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


Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by HaYwIrE, Dec 16, 2002.

  1. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

  2. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Well, that's it then. I'm convinced. Where do I get that John Birch membership card?

    Haywire, I am impressed, you got all that from one of those liberal media articles?
  3. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I'm not a supporter of Lott, because I've always found him to stray too far from the center for my tastes.

    I am perceiving that a lot of African-Americans will use this as a bully pulpit though, to foster their own separatist views, forever painting themselves the victim.

  4. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Ok, so the Republican party knows how to cut it's losses. What's the big deal? And if you think they want Lott canned because he IS a racist, you're wrong. They want him canned because he made the party look bad.

    I have no doubt the Dems would have done the same thing. Politicing is politicing.
  5. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    True, true.

  6. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Coriolis - Correct.

    Haywire - You take this shit at face value dude? Cmon.

  7. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    That is true, but in saying that, it should not be implied that the party is actually racist.

    The party stands for things that some minorities don't want to hear, like less welfare and entitlements, and as such has been branded as a racist party, but that's not the case at all. It's a party that believes in individual responsibility and an achievement based workforce, which is the root of capitalism.

    Trent Lott has indeed made the party look bad, because he's made the whole party look like racists. That's wrong, and that's why Trent Lott needs to step down.
  8. -Ken

    -Ken Guest


    I have to agree with you. The Republican Party is no more racist than the Democrats, each in their own way.

    I think Trent Lott made a mistake and I really don't believe he is a racist.

    In my opinion, his apology should have been good enough but that's not good politics.
  9. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    I agree Copzilla. While there's many undesireable attitudes the (holier than though) Republican party represent, generally speaking, "racist" does not fall among them. I'm sure there are questionable race attitudes among the Dems as well (but perhaps they know better to keep their stupid mouths shut).
  10. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Racism is apparently ingrained at a certain level. It appears that locale has something to do with it; even the US is far from being uniform in that regard. There are flatlanders everywhere. :)

  11. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    The last time I saw a democrat make the party look bad was when Clinton was President. Sure there were democrats who only condemned his "personal behavior". No democrats had the guts to tell him he was bad for the party then and no democrat is telling him he is bad for the party now. That is about power and money.

    Where has Bill Clinton been in all of this? Is it strange that the titular head of the party is silent on such an issue as important as this one? Unless, of course, Bill Clinton has his own habits of praising segregationists.
  12. -Ken

    -Ken Guest


    After all, cheating on your wife and lying about it is certainly on par with praising segregation.

    I'm with you on this one. After all, isn't morality what it's all about? As long as you're not cheating on your wife, almost anything's Kosher, right?
    <small>Should I have not used the word Kosher?
  13. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    If you are saying that that Lott's remarks at the birthday roast were a deliberate, knowing, and overt personal endorsement of segregation I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale and I will give you a good deal.

    As for Clinton. You repeat one of the biggest misrepresentation of Clinton's whole sordid participation in the events you allude to in your post.

    Clinton was sued in court. He was a defendant. He took the stand and also had his deposition taken, both under oath. A relevant legal fact to the truth of the legal matter was did he "cheat on his wife" as you flippantly put it. He did and under oath he lied about it several time and denied it just to save his skin. He also repeatedly lied about it to the public and was very specific and overt in doing so.

    Because he lied on the stand he was sanctioned, fined and chastised by the court, and had his law license suspended by the State Bar of Arkansas. He just missed being prosecuted for perjury.

    So, please don't try to pass off what Clinton did as simply "cheating on his wife." It was never about cheating or sex. It was about that what I've set forth. To claim otherwise is totally intellectually dishonest.
  14. Ravenink

    Ravenink Veteran Member

    so the moral of the story is that both parties have buffoons.
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Yah, more or less.

    Anyone surprised? ;)
  16. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    With all due respect, he was taken to court as a blatant political move. If every husband in the United States who cheated on their wives were sued, then I might give your argument some merit.

    Please, let's put this in perspective, Ken Starr couldn't find anything and went after the Monica Lewinsky thing.

    In any civilized country in the world it wouldn't have made it into a courtroom other than a divorce case.

    Now, I found President Clinton's behavior reprehensible. There were apparently honest allegations of rape and other sordid conduct before he was president, which I'm sure neither of us can excuse.

    If you wish to compare crimes by presidents, let's look at the Iran Contra scandal and why that wasn't prosecuted. While we're there let's talk severity of the offense also.

    Importing hard drugs using military bases and selling weapons to a country that has declared war on us is a little higher on my list of things we should incarcerate presidents over.

    Of course, I'm a liberal, you'd expect that out of me!
  17. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    But he was more than Joe Q. Public, he was the President.

    (from someone who supported Clinton during that whole ordeal)
  18. Ravenink

    Ravenink Veteran Member

    what you must see -Ken, is that many people's objection to him is not that he cheated on his wife, but that when the subject came up in court her committed perjury, which is a criminal act.
  19. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    You are so off base on your facts its hard to take your post serious, but knowing you to be honest and serious I will.

    He wasn't taken to court for cheating on his wife. He wasn't taken to court because he was president. He wasn't taken to court because of Ken Starr. He wasn't taken to court for Monica Lewinsky. Don't you pay attention?

    He was sued as an individual for sexual harassment against Paula Jones. The suit was deemed worthy by the court for prosecution. It had nothing to do with any of those other things you mention.

    During the course of that trial and litigation it was deemed relevant to the allegation and the proof of the matter whether or not Clinton fooled around with among others Monica Lewinsky. He was asked under oath, you do understand under oath don't you, about Lewinsky. He lied. He lied to try and win the case. He lied and was prosecuted for lying by the Arkansas bar and the sanctioned and fined by the state court trial judge. He was almost prosecuted for perjury. If he had not been the president it is likely he would have been. Everything I mention has nothing to do with the other stuff you refer to in your post.

    As for comparing presidents and their wrong doings that is just your weak effort to deflect the subject rather than deal with it. What some other president did or did not do was and is not the subject. It is irrelevant to Clinton's actions just as his are irrelevant to the other presidents' alleged wrong doing.

    What part of the following don't you understand:

    It has nothing to do with cheating on your wife;

    It has nothing to do with politics;

    It has nothing to do with Ken Starr;

    It has nothing to do with sex;

    It has to do with repeatedly lying under oath to try and win a personal lawsuit and losing the use of your law license for five years, being called a liar by the trial judge, being sanctioned and fined and barely escaping prosecution for perjury.

    There is nothing political about it--except your inaccurate attempt to deflect the uncontested and irrefutable facts!

    What anybody else did or did not do is unrelated to Clinton's acts.
  20. -Ken

    -Ken Guest


    So the lawsuit wasn't financed by a right wing organization? And the Paula Jones suit had merit?

    Let me ask you a question, if I may.

    As the fair-minded lawyer that I know you can be, now present the other side for us as though you were defending President Clinton.

    If you are willing to do that, I am willing to listen,

    By the way, what was the outcome of the Paula Jones case?

Share This Page