COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

World leaders pay tribute to Kennedy

32 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

Thank you, Senator Kennedy.

This recent turn of events is the finest thing you've ever achieved for America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kennedy family made America rich via their ideas/influence/activities. Space-aerospace industries, NASA,US steel industries and many other industrial sucess of USA, have some Kennedy family connections.

USA was very lucky to have been blessed by providence of Kennedy family and Senator Edward Kennedy .

JFK and Senator Robert also blessed America with a lot of providence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, America was not blessed with Senator Edward 'Dorian Gray' Kennedy.

Egads.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And yet still some Rightists on here -- despite the majority of the Republican party paying tribute -- take the time to try and find ways to undermine the man's career, and insult his person. Amazing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A very fortunate man indeed and in deed. Very few people could have lived his life. He made serious errors in his life, but has contributed mightily to his country. The NY Times reports on Nancy Reagan talking about how RR's warm relationship with TK and her own gratitude for his support on stem cell research.

Despite the hand-wringing of some on this site, TK was not the embodiment of evil. He was a flawed man, a very lucky man, but flawed nonetheless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

buddha: "Despite the hand-wringing of some on this site, TK was not the embodiment of evil. He was a flawed man, a very lucky man, but flawed nonetheless."

Precisely, and the functional word in that being that he 'was a man (human)'. I challenge all those on here who criticize the man to show me someone who is NOT flawed or made some mistakes, and then we can go back and contrast the mistakes made in said people's lives with their accomplishments, and again look at Kennedy in that regard, and we'll see the man did more for his nation and politics than a whole lot of, it not most, others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan

I challenge all those on here who criticize the man to show me someone who is NOT flawed or made some mistakes...

Sure, how about George W. Bush?

Just wanted to see you burst a blood vessel. : )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USNinJapan: "Just wanted to see you burst a blood vessel. : )"

Nah, my blood vessels don't burst from comments on this site... hehe. Probably make the very few Kennedy critics' blood boil by mentioning their hero, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

as far as I am concerned, he and Bush have a lot more in common than they don't. Both are/white, rich, born into powerful families. both were bad students, both had problems with the police and both got off. Both were able to get comfy spots in the military, both were more for amnesty for illegals (maybe that doesn't bother you, but it has put a black eye on us as we are now always assumed to be for illegal immigration even when we are not). Both were heavy drinkers... and least but not least both were of Irish extraction. You might be more in favor of Ted because of his stance for the poor, but you may conveniently forget the burdens that have been placed on the lower end middle class. I was appalled recently how he wanted a law changed that he in fact previously changed to benefit him and his party and the flack people who were against it took from people like you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And yet still some Rightists on here -- despite the majority of the Republican party paying tribute -- take the time to try and find ways to undermine the man's career, and insult his person. Amazing.

You are so right. Shame on us for mentioning his culpability in a young woman's death, or his enabling of the slaughter of unborn babies, or his drunkenness, or his philandering, or any of the other things that would have killed his political career if he had been a conservative Republican. Or a non-Kennedy.

Fact is, this man rode his family coattails all through his career. The otherwise good people of Massachusetts were idiotic for continuing to re-elect this man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I challenge all those on here who criticize the man to show me someone who is NOT flawed or made some mistakes

I have never left anyone to suffocate to death while submerged in the back seat of my car, especially while waiting for hours and hours to bother getting help. And then used my powerful family connections to escape legal justice for it.

Nor have I enabled the slaughter of millions of unborn babies with my legislative votes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many - maybe most - Americans had absolute contempt for the man.

Unlike 'world leaders', we don't have to fake condolences at his passing.

I guess you could say a number of leftists and the state of Massachusetts had a love affair with the guy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good girl Jennifer. Couldn't have put it better. And I'm sure there are plenty of Irish people who are ashamed that this man could call himself Catholic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No one has denied that TK had done some terrible things in his life but that is not the sum total of what he had done.

And the woe-are-we whining from some in the Right is just pathetic. As if they never heard of G. W. Bush. skipthesong a few posts back nailed the sons of privilege thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kennedy hurt his party when he challenged the incumbent Carter in 80,caused a rift in the Democratic ranks and handed the presidency to reagan for the next 8 years but I think most world leaders have gotten over that by now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

End of Camelot? JFK, RFK, EK?

About Massachusetts re-electing Ed Kennedy, now you know how many in the world feel about Americans and Bush. ;-) (One could say Americans merely elected what they felt best for their own, but the same could be said about Massachusetts.)

Anyways, just like Nixon being the only one who could go to China, Ed Kennedy was one who could bring liberals to the table and compromise. That allowed bipartisan deals. More people on both sides need to be able to do that, like who?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JenniferKim: "I have never left anyone to suffocate to death while submerged in the back seat of my car, especially while waiting for hours and hours to bother getting help. And then used my powerful family connections to escape legal justice for it.

Nor have I enabled the slaughter of millions of unborn babies with my legislative votes."

I notice you still couldn't even read or bother to take up my challenge. That's called a loss. Instead all you could do was continue to berate the man that, ahem, "World leaders (are now) pay (ing) tribute to".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smithinjapan: World leaders paid tribute to arafat, even when he lied through his teeth about never ordering or supporting suicide bombers. You really think your argument about how since world leaders are paying tribute to him really means anything? So what if world leaders are paying tribute to him is my point, so what?

Whether you wish to admit to it or not him leaving that worman to die in his car would have ended any other politicians career, he only survived that because of his family name. Although he has done great things he has also done terrible things and it is important to remember those terrible things just as much as the great things he did. Jenniferkim was pointing out that what you called flaws were in fact not some type of non consequential flaws but a very serious flaw(s) that resulted in someones death. Have your flaws smith ever lead to the death of anyone? If they did would consider them to be flaws or something that is much more serious?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JenniferKim: "You are so right. Shame on us for mentioning his culpability in a young woman's death, or his enabling of the slaughter of unborn babies, or his drunkenness, or his philandering, or any of the other things that would have killed his political career if he had been a conservative Republican. Or a non-Kennedy."

Hahaha... again, whom would you like to contrast this with? You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are incapable of being objective on the issue, and cannot mention one good thing the man's done with your gross misinterpretations of what he did wrong. All that and you still failed to respond to my challenge as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: "Although he has done great things he has also done terrible things and it is important to remember those terrible things just as much as the great things he did."

Where did I say he has not? In fact, I expanded on buddha's comments where he said that Kennedy made a lot of bad mistakes. I went on to point out that he also did a WHOLE lot of good, for both politics and otherwise.

"Jenniferkim was pointing out that what you called flaws were in fact not some type of non consequential flaws but a very serious flaw(s) that resulted in someones death."

Actually, what JenniferKim was doing was misdirecting personal anger over views such as abortion.... or did Kennedy really 'enable the slaughter of unborn babies'? I suppose Kennedy was likewise for the "Death Panels" of a universal health care package? JenniferKim is not capable of posting objectively on such topics, and the proof is in the posts. Again, as her follow-up: "Nor have I enabled the slaughter of millions of unborn babies with my legislative votes."

"Have your flaws smith ever lead to the death of anyone?"

I certainly hope not. But I can also say that, sadly, that I don't think any of my decisions have worked towards achieving greater civil rights, helped mend rifts between parties and advance laws FOR the people. What's more, even the issue of health care, when it passes, will SAVE lives, and that is far from flawed it is wonderful.

"If they did would consider them to be flaws or something that is much more serious?"

If something I did resulted in someone's death I would most certainly consider it a very grave matter, but it's you who's putting words in people's mouths and saying they consider what someone did a simple character flaw, not me.

"World leaders paid tribute to arafat, even when he lied through his teeth about never ordering or supporting suicide bombers."

A bit off topic, but I assume you meant to post that for some kind of jerk reaction, when in reality unless you're a carte-blanche Israel supporter you're not going to get much out of me on this one. No one paid the man respects if he indeed support suicide bombers, they did it because of how the man managed to tie together a group of people despite being crushed by the Israelis and their carte-blanche giving US friends, and because even he was working towards peace with Israel at times (when the latter was just going further and further in with settlements). Again, though, another topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I fail to see smith how she is doing a gross misinterpretation on the death of the woman in his car. People who are against abortions are not radicals with radicals views. People who are against abortions feel that it is the slaughter of babies/fetuses, its not a radical view.

Why should jennifer talk about the good things he has done when other people have already done that? You yourself have also shown that you are incapable of being objective on the issue either, you only mention the positives and when someone talks about the negatives you go on the attack and then tone down the persons negatives as just flaws that everyone has. I'm sorry but I don't think someone who allows a woman to die in his car is just a simple character flaw that everyone has smith.

So you want someone to answer your challenge, ok here is the answer everyone has flaws. However though jennifer was pointing out that what he did with that woman who died in his car and then escape legal justice is not a flaw in character, it is a serious injustice to that woman's family.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Where did I say he has not? In fact, I expanded on buddha's comments where he said that Kennedy made a lot of bad mistakes. I went on to point out that he also did a WHOLE lot of good, for both politics and otherwise."

The issue here is that your toning down his bad mistakes as just simply character flaws. You only pointed the good he did and when someone specifically talks about what he did bad you attack them.

"Actually, what JenniferKim was doing was misdirecting personal anger over views such as abortion.... or did Kennedy really 'enable the slaughter of unborn babies'? I suppose Kennedy was likewise for the "Death Panels" of a universal health care package? JenniferKim is not capable of posting objectively on such topics, and the proof is in the posts. Again, as her follow-up: "Nor have I enabled the slaughter of millions of unborn babies with my legislative votes."

No what jennifer was doing was pointing out the issues she has with kennedy. Her first issue was the grave injustice that was done to the woman who died in his car. That is a huge injustice. If kennedy did support/voted pro-choice then yes by those who oppose abortion that would be enabling death of unborn babies, in fact I don't see what isn't true about that statement even if your views are pro-choice or against abortion. Since the number is in the 10's of thousands of unborn children are aborted each year in the US that would be a slaughter, especially for those are against abortions.

Well since there are no death panels at all to begin with he couldn't possibly be for it because they don't exist. To be fair neither are you capable of being objective.

"I certainly hope not. But I can also say that, sadly, that I don't think any of my decisions have worked towards achieving greater civil rights, helped mend rifts between parties and advance laws FOR the people. What's more, even the issue of health care, when it passes, will SAVE lives, and that is far from flawed it is wonderful."

Oh I completely agree they are not flaws, they are wonderful. However though those actions do not excuse or pardon someone who is responsible for a persons death.

"If something I did resulted in someone's death I would most certainly consider it a very grave matter, but it's you who's putting words in people's mouths and saying they consider what someone did a simple character flaw, not me. "

I didn't put words in your mouth, I only asked a question and the question didn't include the words "simple character", I asked you if considered them to be a flaw of the person or something much more serious. Remember what you said: "I challenge all those on here who criticize the man to show me someone who is NOT flawed or made some mistakes". Since you included the word mistake you are talking about character flaws when you used the word "flawed" and "mistakes". Since your challenge is that everyone makes mistakes or is flawed in someway your are brushing them off as minor things.

"A bit off topic, but I assume you meant to post that for some kind of jerk reaction, when in reality unless you're a carte-blanche Israel supporter you're not going to get much out of me on this one. No one paid the man respects if he indeed support suicide bombers, they did it because of how the man managed to tie together a group of people despite being crushed by the Israelis and their carte-blanche giving US friends, and because even he was working towards peace with Israel at times (when the latter was just going further and further in with settlements). Again, though, another topic."

It doesn't matter if they paid their respects to him for other reasons, they stilled paid their respects to a man who ordered and financed suicide bombing operations against civilians. So do you see my point now about world leaders paying their respects, who cares? When george bush jr. dies I bet there will be some world leaders who pay their respects to him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I challenge all those on here who criticize the man to show me someone who is NOT flawed or made some mistakes"

Your question here is implying they are not serious or grave because everyone else does them or has them or has done something similar.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: "I fail to see smith how she is doing a gross misinterpretation on the death of the woman in his car."

I never said she was. In fact, look again at my post and you'll see that I said the man made some very serious and poor errors in his life. However if I like at YOUR post again I can see that you openly said she is correct in what SHE said (in total).

"People who are against abortions are not radicals with radicals views. People who are against abortions feel that it is the slaughter of babies/fetuses, its not a radical view."

Being against abortion is not a radical view, agreed. However presenting the argument that someone is FOR abortion is a 'slaughterer of millions of unborn' IS radical, any way you slice it. You defended her arguments, I pointed out the radicalism, and now you are back-tracking. That's all there is to it.

"Why should jennifer talk about the good things he has done when other people have already done that?"

I'm not saying she NEEDS to, but when someone comes on a thread dealing with people who are praising a man who accomplished a lot of good (while still pointing out the bad) and merely rant and shake fists at the negative to undermine all the good, that only points to personal insecurity, frankly, and some very, very misdirected anger. I simply point something like this out and she attacks with the radical language I pointed out above, and when I asked her to show us someone who has accomplished as much and has done nothing seriously wrong, she could only launch into the same anti-abortion radical statements.

"You yourself have also shown that you are incapable of being objective on the issue either, you only mention the positives and when someone talks about the negatives you go on the attack and then tone down the persons negatives as just flaws that everyone has."

I trust you have eyes; go back and check the posts. I'm not going to bother to paste in the parts of my own comments where I pointed out the negatives on Kennedy on this and another thread. It's your choice if you wish to ignore them and misinterpret.

"I'm sorry but I don't think someone who allows a woman to die in his car is just a simple character flaw that everyone has smith."

AGAIN you're trying to put words in my mouth! Where did I say what happened with the woman in question was a 'flaw'? I challenge you NOW to show me where I said it, and knowing that you can't I now point out that you are as bad as JenniferKim in your mistaken judgements. I'll check in again later for your proof of where I said that. My guess is you'll not be posting on here any more except in some lame, back-tracking defense of your incorrect assertions.

"So you want someone to answer your challenge, ok here is the answer everyone has flaws"

Congratulations on stating what I said! Saying exactly what I said in a rhetorical question/challenge is not exactly picking up the gauntlet, my friend. The challenge is to give me someone who has accomplished as much as he has who has not made some terrible mistakes in their lives. Clearly you can't do it either, so you keep trying to stick the 'character flaws' in my mouth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: "It doesn't matter if they paid their respects to him for other reasons, they stilled paid their respects to a man who ordered and financed suicide bombing operations against civilians."

It matters a lot, actually. It's in fact a large part of the debate when Japanese PMs visit Yasukuni to pray for Japan's war dead. They claim they are praying for peace, and for the souls of those who died in war, and also marking the dead, etc. and that that they are NOT praying for the Class A war criminals enshrined there. It's possible to pay your respects while recognizing errors/mistakes, however gross, and paying one's respects for the good a person does does not mean you are paying tribute to said errors. Obviously there are people who have done no good and they are not paid any respects short of perhaps family and a few radical sympathizers (Hitler, Saddam, and when GWB Jr. dies, him too :) ).

"When george bush jr. dies I bet there will be some world leaders who pay their respects to him."

I highly doubt it, save from as I said a few family members and some radicals.

Anyway, my original comments on the thread were calling out ultra-rightists who simply would like to bash the man because of which side his politics usually swayed, not because of what he accomplished, and not even because of the horrible things he did. They used the latter as a means of expressing their own political views, NOT because they genuinely care about what happened to the woman. Again, the comments on abortion are a prime example of that. They cannot at all see the good the man did because of their blind hatred for the views Kennedy represented on abortion, as shown by the language JenniferKim used. I never said that the good he did excused the bad, but she cannot even in her hatred admit to ANY good whatsoever. THAT is radical, and that is political.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I had better watch what I say about the man as JT will yank the comment as 'vulgar' as they did mine from yesterday; perhaps the truth hurts too much for the left leaning.

You folks - such as smithinjapan - who support TK act as if 'it's no big thing' that he essentially killed someone. Certainly we all make mistakes - but most of ours do not involve murder, which was essentially his. Not approaching this from the right, or the left or any political angle, but simply what is legal and just.

Fact: he left a woman to die. Maybe she was already dead, and maybe whether or not he would have ran to a phone (as any sober, normal person would have) might have saved her life is open to speculation. He went home and did nothing for hours. If it's not murder then it shows a selfish sense of self-preservation that is incredibly appalling, and not the trait of a 'great man' - at least not in the common definition.

According to you and his supporters, we should simply overlook this; that his acheivements outweight his shortcomings. Huh? If he had left your sister at the bottom of that lake and went home to cover his backside, would you be so forgiving and hail him as hero?

And think of it in terms those of you on the left might better understand. If Ted had been a black man of a lower economic class, he would have done years in prison for leaving the scene of an accident, and certainly would have not become one of the most powerful senators in the nation. The left is always keen to point out how the 'rich Republicans' get away with so much, yet reluctant to hold their own to similar standards. So while it's appalling that Bush got out of real service, possibly in a combat zone, becuase of daddy's influence - and it is appalling - it's okay that Teddy got away with contributing to the death of a person because of his name. I see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: In fact, I'm not going to let this drop quite yet. Let's do a little play by play to prove my point. Let us go back to the first few posts on here...

USARonin: "Thank you, Senator Kennedy. This recent turn of events is the finest thing you've ever achieved for America."

Yeah... he obviously isn't showing his ultra-right politics, just saying how unjust things were in regards to Kennedy and the woman, right?

USARonin: "No, America was not blessed with Senator Edward 'Dorian Gray' Kennedy. Egads."

Dorian? Oh yeah! From that hospital drama!! Must be a snub at his views on health care. So, now... where's all the compassion in regards to the woman you guys have been saying I call a 'character flaw'? Now, following DIRECTLY after USARonin's comments was my own, pointing to said radicals:

"And yet still some Rightists on here -- despite the majority of the Republican party paying tribute -- take the time to try and find ways to undermine the man's career, and insult his person. Amazing."

After which Buddha and I talk about his major mistakes a bit, and boom JenniferKim comes in dripping with anger and sarcasm and states that my calling out the radicals is somehow tantamount to saying it's okay to condone things I never said it was okay to condone.

"You are so right. Shame on us for mentioning his culpability in a young woman's death, or his enabling of the slaughter of unborn babies, or his drunkenness, or his philandering..."

She doesn't ask me my views on such things, doesn't point out that other major politicians, including presidents, have done some of the things or more and just as bad, she simply misdirects anger. It's not constructive to argument in the least, and is only a step up from the posts Ronin made by playing on people's sympathies for the woman while pushing their own agendas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermouth: "You folks - such as smithinjapan - who support TK act as if 'it's no big thing' that he essentially killed someone."

Jeez... what's with the inability of people to read on here??

Tigermouth: show me where I said it was 'no big thing'. Where's your reference?

"According to you and his supporters, we should simply overlook this; that his acheivements outweight his shortcomings."

Again, the judgements of people who cannot but misread what's right in front of them. I didn't say you should 'overlook' his horrible mistakes (crimes, if that makes you happy), I said that coming on here seething with hatred and pointing out ONLY the negative in response to comments that point out SOME of the positive (often while addressing the negative in case you guys can't see that either) is as wrong as being 100% positive. THAT's the point I've been trying to make for the majority of this thread.

"And think of it in terms those of you on the left might better understand"

There you go, proving the other point I've been making -- you don't care one wit about the girl, you're just playing it for the politics. Need a bit of proof that's your real point?

"So while it's appalling that Bush got out of real service, possibly in a combat zone, becuase of daddy's influence - and it is appalling - it's okay that Teddy got away with contributing to the death of a person because of his name. I see."

You're simply trying to play a game of tit-for-tat, and putting all sorts of words in the mouths of those who are trying to look at some of the good this man dead since he is freshly dead (and again, many Republicans in the ranks doing the same). But hey, when you find that quotation of me saying him leaving the girl 'is no big deal', you let me know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, though I think you will fail to admit it - I'm not trying to make a political point, at least not in the sense you imply. The article, and the media since the death of Senator Kennedy, as been gushing on about how great the man was. Whenever anyone points out 'the incident' it is immediately labeled (and yes, you did this exact thing smithinjapan)as a political attack by the right. I'm not right or left. As an example, I love FDR and think he was an incredibly great man; I loathe Jimmy Carter. I agree that GBII was, well for the sake of being tasteful, not the sharpest tool in the shed. We would likely agree on more that we would disagree on.

My point is that I'm not being political, and certainly not giving the conservative rant (although fair enough I can see how you would think this a bit with my last and the mentioning of Bush). While you might not have come out and said as much in words that its 'no big deal', your implication:

And yet still some Rightists on here -- despite the majority of the Republican party paying tribute -- take the time to try and find ways to undermine the man's career, and insult his person. Amazing.

is that you certainly admire the man. I think politics aside it is fair to 'insult his person' or at least call it into question by his former actions. Driving a car into a lake with a human being inside, leaving them for dead and going home to try and escape responsibility for it shows a serious character flaw. That he did get away with it due to family ifluence also sheds much light. You say that I don't 'care one wit about the girl' - how do you know that I don't? Thousands of murders and deaths occur every day. Do I care about the peole who died? Well, certainly in the sense of normal human compassion I wish that they had not. Will I personally greive for each one - of course not.

Your implication - or indictment - that everyone who brings up Chappaquiddick (yes, had to look up the spelling on that one!) is simply a right-wing stooge is unfair, ungrounded and sort of a cowardly way out of addressing the fact that the man so many are choosing to canonize did something that would have brought a person of lesser social standing and influence to justice and social ruin.

That he went on to have a successful political career is not redemption for a past injustice in this case - and that IS your implication, whether you will admit it or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith, it's common for people who are ruled by their emotions rather than reason to believe that death improves someone's character.

It doesn't.

(Was Kennedy runnin' away from President Obama's healthcare mess like his Democratic colleages? I don't know and I don't care. It's in the news that they're all pretty much chickenin' out on this thing if they want to be re-elected. That's what counts.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I never said she was. In fact, look again at my post and you'll see that I said the man made some very serious and poor errors in his life. However if I like at YOUR post again I can see that you openly said she is correct in what SHE said (in total)."

Are you sure? You accused her of gross misinterpretations of what he did wrong, the problem here is that you were not specific on what exactly she was grossly misinterpreting. Since you used the plural form and you didn't say what we have to assume you mean everything she said was grossly misinterpreted. If by total you mean everything she said, that is not true the only thing I agreed with her on was the death of the woman in the back of her car. My other issue was you basically implying those that are against abortion are out of touch and radicals and used her view of the slaughter of millions as an example and my argument was that view wasn't radical either and I explained why it wasn't radical either.

"Being against abortion is not a radical view, agreed. However presenting the argument that someone is FOR abortion is a 'slaughterer of millions of unborn' IS radical, any way you slice it. You defended her arguments, I pointed out the radicalism, and now you are back-tracking. That's all there is to it."

No its not a radical, She said he enabled the slaughter of millions of unborn fetuses. Well he is a senator, his vote in congress helps pass a bill, the average person on the street doesn't have a vote in congress, as a result his view or vote carries more weight then the average citizen. Well since he was a pro choice and his votes helped keep it pro choice that would help enable abortions, you then factor that between 1977-1997 we had on average 1.2 million abortions per year. It's not radical, its fact. The word enable means to make possible, he did just that by being a senator and voting pro-choice, he had more power then the average citizen to enable abortion, his views along with dozens of others in power led to millions of abortions per year. She didn't say those for abortion cause a slaughter of millions of fetuses, she said he enabled or his legislative votes helped enabled the slaughter of millions of fetuses. Look at his voting record and then look at the number of reported legal abortions in the US. So it isn't radical at all, it's fact.

I would love for you to show me where I'm backtracking on the abortion issue.

"I'm not saying she NEEDS to, but when someone comes on a thread dealing with people who are praising a man who accomplished a lot of good (while still pointing out the bad) and merely rant and shake fists at the negative to undermine all the good, that only points to personal insecurity, frankly, and some very, very misdirected anger. I simply point something like this out and she attacks with the radical language I pointed out above, and when I asked her to show us someone who has accomplished as much and has done nothing seriously wrong, she could only launch into the same anti-abortion radical statements. "

I would disagree, you accuse them of ignoring all the good they do. If the good has already been talked about in detail and the negatives haven't, I don't see a problem with someone going on and only talking about the negatives in detail. You mentioned, along with others, that he made mistakes and had flaws, the problem is that you did specify at all what they were. You just said he made mistakes and had flaws, thats it. That is not really pointing out the bad. I disagree that it points to personal insecurity, I mean what are they insecure about themselves. What is jennifer insecure about herself? How is it misdirected anger? She is angry at him for leaving that woman to die in the back of his car and not telling anyone or caring until after the police found the dead body, she is against abortion, something she feels strongly about, well he voted pro choice. So its only natural someone with those feelings would direct their anger towards someone who is enabling abortion. So tell me how her anger is misdirected again? No you didn't simply pointed out, your first words were "haha" then told her she had radical and out of touch views, you were basically name calling her here by insulting her with the words radical and out of touch. You are correct though that when you asked her to show names for people who have accomplished as much and didn't commit crimes or "serious" mistakes, she didn't. Although I can, Martin luther King jr. and mother teresa, they both accomplished just as much and didn't do anything seriously wrong.

"I trust you have eyes; go back and check the posts. I'm not going to bother to paste in the parts of my own comments where I pointed out the negatives on Kennedy on this and another thread. It's your choice if you wish to ignore them and misinterpret. "

I did check the posts and you didn't point out the negatives, pointing out the negatives is specifically saying what he did wrong. Saying he had mistakes and had flaws isn't pointing out the negatives because you didn't specifically say what, what were the mistakes, what were his flaws? The only people pointing out his negatives were jennifer and skipthesong.

"AGAIN you're trying to put words in my mouth! Where did I say what happened with the woman in question was a 'flaw'? I challenge you NOW to show me where I said it, and knowing that you can't I now point out that you are as bad as JenniferKim in your mistaken judgements. I'll check in again later for your proof of where I said that. My guess is you'll not be posting on here any more except in some lame, back-tracking defense of your incorrect assertions."

Flaws and mistakes go together. Mistakes show the flaws of a person. When pressed on the death of the woman you called it a serious mistake. But leaving someone to die that you know is going to die and not tell any authorities until after they find the body is not a mistake or even a serious mistake, it is much more serious then that.

"Congratulations on stating what I said! Saying exactly what I said in a rhetorical question/challenge is not exactly picking up the gauntlet, my friend. The challenge is to give me someone who has accomplished as much as he has who has not made some terrible mistakes in their lives. Clearly you can't do it either, so you keep trying to stick the 'character flaws' in my mouth."

Ok Martin luther king jr. and mother teresa. You clearly don't get the point Jennifer nor I were trying to make when answering your "question challenge". What he did with that woman in his car are much more serious then mistakes or flaws or "serious" mistakes as you call them, your argument was that everyone has flaws and mistakes and the good they do helps pardon them from those mistakes/flaws, they right the wrongs in the end, the good he did overrules the wrongs he has done in his life. Jennifer's, along with me, was trying to show you was that although he did indeed do those good things they do not pardon him from his flaws.

"It matters a lot, actually. It's in fact a large part of the debate when Japanese PMs visit Yasukuni to pray for Japan's war dead. They claim they are praying for peace, and for the souls of those who died in war, and also marking the dead, etc. and that that they are NOT praying for the Class A war criminals enshrined there. It's possible to pay your respects while recognizing errors/mistakes, however gross, and paying one's respects for the good a person does does not mean you are paying tribute to said errors. Obviously there are people who have done no good and they are not paid any respects short of perhaps family and a few radical sympathizers (Hitler, Saddam, and when GWB Jr. dies, him too :) )."

It can matter a lot like in the case you provided but in case of arafat it doesn't because some of the leaders tributes were more then just a simple show of respect to a certain quality he had. For example chirac never once mentioned mistakes of arafat but still gave him a french military honor guard funeral, not a single leader who attented his burial ever did mention his mistakes or flaws. Why? Because when a world leader dies you pretty much have to say something positive. When Bush. Jr. dies he is most likely going to get tributes from the world, for example from india, albania, UK, France, Germany. Ya the people may hate him but the governments will still give tributes.

"NOT because they genuinely care about what happened to the woman. Again, the comments on abortion are a prime example of that. They cannot at all see the good the man did because of their blind hatred for the views Kennedy represented on abortion, as shown by the language JenniferKim used. I never said that the good he did excused the bad, but she cannot even in her hatred admit to ANY good whatsoever. THAT is radical, and that is political."

Are you sure? How do you know jennifer doesn't really care about that injustice towards that woman? The abortion issue isn't always completely political, it is political but it is also possible to geniunely care about it. I would think jennifer bringing up the death of a woman and then also talking about abortions which deal with the deaths of fetuses would suggest to me that she does geniunely care about it. You accuse me of putting words in your mouth but you made a lot of assumptions about jennifer. Again why is it required that jennifer has to acknowledge the good the man has done? People have already pointed out the good but no one really pointed out the bad until she and skipthesong pointed them out. Why can't she soley focus on the negative? focusing only on the negative isn't radical, its something people do everyday including you, for example you are only focusing on the "negative" of jennifer.

"In fact, I'm not going to let this drop quite yet. Let's do a little play by play to prove my point. Let us go back to the first few posts on here...

USARonin: "Thank you, Senator Kennedy. This recent turn of events is the finest thing you've ever achieved for America."

Yeah... he obviously isn't showing his ultra-right politics, just saying how unjust things were in regards to Kennedy and the woman, right?

USARonin: "No, America was not blessed with Senator Edward 'Dorian Gray' Kennedy. Egads."

Dorian? Oh yeah! From that hospital drama!! Must be a snub at his views on health care. So, now... where's all the compassion in regards to the woman you guys have been saying I call a 'character flaw'? Now, following DIRECTLY after USARonin's comments was my own, pointing to said radicals:

"And yet still some Rightists on here -- despite the majority of the Republican party paying tribute -- take the time to try and find ways to undermine the man's career, and insult his person. Amazing.""

ok......

"After which Buddha and I talk about his major mistakes a bit, and boom JenniferKim comes in dripping with anger and sarcasm and states that my calling out the radicals is somehow tantamount to saying it's okay to condone things I never said it was okay to condone."

No you and buddha didn't talk about his major mistakes a bit at all, you didn't mention a specific mistake at all. You just briefly mention that he made mistakes in his life. Can you show me in your posts on this thread where you specifically talked about atleast one of his mistakes? Where did jennifer say you condoning things or that it was somehow tantamount to condoing things. She was just being sarcastic towards you because you were basically getting on anyone who even bothered to really mention his negatives in detail.

"She doesn't ask me my views on such things, doesn't point out that other major politicians, including presidents, have done some of the things or more and just as bad, she simply misdirects anger. It's not constructive to argument in the least, and is only a step up from the posts Ronin made by playing on people's sympathies for the woman while pushing their own agendas."

She doesn't have to ask you about your views on such things because that wasn't her problem with you, her problem with you was that you didn't like it when someone went into detail about negatives of ted kennedy. You accused those people of taking the time to undermine his career and him as a person and then sarcasticaly said "amazing". That is when she responded with, paraphrasing here, "ya shame on us for pointing out his flaws, mistakes, crimes".

She doesn't have to point other major politicians because this topic is exclusively ted kennedy. How is her anger misdirected? Her anger is at ted kennedy and you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too bad that the far right can not respect a family that has given so much for our nation.....The far right showed more respect when William Luther Pierce passed than they have shown Mr Kennedy.

How far has our nation fallen? Too bad that it does not respect true heroes....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites