That can't be changed. And if the Massachusetts people want to do something about it, they can vote him out.
Waterboarding, on the other hand, is going on now and CAN be changed.
2007-11-01 14:31:45 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Perhaps it does show something of his character, but the issue is what CAN be accomplished.
The past is the past and can't be changed. However, if torture is going on now, then it needs to be stopped.
2007-11-01 14:37:13 · update #1
Really? It happened?
Were you there? Hell, were you even ALIVE then?
What Ted Kennedy may or may not have been guilty of is an issue for Massachusetts. Torture is an issue for the entire country.
2007-11-01 14:38:48 · update #2
exactly... lets let the past go and worry about the issues that should be a priority
(no I don't think we should ignore all issues of the past, but we should prioritize. things happening today are more important!)
people do change- not all but many do.
I'm sure everyone who has hurt someone in their past has to live with that every single day and they are reminded everyday.
should we ignore current problems just so we have more time to add salt to the wounds of people who did wrong in their past?
2007-11-01 15:42:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't it ironic that you are attempting to rewrite history? You say that because it happened forty years ago it nolonger matters? Then please explain why a little over a week ago, out of the blue, the dem.s voted to call the deaths of several thousand Armenians at the hands of Turks almost one hundred years ago a genocide. Why would it matter? It happened almost a hundred years ago? Could it be all in the timing? One or several thousand, it's never really mattered to the dem.s before. Why now? Kind of makes you wonder. Doesn't it? And torture? What about the million or so that were subsequently tortured and murdered because the dem.s demanded we pull out of Vietnam? I dunno. I've venture a guess that it's a race thing. But then, that doesn't hold water either. What about the murder committed by his older brothers Jack and Bobby? They knowingly sent 2510 men to their deaths in a 4 day period. Could have stopped it. Should have stopped it. But didn't. Maybe it's just a Kennedy thing. But only the lib.s would support a fat, pompous @ss like this and let him get away with...murder. Suddenly Ted cares? What? He sober up long enough to make a showing?
2007-11-01 21:49:46 · answer #2 · answered by Doc 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm a libertarian but I agree with you. I would never vote for Ted Kennedy because of his big government policies but conservative bringing up the whole Mary Joe ordeal is just stupid. It really is just a way to cut down Kennedy before anything serious happens. I don't care what he did 40 years ago, did I think he got a lenient sentence? Yes, he did but that is in the past and there are bigger issues than what he did in his drunkeness.
2007-11-01 21:53:20 · answer #3 · answered by cynical 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I was alive when that happened. I remember it well. What happened then was insite as to his character. Which sucked big time. It was born out by a few more things that he did since then.
He has absolutly no concern forthe safety or welfare of this country. Check out his voting record!
2007-11-01 23:50:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I want you to admit it. Ted Kennedy was convicted of vehicular manslaughter so change your question (and your attitude) to he DID do something 40 years ago.
Someone who did what he did should be trying to make amends with his deeds and not putting himself out there as a paragon of virtue. His supporters should have a better sense of who he is.
Funny you should mention waterboarding. It is a technique that does not kill a person. It is used on our own people for training purposes. It turns out better than being left in a car to die. We do it to save lives and find out information. Kennedy did it to save his reputation.
Since you brought it up...
2007-11-01 21:45:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Not to mention the fact Laura Bush killed HER ex-fiancee in a traffic accident SHE was found at fault for, when she was 17, but they never seem to want to call HER a murderer.... why is that?
More of that Conservative hypocracy at work? Or just the whole "Republcians First, before God or Country" attitude coming out again?
2007-11-01 21:45:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Ha!! Some on the right still whine about Robert Byrd being in the KKK, even thought he left it over 50 years ago!
2007-11-01 21:48:43 · answer #7 · answered by Liberals love America! 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
does conservatives calling that murder (from 40 years ago no less)... just show how pathetically desperate they are?
but what about the Armenian genocides? Is there some 50 year limit on murders you care about? Or do you only care about single people, and not huge groups being slaughtered?
and why did Laura Bush murder that guy she hit with the car? Why would you ever elect a man who doesn't have any better judgement than marry a murderer? (using conservative logic on "what a murderer is?")
2007-11-01 21:39:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
Mary Jo's parents care I'm sure.
http://www.ytedk.com/
2007-11-01 21:45:48 · answer #9 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The American public who pay his salary maybe.
I disagree with the first answerer. How very water-boarding, nationalist, conservative of you.
2007-11-01 21:51:04 · answer #10 · answered by Thomas M 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋