posted December 11, 2002 12:33 AM            

Well, I would be the last person on Earth to tempt you to break a promise to yourself

This isn't really much of a debate. You can't debate historical facts though there is an ongoing campaign to put a left handed spin on those facts. It's also true there is nothing new under the Sun---at least in regard to human nature and the folly of attempting to appease dictators and fanatics.

OK, I'll cop to August 21st.

jwhop

posted December 11, 2002 12:37 AM              

The nature of power, I guess.
I wonder if it's pointless idealism to wonder if it'll ever be different.
I mean, now a person can resign themselves to making limited/local/individual (or small-group) steps, but...hm.
But, you know, I know that there are those with some power that really wish to do what's right - I don't believe that anyone (of any political persuasion) ascends just to say, "Ah, yes...everything is going as planned! Now I can completely ruin America/Australia/the World/etc.! Bwa ha ha!!!" - there're people everywhere that legitimately see their resp. courses of action as the best, and others that legitimately, vehemently disagree with them.

I'm rambling now. It was all so clear in my head. *sigh*

I guess that the root problem is narrow self-interest (whether confined to the individual, tribe, or state level) run rampant - but then, how does one seperate themselves from their own self-interest in a world of others operating with the same guidelines (and quite a few of those w/ malice towards others not defined as w/i their "group") while still being able to maintain the ability to survive?
Perhaps it's about "first steps", and who'll take them - or if they can be taken at all.

posted December 11, 2002 12:51 AM            

Hey Jimmy, watch out for your thumb. Well damn, one out of two ain't all bad. Now, aren't you glad you have Medicare?

posted December 11, 2002 12:45 PM              

In reality I don't feel comfortable to treat of subjects that don't concern "directly" to my country.

Of course this war will affect the whole world, maybe reach proportions that we cannot imagine because today the enemy doesn't have fixed address, the enemy uses the worst of the weapons : the terror and the surprise factor...

I have my opinion, and I already exposed, but for not being American, here, I prefer to be just an observer.

My birthday is also on August 21

posted December 11, 2002 04:10 PM              

"Lott has been caught up in previous racial controversies. In 1998 and 1999, his contacts with a white supremacist organization called the Council of Conservative Citizens became the subject of news stories. He repudiated white supremacist or racist views."

If it walks like a chicken and acts like a chicken, guess what? It probably is one. Just because you say you aren't racist, doesn't mean you aren't. If you have a pattern, its a probability.

posted December 12, 2002 10:59 AM            

Thurmond is a bigger idiot with a racist history and a background that was founded in hate.

Then again so is Senator Byrd from West Virginia. There are many in Congress that hold personal beleifs that we may find appalling and have stated so in public (both sides, both making racist or sexist remarks).

Now to play devils advocate:

Is this not a nation of free speech? Has Lott voted against freedoms or advancement for minorities? Do we not choose senators from our home states to represent the consituents views and beliefs, even if we do not like them? So if Lott or Thurmond represent states with views that we find appalling are they any worse than Clinton or Boxer representing states that have beliefs contrary to the deep south?

It seems obvious that the differences, no matter how disgusting they appear to us, are neccessary to keep a balance and bring things to light so that we can learn and rectify them.

Lott should not be holding the post of "majority" leader as he does not reflect the belief of the conservative majority.

That is my two cents.

------------------
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will."

posted December 12, 2002 02:54 PM            

Really, I could just see your adrenaline start pumping and that just makes me want to jump ya and show you how wrong you are about us conservatives.

Okay, back to reality. I don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be my luscious dear Virgo. Besides, I am also Christian, born and raised in a Missouri Synod Lutheran household. Which is a bit funny considering Great Granny was a Cherokee that read auras and cards and my little brown Apache granny still chants and used to be quite the healer.

Oh Carlo...save me from myself or else I may slowly become a fundamentalist...or at least mental.

Kisses Sexy!!!

Please forgive me, the moon will be going into Aries which just really kick starts my Venus and Sun while conjuncting my moon. In other words, I get a bit too spunky...maybe you should discipline me..man I have to stop this. LOL

------------------
"Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo)

posted December 12, 2002 08:59 PM            

Maybe you can help me out. I've lost my secret decoder ring and can't decode the talking points from the Republican National Committee. The message either says "buckle up in LaLaLand, you're going to just hate the next 7 years as the President cuts the rate of growth of the Federal Government or even rolls it back, cuts taxes and appoints judges to the Federal bench who actually know what the Constitution says".

Or, maybe it says "Go ahead, keep talking about an innocent remark Trent Lott made in honor of the 100th birthday of a great US Senator. Succeed in ousting Trent and we'll give you Senator Don Nickles as Majority Leader. Senator Nickles knows exactly how to deal with DIMocrats."

Perhaps LaLaLand would wish to secede from the Union? I know Mexico would love to annex you, however most of you might be more comfortable annexed to Cuba.

Funny, most of the people I know are Republicans and members of the "Vast right wing conspiracy" too. Not an insomniac in the bunch.

posted December 13, 2002 01:02 AM              

By Charles Krauthammer

Thursday, December 12, 2002; Page A45

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

-- Trent Lott

at Strom Thurmond's

100th birthday party

Trent Lott must resign as Senate majority leader. It's not just that no one who has said this can lead an American political party. It's that no one who could say something like this should be an American leader.

It is a pity that a long and distinguished career such as Lott's should come to this. But there is nothing you can do to Lott's statement -- turn it, twist it, flip it, spin it -- to make it any less appalling.

It was not "a poor choice of words," as he later pleaded. It was a perfectly clear choice of words articulating a perfectly clear idea. Had Lott stopped with Thurmond-for-president, 1948, this might have been written off as idle and presumably insincere birthday flattery for a very, very old man. But Lott did not stop there. He added, fatally, that America would have been better off had it embraced Dixiecrat segregation. With that, Lott cut off any retreat.

This is not just the kind of eruption of moronic bias or racial insensitivity that cost baseball executive Al Campanis and sports commentator Jimmy the Greek Snyder their careers. This is something far more important. This is about getting wrong the most important political phenomenon in the past half-century of American history: the civil rights movement. Getting wrong its importance is not an issue of political correctness. It is evidence of a historical blindness that is utterly disqualifying for national office.

To start at the beginning. The civil rights movement brought about the abolition of the American racial caste system. Enfranchising a minority is, in and of itself, a singular achievement. But the civil rights movement rose above sectarianism and insisted on defining itself far more broadly as a vindication of America's very purpose.

Martin Luther King succeeded in taking a liberation movement that could easily have turned irredeemably divisive and deeply anti-American -- note the bitter endemic conflicts engendered by other liberation movements around the world -- and dedicated it instead to a reaffirmation of American principles. The point is not just what King and his followers did for African Americans, but what they did -- by validating America's original promise of freedom and legal equality -- for the rest of America. How can Lott, speaking of "all these problems over all these years," not see this?

Perhaps even more important than the civil rights movement's ends, however, were its means. That was its other great gift to America. The civil rights movement transformed nonviolence from a notion into a norm -- an act of astonishing political creativity whose legacy has been so thoroughly assimilated into contemporary American life that today we hardly appreciate it.

The fact is, however, that the civil rights movement forever set the standard for social transformation in America. We owe to King -- his vision, his courage and his discipline -- the fact that every subsequent social movement from environmental to gay rights to antiwar has almost automatically embraced nonviolence. Political violence has, of course, not been abolished. But the nobility and success of the civil rights movement has delegitimized the very idea of political violence -- giving us a country that now routinely achieves profound social change in an atmosphere of comity and mutual respect rarely seen anywhere else in the world.

That is what King and his followers gave America. That is what Thurmond and his followers resisted. And that is what Lott still cannot see today.

Let's be generous to Thurmond and company and say that in 1948 they knew not what they did. But it is now 2002. The story is told. How can Lott not know it?

What is so appalling about Lott's remarks is not the bigotry but the blindness. One should be very hesitant about ascribing bigotry. It is hard to discern what someone feels in his heart of hearts. It is less hard to discern what someone sees, particularly if he tells you. Lott sees the civil rights movement and "all these problems over all these years." He missed the whole story.

posted December 13, 2002 10:08 AM            

Well this little ditty has been played and replayed over the last couple of days. Thanks for posting Lott's statement.

"""By Charles Krauthammer
Thursday, December 12, 2002; Page A45
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
-- Trent Lott at Strom Thurmond's100th birthday party---"""

OK, "ANYONE," without drawing any inferences, without putting your own or anyone else's construction on Lott's words, without surmises, guesses, speculation or divination, without resorting to your mind reading act; from the words Lott used, tell me what problems we wouldn't have had if the rest of the country had voted for Strom Thurmond for President.

Fact is, you can't come up with racism from what Lott actually said. But if you want to place the broadest possible interpretation on what he DID say, you should remember you're giving license to everyone you talk with to interpret whatever you say in any manner they choose.

Let the games begin.

jwhop

posted December 13, 2002 10:16 AM              

Unfortunately being in a position as the worlds "first nation" in terms of political clout, military power and wealth, it also puts you in a position of responsibility.

And to be honest the lack of responsibility i see is enough to make my jaw drop so far i have trouble finding it amongst the rubbish that so abundantly litters my room

posted December 13, 2002 10:27 AM              

Lott's troubles grew after disclosure that he had made a nearly identical statement in 1980 in Mississippi. The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., reported that he appeared with Thurmond at a rally and said, ''You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.''

I could understand if he was congratulating Thurmond on reaching 100 and said something simple like my state voted for you in 1948 and kept it at that. But he got down deep when he said the country would be better off if he had won. In what way? I'm not gonna speak for Thurmond. Hell, he might have learned his lesson after all these years. But I DOUBT he would have if he had won the Election and been allowed to further racist propaganda. As has been said, Its not that he can't lead Congress, its that he shouldn't. If I'm sitting in Congress as a black person and see this man speaking that I know feels I shouldn't be there, what makes me what to follow him? They already got problems up there in the Big House, they don't need this monkey too.

posted December 13, 2002 12:35 PM            

Okay, I just got back from the Maryland Secret Society of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (all two of us pubbies in this state..LOL..actually, something must be reaching the "silent" majority becaus we finally have a Republican gov after 36 years).

Anyway, the message from the VRWC is that you and I are to keep our cover as open minded Republicans so that we can gather intelligence from the LL and use that information in war on terror. Shhhhh, don't tell anyone.

To the others,
Trent Lott made a mistake. Senator Bird was the majority leader from 10 years and used the "n" word last year. Bird was an active member in the KKK. Who is calling for his resignation?

Last night I watch as two African Americans debated the issue. What I noticed, was that the liberal only wanted to talk about the sins of Lott, but once anything was brought up about the other side making racists comments, she said "we are not here to talk about that".

So, it is okay to talk about Lott, but we must forgive the others because it was in the past? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Maybe some may perceive me as blind for my affiliation with the Christian Church and the Conservative party, but I have chosen these beliefs not based on what was forced on me, but by careful evaluation of my own morals and ethics.

So many people hate the word Christian, as if it the word itself was racist. Why is that? How is it that so many people believe that Christian fundamentalism is killing this country? 70% of the population claims to be Christian. The Church, as a whole, is one of the smallest donors to the political parties. How is then, we as Christians, are killing the country? If we went on contributions and buying votes, then the front runners for influencing the country would be the Trial lawyers, Entertainment and the Unions.

By now, the image of rabid pro-lifers are being conjured up in peoples minds or the crazy zealots that take out Abortion doctors. Do Christians condone that behavior? HELL NO!! but we are judged by what a few do in the name of God. Or someone will undoubtedly post, "oh you are all trying to cram God down out throats by having God in school or celebrating CHRISTmas..you must stop now for you are offending me".

Oh, but I have to suffer when you take my Lord and put him in a bottle of Urine and call it art. Or you take the holy Virgin Mary and smear crap on her? How is it that I am supposed to be open to others when they cannot afford the same to me?

Okay, what about the rabid PETA, Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front movements? Have you EVER been subjected to their jeers, threats, screams, vandalism? I have. Why? Oh, because in the name of vegen they want to kill us meat eaters. In the name of animal rights, they want to KILL scientists and let out a bunch of monkeys with AIDS to run the streets.

So, it is okay to be a liberal PETA, ALF, or ELF activist and threaten in the name of mother earth or animals, but for Christians to do the same it makes National news?

In as much as I would like to see the point concerning how evil the Christian church (or any God based Church) is or that of the Conservative party, I can't. That is because neither gets any air time. We have to turn to cable to get any "real" news. God forbid NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC or any of the other liberal venues actually give air time to the true mission of the conservative or Christian right.

I live my life with respect to others in the way I was taught. I do believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I also accept others beliefs and enjoy learning about them. Man can always take a concept and twist it for their own personal gain, independent of party affiliation or religion. It is free will.

I am the first one to admit that there are leaders in the pubbie party that I do not like. I have no problem contacting my or other state congressional representatives to express my opinion.

Through my work in the ag field I have met people from all over the US with different political and economical backgrounds. I have met very open minded southern republicans and I have met extremely racist democrats, black and white and everything in between.

At night I sleep very well, unless I am worried about work or family. I also sleep with a very conservative person that is also deeply Christian...that would be me.

KISSES!!!!

------------------
"Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo)

posted December 13, 2002 12:38 PM            

I had the pleasure of attending the National Cattlemen's Beef Assocation Annual meeting last year in Denver. Bush gave a suprise speech on the last morning. Thousands of cattlemen and women attended. He spoke from the heart and he is a very humble and intelligent person. He knew the plight of the agriculture industry and what needed to be done to make things better for the country, our food supply and our suppliers.

He is a good man and I am proud to have him as president.

Now that I have opened myself up as a target....Take your best shot.

------------------
"Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo)

posted December 13, 2002 01:38 PM            

That is true. In Russia communism only benefited the Russian elite. So while everyone worked for the collective good, and stood in lines for food while suffering under the brutal government, the elite had money to burn and full bellies.

If you say that communism works but has never been fully reached, then how do you know? Wouldn't in then just be a theory?

------------------
"Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo)

posted December 13, 2002 02:18 PM              

because it serves to distance the individual from most social units in the name of greed.

posted December 13, 2002 02:32 PM            

Nothing is perfect, right? Capitalism does have it's problems, as it is a man made concept that is vulnerable to corruption, misunderstandings and power trips. On a whole, it seems to have achieved a much higher rate of success than other types of concepts such as socialism or communism.

So, again, please explain how your theory of communism is far better, although it has failed in practice.

------------------
"Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo)