Ted Kennedy has passed

[Dutch]

So wait a second, did this thread just turn into Democrats are better Republicans than Republicans and Republicans are better Democrats than Democrats?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So wait a second, did this thread just turn into Democrats are better Republicans than Republicans and Republicans are better Democrats than Democrats?

I think so.

I'm waiting to hear the Democrats claim that THEY are the true party of religious values.

[Flasch186]

islam

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I think so.

I'm waiting to hear the Democrats claim that THEY are the true party of religious values.

I would say this with a straight face.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Sure, if religious values are about more than gay marriage and abortion.

Your view of anyone different than yourself is quite narrow.

This "Democrat party" sounds awesome though. It has the same name of a party in the U.S.

[Dutch]

Wasn't Ted Kennedy a devote Roman Catholic? AKA - REPUBLICAN.

Holy shit, I think we are on to something here.

[molson]

It's totally confusing.

Let's just say:

-Awesomecrats
-Evilcans

There's the default, or "correct" way of thinking (Awesomecrats), and everyone who dissents from that we'll call an "evilcan" (and we'll highlight the worst characterstics of that group, and assume everyone but us has those characteristics).

And if an awesomecrat makes a mistake or is somehow flawed - we'll just think of an evilcan who did something similar and make it all about them. Flaws of the awesomecrats must not be acknowledged!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Let's just say:
-Awesomecrats
-Evilcans ...

In a rather confusing sort of way that explanation almost kinda worked reasonably well.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

It's totally confusing.

Let's just say:

-Awesomecrats
-Evilcans

There's the default, or "correct" way of thinking (Awesomecrats), and everyone who dissents from that we'll call an "evilcan" (and we'll highlight the worst characterstics of that group, and assume everyone but us has those characteristics).

And if an awesomecrat makes a mistake or is somehow flawed - we'll just think of an evilcan who did something similar and make it all about them. Flaws of the awesomecrats must not be acknowledged!

Aren't you doing the same exact thing right now?

[Big Fo]

As long as you profess neutrality it's okay to troll one side exclusively.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Funny to see Democrats bragging about other Democrats being fiscally conservative. Isn't that something you DON'T want to be?

that's just incorrect.

shit, i'm a liberal from Massachusetts and i'd campaign for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

being a lock-step partisan when it comes to politics and policies is just intellectually lazy.

[JPhillips]

I have no interest in being a fiscal conservative as it is currently defined, but I'm very much in favor of fiscal responsibility. IMO that was the essence of Clinton's economic policies.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess. It's a person who carries liberal social views but takes a conservative stance towards spending. Otherwise known as a very confused person if you ask the far left or far right.

You're an idiot. A Blue Dog Democrat is if anything, more likely to be socially conservative and fiscally "liberal" in some sense.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i'm a liberal from Massachusetts and i'd campaign for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

I feel like I've just walked into the beginning of an AA meeting.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

You're an idiot. A Blue Dog Democrat is if anything, more likely to be socially conservative and fiscally "liberal" in some sense.

You'll have to talk to Dennis Moore and several of the other BDD's then, because they claim the exact opposite and claim to be one. That's their whole beef about not fully supporting the bill right now. They want the universal health care, but they want it done in a more fiscally responsible way.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Sure, if religious values are about more than gay marriage and abortion.

Take health care and welfare, two issues that Democrats push for and are prominently discussed in the Bible. Heck, the gays get little space and abortion isn't mentioned at all. You could make a case that the Democrats are the ones adhering to what the Bible says.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

It's totally confusing.

Let's just say:

-Awesomecrats
-Evilcans

There's the default, or "correct" way of thinking (Awesomecrats), and everyone who dissents from that we'll call an "evilcan" (and we'll highlight the worst characterstics of that group, and assume everyone but us has those characteristics).

And if an awesomecrat makes a mistake or is somehow flawed - we'll just think of an evilcan who did something similar and make it all about them. Flaws of the awesomecrats must not be acknowledged!

yup, we love the continuation of rendition.

[duckman]

SMUG ALERT!

[DaddyTorgo]

just heard on tv that the line at the Kennedy library right now is a 3.5 hour wait. makes me glad i didn't go down there...maybe i will take tomorrow afternoon off to do it...

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

just heard on tv that the line at the Kennedy library right now is a 3.5 hour wait. makes me glad i didn't go down there...maybe i will take tomorrow afternoon off to do it...

I've never had any interest in standing in long lines to see dead people I've never met. I thought the people who stood through the awful thunderstorm to see Reagan were crazy too.

[Subby]

It's kind of hard to ignore MBBF when you people keep quoting him.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've never had any interest in standing in long lines to see dead people I've never met. I thought the people who stood through the awful thunderstorm to see Reagan were crazy too.

me neither typically...but idk...in this case...it just feels right in some sense?

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Subby

It's kind of hard to ignore MBBF when you people keep quoting him.

Quoted for truth.

And for those that have Subby on ignore.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Quoted for truth.

And for those that have Subby on ignore.

I'm always amazed when a grown adult lacks the self control to ignore a post they don't agree with and had to rely on a message board function to achieve that purpose. Seriously?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm always amazed when a grown adult lacks the self control to ignore a post they don't agree with and had to rely on a message board function to achieve that purpose. Seriously?

I don't agree with you much, but I agree with that. The "ignore" function is for sissies (or sissys).

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by molson

I think so.

I'm waiting to hear the Democrats claim that THEY are the true party of religious values.

Actually, the dems are MUCH more about looking after your fellow man and loving thy neighbor than republicans are. Jesus's teaching is more in line with the democrats views than republicans, IMO.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm always amazed when a grown adult lacks the self control to ignore a post they don't agree with and had to rely on a message board function to achieve that purpose. Seriously?

I feel the same way about search functions. A real man would just read every post in every thread until he found what he wanted.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I feel the same way about search functions. A real man would just read every post in every thread until he found what he wanted.

I hear Ted Kennedy did it that way.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

that's just incorrect.

shit, i'm a liberal from Massachusetts and i'd campaign for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

being a lock-step partisan when it comes to politics and policies is just intellectually lazy.

Well, you do realize that the balanced budget amendment is absolutely batshit nuts, right?

[molson]

Originally Posted by lungs

Aren't you doing the same exact thing right now?

Well I'm not perfect, which is why I can't be an awesomecrat.

But sure, I make that mistake sometimes. There though, I was just playfully ranting about an viewpoint that drives me crazy.

Sometimes generalizations are fun and can express things in a clear way, as long as one can understand that they're making an obnoxious generalization. Like this.

Republicans are like the drunk uncle that says offensive things but doesn't know any better. Deep down though, he means well. He was just raised in a different way. Democrats are like the kid that goes to college for a semester and thinks he knows how the world works, and believes that everyone is stupid/heartless if they have a different idea then them.

The thing that sets me off the most though, is when Democrats try to frame themselves as the party that cares about people, just because their solutions are more direct. One can HONESTLY, GENUINELY believe that America, including poor people, will all be better off if we followed one economic approach rather than another. It's not rich v. poor, or corporations v. people, and its obnoxiously disingenuous to frame it that way. Most of us want the same things. A lot of Republicans think this way too. Jon McCain tried to shut 'em up in that youtube video someone posted. Don't tell me you're some fucking great person just because you're a Democrat. You're not a better person than any non-Democrat just because you have a particular economic theory of the world.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

As long as you profess neutrality it's okay to troll one side exclusively.

You must have missed where I said Bill Clinton was the best president in decades.

But you're kind of making my point.

[molson]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Actually, the dems are MUCH more about looking after your fellow man and loving thy neighbor than republicans are. Jesus's teaching is more in line with the democrats views than republicans, IMO.

I think Jesus would be about charity rather than government.

Giving something to someone else is a wonderful thing. Taking something from someone and giving it to another person might still be pretty good, but it's not as good as real charity. You're not some kind of super-Christian saint if you want to tax corporations and rich people more. That's not some kind of great deed. You're not "giving" anything just by mouthing off that rich people should give up their money. The Democrats have somehow framed themselves as the "party of compassion", just by telling other people what they have to do with their money. That's not compassion. Compassion is buying a homeless person food or donating money to a charity. I wonder how many people in favor of universal healthcare have donated money to a hospital, or to a healthcare charity. I'm sure some if not many have, but those that haven't are hypocrites. Well, maybe not hypocrites, but it's not a compassionate act, it doesn't show you really give a shit about poor people if you're just saying what others should do to contribute, when they're no monetary loss whatsoever to yourself.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I think Jesus would be about charity rather than government.

Giving something to someone else is a wonderful thing. Taking something from someone and giving it to another person might still be pretty good, but it's not as good as real charity.

the problem is that charity too often comes with ideological strings attached.

[lungs]

I guess to get back on the track of Ted Kennedy, and please forgive me if none of this makes sense as I'm posting this after my last softball game of the season therefore I've got plenty of Schlitz's going through my system...

What I respected about Ted Kennedy is that he could be one of the most boisterous Senators out there when it came to being on the floor of the Senate or in committee or whatever. He would rail on his opponents like nobody knows. But when the day was over he had no problem approaching his opponents and sharing a good time or a drink or two. Business was business but at the end of the day he could be a friend to his fiercest of opponents.

We need more of that in politics, but I'm certainly not holding my breath. At least we've moved beyond having duels a la Hamilton and Burr but the personal animosity on both sides is still sickening. We're all people with different motivations but at the end of the day why is there so much hate?

I guess being a liberal with tons of conservative friends, I've learned to move beyond that in the spirit on Teddy. I can argue politics with the closest of my friends but in the end we can still share a few beers together without wringing each other's neck. Hell, even of people on here, I would willingly sit down with JIMGA and burn down a whole carton of smokes even though we couldn't be further off in terms of political views.

If we can learn one thing through Ted Kennedy, through all his faults, is that politics shouldn't necessarily transcend personal relationships. But I'm just on a drunken rant and hold no illusions that any such thing will ever happen.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by lungs

He would rail on his opponents like nobody knows. But when the day was over he had no problem approaching his opponents and sharing a good time or a drink or two. Business was business but at the end of the day he could be a friend to his fiercest of opponents.

We need more of that in politics, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

We need more fakes? I guess I just don't get the whole "I believe in this so much that it's in my core values, but what the fuck, let's go to TGI Fridays for beers!!"-thing when it comes to people who make laws that govern my life.Although, I guess if a legislature was not my friend it would be different.

Gah!! I didn't want to be in this thing!!!!! Post-padding!!!! Wooh!!!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I think Jesus would be about charity rather than government.

Giving something to someone else is a wonderful thing. Taking something from someone and giving it to another person might still be pretty good, but it's not as good as real charity. You're not some kind of super-Christian saint if you want to tax corporations and rich people more. That's not some kind of great deed. You're not "giving" anything just by mouthing off that rich people should give up their money. The Democrats have somehow framed themselves as the "party of compassion", just by telling other people what they have to do with their money. That's not compassion. Compassion is buying a homeless person food or donating money to a charity. I wonder how many people in favor of universal healthcare have donated money to a hospital, or to a healthcare charity. I'm sure some if not many have, but those that haven't are hypocrites. Well, maybe not hypocrites, but it's not a compassionate act, it doesn't show you really give a shit about poor people if you're just saying what others should do to contribute, when they're no monetary loss whatsoever to yourself.

Interesting scenario though. Christianity is about charity and you shouldn't force others to do what you feel is right. I would buy that except for the part about many Christians wanting to ban porn stores, gambling, etc.

Just seems a tad hypocritical to say that we shouldn't force people to part with their money because of some people's beliefs. But it's OK to tell people to part with their pleasures if it doesn't jive with some people's beliefs.

Seems tough to have it both ways there.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

His personal sin decades ago surely shouldn't be forgotten. I do think in the minds of many he has made efforts to atone for it with his work in Congress. I guess I find the constant bashing of him for it a bit hypocritical when Bush and Cheney both had DUIs on their record. Laura Bush actually killed someone out of negligience. I would hope if they died, we wouldn't be discussing their DUIs and other transgressions from decades ago and instead discussing their overall impact on our country.

DUI's are bad, but it wasn't the DUI that made the incident reprehensible and unforgivable - it was the actions afterwards.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

the problem is that charity too often comes with ideological strings attached.

The problem with government is that it's a big waste of everybody's hard earned money.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

See, the problem is that you see the government as some scary Otherness to combat against. _We_ are the government and the government is _us._

So, yes, I think it is compassionate we've decided as a nation that all seniors will have a basic standard of living. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation have decided that regardless of how screwed a kid's living situation is, he can get at least two free meals at school. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation have decided through our representatives that if a family is poor or working class, their children can get free or cheap healthcare. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation believe that not only should anybody should go to public school, but that we'll send in the National Guard to enforce that idea.

And all of that above? You don't got to hear a sermon. You don't gotta' be lucky to live somewhere where there's a lot of charity. You don't gotta' go begging for all that to some rich guy taking pity on you. It's you _right_ to have all that if you qualify, simply as an American. That, I believe, is true compassion.

well said

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

We need more fakes? I guess I just don't get the whole "I believe in this so much that it's in my core values, but what the fuck, let's go to TGI Fridays for beers!!"-thing when it comes to people who make laws that govern my life.Although, I guess if a legislature was not my friend it would be different.

Gah!! I didn't want to be in this thing!!!!! Post-padding!!!! Wooh!!!

Why do we have to hate each other just because we have different beliefs about the role of government?

[JPhillips]

Republicans are like the drunk uncle that says offensive things but doesn't know any better. Deep down though, he means well. He was just raised in a different way. Democrats are like the kid that goes to college for a semester and thinks he knows how the world works, and believes that everyone is stupid/heartless if they have a different idea then them.

But remember, generalizations are bad.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

We need more fakes? I guess I just don't get the whole "I believe in this so much that it's in my core values, but what the fuck, let's go to TGI Fridays for beers!!"-thing when it comes to people who make laws that govern my life.Although, I guess if a legislature was not my friend it would be different.

Gah!! I didn't want to be in this thing!!!!! Post-padding!!!! Wooh!!!

that's sad

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

We need more fakes? I guess I just don't get the whole "I believe in this so much that it's in my core values, but what the fuck, let's go to TGI Fridays for beers!!"-thing when it comes to people who make laws that govern my life.Although, I guess if a legislature was not my friend it would be different.

Gah!! I didn't want to be in this thing!!!!! Post-padding!!!! Wooh!!!

Why on earth would they have to be fake? I guess some of us can set aside politics at the end of the day.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why do we have to hate each other just because we have different beliefs about the role of government?

Because it isn't even close to being entirely about the role of government, that's misplaced almost to the point of being two entirely different things.

The hatred -- which I have by the truckload (or fleet of truck loads) so I feel qualified to speak with at least some measure of authority about -- typically stems from far more specific things. Not whether X is a "role of government" but much more so "you fucking bastards, how dare you do X,Y, and/or Z".

At some philosophical level a number of those decisions could be rooted in beliefs about the appropriate general roles of government but the hatred tends to be much more specific. It just starts to seem general when there are so many occurrences to choose from. The gap I'm trying to describe is something like the difference between a measured reaction and a visceral reaction (although I'm not at all sure I'm finding the right words to explain what I'm trying to say here).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lungs

Why on earth would they have to be fake? I guess some of us can set aside politics at the end of the day.

Most of the objections in this thread have had little to do with Kennedy's political beliefs. It was mainly focused on his personal issues. The whole 'negligence leading to someone's death' thing along with his drinking problems was the main issue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

We need more fakes? I guess I just don't get the whole "I believe in this so much that it's in my core values, but what the fuck, let's go to TGI Fridays for beers!!"-thing when it comes to people who make laws that govern my life.

If I'm reading you correctly, I can relate (which I'm pretty sure makes you feel even worse about saying it )

I don't see devoted members of MADD closing down bars with a bunch of drunks. I don't see too many Klansmen hanging out with two black guys to watch football on Sundays. I haven't run into too many devout vegans who had a third-generation cattle farmer as the best man at their wedding & the godparent to their children.

This notion that people who are diametrically opposed in their philosophical (or even practical) points of view suddenly abandon their beliefs and associate regularly with people who are the antithesis of themselves comes from has never made the slightest bit of sense to me. The quote in my signature is about the closest thing I've ever found that would explain it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This notion that people who are diametrically opposed in their philosophical (or even practical) points of view suddenly abandon their beliefs and associate regularly with people who are the antithesis of themselves comes from has never made the slightest bit of sense to me. The quote in my signature is about the closest thing I've ever found that would explain it.

so much i could say about this, but not sure this is really the right thread for it

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But remember, generalizations are bad.

I actually qualified it as such. I even called it obnoxious. You're quite tricky (and very dishonest) just to pull out that line though. I actually knew you would though.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

See, the problem is that you see the government as some scary Otherness to combat against. _We_ are the government and the government is _us._

So, yes, I think it is compassionate we've decided as a nation that all seniors will have a basic standard of living. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation have decided that regardless of how screwed a kid's living situation is, he can get at least two free meals at school. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation have decided through our representatives that if a family is poor or working class, their children can get free or cheap healthcare. I think it's compassionate that we as a nation believe that not only should anybody should go to public school, but that we'll send in the National Guard to enforce that idea.

And all of that above? You don't got to hear a sermon. You don't gotta' be lucky to live somewhere where there's a lot of charity. You don't gotta' go begging for all that to some rich guy taking pity on you. It's you _right_ to have all that if you qualify, simply as an American. That, I believe, is true compassion.

That's the shtick that Democrats often use to win elections, but that's all it is, shtick.

It is "compassionate" to express liberal ideas on a message board? Or to vote for Democrat? Why? You're just stating things in conclusions.

Why is it compassionate that "we as a nation" do something? How is it actually compassionate on a individual level? How is it compassionate for a person to have the opinion that an entity (but not themselves personally), should help someone else out? Would it be compassionate for me to say that the Red Cross should help people? Why? Wouldn't compassion be if I myself helped somebody?

Liberal philosophies allow people to believe they're good people without getting off their ass and actually helping anyone.

I'm not saying that there aren't many compassionate Democrats. Ted Kennedy was one. But the ideas themselves - not compassionate, they're just opinions about what others should do. I think everyone should give 10% of their money to charity. Does that make me compassionate? Can I feel like I'm some kind of moral superstar, or should I actually have to give the money myself?

Democrats are not the more "moral" party because they think other people, (not themselves), should help the less fortunate.

If two people have the exact same goal, and one person thinks its best accomplished one way, and the other thinks its best accomplished another way, it's a real douchebag move for one of the people to claim that since his way is "correct", he must be the only one that cares about the goal at all. And that's the mantra of much of the Democratic party. "Our way is correct, and if you think another way might be better - you must hate poor people".

Even rich liberals who want higher taxes - that's a little bit of compassion since they'll actually give something up financially. But on that individual level, their money would absolutely do more good if was given directly to the poor and charitable organizations. At the hart of that opinion - it's still about what other people should do.

And I'm not invalidating liberal economic ideas. Certainly, people much smarter than me subscribe to them, and they could very well be the "correct" ideas in certain situations. But that's all it is - an opinion about how the world work work best. It's not more moral or compassionate than anyone else's opinion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

That's the shtick that Democrats often use to win elections, but that's all it is, shtick.

It is "compassionate" to express liberal ideas on a message board? Or to vote for Democrat? Why? You're just stating things in conclusions.

Why is it compassionate that "we as a nation" do something? How is it actually compassionate on a individual level? How is it compassionate for a person to have the opinion that an entity (but not themselves personally), should help someone else out? Would it be compassionate for me to say that the Red Cross should help people? Why? Wouldn't compassion be if I myself helped somebody?

Liberal philosophies allow people to believe they're good people without getting off their ass and actually helping anyone.

I'm not saying that there aren't many compassionate Democrats. Ted Kennedy was one. But the ideas themselves - not compassionate, they're just opinions about what others should do. I think everyone should give 10% of their money to charity. Does that make me compassionate? Can I feel like I'm some kind of moral superstar, or should I actually have to give the money myself?

Democrats are not the more "moral" party because they think other people, (not themselves), should help the less fortunate.

If two people have the exact same goal, and one person thinks its best accomplished one way, and the other thinks its best accomplished another way, it's a real douchebag move for one of the people to claim that since his way is "correct", he must be the only one that cares about the goal at all. And that's the mantra of much of the Democratic party. "Our way is correct, and if you think another way might be better - you must hate poor people".

Even rich liberals who want higher taxes - that's a little bit of compassion since they'll actually give something up financially. But on that individual level, their money would absolutely do more good if was given directly to the poor and charitable organizations. At the hart of that opinion - it's still about what other people should do.

And I'm not invalidating liberal economic ideas. Certainly, people much smarter than me subscribe to them, and they could very well be the "correct" ideas in certain situations. But that's all it is - an opinion about how the world work work best. It's not more moral or compassionate than anyone else's opinion.

I don't think Steve was trying to say that one way was more "compassionate" than the other. Just that they're two different ways of reaching the end goal.

And as far as thinking everyone should donate 10% of their income to charity as a model, and having private charities direct compassionate giving - you then run into problems like "well there isn't a private charity within 200 miles that is willing/able to assume a compassionate role, but there are people in Town X who need help." So should those people just be left without help simply because it's not geographically available? Or because the local charity already did all of their giving for the year to another organization?

The rationale behind government-directed social programs or aid or whatever you want to call it, is that the private sector, the free market, is not always in every case going to be the most efficient allocator of resources in these instances. Maybe somebody lives too far from a charitable organization. Or maybe somebody has a kid with a chronic illness and the only charity available to pay medical bills is Christian Scientist and they refuse to on religious grounds. Or maybe the private charity decides to give all their money to one cause, thus leaving others out to dry. As an organization whose reach and budget is much larger, the government is capable of seeing the "big picture" much better than local charities (although i concur that they do have an important role to play).