Quote:
Originally posted by MSKKG
From what I've heard, I think Mr. Lott was referring to Mr. Thurmond's conservative values and how they would have been better for the country than liberal ones.
"Conservative values" as in believing that the American people are resourceful, independent, proud, and want to succeed without government help. With all their talk of wanting to help the "little people," it seems that the liberals don't trust the American people to make their own decisions; therefore, they keep them in their role as dependents on the government.
|
MSKKG, I could go with you on this
if Lott had actually said something along these lines, something like "Strom Thurmond has been a great proponant of conservative, American values -- values that if we had lived by them for these many years would have made us an even better country." You get the drift.
But that's not what he said. What he said was that the country "would not have had all of these problem that we've had" if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. The reality is that Strom Thurmond didn't run for president espousing "conservative values" like "believing that the American people are resourceful, independent, proud, and want to succeed without government help." Wasn't his concern at all. Thurmond ran on one value and one value only -- segregation of the races had to be maintained at all costs. So, when Lott said that the country "would not have had all of these problem that we've had" if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948, then the only way to interpret that statement, without completely straining credulity, is that we "would not have had all of these problem that we've had" if we had remained completely segregated. As I said above, if Lott didn't understand that this is how his statement would be understood, then he is woefully ignorant of American history, as well as woefully bereft of judgment.
Quote:
Originally posted by MSKKG
... it's also obnoxious how Democrats paint Republicans as people who want to starve children and old people, destroy the environment, and sit in palatial homes while everybody else is wandering the streets (ever count how many rich Democrats there are, hmm?). We all share the same planet and, I hope, want what's best for society. Everything we do will have an impact on others somehow, someway.
The Democrats, with the help of the liberal media, have promoted class envy. I would be insulted for someone to insinuate that I don't have what it takes to succeed because of my race, sex, creed, etc. (Mentors are not the same as someone doing things for you.) As far as the rich are concerned, I'm glad they are around--the ones who own businesses provide jobs for us all.
|
With all due respect, I would be careful about painting "liberals" with such a broad brush right after you complain about the broad brush conservatives are painted with. (See the quote at the top, too.) No, Republicans don't want to starve old people or children and sit in palatial homes while others wander the street. (At least, most of them don't.
) But neither do Democrats lack trust in the American people to make their own decisions (Again, at least not most of them -- gotta be fair here). Consider the abortion debate as an example.
The fact is that neither conservatives or liberals have monopolies on righteous motives or even good sense. People of good will in both camps have different ideas about what is best for the country, as well as how to get there. Often there is wisdom on both sides, often there is stupidity on both sides. In any event, broadbrush characterizations of liberals or conservatives don't help anybody, except those who place politics above all else.
BTW, it might be worth noting that many of the calls for Lott's resignation as Senate majority leader are coming from conservative Republicans who (1) think he now hurts efforts of thr GOP to reach out to minorities and/or (2) have been dissatisfied with him for years because they don't think he is conservative enough and is too willing to compromise -- now they see an excuse to get rid of him.