Ted Kennedy to be succeeded by a toolbag

[JohnO]

I know! It's a good thing the United States never needlessly nuked Japanese cities to intimidate the Soviet Union or killed hundres of thousands in war - and I'm even more glad our nation didn't execute a cultural (and, you know, partly actual) genocide on its indigenous populations, otherwise the good ol' U.S. of A. might incur the selectively-applied wrath of JohnO!

Oh the revisionist historians are out in force. Easy to criticize when your ass wasn't on one of those transports or in the actuarial tables estimating a million American casualties. Take your head out of where the sun don't shine fool. Oh ya and the 'indigenous populations' were well practiced in the art of genocide long before we arrived. We just happened to be better at it than them.

[Guest Speed Racer]

We just happened to be better at it than them.

 

Wow, you crossed a line I didn't think you would.

 

So you don't deny that the U.S. killed hundreds of thousands of people; how do ward off hypocrisy with that one?

[JohnO]

Obviously, of course, but sarcasm's hyperbole knows no bounds. Either way, our numbers for that alone tallied in the 100,000s, which I think is the same number JohnO despises Europe (excepting Switzerland - funny, that) for.

Your ability to avoid the obvious is stunning. They Europe, Japan, Started it and we ended it. Big difference that's obviously lost in all your self loathing.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Your ability to avoid the obvious is stunning. They Europe, Japan, Started it and we ended it. Big difference that's obviously lost in all your self loathing.

 

Started what? War itself? The United States has started many, many conflicts (good lord, I can't even believe I need to say this), resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. In fact, the United States engaged in wars (and slavery!) prior to when Europe and Japan "started it." What did we end, exactly? The year 1945? The age of reason?

 

But for the record, I assume you don't hate Switzerland, then? (Their last international conflict was in 1815, prior to when the rest of Europe and Japan invented war in the early 20th century.)

[Doug C]

What I keep thinking about in all of this, Brown taking Kennedy's Senate seat, is how, to me, it truly makes no sense. Here is Ted Kennedy's electoral history in the US Senate: 1962 55% of the vote, '64 74%, '70 62%, '76 69%, '82 60%, '88 65%, '94 58%, '00 73% and '06 69%. Though I am speculating, based on past voting behavior it is safe to say that had Ted Kennedy been running against Scott Brown, or anyone for that matter, he would have won handily. That means that many of the people that voted for Brown likely would have voted for Kennedy. A vote for Kennedy would have meant that they supported his stance on the issues. Coakley mirrored Kennedy on the issues, Brown did not. What could have possessed these people to vote for the anti-Ted when they would have voted for Ted, had he been available? Minds that work that way belong to people that I do not want to meet.

[Winston Legthigh]

Easy to criticize when your ass wasn't on one of those transports or in the actuarial tables estimating a million American casualties.

So, was your ass on one of those transports to Europe, or was your ass getting shot at by European bullets? Or do you just selectively appropriate other people's painful experiences?

[Winston Legthigh]

That means that many of the people that voted for Brown likely would have voted for Kennedy.

 

That's a HUGE stretch to make that conclusion. Perhaps many of the previous voters for Kennedy stayed home.

 

A vote for Kennedy would have meant that they supported his stance on the issues.

 

Another big stretch. MAYBE they voted for Kennedy because they supported his stance on the issues. Maybe they were clueless about his stance?

 

Voters vote for many reasons. Perhaps they voted party line, perhaps they voted for the person, not the party. Perhaps they voted for the Kennedy brand. Perhaps they voted for Kennedy because they didn't want change.

[Guest Speed Racer]

A vote for Kennedy would have meant that they supported his stance on the issues.

 

52% to 47% is not that wide of a margin. I think the only thing I disagree with you on is the part I quoted - I think it's fair to say that at least 5% of people in the population who don't put that much thought into voting. That, and I can easily see conservative-minded people voting for Kennedy because they approved of the job he was doing, and voting for Brown in this election to oppose the health care bill.

 

They Europe, Japan, Started it and we ended it. Big difference that's obviously lost in all your self loathing.

 

Christ, this word just occured to me and I'm having trouble thinking of how it ends..."viet..." Viet...clusterfuck? Viet...oops? Viet...?

[Doug C]

I understand your points and agree with them, winston and speed, but I believe that if Kennedy had been running, he would have won. My point still stands that minds that would have voted for Kennedy, but for whatever reasons voted for Brown, belong to people that I do not want to meet.

[Guest Speed Racer]

but for whatever reasons voted for Brown, belong to people that I do not want to meet.

 

If Kennedy had been running, it would not have been this month, with this legislation on the table. The voters of Massachusetts pretty much had an opportunity to decide the fate of a very divisive piece of legislation; we don't, in fact, know how MA would have voted if Kennedy had been running against Brown in this month, with this legislation on the table.

[Doug C]

If Kennedy had been running, it would not have been this month, with this legislation on the table. The voters of Massachusetts pretty much had an opportunity to decide the fate of a very divisive piece of legislation; we don't, in fact, know how MA would have voted if Kennedy had been running against Brown in this month, with this legislation on the table.

I already had thought of the fact that Ted wasn't up until 2012. I doubt that if Ted had been running, again speculation, a few weeks ago against Scott Brown, that he would have lost. There is no way of knowing but based on past history, he would have won. In my opinion, divisive legislation or not. Health care was his 'life's work', so to speak. I still do not want to meet those kind of folks, whether they be Kennedy voters going Brown or formerly consistent Orrin Hatch voters voting for a liberal Democrat in a special election to replace him. That's all I'm saying. It is another example of why I can't stand most people.

[Gobias Industries]

Voters these days aren't so much "issue" or "platform" voters anymore. They vote a lot based on charisma as a person, as a leader. Ted had a huge personality, which can mean the difference between voting Republican or Democrat. Scott Brown had more of a personality than Coakley. For middle-of-the-road, I-don't-know-enough-about-the-issues-to-care-about-who-I-vote-for sort of person, charisma means a lot more, so they probably voted for Scott Brown. Thus, he won.

[Doug C]

Gobias, you are describing people that I have no need to meet. I understand the reasons why someone would consistently vote for Ted Kennedy but then vote Scott Brown but that doesn't make them logical to me.

[Gobias Industries]

Gobias, you are describing people that I have no need to meet. I understand the reasons why someone would consistently vote for Ted Kennedy but then vote Scott Brown but that doesn't make them logical to me.

 

I wouldn't want to meet these people either, as they're pretty illogical. Just saying that's how some people vote. And I'm guessing that's why a considerable amount of people defected from "Democrat" to "Republican": for no really good reason at all. Voting SHOULD be issues-based, but sadly it hardly ever is anymore.

[Good Old Neon]

Some voters were angry because she identified Curt Schilling as a Yankees fan – those voters should probably never vote again.

[bjorn_skurj]

So, was your ass on one of those transports to Europe, or was your ass getting shot at by European bullets? Or do you just selectively appropriate other people's painful experiences?

Hey, my great-uncle got topedoed to death on one of those transports.

Oh, and Mr. O., if you are referring to the Irish Potato Famine as the event which caused thousands of your ancestors to die or flee, the British, who had the food at the time to save the starving Irish, justified their not doing so with classic laissez-faire economic theory. So there's that - capitalism KILLED YOUR ANCESTORS.

[D-Dogg]

Oh, and Mr. O., if you are referring to the Irish Potato Famine as the event which caused thousands of your ancestors to die or flee, the British, who had the food at the time to save the starving Irish, justified their not doing so with classic laissez-faire economic theory. So there's that - capitalism KILLED YOUR ANCESTORS.

 

Nope.

[bjorn_skurj]

Capitalism killed EVERYBODY'S ancestors!

[Winston Legthigh]

Europe killed some, apparently. Maybe he's talking about the band? Maybe Der Final Countdown killed Americans?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Europe killed some, apparently. Maybe he's talking about the band? Maybe Der Final Countdown killed Americans?

 

But Hasselhoff killed in Europe.

[bobbob1313]

Oh the revisionist historians are out in force. Easy to criticize when your ass wasn't on one of those transports or in the actuarial tables estimating a million American casualties. Take your head out of where the sun don't shine fool. Oh ya and the 'indigenous populations' were well practiced in the art of genocide long before we arrived. We just happened to be better at it than them.

 

This is your best bit since The Masked Hater, but I'm not falling for it for a second, El Famous.

[Tweedling]

Capitalism is not for the weak.

[JohnO]

Hey, my great-uncle got topedoed to death on one of those transports.

Oh, and Mr. O., if you are referring to the Irish Potato Famine as the event which caused thousands of your ancestors to die or flee, the British, who had the food at the time to save the starving Irish, justified their not doing so with classic laissez-faire economic theory. So there's that - capitalism KILLED YOUR ANCESTORS.

I can see history isn't your strong suit. The British were just trying to finish what Oliver Cromwell had started a couple of hundred years earlier. Long before capitalism even existed. It's called survival of the fittest, nothing more or less, and it has been going on since the beginning of time.

[JohnO]

So, was your ass on one of those transports to Europe, or was your ass getting shot at by European bullets? Or do you just selectively appropriate other people's painful experiences?

No I wasn't. I'm not appropriating anyone elses experience. Europe dragged this country into two world wars that resulted in 100's of thousands of American deaths. However many we killed to end the conflicts is of no consequence to me. Others here are free to criticize their efforts only because of their sacrifices. That's pretty typical for a bunch of pampered, selfish, ingrates who's biggest sacrifice is giving up their morning latte.

[JohnO]

This is your best bit since The Masked Hater, but I'm not falling for it for a second, El Famous.

Put the pipe down and step away from the table.

 

Crack does weird things to people.