What do u guys think? - Page 2

Munchkin03 · #16 12-14-2002, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ADPiViolets
And don't you remember?
Former President Clinton didn't resign when he lied UNDER OATH, folks.

Yeah, and does that mean that it's right? Two wrongs don't make a right, regardless of which party does "wrong" first.

Why are the sins of the Democratic party being aired out here? We are talking about TRENT LOTT and some ignorant comments he's said. He may be a "wonderful Southern gentleman" and all, but that does not prevent him from saying things that are just wrong. If he was such a wonderful Southern man, he'd be the bigger person and RESIGN.

Was it the "liberal media" that some of you criticize so much that jumped on Clinton back in 1998? Or for that matter, Gary Condit? It's funny how the media changes political leanings when it's "our" guy who's in trouble.

On a Greek-life note, his daugher is a KD...at her wedding (which was in Southern Living Weddings in 2000), all of the flowers were white roses.

Sistermadly · #17 12-14-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ADPiViolets
Jesse Jackson says all Jews live in Heine-Town, and no one blinks an eye.

ADPiViolets, Jesse Jackson was raked over the coals for this, and for the record, it was (pardon my French) hymie-town, not heine-town. And he didn't say "all Jews live in h-town", he was referring to a political stop in New York City, which has a very large Jewish population, hence the "h-town" reference.

The difference is, Jesse Jackson was not an elected official who claimed to represent the views of all Americans. He was running for president at the time, but had never been elected to any other office. Jackson apologized profusely, and his gaffe cost him a great deal of support at the Democratic convention that year (1984).

To this day, relations between Jesse Jackson and the Jewish community are strained at best, hostile if people are being honest, and rightly so.

I remember all of this vividly because I was actually old enough to be interested when this happened.

ADPiViolets · #18 12-14-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crystalline

I don't care what anyone says. I still think Clinton kick a$$! And really, what he does with his interns really isn't anyones business (and I am speaking strictly about Monica). Countries in Europe were making total fun of our country for the big deal people made about it. The only person who should have been all over him about it was Hillary.

I don't care what he does with his Interns or anyone either. He can f**k Al Gore for all I care.
What I do care about it the fact that he LIED under oath. If you or I were to go to court, and try half the S**t that he did, we'd be in jail.

Sistermadly · #19 12-14-2002, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Munchkin03
Why are the sins of the Democratic party being aired out here?

Because it's a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Just kidding!

But it is interesting how people are making this into a liberals vs. conservatives battle, when it was conservative Republicans who first brought this to light, and Republicans first asked him to step down.

A Democrat -- Tom Daschle (Senate Minority Leader) -- actually said that Lott shouldn't step down. If anything, the Democrats missed out on a huge opportunity, and are very silent about this whole thing.

What ticks me off about the so-called "liberal" media is that lately whenever they bring out someone who is calling for Lott's resignation, they trot out the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, as if only black people should be/are upset about this.

ADPiViolets · #20 12-14-2002, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Munchkin03

Why are the sins of the Democratic party being aired out here?

If he was such a wonderful Southern man, he'd be the bigger person and RESIGN.

I am not talking about political parties. You misunderstood me.
I do not consider myself to be a Democrat or a Republican, as I have voted for members of both parties.

And I am am not going after the Democratic Party. If it were Ronald Reagan who had lied under oath instead of Bill Clinton, I would have said the same thing, only with different names.

And no one should have to resign for making an error in his choice of words. Do you think he honestly would have said anything like that deliberatly? And risk his integrity and his future political life?
Perhaps the same can be said about Bill Clinton. But perhaps if anyone needed to be the "bigger person and RESIGN" it should have been Clinton, instead of allowing his country to drag through the long and expensive Impeachment process. But that's just my opinion.... and I'd think the same if it happened to Ronald Reagan.

ADPiViolets · #21 12-14-2002, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sistermadly

I remember all of this vividly because I was actually old enough to be interested when this happened.

Thanks for the little jab at my age there, Sistermadly. I appologize for not being old enough.

ADPiViolets · #22 12-14-2002, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sistermadly

But it is interesting how people are making this into a liberals vs. conservatives battle, when it was conservative Republicans who first brought this to light, and Republicans first asked him to step down.

I am NOT making this into a lieral vs. conservative battle. And I am full aware that it was the Republican who initiated all of this.

Munchkin03 · #23 12-14-2002, 06:32 PM

I'm not a member of either party, for what it's worth. I just noticed that it's convenient to pull Bill Clinton (or Gary Condit or Gary Hart) out when the heat's on more, shall we say, conservative politicians (who tend to be Republican) who say or do stupid things. Oh, I totally understood you. I just made a point in response to what OTHER PEOPLE have posted.

I don't think Lott said what he did deliberately, but as you should know, it's not what we say deliberately that often gets us in trouble, it's the backhanded, off-the-record things that bite us in the @$$.

Sistermadly · #24 12-14-2002, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ADPiViolets

Thanks for the little jab at my age there, Sistermadly. I appologize for not being old enough.

You're forgiven.

It wasn't a jab at you, by the way. If anything, it was a reference to how positively ancient I feel because I remember it clearly.

Sistermadly · #25 12-14-2002, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Munchkin03
I'm not a member of either party, for what it's worth.

Me either. I voted for Nader in 2000.

crystalline · #26 12-14-2002, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ADPiViolets

I don't care what he does with his Interns or anyone either. He can f**k Al Gore for all I care.
What I do care about it the fact that he LIED under oath. If you or I were to go to court, and try half the S**t that he did, we'd be in jail.

My point was simply that he should not have been on trial under oath anyway. It was no one's business what his sexual activities are. Lying under oath is bad, no doubt.

Firehouse · #27 12-14-2002, 10:36 PM

Time Magazine makes an issue of the struggle within Sigma Nu over the so-called "white clause". We all went thorugh it in the 1960s, and it was a highly volatile issue.
In the 1960's all the national fraternities integrated, but the thing we can all point to with pride is that no one made us do it. There was pressure from administrations, sure, but there were no lawsuits, and there was no way anyone could force fraternities to integrate. Greeks had been specifically exempted from the Higher Education Act of 1965.
The reason fraternities began pledging men who were not white is that they were smart enough not to cut themselves out of a great market. They realized that if they wanted to be a good fraternity, they needed to rush the best men on campus. If you had a chance to pledge a young Michael Jordan, or Tiger Woods or Colin Powell, wouldn't you do it? The smart fraternities realized to their credit that they should seek out the best guys. Period. We should take great pride in the fact that we came to that conclusion because we recognized that character is colorless, and no one made us do it.

justamom · #28 12-15-2002, 08:26 AM

Munchkin03Why are the sins of the Democratic party being aired out here? I'll throw in Richard Nixon if it helps!

Sistermadly-I have to say you have made some excellent points.
It's too far back, but was it you that pointed out the fact that the discussion in the media was now questioning why some were acting like it was only blacks who should be offended when we ALL should be incensed? I too heard this discussion. You were also right when you said it was FIRST noticed by the conservatives.

On FOX ( No Arya, I still haven't mended my wicked ways LOL) they did point out something about this fact. Why was it that no one cared about the comment initially? Could it possibly be that at first glance it was just taken for what it was-a birthday toast albeit a poor one? Why DIDN'T the liberals SEE it first? Sure, people can say the conservatives wanted to beat them to the punch... Fox also said this comment will probably be the "slogan" in the next election as the Democrats try to paint the entire Republican Party with that now infamous comment. So, in light of THAT, perhaps he should step down. I just won't judge what was in his heart, because I really believe he was paying homage to a 100 year old statesman, NOT implying "The South will/should rise again".

Sistermadly · #29 12-15-2002, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by justamom
It's too far back, but was it you that pointed out the fact that the discussion in the media was now questioning why some were acting like it was only blacks who should be offended when we ALL should be incensed?

Yup, it was me. I don't get Fox News up here, so I was relying on CNN. That's when I noticed that all of a sudden, they were trotting out the Congressional Black Caucus at every opportunity. Thank heavens for the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): At least I can get a fairly unbiased reporting of the story.

Oh, and if anyone's interested, there's a really long piece on Trent Lott in today's New York Times. It's also available online: http://nytimes.com/2002/12/15/national/15LOTT.html

Firehouse · #30 12-15-2002, 03:47 PM

went after Sigma Nu is that an editor at the Washington Post was a Sigma Nu contemporary of his at another school, and they both voted to support segregation. The W-Post editor blew the whistle, according to one of the posted articles, because over the years Lott has referred to the story of the supposedly liberal editor voting the way he did in 1960.