[preachadaq]

On Jan. 17, NewsMax reported a story that most of the liberal media ignored: Kennedy had admitted his own membership in the Owl Club, which does not allow women, and was banned from the Harvard campus. He had paid dues to the all-male club ever since his student days.

Faced with evidence of his hypocrisy, Kennedy said, "I am going to get out of it as fast as I can."

Always has an answer when he gets caught. If he's the only member who's worth a damn, the standard has been set pretty damn low.

Wait, I don't understand what the problem would be with belonging to a glorified fraternity. Huh?

[pMJWFoAWD]

Actually my last post was another shot at an earlier post.

However, the people who really hate him are conservative radio talkshow hosts (or at least their radio personas do). It's become sort of a litmus test for outing the zombies who listen to those shows based on their feelings about Ted Kennedy.

And for KUCI.
Kennedy's effort to impugn Judge Alito's integrity was reminiscent of Republican Senator Joe McCarthy, who tarred his victims with the brush of guilt by association. Kennedy's charge against Alito was based on the fact that 34 years ago, while a reserve officer in the Army, he joined a Princeton alumni group that opposed the banning of ROTC programs from the university's campus. Some members of the group (other than Alito) wanted Princeton to continue its traditional policy of denying admission to women. So while he was trying to inpugn ALito for belonging to an organization that denied admission to women while belonging to a club that denied admission to women is KINDA HYPICRITICAL.

Always highly principled.

[Abnorttrano]

I'm in a fraternity, and I would oppose CMU becoming male-only as much as my fraternity admitting women.

[CO2490pL]

And the owl club is not a fraternatiy, it's a club. It's not a group of guys living together so you can't use the excuse of baring women because you don't have the facitilites to seperate them.

[LillyPlay]

Politically there is no difference.
How many politicians belong to private country clubs that discriminate on race or sex? I think you'll find that almost all don't because they don't want the taint that goes along with it.

So? That 'taint' exists entirely because of people like you being stupid about it, because someone smarter spun it as a bad thing. It's not hypocritical.

[CevepBiageCefm]

Sigh, you just don't get it.
It makes sense for a sorority to bar men from a building where naked women can be found.
Same for a fraternity.
The only reason it's acceptable is because it's people living together.

YOU WILL note that they're not allowed to bar blacks. Since the naked arguement doesn't stand there.

If you think it's acceptable to belong to a country club that bars blacks from joining then you're a ignorant bigot.

If you think it's ok to exclude women but not blacks, that's not any better in my book.

[XqrkN4a0]

...in being wrong. Kennedy's been around for such a long time, he's lived to see the earliest bills he has pushed (Senator since '62) affect his country in exactly the same ways as he back then separately predicted they'd not affect it. When he has been supporting bills with good effects for USA, he has offered voting for them exactly the rationale which has not turned out to come true. Actually, in a global sense, he's a wonderful example of a national legislator who's been wrong in as many occasions as it has been practically possible to be wrong.

How wonderfully vague.

[AbraxiaAsus]

Kuci is just trolling you, Rah. He'll say any damn thing now to get you going.

[Slchtjgb]

How wonderfully vague.

Yeah, look up your own examples and how Kennedy predicted they'd change America.

googling immigration act of 1965 Kennedy -- 2 minutes and we're on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...ty_Act_of_1965

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89-236) abolished the national-origin quotas that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by Emanuel Celler, co-sponsored by Philip Hart and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy.[1]
[..]
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 became law on July 1, 1968. Along with the act of 1952, it serves as one of the parts of the United States Code until this day.

During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."[2] The act's supporters not only claimed the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.[1] gj, teddy. you're a real statesman

[Ocqljudq]

Because he was assuaging racists (who had tons of power in the Senate in 1965) when pushing extremely important progressive legislation, he's not a "real statesman." Ok.

Uhh... so he wasn't a mumbling idiot who was 180 degrees wrong when predicting the effects of legislation he supported, but he was lying for a "greater cause".

Lying for the public

PS: I see your "racist"-card and raise with a "nazi"-card. Gotcha, everyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist. What has this to do with a half-dead Senator being dead wrong about the effects of government interventions done his way for his entire career?

[exchpaypalgold]

Sigh, you just don't get it.
It makes sense for a sorority to bar men from a building where naked women can be found.
Same for a fraternity.

That's a terrible argument. At least, we don't hang out naked around each other, I don't know what your college experience was like. We're pretty much normal college housing, except messier.

The only reason it's acceptable is because it's people living together. There are plenty of fraternities that don't have their own house (mostly new ones).

YOU WILL note that they're not allowed to bar blacks. Since the naked arguement doesn't stand there. Dude, your naked argument is a massive strawman. It's okay for fraternities to ban women because they are inherently male organizations, and there are comparable organizations for females to join. Universities have no good reason to be segregated by sex, so they aren't and shouldn't be.

If you think it's acceptable to belong to a country club that bars blacks from joining then you're a ignorant bigot. Massive strawman AND a WTF.

If you think it's ok to exclude women but not blacks, that's not any better in my book. For a social organization whose ENTIRE PURPOSE is to provide a place for men to socialize with other men... no.

Your point is ridiculous.

[LarpBulaBus]

You farking liberals like to let a woman die in the car. Maybe you like to smoke Al Queda pole too? While they cut your children's heads off and broom rape your wife? [/drinkin]

[cjOTw7ov]

1. Are you admitting that you have issues with society having the wrong ethnic tilt? I clearly didn't call you a racist earlier, but if the shoe fits...
2. I didn't say that everything in that statement was right. I said that some of what you claimed was "180 degrees wrong" was debatable, or on the money (i.e. the jobs claim). I'd also point out that a lot of people didn't properly predict the consequences of the legislation.

[Lån-Penge]

Considering the number of people who send money home to their families, bringing their families here makes a lot of sense.

JM

[robstamps]

I've been looking at the raw data of American immigration. If you normalize by the population size, the immigration rate is actually pretty similar to what it it was just prior to the enacting of this legislation, particularly if you only look at only the next couple decades. Compared to the total variation over America's history (including pre-1920 when it was far higher), Kennedy's absolutely right: the rate remained substantially the same.
http://www.economics.ucr.edu/papers/...20for%20wp.pdf

[overavantstandard]

It got our parents into this country, didn't it?

By the standards of the day, it's not so bad. What exactly do you think LBJ was telling Southern Senators when he was pushing civil rights legislation?

[Bbjhjxfy]

I think I should have named this thread the Collapse of Ted Kennedy