1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Clinton calls Republicans hypocrits for reactions on Lott's statements...

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Misu, Dec 18, 2002.

  1. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/18/clinton.lott/index.html

    <i>Asked if Lott should be removed, Clinton said, "That's up to them, but I think they can't do it with a straight face." </i>

    Ok, my little mind is spinning after reading this article... I don't think Lott represents what it means to be a Republican, nor do his statements made on Thurmond's birthday reflect those of the entire party. I've also been a supporter of Clinton for a very long time - HOWEVER, I do think Clinton just stepped in a big pile of dog pew pew with this statement.

    Could he be using this to focus the stagelights on himself? I think so.
     
  2. jamming

    jamming Banned

    I think I can do without the opinion of the man who relaxed export controls to the Chinese on missile technology. The Chinese cooperated with the North Koreans in the North Korean Intermediate Ballistic Missiles. Then Clinton negotiate with Carter's help the 1994 Nuclear Treaty where North Korea would only use their Nuclear Plants for peaceful purposes. So now we have a nation who is technically still at war with the USA with Nuclear Weapons that can hit Hawaii, Alaska, and maybe part of the West Coast.
     
  3. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    What does Clinton stand to gain by focusing the stagelights upon himself?

    I agree that it is inane to insinuate that every Republican is an old boy southern racist like Lott clearly is, but Clintons comment that the party will be unable to support his removal with a straight face is cogent.

    The republican party is and always has been an old white rich boys club, and this situation with Lott has put mud on the party face.

    As a preemptive fire extinguisher, let me add that I am not a supporter of affirmative action and I find that I am in agreement with Republicans on fiscal matters the vast majority of the time.
     
  4. jamming

    jamming Banned

    The Republican Party gets the majority of its donations in the $1000 to $10000 dollar range. While the Democratic Party gets it in the $10,000 to $1,000,000 dollar range. For some reason people continue to think that the Republicans are the part of the rich, when it is obviously not so. This data was compiled from the 2000-2002 election cycles.
     
  5. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    In politics, perceptions count more than reality any day of any week.
     
  6. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    Piling on...Clinton is all rhetoric with no core beliefs. Clinton is irrelevant today.
     
  7. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Heh - to say that clinton is all rhetoric with no core beliefs is, well, rhetoric. He is extremely relevant - he is a 2 term former president of the United States.

    Those who cant take him seriously because he was caught at hanky panky are taking themselves too seriously.

    Jamming - I dont buy it. Id like to see some source material showing that the Democratic party received more private campaign and party funding over the last 50 years than the Republican party.

    How many very wealthy people do you know? Are any of them democrats? I seriously doubt it. When an individual gets to a point where they have alot of money, they tend to vote and support the party in favor of allowing the wealthy to maintain their wealth.

    The democrats arent hollering to do away with the death and estate taxes.
     
  8. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    I quit taking him seriously when he said he didn't inhale. If you care to expound on his core beliefs, I am all ears.

    The democratic party can take him seriously all they want at their own peril. IMO, the Clinton's do very little to make their party appealing apart from those who want to hear their pandering. IMO, with Clinton at the helm the democratic party will have a hard time becoming a majority party.
     
  9. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Here is another take upon it.

     
  10. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    What?? Where went that post I was replying to? :eek:
     
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  12. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    D'oh!
     
  13. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    D'oh?

    When Clinton was caught being a top-class bonehead, Lott jumped all over him like stink on crap. He was by far one of the most vociferous, crying for Clinton to be drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered, spanked repeatedly and perhaps even being forced to sit in (gasp!) THE COMFY CHAIR.

    Im sure that Bill is enjoying seeing the tables turned, as Lott has screwed himself real good, no two ways about it.

    I see them all as very pathetic, and I always have. I have little to no trust for any politician, and have been voting for the least stupid, least morally bankrupt, least likely to further ruin the country since I registered to cast a ballot.

    I pray that someday a candidate will come along who can manage to keep their panty chasing, drug dealing, racism, illegal arms trading etc. under wraps for long enough to get something done in the oval office, and maybe, just maybe, reverse the constant tailspin of global will towards this country.

    :mad:
     
  14. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned

    Another example of why I hold all politicians and reporters in contempt, with rare exceptions.

    Watching Mr. Lott be eaten alive by press is typical of what the political arena has become.

    Anybody with a measurable amount of intelligence would have to be insane to expose themselves to the parasites that call themselves reporters.

    We live in a world of sound bytes, no matter how badly the sound bytes may be misinterpreted.

    JMHO
     
  15. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Friends,
    This is the very sad reason that few person of deep thoughtfulness and severe intellectual discipline enter politics, or remain at bar, for that matter.
    The superficial has become the necessary, as few today take the time either to think things through, or having done so, are alotted the time to express that process.
    There are few good apppellate arguments that can be made in fifteen minutes, and people complain about the quality of lawyers?
    Frankly, while no decent person would use the obfuscation of politically correct speech, if one try to say anything that might be thought provoking, one is immediately labelled a racist, or elitist, or just plain pig, because the language has become so debased. One cannot espouse a doctrine other the the republican liberal socialism of Bush, or the democratic liberal socialism of Clintonites because either the time cannot be taken to explain anything that is not already part of simple-minded party politics, or someone might be offended.
    Thus, we have sound bytes, and their test is inoffensiveness.
    Anyone who believes that a vital political argument can be made in such a climate is brain dead.
    I remember a thirty-five minute conversation with my daughter, ending with one of my Martinisms, "George Bush is a lot more similar to Frankie Roosevelt than Teddy."
    She quoted me in history class, and was ridiculed, since she, bright as she is, could not make a thirty minute argument, quoting speeches and signed statutes. Why the fuck the did teacher not ask her to give the lengthy explanation? Why do so many people make fun of Haywire, whose posts are beautifully and colourfully written, although I am more tolerant of some things than he, though yet less tolerant of political correctness.
    After all, I can make a really strong argument for the eighth amendment not proscribing the execution of the politically correct.
    But no one would listen.

    All good wishes,
    Yazdzik
     
  16. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Can you shorten that so I can read it? :)
     
  17. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Sure ST, anything for you:

    Yazdzik said:
    People are too lazy to think.

    Now, think how that would look in the press....
     
  18. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Accurate for one thing.
     
  19. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

  20. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Martin,

    I will agree, the sound bite is the entertainment industrys dummied down replacement for news. In the last 40 years or so since I started following the news, I have seen the change from the integrity of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite to the team of talking heads spewing witty banter.

    There was a time when reporting meant telling the news as you saw it as opposed to being fed 30 second footage through a news service. "Newscasters" need not know anything more than how to phonetically read from a script and shift their head every 6-12 seconds. Let's not forget the skill involved in making the correct facial expression at the right moment.

    A fair portion of the public really doesn't want the news. They want to be told what to think. Show them footage, have the blonde look concerned as she pronounces the names of places should could never find on the map and all will be well. Don't like the message, scream the media (that's right the entire media) is controlled by [insert the proper insult here].

    Issues? No opinions! Most Americans cannot name the leaders of most of the countries in Europe (present company excluded). Think I'm kidding, try visiting the bathroom at the next WWF extravaganza and ask some of your urinal mates who is in charge of Yemen. Yemen? Hell, ask them to explain the difference between our version of a Democracy and Parliamentary government. <small>Here's a tip, make sure your health insurance is paid up.</small>

    Why is this important? Because these people watch television, buy the products the advertisers pay huge sums of money to display and if the "news" isn't to their liking, the advertisers will put their money somewhere else. As an unintentional side effect, some of these people vote.

    Do you honestly think Rupert Murdock is putting conservative leaning news programming on the air because he is patriotic? Or because the conservative reporting is more accurate? Please, the people who watch his shows are the people who buy the products the advertisers want to sell.

    Nothing more, business as usual.

    But what effect does this have on the voting public? I'm going to go out on a limb here but if you tell enough people the same story, they start to repeat it, what's worse, they start to believe it. While you might not be able to fool all of the people any of the time, we only need to fool 50% +1 in this country to carry the vote. I won't even comment on the Electoral College.

    And if that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

    One final thought, if we are a people have become consumed with the idea of economizing words, I can only wonder how Melvilles epic novel would end up. I would envision something like this

    Im Ishmael,
    Damn whale.
     

Share This Page