Who said this?

[achristiantech]

"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized – the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old."

"On the question of the individual's freedom of choice there are easily available birth-control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire. ..."

"When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."


​

 

[JustMeSee]

Ted Kennedy., Do I get a gold star?

 

[JustMeSee]

What is the purpose of this thread?

 

[atomweaver]

Ted Kennedy., Do I get a gold star?

Here ya go;

 

[quatona]

"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized – the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old."

"On the question of the individual's freedom of choice there are easily available birth-control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire. ..."

"When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."


​

Britney Spears?

 

[lawtonfogle]

"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized – the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old."

"On the question of the individual's freedom of choice there are easily available birth-control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire. ..."

"When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."


​

I do think an unborn has rights, even if we do not recognize them as a society. But, this does not include a right to violate bodily integrity.

 

[achristiantech]

What is the purpose of this thread?

The purpose of this thread is to expose how an individual who makes statements without real principles can and will change based on other factors. In this case I don't know what these factors were, but looking back over his life leaves one to believe his principles and ethics were suspect. I'd like to believe when he was younger he did in fact have core principles and beliefs. What happened later in life, who knows. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Tenka]

The purpose of this thread is to expose how an individual who makes statements without real principles can and will change based on other factors. In this case I don't know what these factors were, but looking back over his life leaves one to believe his principles and ethics were suspect. I'd like to believe when he was younger he did in fact have core principles and beliefs. What happened later in life, who knows. I'll leave it at that.

This is almost cryptic. Do you always have trouble expressing what you mean or are you not game to do so?

 

[achristiantech]

This is almost cryptic. Do you always have trouble expressing what you mean or are you not game to do so?

I have no trouble expressing what I mean. I do have trouble trying to figure out what you're trying to say.

 

[quatona]

I´m not familiar with the person who said this. Guessing from your post he changed his opinion on abortion at some point.

The purpose of this thread is to expose how an individual who makes statements without real principles can and will change based on other factors.

You seem to be presupposing that the person in question didn´t have "real principles".

In this case I don't know what these factors were, but looking back over his life leaves one to believe his principles and ethics were suspect.

What exactly leads you to this conclusion? The fact that he changed his opinion/values?

I'd like to believe when he was younger he did in fact have core principles and beliefs.

If I am right in assuming that a change in his values prompted you to create this thread, I would simply conclude that when he was older he had different core values and beliefs. I don´t know how you arrive at the conclusion he had none.

 

[JustMeSee]

Britney Spears?

ROFL

 

[achristiantech]

I´m not familiar with the person who said this. Guessing from your post he changed his opinion on abortion at some point.

You seem to be presupposing that the person in question didn´t have "real principles".

What exactly leads you to this conclusion? The fact that he changed his opinion/values?

If I am right in assuming that a change in his values prompted you to create this thread, I would simply conclude that when he was older he had different core values and beliefs. I don´t know how you arrive at the conclusion he had none.

Perhaps my earlier reasoning was a bit convoluted and was beating around the bush so to speak. So I'll try again.

Senator Ted Kennedy (MA) whom just recently passed away is receiving accolades for his service and humanity for many causes, both great and small. This is as it should be. My point is that let us not overlook the damage he has caused to individuals and other causes throughout his 47 years as a Democrat. I'm not beating on him so near to his passing (though others may feel I am), but he was no saint as some would make him out to be. Unfortunately this was only one example of the harm he had a hand in that helped this lead country in a downward spiral.

The reason I felt it was important to address this issue by pointing out the specific example I have was to remind people that all is not what it seems. When I mention principles and core values I am referring to that which most people have, some throughout their life, others change for right and wrong reasons, some have attrocious principles and core values that are very detrimental to society.

When a Christian changes their position on a core value as Ted Kennedy did on the issue of life, one wonders why and what was that motivation? Sure many (if not most) Christians sway to and fro on issues, but on life? On that which Jesus Himself died for us, he freed us from the spiritual death. But as men/women are we to be for life at one point in our life, then accept the opposite view for nefarious reasons? I just find it hypocritical in this case and many other cases where people turn away from the teachings and principles that Jesus taught us, especially when it negatively impacts others and in this case lives are aborted.

Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say?

I'm no angel, I am a sinner, I am forgiven, but I will tell you this "life is the most precious gift that God gave us" for without it Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is for naught. Think about that.

We all are sinners, we all fall short of the mark, hence our need for a Savior. Thank you JESUS.

 

[Gilbert Funk]

The purpose of this thread is to expose how an individual who makes statements without real principles can and will change based on other factors. In this case I don't know what these factors were, but looking back over his life leaves one to believe his principles and ethics were suspect. I'd like to believe when he was younger he did in fact have core principles and beliefs. What happened later in life, who knows. I'll leave it at that.

Brilliant and on target. You get an A.

 

[quatona]

Perhaps my earlier reasoning was a bit convoluted and was beating around the bush so to speak. So I'll try again.

Ok.

Senator Ted Kennedy (MA) whom just recently passed away is receiving accolades for his service and humanity for many causes, both great and small. This is as it should be. My point is that let us not overlook the damage he has caused to individuals and other causes throughout his 47 years as a Democrat. I'm not beating on him so near to his passing (though others may feel I am), but he was no saint as some would make him out to be.

I´m not sure I understand: Do you support "de mortuis nihil nisi bene" or don´t you?
Saying: 'I don´t want to say anything bad about this person', and in the same breath saying something bad about him strikes me as strange.
I have never seen Ted Kennedy proclaimed as a "saint" (but I have to admit, that I haven´t been following the proceedings after his death, so I may well be missing something).

Unfortunately this was only one example of the harm he had a hand in that helped this lead country in a downward spiral.

That´s a pretty strong accusation, and I think it is asking for substantiation (not that I necessarily think you are wrong, but...).

The reason I felt it was important to address this issue by pointing out the specific example I have was to remind people that all is not what it seems.

I am aware that all is not what it seems (although I think such commonplaces are a dime a dozen).

When I mention principles and core values I am referring to that which most people have, some throughout their life, others change for right and wrong reasons, some have attrocious principles and core values that are very detrimental to society.

When a Christian changes their position on a core value as Ted Kennedy did on the issue of life, one wonders why and what was that motivation? Sure many (if not most) Christians sway to and fro on issues, but on life? On that which Jesus Himself died for us, he freed us from the spiritual death. But as men/women are we to be for life at one point in our life, then accept the opposite view for nefarious reasons? I just find it hypocritical in this case and many other cases where people turn away from the teachings and principles that Jesus taught us, especially when it negatively impacts others and in this case lives are aborted.

Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say?

Well, let me try to summarize what I think I understand and don´t understand.

To begin with, I still don´t seem to understand whether
a. your backhanded attack on Kennedy is intended as the instrument to make a point about your religious convictions or
b. you use your religious convictions as the basis for your backhanded attack on Kennedy, or
c. both at the same and circularly.

What I seem to understand:
You don´t like it when people do not share your opinions and religious convictions. You like it better when they agree with you.
You like it even less when people who used to share your opinions and religious convictions change these and move away. In this case you feel they must have "nefarious" reasons (whilst in the opposite case - correct me if I am wrong - you´d feel something along the lines of "they finally have come to see the light and truth").

I'm no angel, I am a sinner, I am forgiven, but I will tell you this "life is the most precious gift that God gave us" for without it Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is for naught. Think about that.

We all are sinners, we all fall short of the mark, hence our need for a Savior. Thank you JESUS.

Well, maybe I was completely wrong and your intention in creating this thread was merely to preach.

 

[achristiantech]

I´m not sure I understand: Do you support "de mortuis nihil nisi bene" or don´t you?

Saying: 'I don´t want to say anything bad about this person', and in the same breath saying something bad about him strikes me as strange.
I have never seen Ted Kennedy proclaimed as a "saint" (but I have to admit, that I haven´t been following the proceedings after his death, so I may well be missing something).

That´s a pretty strong accusation, and I think it is asking for substantiation (not that I necessarily think you are wrong, but...).

Well, let me try to summarize what I think I understand and don´t understand.

To begin with, I still don´t seem to understand whether
a. your backhanded attack on Kennedy is intended as the instrument to make a point about your religious convictions or
b. you use your religious convictions as the basis for your backhanded attack on Kennedy, or
c. both at the same and circularly.

What I seem to understand:
You don´t like it when people do not share your opinions and religious convictions. You like it better when they agree with you.
You like it even less when people who used to share your opinions and religious convictions change these and move away. In this case you feel they must have "nefarious" reasons (whilst in the opposite case - correct me if I am wrong - you´d feel something along the lines of "they finally have come to see the light and truth").

Well, maybe I was completely wrong and your intention in creating this thread was merely to preach.

Do I support "de mortuis nihil nisi bene"? To a point, but I will not participate in the gushing tributes to a man who did some of the detestable things he participated in. As I wrote in an earlier posting in this thread, some will feel I am beating up on the man, as you suggested "say something bad". If speaking the truth is a bad thing, then so be it. I did so in as kind of way as is possible.

You stated "That´s a pretty strong accusation, and I think it is asking for substantiation".

Ok. Some examples below although I figure you are aware of Ted Kennedy's actions since you don't necessarily disagree.

1) His collaboration with the enemy (Communist Russia) in 1983. The link is but one source for this letter Ted Kennedy wrote and had delivered.

TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY (trashing Ronald Reagan)

2) Chappaquiddick. Need I say more?

3) Drunkedness.

4) Womanizing, including his mistress(es).

5) His atrocious attacks on the nominations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork as Supreme Court Justices.

All which can be substantiated by multiple reliable sources.

None of my comments are meant as an attack but in fact a pointing out the truth that seemingly gets buried by the media both in the past and currently and for the foreseeable future. This has little to do with my Christian convictions and principles, it has more to do with a commonsense understanding of humanity and it's failings. You don't have to be a Christian to know this, but you do have to have an honest evalution of the situation or individual. Am I human? Do I fail? Of course, hence my need, everyones need for a Savior.

Concerning your last comment. I take no issue with those that don't share my opinions and convictions. I do not seek a world of same-thinking clones. But I do agree that people have all kinds of nefarious reasons for their acceptance of evil and doing harm to another. In this particular case, a Christian has radically changed his mind on a topic of life and death matters and for me that is unexplainable and downright ungodly in substance.

 

[JustMeSee]

I was trying to go into detail of their problems with Kennedy in a thread in N&CE. This is helpful.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

 

[The Nihilist]

Do I support "de mortuis nihil nisi bene"? To a point, but I will not participate in the gushing tributes to a man who did some of the detestable things he participated in. As I wrote in an earlier posting in this thread, some will feel I am beating up on the man, as you suggested "say something bad". If speaking the truth is a bad thing, then so be it. I did so in as kind of way as is possible.

You stated "That´s a pretty strong accusation, and I think it is asking for substantiation".

Ok. Some examples below although I figure you are aware of Ted Kennedy's actions since you don't necessarily disagree.

1) His collaboration with the enemy (Communist Russia) in 1983. The link is but one source for this letter Ted Kennedy wrote and had delivered.

TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY (trashing Ronald Reagan)

2) Chappaquiddick. Need I say more?

3) Drunkedness.

4) Womanizing, including his mistress(es).

5) His atrocious attacks on the nominations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork as Supreme Court Justices.

All which can be substantiated by multiple reliable sources.

None of my comments are meant as an attack but in fact a pointing out the truth that seemingly gets buried by the media both in the past and currently and for the foreseeable future. This has little to do with my Christian convictions and principles, it has more to do with a commonsense understanding of humanity and it's failings. You don't have to be a Christian to know this, but you do have to have an honest evalution of the situation or individual. Am I human? Do I fail? Of course, hence my need, everyones need for a Savior.

Concerning your last comment. I take no issue with those that don't share my opinions and convictions. I do not seek a world of same-thinking clones. But I do agree that people have all kinds of nefarious reasons for their acceptance of evil and doing harm to another. In this particular case, a Christian has radically changed his mind on a topic of life and death matters and for me that is unexplainable and downright ungodly in substance.

Your muckraking would be much more interesting if this wasn't all common knowledge. All you're doing is bringing up the flaws of a dead man. Classy.
More to the point, though, I think quatona was asking you to substantiate that Ted Kennedy's flaws led the country on a downward spiral. To do this, you're going to have to show that the country actually has taken a downward spiral, and that Kennedy's actions played a part in that spiral.
I don't think the flaws you brought up really come into play.

 

[quatona]

Do I support "de mortuis nihil nisi bene"? To a point, but I will not participate in the gushing tributes to a man who did some of the detestable things he participated in. As I wrote in an earlier posting in this thread, some will feel I am beating up on the man, as you suggested "say something bad". If speaking the truth is a bad thing, then so be it. I did so in as kind of way as is possible.

"De mortuis nihil nisi bene" means "About the dead only good" - what you did was contrary to this creed. Not that I necessarily am in favour of this creed, but it´s simply not true that you said only good things and no bad things about this person. Whether saying something negative about a persons is bad is a different question. Of course you have been beating up on this man - it may or may not be true/accurate/justified or not, but you did.

You stated "That´s a pretty strong accusation, and I think it is asking for substantiation".

Ok. Some examples below although I figure you are aware of Ted Kennedy's actions since you don't necessarily disagree.

I have no clue about Ted Kennedy. I am not American. I just saw you criticizing him harshly, and I wondered what it was that you felt needed to be criticized (apart from changing his mind on abortion - as I felt I could figure from your hints).

1) His collaboration with the enemy (Communist Russia) in 1983. The link is but one source for this letter Ted Kennedy wrote and had delivered.

TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY (trashing Ronald Reagan)

2) Chappaquiddick. Need I say more?

3) Drunkedness.

4) Womanizing, including his mistress(es).

5) His atrocious attacks on the nominations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork as Supreme Court Justices.

All which can be substantiated by multiple reliable sources.

Now I know at least what it is that you criticize him of.
However, the mere statement that something can be substantiated by sources is not a replacement for a substantiation. But it´s not necessary at this point, because all I was interested in was what you felt he did wrong.
Your claim that his actions played a significant part in a downward spiral of society, though, does not follow even points 1-5 are accurate. It would certainly need some substantiation.

None of my comments are meant as an attack but in fact a pointing out the truth that seemingly gets buried by the media both in the past and currently and for the foreseeable future.

What you say is an attack - regardless whether it´s true or not.

This has little to do with my Christian convictions and principles, it has more to do with a commonsense understanding of humanity and it's failings. You don't have to be a Christian to know this, but you do have to have an honest evalution of the situation or individual. Am I human? Do I fail? Of course, hence my need, everyones need for a Savior.

Ok, then it´s not about your religious convictions, but about your opinions that are not based in your religion.

Concerning your last comment. I take no issue with those that don't share my opinions and convictions. I do not seek a world of same-thinking clones. But I do agree that people have all kinds of nefarious reasons for their acceptance of evil and doing harm to another. In this particular case, a Christian has radically changed his mind on a topic of life and death matters and for me that is unexplainable and downright ungodly in substance.

Yes, that´s pretty much what I said - and I was and am wondering why you didn´t simply make a post giving us your negative opinion about him, but instead started with a quiz and continued with cryptic posts.
Thanks for explaining yourself. I think I have a good idea now what you intended with this thread.

 

[achristiantech]

You all can think what you want about my OP and my reasonings. I don't have to explain them to anyone. My OP stands on it's own and viewers will have to judge for themselves if it has merit or not. I don't expect all to agree with me, but like any hypocrite Ted Kennedy once stood for life based on his Christian convictions and moral outlook, then turned about and did in fact become supportive of death for the most defenseless of God's creations.

Most all the other comments made by me and some others in this thread is for the most part superflous to my original intent.

I will only add that whenever a person in a highly visible capacity and/or political position sets an example or stands for a cause which is contrary to the goodness and wellness of this country they in fact do subvert the very foundations on which this country was founded and are guilty of moral interpretude that leaves a negative impression on our society in general and our youth in specific. Bill Clinton and his abuse of women in general and interns in specific is an example of what I mean.

If you can't understand as to how this relates to the downward spiral of this country, God help us all.

 

[The Nihilist]

You all can think what you want about my OP and my reasonings. I don't have to explain them to anyone. My OP stands on it's own and viewers will have to judge for themselves if it has merit or not. I don't expect all to agree with me, but like any hypocrite Ted Kennedy once stood for life based on his Christian convictions and moral outlook, then turned about and did in fact become supportive of death for the most defenseless of God's creations.

Most all the other comments made by me and some others in this thread is for the most part superflous to my original intent.

I will only add that whenever a person in a highly visible capacity and/or political position sets an example or stands for a cause which is contrary to the goodness and wellness of this country they in fact do subvert the very foundations on which this country was founded and are guilty of moral interpretude that leaves a negative impression on our society in general and our youth in specific. Bill Clinton and his abuse of women in general and interns in specific is an example of what I mean.

If you can't understand as to how this relates to the downward spiral of this country, God help us all.

Well, I'm not sure that changing your mind automatically makes you a hypocrite. Now, calling yourself prolife and a compassionate conservative and then starting a war that is at best pointless that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, that's some good old fashioned American hypocrisy.