Kennedy tribute video sickens me to no end

I stayed up late to watch that tripe. What a joke. I don't lay awake all night just to be the first to comment on your blog Tom. I get up at 2:30am every day so I can be to work at 4:00. Last night, I must say, would have better spent sleeping.
If this is (and I was sure it would be) the kind of spin the DemoRATS are going to put on this convention, along with Obama trying to connect with the working class, (of which he has NO connection to) then we might as well watch Sienfeld. But then again, who would expect the truth to be shown to the American public, when its all about the biggest bunch of liars on the PLanet? YAaawwnnn...

The Kennedys have as many or more skeletons in their closets as any other politician who has ever lived. Mary Jo wasn't the only victim of the current batch of Kennedys. There was the rape in Florida by his nephew, that got passed over, among other indiscretions. He was a drunken witness in favor of his nephew. He has done little for America, but a lot for Massachusetts, which were all socialist programs.

right again TL, but come on, what did you expect? Do you expect yuor party, to dig up
all the dirt on themselves? Will you be disappointed when they dont? Ted should have went to jail. The socialist are coming, the sky is falling! I think you can do better TL, to many things more important, than throwing rocks and (D). You'll get over it. Our liberties are being taken now, and its not, those pesky socialist liberals, now is it?

Happy,
Do you want to talk about the crimes, of your guy, and his family?

I strongly feel that Ted Kennedy has been a great senator who has championed a lot of issues near and dear to me and which have helped the nation a lot. In his case--and these are only personal feelings--I feel lucky that he's gotten out of whatever crimes he's been involved in, which is strange because it really isn't right. There's a feeling where you almost imagine that it's worth it to have someone scraping through tough situations and cheating through binds this way in order to get to real legislation, details and programs that matter to their constituency. It's kind of a scary feeling and one that I would hope supporters of Nixon/Reagan/Bush administrators at least recognize in themselves.

I frankly believe that the "socialist" programs and New Deal programs were the last gasp of good work done in the nation and wish things could go back to those kinds of nationwide cooperation. I wonder what achievements of the non-socialist side of things there are that conservatives and libertarians are so quick to defend? Or wait, is it that the socialists have been running things for so long that has wrecked your ideal economic policies?

I can never really pin down whether or not the country has already been tanked by policies of left-leaning politicians or if it's simply trying to defend itself against their infiltration. Are they always threatening to storm the gate or are they they ones that hold the keys? It seems to just be a rhetorical choice.

Nikita Kruschev stated that the U.S.A. would become socialist from within then be communist without know the how or why. Nikita was wrong - it's the lazy S.O.B. that will not do for himself that is the how and the Kennedy's of the country are the why.

It would be cool to follow the points of Lucente's column and not turn the comments section into an argument about whether or not the country is turning communist (which is hilarious and quaint).

The bottom line is that Kennedy is an extremely privilaged guy who's been let off the hook for some disasters he's been involved with. I wish he had paid more for what he's done (I can't say that I know what he's paid for them, actually...), but I can at least self-interestedly say at least he's done good work outside of it. In the end, I'm not sure if it's worth it though, since it gives any opponent such an obvious moral high ground against him.

Regarding any other arguments: really? What decade is this? Is this country still afraid of the idea of socialism? Were the days of tenant farming and migrant workers really that great? An unregulated meat industry? No minimum wages? This just seems like an absurd argument to have.

Yer catching on Matt!

Matt, a regulated meat industry is the function of the government that the Founding Fathers meant. Investigators making sure the steak I buy doesn't kill me is a fair representation of my taxes, not a socialist act.
A socialist act would be to take my tax dollars,give them to Planned Parenthood to
murder babies in my name, hardly a fair representation of my taxes don't you agree?
And here you are wondering if this country is still afraid of socialism

dan and Matt two peas in a pod. Dan you got someone with your same liberal slant. I don't have time right now to dis-credit you both, maybe later.

Scant, I can't imagine it would be hard to discredit me since I haven't presented any credentials in the first place. I look forward to reading a thoughtful, nuanced screed against whatever I said that offended you or maybe sparked a warm feeling of smug superiority in you, though, sooner or later.

I'd rather stay out of any dogmatic arguments about liberals etc.., To quickly bite on the "baby-killing" business -- newsflash, it's a republic! Of course it's a fair representation of your tax dollars. That's why there are legislators that you get to vote for and they go figure things out accordingly. I like to believe that I agree with you in that regulating industries are not socialist if "socialist" brings a negative connotation, but I think most regulatory agencies have their roots in socialist activists like Upton Sinclair.

I similarly am not very keen on lots of funding and tax breaks for faith-based organizations, but it seems to be what's on the agenda for the current government. Oh well. It may not be an exact representation of what I'd like my tax dollars going to, but it seems to be a fair representation of what the majority wants.

"baby-killing business" is that how you see it? as a freaking business, typical socialist response. Sounds like something an "ardent practicing catholic" like Nancy Pelosi would say..
I'm not trying to go off on abortion here, it just the nastiest of symptoms of
socialism, one of the others is teaching grade schoolers that homosexual behavior
is a positive lifestyle
I can make a list a mile long on the deprivation of this country that socialism
is causing.

Hmm, I think you just quoted me quoting you, so I don't even know what you're trying to prove. I didn't mean to use the word "business" in a financial enterprise sort of way, more like the rhetorical kind of dealie. But even if I did, I'm not sure what that has to do with socialism. Wouldn't I, as a socialist, hope to see something like the health care system not as a business but as a state program?

I guess on these cases we'll have to agree to disagree. I have a long list of extremely positive homosexual friends and coworkers and can only see your insistence that it's a deprived lifestyle to be rooted in fear and intolerance and probably a lack of much actual social interaction with anyone of the type. If the success of this conversation hinges on issues like whether or not it's evil to be gay or fund abortions when appropriate, then I feel that both of us might be wasting our time.

Wait, what are we talking about? I thought this thread was about Ted Kennedy and whether or not he deserves the kind of pat-on-the-back Ken Burns treatment that he got at the DNC...

Scant you couldnt discredit anyone anytime ever, just more labels and yak. Thats all you and danimal EVER have. You credibility is shot, so I sure would like to see this one. Impress us with your wisdom. Hey sarge, kinda like taking my tax loot and killing children in Iraq and in "that other war"? And isnt it Bush, a (R), funding planned parenthood, to the tune of $100 mill or so? Why do pro-lifers hate life, and children?

Sgt. Dad. I get your point. But I an sure it was lost on some others here.
Dan/dan...simply saying "your credibility is shot" does not mean a damn thing to anyone. You are no judge. In fact if a pole were to be taken on this site, etel, I think we would find that you are the least credible of all. Your comments lack thought, and originality. You are just and echo. And its fading fast. You need to bone up on the issues and get a brain cell or two out of petty cash dude.

Same ole yak from danimal, just cant help yourself heh? You keep saying the same things, cant find anything different? BTW what issues? I know give me one issue I need to bone up on, ONE! Impress me with you know all wisdom. ONE?
I guess one should vote for Obama, if they want lower taxes?

Dan/dan. Well for one thing, Planned Parenthood" and title X monies are a good place for you to start boneing up. Planned parenthood amd medicaid are both socialst programs.
And although Bush has continued the funding started back in the early 1970's, he was not part of the DemoRATS who voted it in, in congress way back then. LEts look at the last 10 years or so.
From Government Accounting Office reports:

FY 2001 - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03527r.pdf
FY 1999 and FY 2000 - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0281r.pdf
FY 1997and FY 1998 - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00147r.pdf

(1) Clinton administration:
FY 1997 - Planned Parenthood - $ 46.7 Million
FY 1998 - Planned Parenthood - $ 52.7 Million
FY 1999 - Planned Parenthood - $ 51.0 Million
FY 2000 - Planned Parenthood - $ 54.6 Million
FY 2001 - Planned Parenthood - $ 58.7 Million
(2) GW Bush administration:
FY 2002 - Planned Parenthood - est. $ 50+ Million
FY 2003 - Planned Parenthood - est. $ 50+ Million
FY 2004 - Planned Parenthood - est. $ 50+ Million
Now I don't know the EXACT amount if inflation is considered, however as any one, (even you )can see that the Clinton admin probably outspent Bush. These numbers are for the Title X funding, and that amonts to half of PP's monies. Congress asks and gets what they ask for. Seems to me that the DemoRats are in charge right now and they keep asking for more.
Now in case you have trouble adding 1+1...what all this means is that PP and the funding is a bipartisan boondoggle and both parties are at fault here for killing babies.
Let me know if I can further assist you.

dan/Matt,

I really don't have time to rebut your views. I just jump on here to check out the comments. I have some big jobs coming up that I need to watch over and I get home late. So I will let you go. I won't be able to post much in the next month, maybe a little bit on the weekends. I leave all my powers to Danimal, to debate the liberials on this site.

No thanks, this argument seems more about worrying about what policies are "liberal" and what policies are "socialist" and what policies are "conservative" than actually discussing what policies work and do people good. Have fun with that!

great socialist programs heh danimal? PROBABLY? I guess that means you dont know, or you do know and are not saying. But being all boned up on the matter, like you should do before running your mouth, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!

Title X birth/population control funding TOTALS
Clinton 2001 254 mil
Bush 2002 265 mil
Bush 2004 280 mil
Bush 2005 288 mil 60 mil plus, for PP
And just couldnt help yourself, just cant post without namecalling heh? Maybe you should hold off on the namecalling until you get something right? Can you see a little more clearly now? After you run your yak about the (D), you then admit its both of them?
Confused? Your wrong most of the time, so I will not need you to ever assist me.

I find it hard to argue with stupidity. I posted the sorces for my numbers...and proof. You just continue to be ignorant. Of course its both partyies moron. Your numbers are NOT title X as anyone can see from the web site. But whatever. You are too stupid to understand what is right in front of you. I, like Happy G. and others are done with your moronic, lame, ignorance. Did you know the sky is blue on a cloudless day, as seen from the confines of the gravity of Earth? Or are you going to say its green? Because given facts, (and not the CATO DemoRAT institue) you still seem a bit confused. Sorry you are to stupid to know when someone is trying to help you. That shows more ingorance then just being mentaly/logicaly challanged.

You posted the numbers you wanted to, danimal, not all the numbers. And you made an assumption, and was wrong. Looks like you are the ignorant one? Just cant post without namecalling heh? Maybe you will grow up someday. THEY ARE ( TITLE X birth/population control funding) TOTALS! LOOK IT UP! Title X 2005 PP funding $60 mil plus!
LOOK IT UP! It went up every year EVEN WHEN (R) CONTROLED CONGRESS, so wrong again! You are not very good at this are you?
Covnant News.com HARDLY A LIBERAL SITE! Has all the info you need to bone up on a few things, it helps! I will assume you can read, can you comprehend? I knew you needed help with letters, I guess I was also right, you need help with numbers! Try try again.
BTW the last ten years or so, would be like 07-97, now when and where I went to school, you posted numbers for 8 years, in case you are still having problems with your math. Glad I can help!
And Slick Willy did not out spend W, on these PP programs. And just because I feel sorry for you, and your learning disability, Ill throw ya bone,(Ive been boneing up)
HR 4818 signed by W, dec 04 passed in the Senate (D) 23y 23 n, (R) 42y 6n
THE HIGHEST SPENDING LEVEL for TITLE X, in the history of the program.
2007 PPFA had a total income of $1.2 bil, $336.7 mil came from taxpayers.