HILLARY''S FIRST NIGHT AS PRESIDENT IN 2009

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/9/2005 7

6:57 PM
Author: movie zombie
ROFLOL, deb!!!

believe it was none other than mr kissinger who when asked why such an ugly man as himself could get so many gorgeous chicks and it went something along the lines of ''power/politics is the greatest of aphrodisiacs....

peace, movie zombie

ps richard, i note that you are still the only one providing links for resource verification purposes.

This saddens me more than anything. It was in jest that he said that. Henry is a very nice man. His wife an even greater & couragous one. On this I will say nothing further.

Except on a less personal note, power isn''t always the aphros. It''s the person.

 

[movie zombie]

jest?! the interview i saw didn''t appear to be in ''jest''.

peace, movie zombie

 

[movie zombie]

kissinger was asked the question when he was single and his honesty was refreshing.

personally, i don''t think he was physically ''ugly''. however, kissinger had other attributes that i found extremely ugly and those all had to do with his politic, especially as relates to south america and vietnam.

peace, movie zombie

 

[movie zombie]

actually, i was trying to make a humorous point: politics and sex just seem to end up sharing the bed together, so to speak. and kissinger always seemed to know that. more power to him. at least he was honest about it.

peace, movie zombie

 

[rubydick]

"Henry is a very nice man."

Fire&Ice, let me say that I understand. A good friend of mine once called Henry Kissinger a great American. My friend is someone that I have tremendous respect for. One of the most decent people I''ve had the pleasure to meet in this lifetime.

Deep down inside, we all need heroes. If Henry K. is yours, I understand.

But what I am about to say cuts to the bone of everything on these political forums.

We all have our deeply held beliefs, we all have our cherished notions. I am no different than anyone else. I have my biases, we all do.

My question is a simple one:

You believe Henry Kissinger is a very nice man.

What would it take to change your mind?

Which actions would extend beyond the pale, what is the straw that would break your back? What sort of evidence would it take for you to reassess your opinion?

I''ll leave it at that. Please understand: I would never bother if I thought your mind was closed.

 

[fire&ice]

Perhaps when one knows someone, whoever that may be, on a personal level it can change perspective.

It''s quite a leap of faith or ignorance to take a phrase "he''s a nice man." & equate that to him being my hero? Please don''t insult me with all your crap about having a closed mind & somehow you will change my mind with I''m sure all the "horrible" things you could accuse him of. I just don''t get it. It seems that if someone has a perpective other than yours - you seem to BELIEVE *they* are misquided - or somehow not informed - *especially* from *your* sources.

But, I do agree that power of any kind can be a turn on. But, but, so can intelligence & wit. Power is certainly not limited to politics.

I canceled my post yesterday. I was surprised that it went through. The comment, which I have no doubt he said, is only one facet of a man.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/9/2005 8:26

2 PM
Author: Feydakin
For the most part, liberals don''t like conservatives with a sense of humor.. I remember the hell that broke loose after Ronaldus Maximus did his mic check..

Or believe they can believe the comment soley on it''s content and not on interpretation.

This thread has become insane. And, I fully admit to being part of the insanity.

 

[movie zombie]

did anyone besides myself see the documentary movie BLIND SPOT: HITLER''S SECRETARY? the following is taken from imbd.com:

"Traudl Junge was Adolf Hitler''s private secretary, from Autumn 1942 until the collapse of the Nazi regime. She worked for him at the Wolfsschanze in Obersalzberg, on his private train and, finally, in his bunker in the besieged capital. It was Traudl Junge to whom Hitler dictated his final testament. In her first ever on-camera interview, 81-year-old Junge talks about her unique life. " that''s all this doc is about: her view of and relationship with hitler. the doc was filmed and she died several months later.

this woman had a very good relationship with hitler and she relates instances of his humor, real concern for her, etc. she found him to be a good boss, a gentleman, and a very caring individual. however, there came a time when she could no longer reconcile what she knew about him with what he had done to others in the world, i.e. jews. it seemed to tear her apart inside....that this man who she obviously respected was reviled by the world [and for good reason, i might add]. watching her and listening to her in that interview, i''m not quite sure that she was ever able to come to terms with it....but she tried.
a Mort-31 from Vienna, Austria reviewed the movie and said, "Without these insights into Hitler''s every-day life, one might think that the Holocaust was committed by some virtual monster. In fact, it was not a monster but a human being. This makes it, in my opinion, even more terrible and disturbing. " i agree with Mort-31 from Vienna.

my point is that this woman did not deny hitler''s wrong doing just because she personally knew him to be a good man...... and while i''m sure mr kissinger can be personally charming, there are others in this world that would like to see him tried for crimes against humanity.

peace, movie zombie

ps wow! who would have thought a joke bashing ms clinton would take us all the way to kissinger?! what an equal opportunity thread this has been!

 

[movie zombie]

no, i did not. please re-read. i would also suggest seeing the movie. it is a lesson to learn from regarding perception.

not many people reach the horror of a hitler when it comes to crimes against humanity, but it doesn''t mean that the actions of those people aren''t still crimes against humanity.

as regards mr k: henry has been summoned to appear in connection with investigations into human rights abuses in both chile and argentina. at one point, brazil advised Kissinger to cancel travel plans to that country since they could not guarantee him immunity from prosecution there. on a trip to paris in 2001 he apparently had to sneak out of france after being served with a warrant to appear in court in connection with an investigation into human rights violations in chile which resulted in the murder of French citizens. even london has considered charges against henry.

what i''m trying to say is that just because some one says they know henry and that he''s a nice man, i''m not inclined to ignore evidence to the contrary.

so, who made that cold shower comment anyway? i thought it was funny so i brought up the kissinger comment merely to highlight that politics can be hot sexy stuff for some people. never in my wildest dreams did i think a throw away comment would get picked up and tossed around for more than it was meant to be. however, since it did let me say that i still think henry''s comment re power/politics/sex was right on [no matter what i may or may not think of him as a person].

peace, movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/10/2005 7:43:43 PM
Author: Feydakin
Did you just compare Kissinger to Hitler?????

Check please................................

Mine too while your at it.

...and now we return to your regularly scheduled program from the Truth Master and his disciples.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/10/2005 9:50:25 PM
Author: movie zombie
so, who made that cold shower comment anyway?

(Raises hand) I did!

Deb, who thinks that removing the democratically elected president Salvador Allende in Chile; killing him; and replacing him with Pinochet and the others who created the vast class of the "disappeared" in Chile was one of the great crimes in history...at least one of the great ones committed by the United States! The women of Chile protested by quilting the stories of those who disappeared in their arpilleras. It is a beautiful artform and I own a huge arpillera I bought in Colombia.

 

[AGBF]

movie zombie's posting, which mentioned Chile, made me decide to go research the coup d'état that toppled the presidency of, and ended the life of, Dr. Salvador Allende. I was not looking for anything on Henry Kissinger, but when in found a site in England (started after Pinochet's capture to document the human rights abuses during his regime), I saw that many articles in reputable newspapers did, indeed, discuss Henry Kissinger and his ties to the Pinochet régime. This is the site founded by people living in Great Britain, some of whom are Chileans who survived the Pinochet dictatorship, some of whom are apparently Britons.

Articles

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

These are excerpts from an article published in "The New York Times" in 2002 by Larry Rohter.

"With a trial of Gen. Augusto Pinochet increasingly unlikely here, victims of the Chilean military's 17-year dictatorship are now pressing legal actions in both Chilean and American courts against Henry A. Kissinger and other Nixon administration officials who supported plots to overthrow Salvador Allende Gossens, the Socialist president, in the early 1970's.

In perhaps the most prominent of the cases, an investigating judge here has formally asked Mr. Kissinger, a former national security adviser and secretary of state, and Nathaniel Davis, the American ambassador to Chile at the time, to respond to questions about the killing of an American citizen, Charles Horman, after the deadly military coup that brought General Pinochet to power on Sept. 11, 1973.

...

The death of Mr. Horman, a filmmaker and journalist, was the subject of the 1982 movie 'Missing.' A civil suit that his widow, Joyce Horman, filed in the United States was withdrawn after she could not obtain access to relevant American government documents. But the initiation of legal action here against General Pinochet and the declassification of some American documents led her to file a new suit here 15 months ago.

...


Relatives of Gen. René Schneider, commander of the Chilean Armed Forces when he was assassinated in Oct. 1970 by other military officers, have taken a different approach than Mrs. Horman. Alleging summary execution, assault and civil rights violations, they filed a $3 million civil suit in Washington last fall against Mr. Kissinger, Richard M. Helms, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and other Nixon-era officials who, according to declassified United States documents, were involved in plotting a military coup to keep Mr. Allende from power.

In his books, Mr. Kissinger has acknowledged that he initially followed Mr. Nixon's orders in Sept. 1970 to organize a coup, but he also says that he ordered the effort shut down a month later. The government documents, however, indicate that the C.I.A. continued to encourage a coup here and also provided money to military officers who had been jailed for General Schneider's death.

'My father was neither for or against Allende, but a constitutionalist who believed that the winner of the election should take office,' René Schneider Jr. said. "That made him an obstacle to Mr. Kissinger and the Nixon government, and so they conspired with generals here to carry out the attack on my father and to plot a coup attempt."


Article in "The New York Times"

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/9/2005 7:42

8 PM
Author: fire&ice
Henry is a very nice man.

No one has, as yet, asked you why you think this. Is he a personal friend of yours? I have never met him, but his *ACTIONS* must speak for themselves. The more I read, the more convinced I am that he is not a "nice" man, let alone a "very nice" man, but a man responsible for torture and murder.

Deborah

 

[movie zombie]

well, deb, i hope you had that cold shower! it certainly heated up in this thread but not in a sexy, steamy kind of way.......

and, yes, mr kissinger certainly has the blood of thousands on his hands.....

peace, movie zombie

 

[rubydick]

Date: 5/10/2005 7:43:43 PM
Author: Feydakin
Did you just compare Kissinger to Hitler?????

Check please................................

Actually, that's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Hitler's policies resulted in the deaths of many millions. Hitler personally killed no one.

Kissinger was the architect of policies that also resulted in the deaths of millions. Kissinger personally killed no one.

Look at it this way. If my buddy robs a bank and kills someone and I drive the getaway car, I am also charged with murder. This is US law. Conspiracy law. And people go down every single day under these conspiracy statutes.

But back to Kissinger. Let's start in 1968. Kissinger was then in the Rockefeller camp and considered a moderate. So much that he was in touch with both Republicans and Democrats, both of whom were giving him foreign policy briefings. The Johnson administration informed him of the progress in the peace talks with the North Vietnamese. LBJ wanted peace in Vietnam as his legacy. Kissinger secretly passed this info on to the Nixon camp, who then passed it along to the South Vietnamese with the message that they would get a better deal under a Republican administration. Poof! The peace agreement was finished. And Nixon won in an incredibly close election.

When the US (under Nixon and Kissinger) did finally make an agreement with the North Vietnamese in 1973, it was for basically the same terms as proposed by LBJ in 1968. In the intervening period (1969-1973), Kissinger orchestrated the invasion of neutral Cambodia, giving rise to the Khmer Rouge. Countless unneccessary deaths occured in the intervening period.

Others have documented Kissinger's machinations in Chile, so I will stick to what I know best: SE Asian history.

Just prior to the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975, Gerald Ford and Kissinger visited Indonesia. Since Indonesia was a client state of the US, and since Indonesia's military was armed by the US, and since an attack against East Timor would violate US law regarding US-supplied weapons, Suharto needed assurance that all would be well. Ford and Kissinger supplied that green light, and Indonesia attacked. In the following year, something like 60,000-100,00 East Timorese died. When all was said and done, on a per-capita basis, Indonesia's military action killed more people in East Timor than the actions of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Some might call that genocide. Indeed, many have used that word. Thanks, Hank.

It is not uncommon for Hitler's name to be used in the same sentence with that of Pol Pot. And I suspect that Feydakin would not protest that usage. So why the soft spot for Henry the K?

The evidence suggests that the policies of Hitler resulted in some 10-30 million dead. The record also suggests that Kissinger's policies resulted in the deaths of several million.

Steve, I'll address the same question to you that Fire&Ice has apparently deemed unanswerable. At what point does someone's behavior extend beyond the pale? In your opinion, just where is the bar of evidence placed? What would constitute "proof" in your mind? At what point does someone go from being "nice" to "not-so nice" to being a simple criminal to being a war criminal?

Let me close with this. The first of the crimes that came to be known as Watergate had nothing to do with the burglary that G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt and others went to jail for. The first "Watergate" crime involved breaking into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, seeking material to destroy him because of his leak of the Pentagon Papers.

How many Americans understand what the Pentagon Papers really were? Do you?

The Pentagon Papers were an internal history drafted by the US Dept. of Defense on the US involvement in Vietnam, covering the period from World War II to April 1968. Before Nixon became President, before Kissinger joined him.

The reason their publication was such a threat to Nixon and Kissinger was that they laid bare the fraud that had been perpetrated on the US public by their officials. The Pentagon Papers showed that US politicians had consistently lied to the American public.

Again, why were Nixon and Kissinger so concerned? It can be summed up by the following:

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

They were concerned that Americans might actually get a glimpse of what was actually happening behind the curtain. That we puppets might actually reaize that we were being manipulated.

When the Pentagon Papers came out, Kissinger pulled out all the stops to destroy the man who leaked them. This was the first "Watergate" crime. The only reason he was not put on trial with the rest of the sorry bunch was that a deal was struck. The cover story was that the investigating committee decided to limit their investigations to "domestic crimes." And so it was that Henry the K. managed to skate free. He learned his lesson well. It does pay to play both sides of the fence.

Kissinger has spent a lifetime cultivating a "nicey-nice" image while enacting and carrying out ruthless policies. If there is a hell, no doubt a special place is waiting for him there.

Again, I'm done with links. Anyone who is interested can look this up for themselves.

 

[movie zombie]

richard and deb, it would appear we define ''nice'' differently.......

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/12/2005 4

4:32 AM
Author: movie zombie
richard and deb, it would appear we define ''nice'' differently.......

mz, would that be that Richard and Deb define "nice" differently than mz or that we (Richard, Deb, and mz) define "nice" differently from fire&ice? I don''t think she ever defined "nice" for our edification.

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Richard,

I never considered the episode with the Pentagon Papers to be part of "Watergate". (OK, so I had totally forgotten about it!) For me the "Watergate" crimes started with the burglary of the Democratic National Committee which was housed in the Watergate apartment complex.

I was absolutely fascinated with the episode at the time of the break-in. Not only did I read the newspapers fanatically and stay glued to the Senate hearings on television, but I attended the Senate hearings (standing in the back of the room, of course). No one who did not live through that era can know how familiar all those Senators became to us, the US citizens. Sam Ervin, the great Constitutional scholar. Daniel Inouye from Hawaii who had lost an arm as a soldier in World War II. I have to go back and look at their names. You are certainly stirring up old memories!

Deb

 

[AGBF]

One Senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating the scandal was Lowell Weicker of Greenwich, Connecticut. He was the First Selectman of Greenwich while I was growing up there and, like all Greenwich First Selectmen, was a Republican. This site has a highly readable, insider's view of Watergate...from inside his office. It's nice and gossipy .

article

Here are some excerpts!

"If one had searched for the most incompetent group of politicians—politically biased in every way—you might have come up with the cast for the Senate Watergate Committee, more formally known as the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. Chairman Sam Erwin (D-N.C.), who reluctantly took the chairmanship, was often seen dozing during the hearings and tended to let others dictate the committee’s agenda. The Republican minority was led by Tennessee’s Howard Baker, the ambitious son-in-law of the powerful Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. Baker, who maintained a close, personal relationship with the president, was the obvious White House plant on the rudderless committee. Baker was a 'finalist' in Nixon’s original vice presidential sweepstakes, which went to Spiro Agnew. Later, Baker rejected Nixon’s offer of a seat on the Supreme Court following the rejections of Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. and G. Harrold Carswell.

Herman Talmadge (D-Ga.) loomed large and lethargic throughout the proceedings. Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) gave the impression he would prefer the whole smelly mess to blow away. Joseph Montoya (D-N.M.) was the laughing stock of the committee for his inane questions. The media reveled in the joke about Montoya sitting up late at night at home rehearsing yesterday’s questions.

At least the patrician Ed Gurney (R-Fla.) was totally honest about his support for Nixon. During the hearings, Gurney wrote a heartfelt note to the president in longhand, expressing his undying support. In return, he received a canned response from the White House correspondence office. That bureaucratic reply, and the mounting evidence, eventually drained some of the passion from his defense of the president.

...

And then there was Weicker—all 6’ 6” of him—the bull in the china shop, the Jolly Green Maverick who had no love for Nixon and Chuck Colson in particular. Weicker’s father, who was then with the tariff-concerned Textile Conference, had been contacted at some point by Colson. The White House underling told the senior Weicker that the administration would appreciate junior’s pro-vote on the controversial anti-ballistic missile system. It was not exactly a bribe offer, but when Weicker heard about it from his father he rushed down to the White House and blasted the ears off Colson.

...


Like no other member of the committee, Weicker was prepared. Before the panel was even formally announced, Weicker had formed his own investigative unit that interviewed scores of former and current White House employees and campaign officials.

...

Backbiting and backstabbing by both the majority and minority staffs, the seven senators and two chief counsels—the egomaniacal Sam Dash and the duplicitous Fred Thompson—were pulling the committee apart. Democratic staffers did not want to share information with their minority colleagues. Democratic senators distrusted the Republicans and Republican senators distrusted the Democrats and everyone was wary of Weicker’s “maverick” impulses.

The most incorrigible partisans were Senator Baker and the hand-picked Thompson, a 30-year-old Tennessee lawyer with an Ed ward G. Robinson scowl who had served as Baker’s 1972 senatorial campaign manager. Baker later described Thompson to President Nixon as a “Tennessee lawyer with brass balls.” Their mission was to make things easier for the White House whenever possible, leak pro-White House stories and fight the immunity process for anti-administration witnesses.
...


While there are exceptions, most reporters are force-fed information, and the title “investigative reporter” is a misnomer. In truth, a good reporter has good sources; a great re porter has great sources.

Everybody on the Senate Watergate Committee leaked— from the senators to the committee staff to the lowest secretary. The lantern-jawed Thompson, who would later appear in countless movies and is now a U.S. senator from Tennessee, made a big deal early in the hearings about curbing committee leaks while he was feeding pro-Nixon stories to a naive Washington newcomer like Connie Chung. The White House leaked around-the-clock.

But Weicker’s office was a gold mine of information. At times, there were scores of reporters stumbling over each other outside the senator’s office in the Old Senate office building, waiting for their daily handout.
...


While Weicker had daily meetings to buck up Ervin and propose immunity for key witnesses, he had already interviewed and battled the Baker/Thompson cabal and the staff was developing leads and interviewing sources under the senator’s direction. The results: In addition to producing Dean, Weicker’s office turned up the infamous Enemies List—the tape of the phone conversation in which John Ehrlichman described former FBI Director L. Patrick Gray as “twisting slowly, slowly in the wind”—and they brought to light domestic spying activities of the Justice Department’s Internal Security Division.

They unearthed a memo on which Bob Haldeman had penciled “Good” and “Great” next to a sentence predicting that demonstrations at a Nixon rally would be “violent” and “obscene.” And, they revealed “The Shotgun versus the Rifle” memo in which the White House staff proposed using various federal agencies, from the IRS to the Securities and Exchange Commission, to crack down on anyone, specifically the major networks and newspapers, that disagreed with them. The memo was a blockbuster. It enhanced the CBS career of then-Washington tyro Leslie Stahl and shattered shaky media support for the besieged president.

...


Weicker single-handedly moved the committee forward and Ervin, the constitutional scholar who agonized over taking the chairmanship, became a national folk hero.

Weicker was the first Republican to blow the whistle on the Watergate cover-up; the first to denounce White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman; the first and only senator to vote for open Watergate hearings; the first to interview White House counsel John Dean; the first to demand that the IRS audit President Nixon’s income taxes; the first to submit direct questions to the president about his role in the cover-up and the first to demand the reversal of the incomprehensible agreement between Senators Baker and Erwin and President Nixon to let aged and infirm Senator John Stennis audit the White House tapes.

The networks replayed and replayed the tape of the hearing room crowd erupting in the longest and loudest applause of the televised proceedings after Weicker declared: 'Let me make it clear. Republicans do not cover-up; Republicans do not go ahead and threaten; Republicans do not go ahead and commit illegal acts; and God knows Republicans don’t view their fellow Americans as enemies to be harassed but rather, I can assure you, that this Republican, and those that I serve with, look upon every American as human beings to be loved and wanted.'

The committee’s 1,250 page Report on Presidential Campaign Activities, issued on June 27, 1974, covered seven volumes. Weicker also wrote an independent summation. Forty administration officials eventually were indicted and a president resigned. Along the way, even Howard Baker knew the president had lied to him. His belated 'what did he (the president) know and when did he know it' is now part of the national lexicon.

The Senate Watergate Committee presented the American public with the cancer that corrupted the president and his men. These daily episodes provided a litany of corruption undreamed of in the annals of American politics, replacing soap operas on daytime television and turning millions of housewives into political analysts. Whatever their motives, passions, talents—or lack thereof—men like Erwin, Baker, Weicker, Talmadge, Inouye, Gurney and Montoya bought time for the Jaworskis and the Siricas to conduct their own investigations. Once the Watergate grand jury’s secret report was turned over to the House Judiciary Committee, impeachment was only a matter of time.

When the web of deceit began to unravel, Nixon panicked, shifting the blame onto his various generals. Richard Nixon was not driven from office by cabals. The CIA did not set out to cripple his presidency. The bureaucracy did not connive to immobilize the White House. There were no secret armies of political enemies; no armed divisions of Democrats lying siege to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The media, despite breast-beating, merely moved the story along, fed by a daily diet of leaks.

On August 8, 1974, with his support in the Senate reduced to about a dozen and his popularity polls below 30 percent, Nixon announced on television that he would resign at noon the next day.

Nixon’s political death was by his own hand. 'If you’re not one of us, you’re against us,' was the credo of the Nixon administration. The predominately young button-down, blue-shirted legions who marched on Washington with Nixon took up their positions like conquerors. They entered the unreal, perquisite-laden realm of the White House, surrounded on all sides by black iron fence and security devices and were filled with contempt for anyone outside that fence. And they got drunk on power—the power to threaten, to coerce, to dominate. They never considered using that immense power to convince, to sway, to compromise.

Political opposites were not partners in negotiation but objects of retribution. And like the old adage, absolute power did in deed corrupt. Safeguarded from reality, Nixon and his troops became prisoners in the isolated splendor of the White House.

The members of the committee, specifically Weicker, were not immune from White House skullduggery. Blatantly untrue rumors were planted by Colson and others that Weicker was switching to the Democratic Party; that the senator’s daughter had been arrested on drug charges (Weicker did not have a daughter); that the senator was having multiple affairs and that his 1970 senatorial campaign was rife with illegal and unethical financial practices. Weicker was even tailed by White House operative Tony Ulasewicz. The White House also tried to dig up dirt on the squeaky-clean Ervin.

But nothing worked.

The Nixon Administration flagrantly and systematically violated constitutional rights, subverted the electoral process through illegal fund-raising and campaign sabotage, abused the federal bureaucratic machinery and willfully obstructed justice.

It failed because seven men did their jobs. Watergate was Richard Nixon’s worse nightmare. It was Lowell Weicker’s finest hour."

Deborah

 

[movie zombie]

mz, would that be that Richard and Deb define "nice" differently than mz or that we (Richard, Deb, and mz) define "nice" differently from fire&ice? I don''t think she ever defined "nice" for our edification.

deb, the latter applies: we (richard, Deb, and mz) define "nice" differently from fire&ice....or so it would appear.

i come from a long line of people that define ''nice'' differently.....when my father was introduced to nixon, he refused to shake hands with him. rather rude in the context of the situation but then my father was not one to compromise his principles.........

thanks for the watergate info. it just goes to show that there are individuals who will do the right thing no matter which party they belong to...... one can only hope that there are more like Weicker out there now that will step forward and do their job.

peace, movie zombie

 

[rubydick]

Date: 5/12/2005 1:38:53 PM
Author: movie zombie
i come from a long line of people that define 'nice' differently.....when my father was introduced to nixon, he refused to shake hands with him. rather rude in the context of the situation but then my father was not one to compromise his principles.........

peace, movie zombie

MZ,

Your father sounds like a great man. Someone who was willing to stand by principles, rather than party affiliation.

And also many thanks to Deb for so many posts, too many to name. I read them all. So sorry I cannot always comment.

Took me many years to realize what nationalism meant. Took me so long to understand that nationalism equalled racism, i.e. it was a belief that someone was inherently superior based upon their citizenship.

What is happening today in America is the rise of partyism, a belief that if you are a member of one party, somehow you are superior to another.

I've never believed that. Steve and Fire&Ice might be shocked by what I'm about to say, but here goes:

I am interested in your opinions, I learn a bit each time you write something. I do not believe you are crazy. When I ask my questions, they are not accusations, they are an attempt to understand.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/12/2005 11:58:41 PM
Author: Richard Hughes
Took me many years to realize what nationalism meant. Took me so long to understand that nationalism equalled racism, i.e. it was a belief that someone was inherently superior based upon their citizenship.

I once heard "nationalism" defined as the belief that one's country was superior due to the fact that he was born there.

Deb

 

[partgypsy]

Wow, this conversation is deep. I have been going through my own development thinking about what it means to be patriotic. I don''t feel it should be blind belief or faith that our government (or government officials) are infallible, but a love for one''s country and hope to make it the best that it can be, and to be involved in that effort, even in one''s individual actions. I am probably odd in that I think it makes a good American to be for things that make this country better, even if it doesn''t benefit me personally. I for one would rather have the tax structure as it was during Clinton''s administration than the record deficit we have now, even if it means I''d have to pay a little more.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/23/2005 1:54:25 PM
Author: part gypsy
Wow, this conversation is deep. I have been going through my own development thinking about what it means to be patriotic. I don't feel it should be blind belief or faith that our government (or government officials) are infallible, but a love for one's country and hope to make it the best that it can be, and to be involved in that effort, even in one's individual actions. I am probably odd in that I think it makes a good American to be for things that make this country better, even if it doesn't benefit me personally. I for one would rather have the tax structure as it was during Clinton's administration than the record deficit we have now, even if it means I'd have to pay a little more.

It's nice to have you join this thread. Your definition of patriotism would tend to be my definition of patriotism as well. My inner struggle is over whether I want to be patriotic at all, even in the sense which you describe.

After 9/11, I devoted many hours to raising money for the family of the victims. I feel that the firefighters, in particular, were absolutely gallant in their determination to rescue others. They went up stairs as others came down, knowing they would probably die. To honor them and the other victims I sold items on eBay's Auction for America. I bought some little pins and wrapped them in red, white, and blue tissue paper with flag stickers and mailed them out...all at my expense. I also bought red, white, and blue items at fantastically high prices. The proceeds went to charities helping the victims and their families. I consider that patriotic. I had never experienced a disaster like the one visited on us by Al Qaeda. I wasn't born when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, which some people feel was an equal shock.

Since that time I have seen my country do some things of which I am very ashamed. When I look back I know why I wrapped myself in the flag, but I am wary about doing that again. My country is definitely not right all the time. I am not sure I want to salute a flag for one country, any country. I do not think that Friends (Quakers) do salute a flag or pledge allegiance to it. I find myself drawn to that religion (which happens to be my parents' religion). Even if I do not get involved in a discussion of God, I do not know that I think patriotism of any kind is correct. My question (for myself) is: shouldn't *ALL* people be equally important? Should I place an American above another human being? And, when I get God involved, I also ask, "Aren't we all *equally* children of God?"

Deborah

 

[movie zombie]

deborah, the conversation just got even deeper with your post.

part gypsy, i agree with you re taxes.

i think what is bothering me the most right now is the position of the US which is ''you''re either with us or you''re against us'' and within the the US ''its you against me''.

i''m still inspired by something i was taught as a very young child: do unto others as you would have them do unto you AND ye who are without sin cast the first stone.

how do we justify the kissingers of the world, invading iraq for non-existent WMD, etc.? the words of jesus certainly don''t advocate premptive strike......

and here at home we seem unwilling to educate our young; care for our elders; and provide health care for all our citizens.

currently it appears that the US definition of freedom is ''you are free to believe just like me''. otherwise, don''t think and don''t bother to speak.

peace, movie zombie

 

[partgypsy]

There are many things in the United States that one can point to and be ashamed of. I work with veterans. I hear stories every day of events that the majority of people would prefer to believe never happened. However, I don''t think that lets us off the hook. We can point to the many positive things that the United States and US citizens have done around the world. Again that doesn''t let us off the hook. If anything Americans have more responsibility, compared to other citizens, to insure this country lives up to its ideals, simply due to the incredible power and influence this country wields.
When my father moved here from another country some 40 years ago, America really meant something; it was a dream, a place of opportunity, of democracy and free speech. My Dad learned English two ways, 1) from being drafted in the army, and 2) from reading newspapers, relentlessly educating himself. He is very perceptive of world events and is surprised at the depth of complacency American people demonstrate at the doings of their own government. He has said that the track record of dictactorships, as far as how long they have existed on this earth, is alot better than democracies. We think that some 225 years is a long time, it is not. If we want to assure that our children will grow up in a democracy, in a safer, sane world, we cannot take it for granted.

 

[movie zombie]

nicely stated, part qypsy.

democracy is an every day event, not just at the voting booth. it is exercising freedom of speech, contacting elected officials, etc.


peace, movie zombie

 

[lmurden]

Date: 5/24/2005 12:26:24 PM
Author: part gypsy
There are many things in the United States that one can point to and be ashamed of. I work with veterans. I hear stories every day of events that the majority of people would prefer to believe never happened. However, I don''t think that lets us off the hook. We can point to the many positive things that the United States and US citizens have done around the world. Again that doesn''t let us off the hook. If anything Americans have more responsibility, compared to other citizens, to insure this country lives up to its ideals, simply due to the incredible power and influence this country wields.
When my father moved here from another country some 40 years ago, America really meant something; it was a dream, a place of opportunity, of democracy and free speech. My Dad learned English two ways, 1) from being drafted in the army, and 2) from reading newspapers, relentlessly educating himself. He is very perceptive of world events and is surprised at the depth of complacency American people demonstrate at the doings of their own government. He has said that the track record of dictactorships, as far as how long they have existed on this earth, is alot better than democracies. We think that some 225 years is a long time, it is not. If we want to assure that our children will grow up in a democracy, in a safer, sane world, we cannot take it for granted.

Cheers!

 

[MINE!!]

Date: 2/28/2005 11:08:40 AM
Author:Iceman

HILLARY''S FIRST NIGHT AS PRESIDENT IN 2009

Hillary Clinton gets elected President and is spending her first night in The White House. She has waited so long..........

The ghost of George Washington appears, and Hillary says, ''How can I best

serve my country?''

Washington says, ''Never tell a lie. ''

''Ouch! '' Says Hillary, ''I don''t know about that.''

The next night, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson appears... Hillary says,

''How can I best serve my country? ''

Jefferson says, ''Listen to the people. ''

''Ohhh! I really don''t want to do that.''

On the third night, the ghost of Abe Lincoln appears... Hillary says, ''How can I best serve my country? ''

Lincoln says, ''Go to the theater. ''

LOL