homicide.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...day/index.html

I don't think it's a crime if Kennedy hits a tree and go home then report about the accident the next day. However it would definitely a crime to leave another person in a car to die without calling the authority.

Third, Ted Kennedy was not found guilty of any crime.

Just in case you failed to notice such pesky fact the first time it was mentioned.

[pandamao]

TC - my personal opinion of TK.

he's a low life, immoral, unethical, disgusting pig ... but he got the job done.

i'm more in favor of finding a person who can get things done than a saint if i were to ever hire anyone to work for me.

In a world where you can't have everything you want, certain things will have to settle.

[Trien Chieu]

Third, Ted Kennedy was not found guilty of any crime.

Just in case you failed to notice such pesky fact the first time it was mentioned.

Society back then was a lot different that it's now. Did you read the article from CNN? According to the Ex-police Chief, if the incident occurs today, he would have charged Kennedy with vehicular homicide. The crime wasn't exist back then.

TC - my personal opinion of TK.

he's a low life, immoral, unethical, disgusting pig ... but he got the job done.

i'm more in favor of finding a person who can get things done than a saint if i were to ever hire anyone to work for me.

In a world where you can't have everything you want, certain things will have to settle.

I am not a saint so I do not expect others be one. What I dislike about the guy is he left another person to die without reporting to authority. I think everyone can agree that is cruel, heartless and inhumane. Regarding his drinking and womanizing problems, they are personal matters and none of anyone else business.

[Trinie]

TC, Do you know ANYTHING about Ted Kennedy??? Why don't you ever do "REAL" research before you open your stinky mouth up???? Do you ever give anyone any credit for the good things they do or do you just base it on one or 2 bad things and then label them as someone evil and horrible??? I can't believe that you are comparing Ted Kennedy to Mao, Stalin and Hitler??? Oh gosh....

[pandamao]

Society back then was a lot different that it's now. Did you read the article from CNN? According to the Ex-police Chief, if the incident occurs today, he would have charged Kennedy with vehicular homicide. The crime wasn't exist back then.



I am not a saint so I do not expect others be one. What I dislike about the guy is he left another person to die without reporting to authority. I think everyone can agree that is cruel, heartless and inhumane. Regarding his drinking and womanizing problems, they are personal matters and none of anyone else business.

Did you read my response? I think you totally missed the big picture.

[levendis d'orange]

I think everyone can agree that is cruel, heartless and inhumane.

I think that's just you. To restate, there are entirely perfect psychological reasons why people might fail to alert the authority immediately after a traumatic accidents. They probably are experiencing PTSD and might not be in the most rational state of mind.

[Han Solo]

This debate reminds me of the old quiz.

It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts
about the three leading candidates.
Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's
had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in
college, smokes cigars and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an
occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.
Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first, no peeking, then scroll
down for the answer.

click to show/hide spoilers

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.

Is the man or the deed more important?

Han Solo

[pandamao]

han solo -

too cute. im glad i selected the right choice. it really was a no brainer.

[Trien Chieu]

If that is the only information I have among the candidates then I would vote for Candidate C. I suspect there is something wrong about Candidate C but if I don't know the name and that are the only information I got, then I vote for him.

Candidate A: associates with crooked politicians is a no no for me. I don't care about his drinking, smoking, and womanizing problems as they are personal matters.

Candidate B: Smoke opium is also a no no for me. I don't not want a former drug user as a leader of my country. I also dislike the fact that he was kicked out of office twice. I don't care about his drinking and smoking problems as they are personal matters.

Candidate C: I like him for the fact that he is a hero of the country. Being a vegetarian is neutral to me. Doesn't smoke and being a good husband are good traits, but not a factor that I vote for him. Anyway, you didn't give enough information about this candidate. Is he capable of running the country? Is he intelligent enough to run the country?