If it were not for his last name and his family, Ted Kennedy would have gone nowhere. The choices that he made as a person and that he continued to make would have been too grave a taint.
And then, to have held the same elected position since 1962 is way too much. I've known of some people who had been in office for just as long and even longer, but I'm hard pressed to think of any that came to think of their post as something they were entitled to. Ted Kennedy did however, and it thoroughly corrupted his character as a supposed public servant.
The only other thing that I can add is that I sincerely hope he made peace with God before passing away. I don't think that's impossible for anyone.
Wow!! The guy's been dead almost 18 hours and it took you that long to run him down!! I could see this post coming down Hwy 29. Your opinions are like Limbaugh and Franken ... so predictable as to be worthless. Show a little originality. This judging others' souls is a little past your capabilities; you might want to stick with the scifi stuff.
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware that I did judge Mr. Kennedy's soul. I did however judge that he shouldn't have been in office for as long as he did.
ReplyDeleteIf Anonymous thinks this blog is so predictable then why bother reading it. Hell, I know Chris very well and even I wasn't sure what he was going to say about TK. Chris never seems to amaze me with his wit and wisdom on a plethora of topics. So Anonymous you may want to find another blog to read or at least one you can comment on without having to hide your identity even though I have a fairly good idea of who you are.
ReplyDeleteSo Eric, you would prefer blog responses that agree with Chris. I thought Libertarians encouraged free thought?
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I haven't seen any protest about the number of terms either Jesse Helms or Ron Paul served. I'm not keen on them but people kept electing them so it never occurred to me that they should just quit. It's fine not to like Kennedy. Just say, "I don't like Ted Kennedy because he's liberal" (or whatever your gripe). Much more intellectually honest than this "make peace with God" stuff.
If Chris only wants affirming responses, he should say so and I'll take your suggestion to stop visiting. I was operating on the assumption that if he publishes something, it's OK to comment to the contrary. I could be wrong.
I doubt you know who I am. I'm pretty much a nobody. Sorry to disappoint, no conspiracy or evil affiliations. I'll see if I can work something up.
Is there any way we can work Johnny Roberston and Charles Roark into this discussion?
ReplyDeleteDobson II
Chris knows I have no doubt about Chappaquiddick 1969. But he refrained from bringing it up. I don't understand why he didn't but that's also taking the higher ground on Ted Kennedy. Me, I would have damned TK for just that alone.
ReplyDelete"Is there any way we can work Johnny Roberston and Charles Roark into this discussion?"
ReplyDeleteGreat suggestion, Dobson!! I'll see if I can work that into my next comment. Ted would have liked that.
AnounaMouse
Mr. Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI do encourage free thought but your comments had no thought to them.
Chris was only pointing out that TK felt entitled to his position. I don't feel that Ron Paul or Jesse Helms ever felt that way.
I think Cris welcomes opposing thoughts and ideas but I am sure he would rather them be posted in a non anonymous method. He does allow anonymous comments and I have used that function in the past myself but only to protect the identity of others and I have always let Chris know if I was the Anonymous poster. And if you are doing that then I have no problem with it. I just have little respect for anyone who can only make comments by hiding, concealing or faking their identity.
I still have a fairly good idea of who you are and in the grand scheme of things we are all just a nobody. But to our families and closest friends we mean the world.
Well, since none of us are friends with the above-mentioned elected officials, we don't really know if Kennedy, Paul, or Helms felt entitled or not do we? I imagine all of them felt a little entitled given the number of times people re-elected them. It's my opinion that they're all probably honorable men with differing views.
ReplyDeleteAs far as being anonymous, I'm sure you're a nice guy but have you actually READ some of the stuff on here? Some folks talk about shooting people, body bags, the next civil war, government plots, will of God, etc., etc.
I would just as soon not become the target of a Google-Frenzy and end up having to stamp out a burning bag of right-wing poo on my front porch. Sorry if that loses your respect.
The thing about the "family and closest friends"? We're good with that.
AnounaMouse
Some of the stuff I've posted has definitely been tongue-in-cheek. Others, not as much and far more serious. I trust the judgment of the readers to discern which is which (although I will confess to sometimes being more than a little nebulous but hey: I've a perverse sense of humor :-P)
ReplyDeleteLike five years ago when I wrote "People who should be shot when the revolution comes". It was NEVER meant to be a call to violence. But I darn certainly did want to call attention to what some people are doing that might be driving us toward that point sooner or later.
This blog is what it has always been: a place to share my often unique and curious thoughts and observations, to bring attention to things that I personally find interesting, and to chronicle what has become more than a few odd adventures that I convey here in case anyone else finds himself/herself in similar circumstance (like running for office). I'm out to encourage people to think a little different than what's expected of them, to try my best to do what God would have me to do...
...and to have fun along the way :-)