RE: Senator Kennedy just died.

RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

servantforuse -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 11:28:29 AM)
Me either, and I like Cutty Sark. I think the company is just repaying the Kennedys for everything they did for that company. The Kennedys get a percentage of every bottle of Cutty brought into this country. Papa Joe took care of that.

mnottertail -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 11:33:33 AM)
That's right outta Rush Limbaugh. It may be of interest here to say that guiness if anyone would pay, since they bought out sheifflien or however you spell it who bought out joe kennedy. And further, why the fuck would he drink that fucking toilet swill of a Cutty Sark? The man was fuckin' Irish. Jameson and Bushmills. End of convo. Get the facts, man. Ron

Leiren -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 1:29:05 PM)
FR: Directed at no one in particular. [:)] Ted Kennedy: Bringing the Myth Down to Earth. Although this article ends by lavishing praise on him for what he DID do right in his 40+ years as a Senator, the major gist is what he did wrong.

RapierFugue -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 1:46:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leiren FR: Directed at no one in particular. [:)] Ted Kennedy: Bringing the Myth Down to Earth. Although this article ends by lavishing praise on him for what he DID do right in his 40+ years as a Senator, the major gist is what he did wrong. Dear lord; is that what passes for an article in a US magazine these days? I've seen more in-depth investigations written on bus stops.

Leiren -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 2:06:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue Dear lord; is that what passes for an article in a US magazine these days? I've seen more in-depth investigations written on bus stops. Sorry if the truth offends you. That's a link to Time magazine. A generally well respected news source. But you only read graffiti at bus stops, apparently.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 2:23:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: Leiren FR: Directed at no one in particular. [:)] Ted Kennedy: Bringing the Myth Down to Earth. Although this article ends by lavishing praise on him for what he DID do right in his 40+ years as a Senator, the major gist is what he did wrong. Dear lord; is that what passes for an article in a US magazine these days? I've seen more in-depth investigations written on bus stops. I don't even need to read it to have a good idea what you're talking about. Time magazine is crap compared to what it was 20 years ago. It's a cross between the commercialized news of CNN and the "oh, wow!" celebrity tabloidism of People magazine. They generally do a good job of getting their facts straight, but they write the stories for the kind of demographic that has an attention span of about 20 seconds, and won't read anything that doesn't sound breathlessly exciting. It sure ain't The Economist, I can tell you that.

RapierFugue -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 2:33:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: Leiren FR: Directed at no one in particular. [:)] Ted Kennedy: Bringing the Myth Down to Earth. Although this article ends by lavishing praise on him for what he DID do right in his 40+ years as a Senator, the major gist is what he did wrong. Dear lord; is that what passes for an article in a US magazine these days? I've seen more in-depth investigations written on bus stops. I don't even need to read it to have a good idea what you're talking about. Time magazine is crap compared to what it was 20 years ago. It's a cross between the commercialized news of CNN and the "oh, wow!" celebrity tabloidism of People magazine. They generally do a good job of getting their facts straight, but they write the stories for the kind of demographic that has an attention span of about 20 seconds, and won't read anything that doesn't sound breathlessly exciting. It sure ain't The Economist, I can tell you that. I can imagine. I'm British, but I spent my early years (and later part of my teen years, each year) in the states, and in those days (late 60s to mid 70s) Time was like The Word Of God (Made Easy). Not heavy, not up itself, but just simple, honest journalism. Establishment biased for sure, but it had values. That article was as shallow as a tinker's bath.

Leiren -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 2:35:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I don't even need to read it to have a good idea what you're talking about. Time magazine is crap compared to what it was 20 years ago. It's a cross between the commercialized news of CNN and the "oh, wow!" celebrity tabloidism of People magazine. They generally do a good job of getting their facts straight, but they write the stories for the kind of demographic that has an attention span of about 20 seconds, and won't read anything that doesn't sound breathlessly exciting. It sure ain't The Economist, I can tell you that. So you think Time magazine has deteriorated in the last twenty years to something equivalent of the National Enquirer? How about this: The Mysteries of Chappaquidick? That article is dated 1969...40 years ago yet you're insisting that Time magazine only became tabloid material in the last 20 years? [:'(]

Irishknight -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 2:35:45 PM)
I was never a fan of the late senator. I did like the way the article tried to show his failures and his successes amid the tragedies of his family. I think it was more to show that the man was human, not to be any great investigative piece. The writer honored him without sainting him by showing that, like each of us, the man had done both good and bad. It wasn't meant to break any earth shattering news but to say farewell.

RapierFugue -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 2:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight I was never a fan of the late senator. I did like the way the article tried to show his failures and his successes amid the tragedies of his family. I think it was more to show that the man was human, not to be any great investigative piece. The writer honored him without sainting him by showing that, like each of us, the man had done both good and bad. It wasn't meant to break any earth shattering news but to say farewell. I sort of see what you're saying, but even-handed pieces don't have to be trite - check out the obits page of The Telegraph if ever you want to see a healthy mix of respect and honesty.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 2:39:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leiren quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I don't even need to read it to have a good idea what you're talking about. Time magazine is crap compared to what it was 20 years ago. It's a cross between the commercialized news of CNN and the "oh, wow!" celebrity tabloidism of People magazine. They generally do a good job of getting their facts straight, but they write the stories for the kind of demographic that has an attention span of about 20 seconds, and won't read anything that doesn't sound breathlessly exciting. It sure ain't The Economist, I can tell you that. So you think Time magazine has deteriorated in the last twenty years to something equivalent of the National Enquirer? How about this: The Mysteries of Chappaquidick? That article is dated 1969...40 years ago yet you're insisting that Time magazine only became tabloid material in the last 20 years? [:'(] Did I say any of that?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 2:42:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue I can imagine. I'm British, but I spent my early years (and later part of my teen years, each year) in the states, and in those days (late 60s to mid 70s) Time was like The Word Of God (Made Easy). Not heavy, not up itself, but just simple, honest journalism. Establishment biased for sure, but it had values. That article was as shallow as a tinker's bath. Yeah, used to be that you could count on Time. If it was in Time, you could pretty much take it to the bank. Not anymore. They still break good stories on a fairly regular basis, but the writing is so entertainment-oriented, and the presentation so shallow, it's really not much use anymore. It's a shame what that magazine has become.

RapierFugue -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 2:50:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue I can imagine. I'm British, but I spent my early years (and later part of my teen years, each year) in the states, and in those days (late 60s to mid 70s) Time was like The Word Of God (Made Easy). Not heavy, not up itself, but just simple, honest journalism. Establishment biased for sure, but it had values. That article was as shallow as a tinker's bath. Yeah, used to be that you could count on Time. If it was in Time, you could pretty much take it to the bank. Not anymore. They still break good stories on a fairly regular basis, but the writing is so entertainment-oriented, and the presentation so shallow, it's really not much use anymore. It's a shame what that magazine has become. Wow. I had no idea, not having read it for a long time. That's a genuine shame. To me, it was one of those bastions of American life one could hold up as something solid, dependable and worthwhile, like Walter Cronkite. I had a ludicrously advanced reading ability as a young kid (nothing to do with intelligence as such, I just loved reading and learning), so I used to read Time, aged 6 or 7, among many other periodicals. My parents would buy them by the armful, mostly coz I guess it stopped me asking questions the whole time, of absolutely everything. They would then question me about what articles I'd read, in terms of a) what I'd learned and b) how much I believed it. From this came my tendency to not be handed my world-view on a plate, so I've got a lot to thank Time and other publications for.

Leiren -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 3:20:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Time magazine is crap compared to what it was 20 years ago. Did I say any of that? Yes you did. Read the quote above that YOU made. Then tell me whether you bothered to read the eight page article Time magazine printed 40 years ago. I don't think you did because it doesn't suit your purpose.

Leiren -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 3:27:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue I had no idea, not having read it for a long time. That's a genuine shame. To me, it was one of those bastions of American life one could hold up as something solid, dependable and worthwhile, like Walter Cronkite. I had a ludicrously advanced reading ability as a young kid (nothing to do with intelligence as such, I just loved reading and learning), so I used to read Time, aged 6 or 7, among many other periodicals. My parents would buy them by the armful, mostly coz I guess it stopped me asking questions the whole time, of absolutely everything. They would then question me about what articles I'd read, in terms of a) what I'd learned and b) how much I believed it. From this came my tendency to not be handed my world-view on a plate, so I've got a lot to thank Time and other publications for. So...you're admitting now that Time magazine and the 40 year old article I linked to in a previous post negates your claim that Time magazine is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 3:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leiren quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Time magazine is crap compared to what it was 20 years ago. Did I say any of that? Yes you did. Read the quote above that YOU made. Then tell me whether you bothered to read the eight page article Time magazine printed 40 years ago. I don't think you did because it doesn't suit your purpose. First of all, for the purposes of this discussion, i don't need to read the article because it has nothing to do with my point. My point is that the magazine as a whole has deteriorated badly over the years. Even if this article were worthy of a Pulitzer, it wouldn't refute that argument, because it's only one article. If I say a baseball player is a lousy hitter because he has a lifetime batting average of .150, and he goes out and hits a home run, that doesn't mean he's suddenly become a good hitter. He still sucks because he's got a lifetime average of .150. He's just a lousy hitter who happened to hit a home run. Second, it would also be pointless for the reason that you and I couldn't discuss it afterwards. You've made it very clear that you're completely incapable of reading even a 50-word post and understanding what it says, so how could I give any credence to your analysis of an entire news article? And third, I don't understand why you apparently feel the need to pick so many completely unnecessary fights with total strangers. But since you seem to have more than enough ongoing battles underway with other posters at the moment, I'll do the courteous thing and try to lighten your load. I sincerely apologize for not liking the same magazines you like, and I hope you'll forgive me for any emotional trauma this may have caused you. There. Now you don't need to fight with me anymore. You can just focus on your other adventures, and we can go our separate ways.

RapierFugue -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 4:02:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda First of all, for the purposes of this discussion, i don't need to read the article because it has nothing to do with my point. My point is that the magazine as a whole has deteriorated badly over the years. Even if this article were worthy of a Pulitzer, it wouldn't refute that argument, because it's only one article. If I say a baseball player is a lousy hitter because he has a lifetime batting average of .150, and he goes out and hits a home run, that doesn't mean he's suddenly become a good hitter. He still sucks because he's got a lifetime average of .150. He's just a lousy hitter who happened to hit a home run. Out of interest, is there a publication that now fills the slot Time used to? Is there something I could buy, or read online, that distils "American values" and good journalism the way Time used to? I don't mind a certain establishment bias - I was always able to tune that out - what I'm talking about is the solid journo ethic. Or has everything succumbed to CNN and its minions? On the newspaper front, in the UK I still read, from time to time, The Telegraph: a.k.a. "The Torygraph" - it's hugely biased towards the right but, up until recently, still managed to keep the comment separate from the reporting. The Independent was doing ok as the voice of liberal/centrist reason, but they started to disappear up their own back passages about 18 months ago. I still find it very readable though.

Blaakmaan -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 5:29:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue For bridge designers, he was good evidence that Armco is worth its weight in gold. quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse I understand that the Kennedy trust will not be paying for the funeral. The tab will be picked up by Cutty Sark... I'm very pleased to see that distastefully ignorant remarks aren't just the province of Michael Jackson haters. Apparently, Kennedy haters can be just as distastefully ignorant. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not a Kennedy hater. The housing market has a bubble (or had one). I don't. OK, take off the "Kennedy Hater" label, if it's inaccurate. Still somewhat distasteful, wouldn't you say?

Politesub53 -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 5:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan The housing market has a bubble (or had one). I don't. OK, take off the "Kennedy Hater" label, if it's inaccurate. Still somewhat distasteful, wouldn't you say? Maybe, but not as distasteful as leaving someone dead or injured in the water and not going for help. Whatever good Senator Kennedy did, it shouldnt absolve him from this issue.

RapierFugue -> RE: Senator Kennedy just died. (8/28/2009 5:43:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not a Kennedy hater. The housing market has a bubble (or had one). I don't. Your reaction would indicate otherwise. quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan OK, take off the "Kennedy Hater" label, if it's inaccurate. Still somewhat distasteful, wouldn't you say? You clearly think so, else you wouldn’t frame the question, I merely feel that all the false weeping, "mourning" and posturing around here is a bit much. People live, they die, it happens. You can meet those events with po-faced charmlessness, or you can learn to see the humour in almost every situation. The Irish see it much the same way – why else would they hold a joyous pissup in conjunction with a funeral? I'd like to think Ted could appreciate the jokes. If he couldn't, he was too up himself to be concerned about. In addition, in terms of "tasteless", I would merely ask you to consider Ted's life, then blush, then feel a bit subdued as a result. I've never gone out to fuck anything in a skirt and a pulse, while hammered to the 9 winds. I've never left a scared young girl to die in a slowly sinking car. As I say, the "moral" outrage in this thread is a bit much. He lived, he was average (a mixture of good and bad, as are we all), he died. End of. PS: You're welcome to rip it out of me when I die. I won't care. I'll be dead. And, like the Kennedy family, mine don't read CM. Although TBH, if you printed out a few posts and sent them in, they'd most likely say "hey! another fool he wound up!" and keep on partying in my memory.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875