Senator Ted Kennedy collapses

[Kuciwalker]

I'm in a fraternity, and I would oppose CMU becoming male-only as much as my fraternity admitting women.

[rah]

Politically there is no difference.
How many politicians belong to private country clubs that discriminate on race or sex? I think you'll find that almost all don't because they don't want the taint that goes along with it.

[rah]

And the owl club is not a fraternatiy, it's a club. It's not a group of guys living together so you can't use the excuse of baring women because you don't have the facitilites to seperate them.

[Kuciwalker]

And the owl club is not a fraternatiy, it's a club.

It's a men's club. It's a glorified fraternity for people who aren't in undergrad anymore.

It's not a group of guys living together so you can't use the excuse of baring women because you don't have the facitilites to seperate them.

I've never before heard that excuse. You don't need an excuse. Fraternities and sororities are inherently male and female organizations.

[Kuciwalker]

Politically there is no difference.
How many politicians belong to private country clubs that discriminate on race or sex? I think you'll find that almost all don't because they don't want the taint that goes along with it.

So? That 'taint' exists entirely because of people like you being stupid about it, because someone smarter spun it as a bad thing. It's not hypocritical.

[Supr49er]

And the owl club is not a fraternatiy, it's a club. It's not a group of guys living together so you can't use the excuse of baring women because you don't have the facitilites to seperate them.

I could see where a club with Bare Women could be a problem.

[rah]

Sigh, you just don't get it.
It makes sense for a sorority to bar men from a building where naked women can be found.
Same for a fraternity.
The only reason it's acceptable is because it's people living together.

YOU WILL note that they're not allowed to bar blacks. Since the naked arguement doesn't stand there.

If you think it's acceptable to belong to a country club that bars blacks from joining then you're a ignorant bigot.

If you think it's ok to exclude women but not blacks, that's not any better in my book.

[RGBVideo]

I doubt if there's anyone currently in Congress who's more accomplished.

...in being wrong. Kennedy's been around for such a long time, he's lived to see the earliest bills he has pushed (Senator since '62) affect his country in exactly the same ways as he back then separately predicted they'd not affect it. When he has been supporting bills with good effects for USA, he has offered voting for them exactly the rationale which has not turned out to come true. Actually, in a global sense, he's a wonderful example of a national legislator who's been wrong in as many occasions as it has been practically possible to be wrong.

Kennedy has been very effective in pushing through agenda in the form of specific policies, yes. So was W. Bush, but I wouldn't be happy were either of them deciding things in my country.

He might not be a particularly good person, but he's a great Senator.

He's a superb Senator in the sense that he's guaranteed to be re-elected as long as he pleases, even if he'd some day fail in bringing home the bacon. It's a 100,00% safe D-seat as long as he lives.

[Ramo]

...in being wrong. Kennedy's been around for such a long time, he's lived to see the earliest bills he has pushed (Senator since '62) affect his country in exactly the same ways as he back then separately predicted they'd not affect it. When he has been supporting bills with good effects for USA, he has offered voting for them exactly the rationale which has not turned out to come true. Actually, in a global sense, he's a wonderful example of a national legislator who's been wrong in as many occasions as it has been practically possible to be wrong.

How wonderfully vague.

[-Jrabbit]

I don't hate the guy anymore, but I could never trust him. But he's a politician. I feel that way about all of them.

I know it (the Kopechne incident) was just one really bad decision, probably fueled by a good dose of alcohol and panic. But how one makes those decisions does show something of one's core character.

For those not around in '69, check it out oun Wiki. Pretty nasty stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Kopechne

[ZEE]

Kuci is just trolling you, Rah. He'll say any damn thing now to get you going.

[rah]

Actually Kuci is only succeeding in showing that he's got nothing on this one. Anyone that reads the timeline after the accident will be able to judge his character. Yes, a young men might be allowed a indescression but not like this. Being responsible for a girls death through cowardice is not a youthful prank to be easily forgiven.
Even being forgiving of a single error, paying someone to take a college exam for you. Pretty bad.
Not many people get banned from Harvard's campus. It takes some effort.

[RGBVideo]

How wonderfully vague.

Yeah, look up your own examples and how Kennedy predicted they'd change America.

googling immigration act of 1965 Kennedy -- 2 minutes and we're on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...ty_Act_of_1965

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89-236) abolished the national-origin quotas that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by Emanuel Celler, co-sponsored by Philip Hart and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy.[1]
[..]
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 became law on July 1, 1968. Along with the act of 1952, it serves as one of the parts of the United States Code until this day.

During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."[2] The act's supporters not only claimed the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.[1]

gj, teddy. you're a real statesman

[Ramo]

Because he was assuaging racists (who had tons of power in the Senate in 1965) when pushing extremely important progressive legislation, he's not a "real statesman." Ok.

[RGBVideo]

Because he was assuaging racists (who had tons of power in the Senate in 1965) when pushing extremely important progressive legislation, he's not a "real statesman." Ok.

Uhh... so he wasn't a mumbling idiot who was 180 degrees wrong when predicting the effects of legislation he supported, but he was lying for a "greater cause".

Lying for the public

PS: I see your "racist"-card and raise with a "nazi"-card. Gotcha, everyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist. What has this to do with a half-dead Senator being dead wrong about the effects of government interventions done his way for his entire career?