BS: Bushwacked - Seven

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 12:24 AM

Little Hawk and Mav,

How could you even think about sleep at a time like this?

How fallen are the mighty. The sad part is that the self-proclaimed leader and the cause he supposedly championed will be linked and the later will suffer because of the former.

On a more troubling note (Please tell me this guy is on the far, far fringes with minimal creddibility) I came across and editorial in the National Review Online from John Derbyshire.

After citing three incidents that he feels were heinous in the extreme(defending her father, monopolizing dinner conversation at Camp David and showing up late fro Church) he continues with this:

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past —— I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble —— recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet —— "let God sort 'em out".)""

We don't, of course, institutionalize such principles in our society, and a good thing too. Our humanity and forbearance, however, has a cost. The cost is, that the vile genetic inheritance of Bill and Hillary Clinton may live on to plague us in the future. It isn't over, folks. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, a "friend of the family" (how much money did she give them?) is quoted as saying that Chelsea shows every sign of following her parents into politics. "She's been bred for it," avers Dr. Snyderman. Be afraid: be very afraid. - John Derbyshire, The National Review.

Almost sound like he regrets that we don't "institutionalize such principals".

I'd always though the National Review had a little higher jounalistic standard. Not being a regular reader, is this sort of thing typical of their editorial policy?

I am not trying to point a finger at conservatives but a a man who, at least based on this article, strikes me as being evil (for want of a better word).

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:58 PM

That is a pretty mind-boggling thought, John. I, for one, will NOT sleep well tonight while I ponder it. *gasp* indeed!

It reminds me of Inspector Clouseau telling the French court that his wife "is very frugal with the 'ousekeeping money". Har, har!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:57 PM

"You don't think he's also *gasp* guilty of improper use of Coalition funds?"

Yessssssssssssssssssss and tax evasion.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:49 PM

Metchosin,

My thanks for the background on the quote.

Mav,

The interesting question is where he got the money used to pay off the woman in his life. I seem to recall he always claimed that he was living off what the Coalition paid and turning over all his speaking engagement money and so forth to them. Must be quite a salary to afford $10K/month child support and the $350K+ house. You'd think he could have afforded condums. Hope Sherva at least got a corner office out of it.

You don't think he's also *gasp* guilty of improper use of Coalition funds?

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:48 PM

59 to 31 is supposed to be bad or something? Why? What have their ages got to do with it, as long as they're both "adults" (in the usual sense of the term).

59 and 31 is shocking? Hell, MAV, you have no idea...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:42 PM

Boy, am I sick of this term "love child". What does it mean, anyway? Seriously! It's a dumb term used by publications like National Enquirer to embarass celebrities. How come they have "love children" while the rest of us simply have children?

Presumably it means a child conceived out of wedlock. Big deal. I don't particularly care. If I thought marriages were "made in heaven" then I would, but I don't. They're made in churches and government offices generally. I mean, in the technical sense...

Feh! I exclaim with emphatic contempt regarding this overused cliche. "Love child" indeed. Feh, again!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:34 PM

Dear Metchosin,

Thanks for the quotes, think I'll paste 'em.

I think I repeated the one I used just as I heard it.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:27 PM

CAUGHT AGAIN!

Rev. Jesse Jackson is embroiled in a shocking NEW sex and money scandal -- with a Rainbow Coalition staffer half his age.

The 59-year-old civil rights leader as previously reported had a love child with aide Karin Stanford has also been intimately involved with 31-year-old Sherva Jenkins-Smith and regularly slipped her secret cash gifts, charge outraged former Coalition members.

======================================================

Halleluja brother Jessee, and pass the condoms, oh wait, he doesn't use them.

Jessee was feeling the spirit (and young Sherva).

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:21 PM

Mav, the original quote you referred to about hearts and brains re liberals and conservative is actually originally as follows:

Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart;
to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
-Francois Guisot (1787-1874)

which was later changed by Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929) into:

Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart;
to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.

It is interesting how over the years we borrow things and modify them for our own purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:01 PM

Sorry, I did it again.

Here's something interesting,

=======================================================

"Dear Gov. Bush,

I know a picture is worth a thousand words, but if you have any comment you want to make about this AP photo -- and what you were thinking at the time, I'd be glad to share it with others.

Sincerely, [deleted]"

====================================================== From: Jeb Bush To: [deleted] Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 10:00 PM Subject: RE: AP Photo

I wasn't weeping as the article said but I did shed a tear for Leslie Steele and others who have suffered for working with me.

I feel horrible for the midnight calls to African American team members who are called Uncle Toms or traitors to their race for working in my office.

I am tired of the threats and intimidation of people who I respect and who do great work on behalf of the state.

I am sick of the quiet ostracizing of co-workers for believing in equality of opportunity rather than the tired system of set asides and quotas and race based preferences.

Our way has generated a better result but they don't get any credit.

Jeb Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:58 PM

Well, it's a relief to know that the Republicans have their share of philanderers... :-)

I also find Jesse Jackson a little hard to take...when I think about him, which isn't often.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:45 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:33 PM

Hey Bartholomew,

You're not so bad yourself.

"you undercut your own points when you throw around unnecessary epithets"

WHAT?????

How the hell do you expect me to work up a good rant if I can't throw around a few unnecessary epithets?...damn it!

"If you think Jackson is a "hypocrite" and you say it, I have no argument; you're working from the facts"

Ok so far.

"If you say he's a "crook", you're reaching; you will need to provide proof of some criminal conviction or you will need to retract"

He hasn't been convicted yet, but I'd say extortion (shaking down major corporations) and engaging in prostitution (giving huge sums of money to the women he began harrassing) are a good start.

He also hasn't explained his limitless funding and given the disclosures that a non-profit is obligated to report.

The IRS or Ashcroft will likely have a heyday with this guy and his minions.

"If you say he's a "moron", you're telling me nothing about him and a lot about you; what I see is that you have something against the guy, and would not like him (Sam I am) regardless of his behavior"

Oh, his behavior is everything. To him, everything is a racial ish-ya.

How about the high school thugs in Illinois, how about the alleged racial disenfranchisement in FL?

Nobody in the world talks like that, he has his own stupid accent. He is from the US isn't he?

Here is some transcript from O'Reilly;

"O'REILLY: When you say tell all, are there other mistresses, children, financial...

COZ: There...

O'REILLY: ... shenanigans? What?

COZ: There's financial shenanigans. There are other women involved. But, at the core of it, it's how is the Rainbow Coalition money used to support lifestyle and where exactly does that money come from and where exactly is that money spent. That's at the core of the investigation.

O'REILLY: Are you paying these guys to talk?

COZ: Money is not the driving force either on the Jesse Jackson stories we've run or on the Clinton pardon payoff story that we've run. What these are are really good, old-fashioned news investigation. You know, we're just out there pounding the pavement"

More to follow.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:05 PM

Is it possible that they are all alike? The evidence indicates that they are. If so, what the hell are we argueing about?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 09:41 PM

Hey!!

We have just as good a philanderer class as you guys.

Let me help, Bob Packwood (GONE! he wanted to kiss and hug), Clarence Thomas (then single, who wanted a date with Anita Hill, not a real philanderer), Newt (GONE! who had affairs while criticizing clinton), Bob Livingston (GONE!), Henry Hyde (not gone)

Notice many of our philanderers are toast. (It's so embarrassing, they just have to go)

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 05:27 PM

Me too. Oh, and thanks for the kind words, Kendall.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 03:38 PM

I just love plowing up snakes!As long as there is some humor mixed in.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 03:21 PM

Carol C,

Your integrity is deeply appreciated. Maybe having an affair is a symptom of being in politics, not party?

And sooner or later all those "excellent minds" are gonna show up and teach all us opinionated SOB's a thing or two.:-)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 01:31 PM

Oh, yeah... and Rudy Giulianni.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 01:29 PM

I wasn't going to get myself into this debate. There are too many excellent minds at work here. I just want to take a moment to stick up for the poor beleaguered republicans who have been accused of not having any balls. There are plenty of philandering republicans. Henry Hyde and Newt Gingerich are two of the more recent examples.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 01:12 PM

Ike only had one mistress. Conservative right to the end! LH, I'm often impressed at your eloquence and your level head.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 12:50 PM

Now Pat Robertson has expressed concerns about the Faith-based initiative program. These little problems keep popping up. As W has prior experience with FB programs, you'd think he'd have at least considered some of these issues a little more carefully. Its almost as if there's another agenda running here. Robertson and FB Charities

Re: Politicians who were fooling around. I thought Eisenhower had a mistress?

And I'm not sure Kennedy counts as a democrat. Eleanor Roosevelt looked at him as a DINO.

Bart

Skeptic - Yeah, Jesse Jackson has put himself up there on the pedestal and deserves whatever you want to sling at him. He has been a disappointment as a human being. But that still shouldn't negate the good that he's done.

Or negate the issues he raises. The problem is that all to many link people like Jesse to the underlying issues and problems and do the intellectual shorthand of ignoring the reality of problems because they've discredited the "leader". It's distracting from the real issues.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:13 AM

Yup. People usually have their minds all made up about whether or not to like or hate a public figure.

Then they set about gathering evidence to support their chosen prejudice...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:58 AM

Mav - I don't think you're ignorant and I do appreciate your subtle humor. You keep the dialogue lively. Unfortunately, (and I know I've said this before,but you just don't seem to get it) you undercut your own points when you throw around unnecessary epithets.

I'll just try to illustrate this once more and then let it go. If you think Jackson is a "hypocrite" and you say it, I have no argument; you're working from the facts. If you say he's a "crook", you're reaching; you will need to provide proof of some criminal conviction or you will need to retract. If you say he's a "moron", you're telling me nothing about him and a lot about you; what I see is that you have something against the guy, and would not like him (Sam I am) regardless of his behavior.

Skeptic - Yeah, Jesse Jackson has put himself up there on the pedestal and deserves whatever you want to sling at him. He has been a disappointment as a human being. But that still shouldn't negate the good that he's done.

My point above, to state it plainly, is "What should we realistically expect of our leaders?" How do you measure a person's achievements, given his/her humanity? Does that blindfolded lady use her scale to weigh the good against the bad? Does one sin discredit a man or woman forever? Do Two? Three? How do you judge Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon? Is there a statute of limitations on dishonor? How about Tom Jefferson? Is the ownership of slaves and a black mistress his legacy?

I have to go
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 10:43 AM

I've been wondering myself why it is almost always Democratic politicians who are notorious philanderers???

And not republicans. Hmmmm....

Could it be the religious factor? The John Wayne factor? Or is it just that Republicans are too damned serious to have any fun? Or is it all three?

Whatever it is, something should be done about it. There's a fertility gap here, or something like that, and it is creating a schism in American politics that threatens the strength of the Union! :-)

MAV - Although it is a general trend for people to become more conservative as they get older, it isn't an absolute rule. It's also questionable as to whether it's a good thing. I find that people tend to shut down in the heart area as they get older, and instead become focused mainly on money, possessions, and guarding their turf. These are hardly positive changes. The open-heartedness and idealism of the young is evidence that they are still fully alive inside, and still capable of dreaming magnificent dreams. When people are no longer capable of doing that, they've already got one foot in the grave.

Also, to be "conservative" does not necessarily mean to be "right-wing", it just means to be hard-nosed and reactionary (well, that's what it means to me at any rate). The arch-conservatives in Soviet Russia were the old men, the top Communists, the bosses of the Kremlin, the generals, the commissars, and the deadly enemies of their conservative counterparts in America.

How ironical. They were mutually aiming their missiles at their spiritual blood brothers...while the "liberals" in both camps tried to find ways to end the conflict. The liberals finally prevailed in Russia, and the Cold War ended. You oughta thank those Russian liberals, MAV.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 08:12 AM

Speaking of philandering ministers, does anyone remember Martin L. King? Has anyone noticed that with one exception, Warren G. Harding) the other politicians who engaged in extra-marital affairs were democrats? What should we think about this? Is it because all those democrats are whore dogs? Or maybe the republicans dont have the balls to spare? (By the way, I dont respond to bomb threats!) ROTFLMAO!!!

A LITTLE HUMOR!! Oy Vey.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 12:02 AM

Dear Bartholomew,

"MAV - I was talking metaphysical pants" OH! Metaphysical pants!!!!

"I will assume ignorance of this term on your part because otherwise I would have to assume that your comment was some kind of cheap-shot implying homosexual interest on my part"

Yes, I know I'm ignorant. I knew about but wasn't really thinking about my metaphysical pants.

"That would be totally pointless in a political/philosophical discussion, wouldn't it?"

Yes, as would any straight faced debate about the racebaiting extortionist and philandering hypocrite, the holier than thou reverend Jackson.

"I take exception to your comments about Jesse Jackson's constituency "marching in lockstep" when they vote for a Democratic candidate"

Why, the democrats haven't done anything for them.

"Jesse Jackson has a long record for representing the best interests of the black community"

No he doesn't, he has a long record of helping himself to the treasury of the phoney organization he heads.

A Chicago inner city Baptist reverend said on national tv that they've trusted in Jackson and the democrats for decades, their schools are still falling apart and the original problems still exist, they are willing to give Mr. Bush a chance (even though they didn't vote for him)

"For you to contend that you know better than the black community itself what is in its best interest is the height of presumption"

Well, since their desire is to receive money from taxpayers (retributions and quotas) rather than "being equal" and participating in the American Dream, I'd say we are all involved and have a say in it.

"That you believe the overwhelming minority support for Al Gore was due to the blind following of charismatic leaders, rather than self-interest, is ludicrous"

Yes, ludicrous is right, you would have thought they would be more astute than that, I don't think for a second that they have lower intelligence, just misplaced trust.

"The implications about your thought process in presenting this argument do not speak well for you"

It's not my thought process, a higher percentage of blacks voted D (despite Bush's efforts to woo them) than ever before (with no outreach at all). Many pundits are blaming the racist dragging ad from the NAACP.

"It also bothers me that you don't understand that there is a huge difference between calling Jackson a "hypocrite" and a "moron"

I understand the difference, I think he's both. What kind of moronic accent is that? I've been to Chicago and didn't hear people talk like that, isn't Oprah from Chi-town? (ishas)

"There is a strong case to be made for the good reverend's hypocrisy"

Yes there is, he IS a hypocrite, and he's not a "good reverend".

"labelling him a "moron" is simple name-calling and rather pointless"

I can't believe you are even attempting to defend this lying, cheating, thieving criminal. The IRS should take him away.

I've heard many black Baptist ministers criticize the pig and tell him to JUST SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!!!

Next question please.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:49 PM

Mav

Yes, his legacy will be handing the entire government over to the Republicans

A time honored political tradition. Look at Hoover. He got blamed for the depression and liberals were in control for the next 30 or 40 years and ....oops....there's talk about a recession. Which isn't as big a deal as a depression but we can blame it on W and maybe get 15 years out of it :-).

Bart

It is not the responsibility of the leader to be perfect in mind, body and spirit. It is also not to fulfill the expectations of all and sundry. The role of the leader is to achieve the goals of those whom he is acknowledged to lead. And Jesse Jackson has worked relentlessly and publicly for decades to achieve opportunity for his constituents. And he has become rich along the way. And he is a powerful man. And he is not perfect. So what? It's a bitch when people don't live up to their own standards. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

I think a leader has a greater responsibility than that, if he assumes the mantle of leader. Being a little facetious, goals are what you hire managers for. Leaders should define policy and set standards.

I just remember people who knew Jesse way back when who though he was an opportunist of the first order. Did he change? Maybe. He's certainly effective. And he makes sure the whole issue stays in the public's mind where it needs to be.

I'm a little more critical about the illegitimate child thing. Because he was a minister and held himself to a higher standard and because the child won't have a father around. he gets some points for taking responsibility but it was a fairly substantial breach of faith. There needs to be some tangible show of remorse beyond "oops, sorry". Yes, we are all human. But when we adopt the role of moral, spiritual and political leader, and accept the power, accolades and money, I think something more than he's done is required.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:28 PM

Kendall - David Kendall was a Clinton lawyer, hence the source of mav's "humor". That Mav is a funny guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:27 PM

Hey Skeptic,

Thanks for starting a new thread, I was going to do that but you beat me to it. I had to go to an "after hours" with my wife.

"To finish a thought. There are things that Clinton can and should be blamed for. And will"

Yes, his legacy will be handing the entire government over to the Republicans.

I wonder if they actually did it on purpose, if so, we really thank them.

Uncle Jaque and I were laughing today about a fantasy where Hillary, Bill, Monica, Denise and Susan etc. were taking a curtain call, smiling, taking bows and saying "none of it ever happened, we scammed the DNC"

"However, on some of the older issues you continue to rage about, he had his day in court"

Yes, and he got slapped down for contempt of court. (I believe it was Judge Norma Holloway Johnson)

He didn't get his day in court with the Senate because the cowards (GOP) and the complicit (dems) failed to do their duty and even hold a trial, they should all be very proud now that they've enabled him to sink to this current level.

The house democrats were just a bunch of lemmings and the only heros of the day, in retrospect, were the House Managers and Ken Starr.

"I may not like the outcome but thats the way it is"

Agreed, but there are many more crimes yet to surface.

"I think, for example, that Neil Bush got of fairly light in the Silverado fiasco. Should that be reopened?"

If there is unfinished business that has not be prosecuted, that's not unreasonable, but he can't be tried twice for the same crime.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:22 PM

Troll, you are absolutely right. There is more to being a father than just paying the bills. There is also more to fatherhood than just being there. But you do the best you can given the circumstances you're in. Let's hope the reverend doesn't compound his error. Only time will tell.

It's hard to defend someone who has made an egregious error in judgement. What you can do is try to separate the man from the message and judge each on its own merits.

To return this to a Republican/Democrat thang: I contend that one primary difference between the right and the left is that the right will discredit a man's public record for a private indiscretion while the left will at least try to separate the two. That's why we get Clinton's private misconduct being compared to Nixon and Reagan's law breaking. It's all bad, but it is not all equal.

In the current discussion we get Jesse Jackson's public record repudiated because of a private act. Are there charges against him? Did he mis-use public funds? If and when he gets convicted history will consider him disgraced.

It is not the responsibility of the leader to be perfect in mind, body and spirit. It is also not to fulfill the expectations of all and sundry. The role of the leader is to achieve the goals of those whom he is acknowledged to lead. And Jesse Jackson has worked relentlessly and publicly for decades to achieve opportunity for his constituents. And he has become rich along the way. And he is a powerful man. And he is not perfect. So what? It's a bitch when people don't live up to their own standards. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:14 PM

Mav

It's supposed to work the other way around, becoming more conservative as you get older.

Damn. Something else I've being doing wrong.

BTW the quote's usually attributed to Churchill and says Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains

Which is interesting because I seem to remember that he wasn't exactly conservative (for his time) at thirty and clearly had brains.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:12 PM

MAV,I think I know who you are, but, I wont say. Troll, I dont know if all you said is true or not. We will have to wait to see if he abandons his child.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 10:58 PM

Hey groovy guys and gals,

Kendall,

"I was ALSO right about Clinton. Big deal. And, you are right about that "reich field" remark. That was uncalled for, and I do apologize"

Thank you for that.

"You bring out the worst in me, but, you will probably take that as a compliment!"

Well of course, just like the I-Man.

"By the way, why do you attach the name David to me?"

David Kendall was clinton's attorney in impeachment.

"Kendall is my first name"

I know exactly who you are, I've heard your music and downeast humor. I like all you guys (McDonald, Sample etc.) good stuff.

"Anyway sir...it is obvious that we are not going to change each others minds, so, why waste time trying?"

I don't know about you, I was just debating.

"Back when I was a Barry Goldwater republican, I thought much as you do, and, I was just as convinced that I was right"

You probably were.

"The solution was, mow them all down, let God sort them out"

Well I don't know about that.

"I grew up and wised up. Maybe you will too! LOL"

It's supposed to work the other way around, becoming more conservative as you get older.

(If by age twenty you are not a liberal, then you have no heart. If by age 40 you are not a conservative, then you have no brain) old quote

"Seriously, remember, "On a dead mans door, you can knock forever" my knuckles are sore. out"

I ain't dead yet, but I'll be glad to goof with you on a different level if you like.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 10:01 PM

Troll

Okay, standing as an accused liberal, I've got to say I don't like Jesse either. But (you knew there was one), Jesse is just highly visible. Signifying not a whole lot of anything. So is Madonna and who listen to her.

I believe that the only "best interests" that people like Jese Jackson have in mind are their own. By pushing the idea of victimization, that they are "owed" by the white establishment, and that HE can get them what's coming to them, the Jesse Jacksons of this world guarantee themselves a job and a following.

Which changes nothing So Jesse is a con-man. He may even be a self deluding con-man. And there are always people who'll follow anyone who promises something for nothing. Its why pyramid schemes work so well. He may be one of the more dangerous types of con men, one who believes his own con.

Does that change that fact that there are structural barriers for some groups being able to share in the American version of paradise? Even if you steal an argument from the Durants, who commented that the gates to the old ghettoes were locked from both sides, that doesn't mitigate the problem. Whether the victimization is real or not, as long as it's perceived as real, it needs to be addressed.

What would happen if the Reverend Jackson started telling his followers that they could make it by study, by hard work and by adherence to traditional family values i.e. take responsibility for your children and give them a two-parent home for example.

There are a lot of non-Jesse followers who do that. And paradise remains as elusive as ever. There's just enough truth to his spiel to make it plausible. Its why a con works. The key is that there is some truth there.

What do you say when someone plays by all the rules and is still overtly kept on the outside? The fact that all the feel-good legislation and programs aren't very effective isn't the point.

Instead, he sets the example by having children out of wedlock and tells his followers that they are owed all sorts of special accomodations because they are victims, thereby perpetuating the situation.

Yes, he's part of the problem. And so are all the people who feel they are owed everything. But what about all the rest? The African Americans who think Jesse's an idiot. And still fell like they are being denied a chance? Talk to a loan officer sometime, very off the record, about unofficial policies and guidelines. Or a policeman in our own town. As a public defender we both know once commented as he was doing about 10 miles over the speed limit and I said something "Oh don't worry. Police won't stop us. Wrong color"

The Cubans, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese,Viet Namese and others who have come to this country have made it without all the help that Jackson and his ilk would have everyone believe is necessary. Yes, there was slavery in this country. It ended in 1865.

However, back in the 60's, I don't remember marching to get Chinese, Koreans or latino's the right to vote or to rent an apartment. I do remember sitting with my girlfriend and two African-American NAACP lawyers in her apartment with a cross burning outside the front and being told by the police "well what do you expect if you let those kind in your home?" BTW, that was the 1960's not the 1860's. I remember an apartment I had at the Beach. The couple across the hall was Chinese, Downstairs were more wasps. And the landlord wouldn't rent to African-Americans because "you know how they are". Which is why I moved, cause I knew how he was.

For whatever reason, the assimilation and acceptance hasn't happened. Jesse is a symptom and a leech. You seem to imply he's somehow a cause.

< I>In the past 45 years there have been hundreds of laws passed to end racial discrimination. If those laws are enforced, why should we still need special programs. Because people haven't changed? You cannot legislate the way people think. There have always been bigots and there always will be bigots. To think differently is to display a profound ignorance of human nature. We can legislate against actions but not against thoughts.

There may indeed always be bigots. Sadly, in some parts of the land, that's considered to good thing. There will always be obnoxious drunks too. I don't have to like them, tolerate them, or hang around them. What I should do is minimize the harm they cause and not tacitly accept that "oh well, they'll always be here. And when people glorify being drunk, I need to speak up. We all do. You do, btw. So is this arguing for the sake of arguing?

When the bigotry is institutionalized, of course you need laws to stop certain actions. The laws don't change anyone's minds. They're not supposed to. That's our jobs, as friends, neighbors, and citizens.

When the Democrats get over 90% of the African-American vote it's hard not to call that "lock-step" voting. The vote for Gore was certainly self-interest but Jackson and his demagogic brothers were out front telling them what their self-interest was and assuring them that they could make it happen only if the Democrats got in

Lock Step, perhaps. . But then so was, according to the polls, the vote of the less tolerant Christians.

And Jackson was out front, on the TV, in the news. That hardly equates to being a cause of it all. Or even showing that he's prolonging it. Just as Pat Robertson's pronouncements didn't cause the fundamentalist Christians to vote for W. They all remind me of the old phrase "I must hurry and catch the others, for I am their leader". . There is a story going around that the Voting Rights Act expires in a couple of years and a lot of African-Americans are worried about it happening. To date, I haven't heard Rev Jackson, Sharpton, or Mr M'fiune(sp?) address this lie. Why don't they set their followers minds at ease about this?

Maybe because debunking urban legends is a no-win situation?

Could it be that they want to keep things stirred up for their own purposes? We'll have to wait and see.

Could it be that it's easier to blame Jesse than address core problems? For society, I mean. Could it be that very few take the Voting Rights nonsense seriously? Could it be that you're taking this attitude in a deliberate attempt to irritate me?...but I digress.

Meanwhile, Jackson, who is a highly gifted speaker, pursues his own agenda under the guise of helping his followers.

Damn. The man's a demagogue and insincere. He's in good company. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell Sharpton, and to some extent people like Limbaugh and Bortz(sp?). Brothers under the skin. They're a problem because they're opportunists, preying on fear and greed and hate and ego and seem to have little regard for consequences. Dare I say "ends justifying means". IMO, they're all scum who wrap themselves in righteousness. Probably self deluding scum.

Which changes nothing. The fundamental issues remain unaddressed and festering.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:53 PM

Kendall, is anything I said untrue?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:06 PM

You could devote a whole thread to it, and call it Jesse-whacked!

- LH (on right cookie now...)

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: hesperis
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:04 PM

It's too bad we can't get Jesse himself to post on this thread...

That would be fun.

Then we could get Jesse Helms to offer rebuttals.

Neato.

Spaw, you're a smart guy...how do you think we could induce those 2 worthies to join the Mudcat???

- LH

Damn! Wrong cookie. Sorry, hesperis... That was me, not her.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: hesperis
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:03 PM

It's too bad we can't get Jesse himself to post on this thread...

That would be fun.

Then we could get Jesse Helms to offer rebuttals.

Neato.

Spaw, you're a smart guy...how do you think we could induce those 2 worthies to join the Mudcat???

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:02 PM

What the hell was that David stuff all about anyway? Troll, Jackson might as well throw in the towel, you have already convicted him!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 08:37 PM

Kendall, you're still forgetting to sign off as David!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 08:26 PM

Jackson is interested in power. Money is just the way you keep score. A man who hungers for power cannot retire from the public eye if his power is derived from being in it.
If he was so interested in helping his "constituients" he wouldn't have squandered all the money he is reputed to have spent on his mistress(es). He would have seen that it went to helping the poor people he claims to represent.
To my way of thinking, Jesse Jackson is no better than any other politician who claims to feel the pain of the needy while living high on the hog. He is more interested in power than anything else. And you are right. I don't like him. I also don't like Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, and a whole bunch of others but my like or dislike doesn't change the facts.
So Jackson hasn't abandoned his child? Will he be there to be a father to him, to teach him how to play ball, to teach him how to be a man? I doubt it. He'll send money, he has plenty of that. What he won't spend is time and the message he sends is that it's ok, as long as you send money you don't have to spend time.
Why not ask a kid if he'd rather have a lot of money or his father to read to him at night.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: kendall
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 07:22 PM

UNCLE ALREADY!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: wdyat12
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 06:04 PM

I'm getting tired of this BUSHWACKED thread as named. Can we call the next one BUSHIT 8?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 04:29 PM

Troll, Your opinion about the messenger is your business, but I think you're wrong about his message. As I said before, Jackson's primary goal is access to jobs, not handouts. Pointing out that there are still incredible differences in opportunity for minority children is not the politics of "victimization". If George W. can be elected president as an advocate for the put upon 1% who pay ever so many taxes, we need men like Reverend Jackson to be an advocate for his constituents. Should there be others out there working looking after the rights of poor white folks, hispanics, middle-class anybodies, etc.? YOU BETCHA

As far as "out of wedlock" children, Reverend Jackson hasn't (as far as I know) disavowed or abandoned anyone. He didn't walk away from the child. Sure there is a moral issue when a family man fathers a child with a woman not his wife. But as far as I know the Reverend Jackson hasn't walked away from his responsibility to his child or his family here. Nor has he walked away from his responsibility to represent his constituents. He has shown how a man takes the hit for his mistakes and moves forward. His agenda? If his goal was personal wealth and power, he could have retired from the public eye a long time ago. You don't like him. You don't have to like him. But don't let your dislike for him blind you to the good that he has done and continues to do.

I had an uncle, a teamster, who absolutely loved Jimmy Hoffa. My granddad took every opportunity to call him a crook. My gramps knew he was a blowhard who was only feathering his own nest in the name of his union brothers. Try to convince my uncle of that. Same goes for Jackson. Or George W. for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 04:13 PM

troll - you said "We can legislate against actions but not against thoughts."

Dead right. Well said.

As for the "victim" psychology...it's a very nasty one indeed, and it has led to travesties like the O.J. Simpson trial. Strange that Hollywood almost invariably casts blacks either as:

1. violent criminals and drug dealers

or

2. saintly victims of racial discrimination

or

3. mouthy, obnoxious, and supposedly funny egomaniacs spouting stereotyped ghetto slang (in the sitcoms)

but hardly ever as...real people. I've known a fair number of black people who were quite unlike any of those 3 carboard role models above, thank God.

Those sterotypes are a disservice to blacks and whites alike, and have helped perpetuate the racial problems in America. Hollywood plays the "race card" all the time to pull in big bucks at the box office. It can't help but affect people's perceptions, and not for the better.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 03:26 PM

Bart, I believe that the only "best interests" that people like Jese Jackson have in mind are their own. By pushing the idea of victimization, that they are "owed" by the white establishment, and that HE can get them what's coming to them, the Jesse Jacksons of this world guarantee themselves a job and a following.
What would happen if the Reverend Jackson started telling his followers that they could make it by study, by hard work and by adherence to traditional family values i.e. take responsibility for your children and give them a two-parent home for example.
Instead, he sets the example by having children out of wedlock and tells his followers that they are owed all sorts of special accomodations because they are victims, thereby perpetuating the situation.
The Cubans, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese,Viet Namese and others who have come to this country have made it without all the help that Jackson and his ilk would have everyone believe is necessary.
Yes, there was slavery in this country. It ended in 1865. In the past 45 years there have been hundreds of laws passed to end racial discrimination. If those laws are enforced, why should we still need special programs?
Because people haven't changed? You cannot legislate the way people think. There have always been bigots and there always will be bigots. To think differently is to display a profound ignorance of human nature.
We can legislate against actions but not against thoughts.
When the Democrats get over 90% of the African-American vote it's hard not to call that "lock-step" voting. The vote for Gore was certainly self-interest but Jackson and his demagogic brothers were out front telling them what their self-interest was and assuring them that they could make it happen only if the Democrats got in.
There is a story going around that the Voting Rights Act expires in a couple of years and a lot of African-Americans are worried about it happening. To date, I haven't heard Rev Jackson, Sharpton, or Mr M'fiune(sp?) address this lie. Why don't they set their followers minds at ease about this?
Could it be that they want to keep things stirred up for their own purposes? We'll have to wait and see.
Meanwhile,Jackson, who is a highly gifted speaker, pursues his own agenda under the guise of helping his followers.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 02:52 PM

Also, although a person may sometimes be hypocritical (and we all are, sometimes)...does this justify simply labelling him a "hypocrite", as if that is the total summation of his existence?

As for being moronic, we are probably all that sometimes, too. Jesse Jackson can't be a complete moron, or he would hardly have gotten as far as he has in life.

Better to criticize the man's policy decisions than insult him.

Of course, the Democrats have accused Bush of similar failings...so it's tit for tat, isn't it?

Lovely subject to wake up to in the morning....

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 02:47 PM

It all began way back on January 22, 2001. The credit (or blame) goes to Kat/Katlaughing.

For all you die hard rerun fans (yeah you, the guy on his 19th round of Gilligan reruns), you can relive the magic by going here: blicky

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 02:32 PM

MAV - I was talking metaphysical pants. "Getting caught with your pants down" is a long-used and still functional metaphor for having one's ideas exposed as vacuous and being left without a fallback position. I will assume ignorance of this term on your part because otherwise I would have to assume that your comment was some kind of cheap-shot implying homosexual interest on my part. That would be totally pointless in a political/philosophical discussion, wouldn't it?

I take exception to your comments about Jesse Jackson's constituency "marching in lockstep" when they vote for a Democratic candidate. Jesse Jackson has a long record for representing the best interests of the black community. Whether you accept that or not is beside the point. For you to contend that you know better than the black community itself what is in its best interest is the height of presumption. That you believe the overwhelming minority support for Al Gore was due to the blind following of charismatic leaders, rather than self-interest, is ludicrous. The implications about your thought process in presenting this argument do not speak well for you.

It also bothers me that you don't understand that there is a huge difference between calling Jackson a "hypocrite" and a "moron". There is a strong case to be made for the good reverend's hypocrisy; labelling him a "moron" is simple name-calling and rather pointless.