VeeshanVault

Fredonia Coldheart wrote:doh - forgot about his "advisors". Though I do believe the first casualities attributed to the Vietnam war were under Kennedy.

"July 8, 1959: Major Dale R. Buis and Master Sergeant Chester Ovnand are killed by guerrillas at Bienhoa. They are the first official American casualties of the Vietnam War."

However, this is all semantics. Kennedy was the first President to send combat troops to Vietnam with the intent of engaging the enemy directly, instead of just sending advisors that were technically not supposed to be involved in combat. America's involvement in Vietnam, in my opinion, is really an artifact of the Truman administration, which supported the French occupation of the region through policy and with financial aid, if not with personnel.

I see what you're saying, though. I'm not trying to start an argument just for the sake of arguing. I mean, that just goes against what this forum is all about.

I am primarily talking about the man who used the "threat of communism, ohhohhoh bogga booga" for profit, instead of backing out, which would be... LBJ
Yeah
Phear the Commies

2 statements, 20 years apart, inconsistant with his record and everyone now thinks he's a closet racist.

Well to some extent we are all closet racists
Me? I hate white people

make it 4 statements.

source is the National Review article quoted a few posts back, which is a pretty conservative publication.

In a 1984 speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Miss., Lott declared: "The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform."

In 1998, it was revealed that Lott had spoken several times to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a "racialist", neo-white supremacist organization. Lott claimed that he didn't know about their philosophy, believing it to be a benign "conservative" group. In fact, he had written a regular column for the CCC's "Citizen's Informer" publication over the course of several years. It's also rare for any member of Congress to write for an outside group's publication without getting an idea of what positions the group advocates.

Furthermore, Lott's uncle popped up to say that his nephew well knew what the CCC was about. Just ten years ago, Lott praised the CCC's philosophy. A year before all this came to light, Lott hosted the CCC in Washington.

Several black Republicans (including this writer, a Republican National Committee staffer at the time) approached Lott to address the problem. He demurred. His office made it clear that the senator had said all he intended to say about the CCC.

i agree with the general sentiment that people can say some stupid stuff by accident.. i know i;'ve done it before. it is much harder when there is a lot more pressure on you in public office and 24hr news coverage of every po-dunk talk you give, etc.

i'm definitely intrigued by a couple of the editorials in the National Review this week though. One interesting one about how the DNC should be careful not to let fringe eliments of the party try to grab power within the DNC on the momentum of this, should anything transpire.

He's been in politics for who knows how many years. He's said enough stuff on the record that if you picked through it all you could find piecemeal statements that showed he supported Ernie the Keebler Elf for President.

There's a better way to judge a man's character, and that's by looking at his actions.

The most recent action he's taken was to apologise for his screwed up joke and to reaffirm that he thought segregation was a relic and bad idea.

Number one, it's not an idealogical question, IT"S THE GODDAMNED LAW! You will not, ever be given access to anything close to all the information that goes into these decisions. See the other thread if you can't figure out why for yourself.

If you are refering to the thread where you contradict yourself constantly and dispute the plain fucking letter of the law that Vor posted, yes I read that thread.

We are arguing different points here. My argument rests around "WHY". Telling us "why" we are going to invade Iraq has nothing to do with "how" we will do it.

You argue that by telling us why somehow the gov't is compromising part of the how, which is not at all true.

I could go on and on but the point is obviously moot, b/c I know you will go on and on blindly and feverishly protecting the actions of the gov't you love, regardless of whether those actions are right or wrong.

Trent Lott wrote: A Senator openly accused President Bush of actually using the specter of war with Saddam Hussein to gain political ground. Folks, I know President Bush, and I know Vice-President Cheney. Both are men of faith, dignity and an absolute unwavering devotion to our country's best interest. They are committed to protecting all Americans, and they would never consider using our military men and women as political pawns.


Sure, we may have disagreements over how to implement various policies. That is what America is all about. Debate is vital to democracy. However, when it comes to deciding how to face sworn enemies like Usama bin Laden (UBL) and Saddam Hussein, there should be no deviation.

Adex_Xeda wrote:He's been in politics for who knows how many years. He's said enough stuff on the record that if you picked through it all you could find piecemeal statements that showed he supported Ernie the Keebler Elf for President.

There's a better way to judge a man's character, and that's by looking at his actions.

The most recent action he's taken was to apologise for his screwed up joke and to reaffirm that he thought segregation was a relic and bad idea.

Thank you for injecting a little common sense. This is what the world needs more of.

Yeah referring to reactionary bullshit as "common sense" is the hallmark of any conservative/right winger/republican.

That and closet racism.

As little as 4 years ago there was a stink caused in the UK Conservative Party (equiv of the US's Republicans, although our Conservatives are all staunch royalists and won't stand for any of that republic hogwash) because they wanted a black member selected to represent a particular constituency in a by-election and the local party leader went on record as objecting to having a "bloody darkie" represent his party.

vn_tanc

omg really? The world is imperfect? This can't be! You people are funny. Relax, chill, take it easy.

You're search for a perfect world where white men never say "nigger" amongst themselves, is futile.

You're search for a perfect world where the government is in full communication with all it's people and does exactly the right thing all the time, is futile.

Don't expect so much, you won't be so aggitated and disappointed so often.

Like Adex said, the dude made a mistake and apoligized and shows on his record he has done many great things.

Adex_Xeda wrote:He's been in politics for who knows how many years. He's said enough stuff on the record that if you picked through it all you could find piecemeal statements that showed he supported Ernie the Keebler Elf for President..

No you couldn't. You can, however, find at least 3 different instances in which he showed a clear segregationist and racist bias. There should be no room for racists in your government. Certainly not ones that support fucking segregation.

There's a better way to judge a man's character, and that's by looking at his actions.

The most recent action he's taken was to apologise for his screwed up joke and to reaffirm that he thought segregation was a relic and bad idea.

...To which he wouldn't have had to apologize for if he wasn't such a pasty-ass, loud mouthed, racist asshole. If I called your mother a stupid cunt and then the next day say "I regret having said that out loud" would you slap me on the back and forgive me? No? Then don't expect the black community to just drop it with your smarmy "gee you're so sensitive, why don't you just let it go!" attitude.

However Lott is a living personification of the stupid, inbred, cracker windbag stereotype, and therefore is perfect for representing the GOP. Firing him would be like not marrying your cousin. Totally unnatural.

You're search for a perfect world where white men never say "nigger" amongst themselves, is futile.

That you think so and aren't even prepared to try and change the world is what is so depressing. That you insist everyone else should be as small as you is equally disappointing.

The world is the way it is because of people like you and people who think like you, yet your only concern is the we have "more of the same". And those of us who retain a glimmer of optimism for the future of humanity and think crazy thoughts like "if we stop treating people like shit perhaps they won't hate us" are ridiculed by you, your friends and the puppet media who support you (propaganda is the tool of democracy as much as violence is a tool of dictatorships - go go Chomsky).

And never the twain etc. . .

So in summary, yeah the world isn't perfect. You however seem happy to leave it as it is because it serves your selfish, idiotic purposes and reinforces your intellectually-stunted understanding of the world. Myself, Kyoukan and the rest of us bleeding heart liberal pinko envirocommunistas prefer to hold out hope of improving humanity's lot.

It's also no surprise that most right wing fools also believe in christianity and are therefore prepared to eat any amount of shit in "this life" because they are assured of prospering in "the next". A lot of left wingers tend to be agnostic/atheist because we believe in life before death, not after. We all ready live in paradise and are fucking it up because of chumps who think like you.

So in summary, yeah the world isn't perfect. You however seem happy to leave it as it is because it serves your selfish, idiotic purposes and reinforces your intellectually-stunted understanding of the world. Myself, Kyoukan and the rest of us bleeding heart liberal pinko envirocommunistas prefer to hold out hope of improving humanity's lot.

Yes, people like you who worry more about everyone else and what they do, what they think, and how they act is doing a fine job on our society. Try looking inward and you will see what a difference you can make.

You argue that by telling us why somehow the gov't is compromising part of the how, which is not at all true.

No Xyun.


See, the problem here is that you and others who insist on knowing the details of "why" still can't explain how you can be given this information without compromising the source of said information.


In other words, you are refusing to think past YOU.


I didn't say that telling you 'why' would comprimise 'how'. Read and stop assuming. I said that telling you 'why' in the amount of detail I have seen asked for here would.

1. Get sources killed

2. Dry up the flow of information in a heartbeat.


You cannot be told 'why' without CNN also being told 'why'. Which means two minutes after the information is aired, 'ol Saddam will be receiving it as well. The problem with sensitive data is that so few people have the information. It becomes almost impossible to use the same source more than once without pinpointing who tht source is and either nullifying their effectiveness or getting them killed.

As for contradicting myself, bullshit. I'm not going to write a summary of the other thread because frankly, I am sick to death of writing equations in four inch high block letters with a crayola so people like yourself can follow something other than a 30 second sound byte.

Time Magazine is reporting that Lotthelped to lead an effort to prevent blacks from joining his fraternity at any of its chapters at any university in the nation, not just the one he attended.

And the reason Lott apologized (several days later) from this latest incident, is that he was made to.

In the interest of fair disclosure: My views on race in America are: The white man and all his fellow damn immigrants willing or forced could make things much smoother by getting on a damn boat and leaving. Except hawt chicks of course. (Halle and Nicole are free to call me)

Lott: Okay, the guy is not a racist, but he is obviously prone to talking to and talking at the level of any crowd that will support him financially or with votes. Hell for those idiots among you whom remain entirely clueless, that is the definition of a politician, regardless of their party.

Pork: Pork has been part and parcel of the system since the get go, ever congressman and senator fights to get pork that benefits their state or district, live with it.

in four inch high block letters with a crayola so people like yourself can follow

You mean like this?

ROFL Xyun

I don't agree with you, but that is funny anyhow.

There's a minor difference there Kyo.

If I called your mother a stupid cunt and then the next day say "I regret having said that out loud" would you slap me on the back and forgive me?

A better analogy for Lott would be. "I'm sorry for my words. I DO NOT belive your mother is a stupid cunt."

If your going to use that analogy this correction to it is important.


BTW heh, I think I contradicted myself up a few posts. I said you need to look at a person's actions rather than words, and then pointed out his latest words under the mantle of them being actions. oops

BTW heh, I think I contradicted myself up a few posts. I said you need to look at a person's actions rather than words, and then pointed out his latest words under the mantle of them being actions. oops

Please flame yourself immediately!