[Eug]

Jesse Helms died today, on Independence Day.

Associated Press: Reaction to the death of Jesse Helms

I personally hated his politics (what I knew of it anyway), but at least he didn't try to hide his true beliefs I suppose.

[hokie17]

/salute from a North Carolinian

One of the last politicians that could be counted on to keep his word. We always knew where he stood.

From Fox News:

Helms and his wife, Dorothy, had two daughters and a son. They adopted the boy in 1962 after the child, 9 years old and suffering from cerebral palsy, said in a newspaper article that he wanted parents.

Say what you will about him, he was an honorable man.

[Luca Rescigno]

I didn't even know he was still alive.

Either way, meh. He was a racist old coot. Not happy that he died, not sad.

[OldManMac]

While it is true that you mostly knew what he stood for, much of what he stood for was hardly honorable and a credit to the human race. He perpetuated a lot of racism; there's nothing to celebrate in that.

[hokie17]

Did you ever really pay attention? He didn't want those groups to have less rights, he just didn't want whites to be discriminated against because others were were given special considerations (i.e., affirmative action).

[OldManMac]

It isn't me who wasn't paying attention.

[Powerbook]

Let's all hope where he goes he won't be haunted by the dangerous Negro's, Faggot's, Communist's, Multilateralist's, Foreigner's and all those other enemist's of Amaraca.
Good riddance...

[macdude]

He was a horribly racist and homophobic man. That is all I am going to say.

[turtle777]

How is i honorable if someone can be "counted on to keep his words" in terms of racism ?

Just because "we always knew where he stood" doesn't make him great. With Hitler, we also always knew where he stood.

I'm not gonna shed a tear.

-t

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Let's all hope where he goes he won't be haunted by the dangerous Negro's, Faggot's, Communist's, Multilateralist's, Foreigner's and all those other enemist's of Amaraca.
Good riddance...

Don't forget people who don't know how to use apostrophes.

I understand the sentiment behind fighting against affirmative action that gives preferential treatment to one race over another, because in that case it's still discrimination. But the guy stood up to every attempt by African Americans to receive even equal treatment. Just because one of his positions wasn't totally racist doesn't mean the rest weren't.

[vmarks]

Had Helms ever actually said anything racist or homophobic, it would have been used against him by his political opponents during the campaign season.

But that never happened.

Instead what we have are people who know in their hearts Helms was racist, but never heard him utter a racist sentiment first-hand. Instead they believe it, because other people say he was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk is the campaign ad Helms ran against Harvey Gantt. Helms clearly positions himself against racial quotas, and positions Gantt as for racial quotas. If you believe that racial quotas are a racist policy, then Helms is opposed to racism.

As for the homophobia charge, all I can find is a bill that is credited to Helms at this page: http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/federal/1...s25.text-01.95

Note that the bill is not homophobic - it is against wasteful spending.
The bill says no money should be spent to compel federal employees to hire homosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. Shouldn't employees be hired on the basis of their competency for the job at hand?

The bill also says no money should be spent on seminars or programs to get government employees to embrace or condone homosexuality - and why should taxpayer money be spent on a seminar to modify the personal beliefs of a government employee? The employee's personal beliefs shouldn't matter (especially since they're not supposed to bring their personal beliefs into the workplace), the ability to perform a job is all that counts. Spending money on a seminar that takes away from time spent on the job seems wasteful.

So, it appears that the homophobia and racism charges are false.

(I know, I know. Introducing evidence that opposes the received common wisdom in a P/L thread is asking for it. Received wisdom is usually not that wise.)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Had Helms ever actually said anything racist or homophobic, it would have been used against him by his political opponents during the campaign season.

So it's all just a great ****ing misunderstanding ?

Good grief...

-t

[vmarks]

No, it's all political vindictiveness with no evidence, and belief without verification by those susceptible to being taken in.

If there were any reliable evidence of Helms' supposed racism his Democrat opponents would have openly used it against him. They didn't. Instead, they ran disreputable whisper campaigns, spreading false rumors about him.

When you just uncritically accept every bit of unproven slander you encounter against someone you badly want to despise, you end up repeating what just isn't supported by facts.

[turtle777]

I don't think your argument is a good one.

There are countless examples and evidence of other politicians saying racist and dumb things, and their opponents did NOT find ways to exploit it.

Just because the opposition wasn't able to use this for their advantage is NOT proof that those issues never existed in the first place. And btw, form all I read, Helms opponents DID use the racist argument against him in their campaigns. It was just not enough o overcome the overcome the general sentiment and beliefs in NC.

-t

[turtle777]

Oh, to add one more thing:

your line of argument reminds me of those nutcases that deny the Jewish Holocaust has ever happened in WWII in Germany.

They say: If It really had happened (it being the systematic killing of Jews), people in Germany surely would have spoken up against it and done something about it.

Sorry, I don't want to invoke Godwin's law. Rather, I want to be cautious with arguments that try to disproof the validity of something by evaluating only secondary actions and reactions.

-t

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't think your argument is a good one.

There are countless examples and evidence of other politicians saying racist and dumb things, and their opponents did NOT find ways to exploit it.

As desperately as Democrats wanted Helms out, they couldn't find a way to exploit something for 5 terms? It's just not believable, your position.

Just because the opposition wasn't able to use this for their advantage is NOT proof that those issues never existed in the first place. And btw, form all I read, Helms opponents DID use the racist argument against him in their campaigns. It was just not enough o overcome the overcome the general sentiment and beliefs in NC.

-t

What did you read? What did you do to verify the sources of what you had read?

I think you misunderstand the "general sentiment and beliefs in NC."

Helms was the first Republican senator since reconstruction. That's right. Helms became the first Republican elected to the Senate from North Carolina in the 20th century.

The sentiment for everything prior to 1973 when Helms started serving his first term was staunchly Democrat. The notion that a Republican could win office was unheard of.

Even now, it's nearly impossible. Republicans haven't had a majority in the state legislature since Reconstruction. We've had one Republican Governor in the past 100 years or more. Shoot, when I registered to vote in NC in 1993, I asked for a voter registration form and the county librarian gave me a form pre-printed as a Democrat registration. You have to ask nicely if you want to register Republican.

That should help you get a sense of the political climate in this state. Be careful when you think about the 'general sentiment and beliefs' of North Carolinians that you aren't just believing what you've heard.

Helms' first campaign used a theme "He's one of us" - not a racist sentiment, considering that the opponent was also white. The sentiment was one of understanding the "general sentiment and beliefs of NC" and suggesting that his opponent (who probably could have been re-elected to the House had he not decided to run for Senate) did not understand the sentiments and beliefs of NC (never mind that Galifianakis was born in Durham NC in 1928) - which is incidentally why national Democrat candidates do so poorly in NC and other parts of the South. They make no attempts to understand what matters to people down here, instead holding onto smearing a large section of the country as backwards racists -- unless of course they want votes. Then they come down, do this awkward attempt at trying to act like they want southern Democrats to be a part of the 'big tent' until it's no longer necessary, and then they can return to stereotyping. It's really quite offensive, but most national Democrat candidates don't seem understand that.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Had Helms ever actually said anything racist or homophobic, it would have been used against him by his political opponents during the campaign season.

But that never happened.

Instead what we have are people who know in their hearts Helms was racist, but never heard him utter a racist sentiment first-hand. Instead they believe it, because other people say he was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk is the campaign ad Helms ran against Harvey Gantt. Helms clearly positions himself against racial quotas, and positions Gantt as for racial quotas. If you believe that racial quotas are a racist policy, then Helms is opposed to racism.

As for the homophobia charge, all I can find is a bill that is credited to Helms at this page: http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/federal/1...s25.text-01.95

Note that the bill is not homophobic - it is against wasteful spending.
The bill says no money should be spent to compel federal employees to hire homosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. Shouldn't employees be hired on the basis of their competency for the job at hand?

The bill also says no money should be spent on seminars or programs to get government employees to embrace or condone homosexuality - and why should taxpayer money be spent on a seminar to modify the personal beliefs of a government employee? The employee's personal beliefs shouldn't matter (especially since they're not supposed to bring their personal beliefs into the workplace), the ability to perform a job is all that counts. Spending money on a seminar that takes away from time spent on the job seems wasteful.

So, it appears that the homophobia and racism charges are false.

(I know, I know. Introducing evidence that opposes the received common wisdom in a P/L thread is asking for it. Received wisdom is usually not that wise.)

You know, sometimes, for a person who appears to be reasonably intelligent, you amaze me. Helms has a long history of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and hatred for anyone other than people like himself. In 1995, he referred to the University of North Carolina (UNC) as the "University of Negroes and Communists." (Charleston Gazette, 9/15/95)

In 1950 he helped create an ad against a Democrat, for a fellow Republican, that said in part, "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." Another ad featured photographs Helms himself had doctored to illustrate the allegation that Graham's wife had danced with a black man. (FAIR 9/1/01, The News and Observer 8/26/01)

After a protest to a visit by him to Mexico, in 1986, he made the comment that all Latin people were violent, and that he wasn't surprised by the reaction.

He does indeed have a long history of hatred for those who don't agree with his views, and he's never been afraid to say it either. http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...der/index.html

It didn't take much of a search on Google to find out what kind of character (or rather, lack thereof) he had. It shouldn't have taken much, in any event, because it's been well known for decades.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh, to add one more thing:

your line of argument reminds me of those nutcases that deny the Jewish Holocaust has ever happened in WWII in Germany.

They say: If It really had happened (it being the systematic killing of Jews), people in Germany surely would have spoken up against it and done something about it.

Sorry, I don't want to invoke Godwin's law. Rather, I want to be cautious with arguments that try to disproof the validity of something by evaluating only secondary actions and reactions.

-t

Now THIS is a faulty argument by you. First of all, it's not analogous - political opposition trying to unseat an office holder and failing to use something so damaging, versus genocide? Really?


Secondly - your argument is false.

Some Germans (and others. Remember, the Reich wasn't just Germany) did speak up. We Jewish people call them 'righteous gentiles.'

They were people like Paster Martin Niemoller.
Schindler.
Raoul Wallenberg.
Jan Karski.
Cardinal Archbishop of Lwow (Count Andreas Szeptycki)
Wladyslaw Bartoszewski
Pastor Andre Trocme and Daniel Trocme

and many more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righteo...ng_the_Nations talks about the concept, and links to http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/vwall.html where you can click on a country and see the righteous from those countries. http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_...d_stories.html has interesting stories about those who spoke out and rescued people (Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, homosexuals) who would otherwise have been put to death.

[turtle777]

Dude, you totally missed my point.

I was speaking about your reasoning process, and made an example that would make it clear as sh!t. Well, fuggetaboutit.

-t

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You know, sometimes, for a person who appears to be reasonably intelligent, you amaze me. Helms has a long history of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and hatred for anyone other than people like himself. In 1995, he referred to the University of North Carolina (UNC) as the "University of Negroes and Communists." (Charleston Gazette, 9/15/95)

False quote.
Here's why.
The accusation was that, "in one [WRAL] editorial he labeled the University of North Carolina (UNC) the 'University of Negroes and Communists.'" The WRAL editorials ran in the early 60s. There is neither a transcript or a recording of such a remark, and no accuser even gives a date on which he was claimed to have said it. There's no indication of where or when he supposedly used it. The newspaper isn't in North Carolina, it is in West Virginia (where Helms' editorials were never aired)! What's more, the article wasn't even a news article, it was a 1995 Helms-bashing editorial, which said that Helms started out in politics as "a segregation-forever crusader" (which is transparently false), and also claimed that he had once "dubbed UNC the 'University of Negroes and Communists.'" The West Virginia newspaper gave no source for the accusation. If the remark was made on the air, in one of Helms' WRAL editorials, then it would have had to have been prior to 1973, which means that there is no source for the accusation dated within twenty-two years of the latest date when the remark could have been made!

In 1950 he helped create an ad against a Democrat, for a fellow Republican, that said in part, "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." Another ad featured photographs Helms himself had doctored to illustrate the allegation that Graham's wife had danced with a black man. (FAIR 9/1/01, The News and Observer 8/26/01)

False again. In 1950 Helms was a 28 year old Democrat. It's like you're not trying.

After a protest to a visit by him to Mexico, in 1986, he made the comment that all Latin people were violent, and that he wasn't surprised by the reaction.

what, no citation for the quote?

He does indeed have a long history of hatred for those who don't agree with his views, and he's never been afraid to say it either. http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...der/index.html

It didn't take much of a search on Google to find out what kind of character (or rather, lack thereof) he had. It shouldn't have taken much, in any event, because it's been well known for decades.

It doesn't take much for you to pull up the smears that have been used against him, but you can't come up with much in the way of facts. You're just finding the stuff that supports the view to which you're predisposed.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dude, you totally missed my point.

I was speaking about your reasoning process, and made an example that would make it clear as sh!t. Well, fuggetaboutit.

-t

My friend, you made a really bad point. It didn't communicate what you intended because the facts didn't support you. Think on it, and maybe try again. Maybe come up with campaigns which ran against Helms that show I'm incorrect. I showed the Helms Gantt ad, maybe you can come up with something?

[turtle777]

No, what's the point. You like Helms, so go right ahead.

Me, and thousands of others, are glad he's gone.

If all the allegations are just the fabrication of the nutjob Libruls (or whoever you claim made it up), so be it.

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The bill also says no money should be spent on seminars or programs to get government employees to embrace or condone homosexuality - and why should taxpayer money be spent on a seminar to modify the personal beliefs of a government employee? The employee's personal beliefs shouldn't matter (especially since they're not supposed to bring their personal beliefs into the workplace), the ability to perform a job is all that counts. Spending money on a seminar that takes away from time spent on the job seems wasteful.

Do you feel the same way about making sure employees don't do racist or sexist things on the job — it's not worth the time? Because it seems to be generally accepted that those things should be discouraged, so not applying the same logic to gay-bashing does seem to put gays on a lower level.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you feel the same way about making sure employees don't do racist or sexist things on the job — it's not worth the time? Because it seems to be generally accepted that those things should be discouraged, so not applying the same logic to gay-bashing does seem to put gays on a lower level.

It's not about putting anyone on a lower level - it's about keeping an even level. Remember, the first part of that bill was to deny funding to any program that would compel a person to be hired on the basis of sexual orientation.


Gay-bashing should absolutely be discouraged. You do so by punishing any occurrence of it in the workplace.

I can see why an employer fearing liability might want to stave off any occurrence through some form of seminar or notice before a bad act takes place.

At the same time, these seminars are time-wasters for everyone but the person getting paid to conduct the seminar -- real productivity losses exchanged for hopeful avoidance of lawsuit.

Gay-bashing, and gay-promotion -- neither belong in the workplace. In fact, unless you are employed in a business that markets to homosexuals, I'm not sure why sexual orientation belongs in the workplace at all, especially not a federal workplace. Neither does race or religion.

How would you feel about spending federal money to re-educate all federal employees that FILL IN NAME OF RELIGION is legitimate and normal? My answer is, sure it is. Why are we wasting money? Tell everyone in a memo, don't bring your personal beliefs on religion, sex, sexual orientation, or race into the workplace. They have no place here.

[Luca Rescigno]

I think it's hard to argue that Helms wasn't a gigantic racist.

"I've been portrayed as a caveman by some. That's not true. I'm a conservative progressive, and that means I think all men are equal, be they slants, beaners or niggers."
- Jesse Helms, North Carolina Progressive, February 6, 1985

[turtle777]

This seems to be one of these "misunderstood" quotes that made "people [...] know in their hearts Helms was racist."

Of course, it's just a great ****ing misunderstanding / conspiracy.

-t

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Had Helms ever actually said anything racist or homophobic, it would have been used against him by his political opponents during the campaign season.

But that never happened.

Oh please, it "happened" over and over again.

He opposed the Ryan White Care Act because he believed that people with AIDS were responsible for their condition through their "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct". Never mind Ryan White got AIDS from a blood transfusion. He wouldn't even talk to Ryan White's mother when they were alone in an elevator--according to the New York Times.

Years later, he toned his rhetoric down and said his opposition to federal funding was "wrong" - but only because he finally realized that people didn't always get AIDS from having sex. Regardless, he still publicly considered gay sex to be disgusting and revolting conduct--and this belief has been behind much of his work.

He also stated in his 1990 re-election campaign "Think about it. Homosexuals and lesbians, disgusting people marching in our streets demanding all sorts of things, including the right to marry each other. How do you like them apples?"

[vmarks]

Does Luca actually have a copy of the North Carolina Progressive from 1985?

Or did he just find that quote online attributed to Helms in the North Carolina Progressive from 1985 and paste it in here?

Where was the North Carolina Progressive published? Who published it, so that I can track down its archives? I've lived here off and on since 1984 and know of no such publication. That isn't to say it doesn't exist, just that if it does, it very likely had small circulation and isn't one of the more reputable news organizations around.

Why isn't this quote in a paper of record, you know, one of the real newspapers that also didn't much like Mr. Helms. Like the Raleigh Times, the News and Observer, the Greensboro News and Record, the Charlotte Observer, Durham Herald-Sun ? It seems that something so clear and damaging would have been published by any one of the newspapers of record. But it wasn't. That makes it suspect.

What happens is, people make stuff up, attribute it to a paper, and when you go and chase down the ACTUAL PAPER, it's just not there. Or, what also happens is, an editorialist at a paper makes such a quote without any reference to a time or place when it would have been said and recorded, so it cannot be verified - and this happens in an editorial rather than in a serious news article, but people reference as if it were fact.

That's how I know that the quote OldManMac gave from the West Virginian paper, the Charleston Gazette, was false. The trail for that quote ended with the Gazette editorial, with no record of that particular quote having ever been spoken, and the first citation of it being found in 1995, when it was supposed to have been said in the 1960s on television.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This seems to be one of these "misunderstood" quotes that made "people [...] know in their hearts Helms was racist."

Of course, it's just a great ****ing misunderstanding / conspiracy.

-t

No, it's a political smear campaign. Don't tell me you've never seen one before?
"Bush lied, people died" ? "Bush let Katrina happen to kill black people?" people make crap up to damage their political opponents. That doesn't make the crap true with the passage of time.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

We Jewish people call them 'righteous gentiles.'

What a deliciously ironic term.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Oh please, it "happened" over and over again.

He opposed the Ryan White Care Act because he believed that people with AIDS were responsible for their condition through their "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct". Never mind Ryan White got AIDS from a blood transfusion. He wouldn't even talk to Ryan White's mother when they were alone in an elevator--according to the New York Times.

Years later, he toned his rhetoric down and said his opposition to federal funding was "wrong" - but only because he finally realized that people didn't always get AIDS from having sex. Regardless, he still publicly considered gay sex to be disgusting and revolting conduct--and this belief has been behind much of his work.

He also stated in his 1990 re-election campaign "Think about it. Homosexuals and lesbians, disgusting people marching in our streets demanding all sorts of things, including the right to marry each other. How do you like them apples?"

The 'Ryan White's mother elevator' anecdote is just that. His opposition to federal funding was one opposing spending outside the federal government's mandate. He wasn't called "Senator No" for nothing - he opposed spending that the government didn't have the authority to spend on a range of topics.

That Helms changed his position on AIDS funding and admitted he was wrong? Well, gosh. I thought it was the position of Democrats to forgive, to accept that people can see the error of their ways and grow as humans. I guess that sort of thing is only granted to fellow Democrats?

The only quote of any substance your post has is the one mention of a quote from the 1990 campaign. So I searched on it. The NYT editorial page claims it was printed in the LA Times on October 28 1990. -- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A962958260
So I searched the LATimes archives for October 27 1990 to October 29 1990. -- http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/...t=ALL&Sect=ALL

I read the free abstracts to every one of those articles. It's not there on the 28th like the NYT claimed. Instead there is one article which appeared on the 29th of October, and it says

TAR HEEL: For years, supporters of liberal causes from abortion rights and gay rights to integration have regarded North Carolina's Jesse Helms as the senator they most love to hate, and many have been raising money for his Democratic opponent, Harvey Gantt.

Now Helms is trying to take his revenge. During stump speeches in the Tar Heel State, the Republican senator has been emphasizing the support that Gantt, the black former mayor of Charlotte, is getting from Helms' old adversaries. "He gets the help of lesbians and labor unions and the arty crowd," Helms says. "Go look at his financial reports."

Last week, the Helms campaign unveiled a television commercial that shows the "Washington Blade," a gay newspaper, and a picture of a gay bar. The narrator says Gantt has run "a secret campaign" and raised "thousands of dollars in gay and lesbian bars in San Francisco, New York and Washington" by promising to back "mandatory gay-rights laws."

This is all that's present - not the quote you say exists - and the only thing that's even possibly verifiable from this article is the campaign advert, because the LATimes doesn't tell us where or when Helms said what they claim he did.

So, if the financial records showed Gantt received support from lesbians, labor unions and the arty crowd, then Helms was telling the truth.

The idea of a campaign advertisement showing Gantt raising money in gay and lesbian bars in SF, NYC, and DC is a variation on the original campaign theme, suggesting that Gantt doesn't have the support of people in North Carolina, that he had to go outside of NC to get support for his campaign. The mention of 'mandatory gay-rights laws' is political campaign language for 'they're going to force this on you' -- another NYT editorial quotes more of the ad in question (which I have not yet found a copy of) -- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...-rights&st=nyt

Originally Posted by nyt

The new Helms commercials accuse Mr. Gantt of running a ‘secret campaign' in homosexual communities and of being committed to mandatory gay rights laws' including ‘requiring local schools to hire gay teachers.' ... A similar commercial being broadcast on radio accuses Mr. Gantt of running another ‘secret campaign' aimed at black radio stations. ‘Why doesn't Harvey Gantt run his ad on all radio stations, so everyone can hear it, instead of just on black radio stations?' the announcer asks. ‘Doesn't Harvey Gantt want everyone to vote?'"

And here we get back to the heart of the issue - Helms isn't opposed to gay teachers, he's opposed to people being hired on the basis of their sexual orientation. I'm opposed to that also, I want teachers hired for two reasons:
(1) we need teaching positions filled
(2) the teachers we hire are qualified to do the job well.

See, this is what happens when you stop taking random quotes for truth - you chase them down and find out that no one fact-checks the editorial page, so they write whatever supports their political goals, which is of course what editorials are for - you just need to remember you can't quote them as fact.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

What a deliciously ironic term.

They're also known as the Righteous Among the Nations if you don't like the word gentiles.

I'm not sure where you're getting irony from, although I understand that you don't like the word 'gentile' as it doesn't fit into your politically correct vocabulary well.

All it means is, non-Jewish. The 'righteous' is because they saved Jews and others during the Holocaust at great risk to themselves. I think we can agree they were non-Jewish, and that their acts made them righteous.

There's nothing in the use of the term that implies that Jews are righteous by default, if that's what you're suggesting - it's just about recognizing and being grateful to people who endangered their own lives to save others who would have been put to death.

What a strange world when we can't even honor them without someone searching for a way to be critical.

[- - e r i k - -]

Politically correct? Me? *snicker*

Defend it all you want - it is still a painfully excludent term.

[chris v]

As far as evidence goes, there's always his voting record.

I for one am not going to miss him.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh.

Ever see any liberal or Democrat raise such a stink over Robert Byrd- who did and said far worse than Helms- when they made a Klan member the head of the Democratic Party in the Senate for over a decade?

Not a peep.

Why?

The D after his name.

The selective 'outrage' is pathetic.

[besson3c]

Crash: I have, but what does it matter? My experience is no match against your mighty gut feelings!

[villalobos]

I am not going to miss him either, but one has to recognize that he was a good speaker.


"If Jesus wanted us to use the metric system, he would have had 10 disciples."

[tie]

He was an evil person, who spent his life trying to make the US a worse place. At least we always knew where he stood, though, so let's salute him. He'll meet Bin Laden in hell.

[Dork.]

There's one fact that we can all agree on: the folks in North Carolina decided that he should represent them in the Senate five times, for a total of 30 years in office. (Exactly 30 years, in fact, to the day.) No matter what his politics were, that's impressive.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

No, it's a political smear campaign.

WITHOUT any merits ?

Oh puleeeze.

-t

[macdude]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

There's one fact that we can all agree on: the folks in North Carolina decided that he should represent them in the Senate five times, for a total of 30 years in office. (Exactly 30 years, in fact, to the day.) No matter what his politics were, that's impressive.

Does that say more about who he is or more about the people of NC?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by macdude 

Does that say more about who he is or more about the people of NC?

Neither, because apparently, all those allegations are just propaganda

-t

[smacintush]

Might as well throw my 2¢ in here…

I didn't follow his career and I don't really know much about him other than the things I would here on the news or a political show or when I would see him on CSPAN. So, I don't pretend to know which of his most famous quotes are true or false.

All I have is this and my "gut" feeling.

And that feeling is that every time I saw him and heard him talk it made me ill. He struck me as an ignorant old hillbilly with nothing helpful, positive or interesting to say. His pronounced drawl, his tone and the way he went on about "the gays" or invoked the name of "god" on the senate floor was sickening to me.

All that being said, I didn't realize he was still alive.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

There's one fact that we can all agree on: the folks in North Carolina decided that he should represent them in the Senate five times, for a total of 30 years in office. (Exactly 30 years, in fact, to the day.) No matter what his politics were, that's impressive.

Actually, that's rather sad, as it shows the level of ignorance and gullibility of a large number of people, who fall for something someone says, just because he's in power, and he knows how to use emotional hooks to capture an audience. An excellent parallel is the incessant misinformation Americans were fed about WMDs in Iraq, and the justifications for the war. Another current example is the early lies that have been spread on the web about Obama being a Muslim, and the subliminal reinforcement of those falsehoods by organizations like Faux News, which has hosts that constantly insert his middle name into conversations, in order to reinforce that false notion. I read an article recently about some people in rural places in Virginia, who can't seem to get it past their minds that Obama is not a Muslim, just because they've been told that by someone they "trust." What all of this leads to is the very real, and frightening, dumbing down of Americans, by people who are craftsmen at using emotion instead of reality to keep their subjects under control, and that's not only sad, but tragic.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Actually, that's rather sad, as it shows the level of ignorance and gullibility of a large number of people, who fall for something someone says, just because he's in power, and he knows how to use emotional hooks to capture an audience. An excellent parallel is the incessant misinformation Americans were fed about WMDs in Iraq, and the justifications for the war. Another current example is the early lies that have been spread on the web about Obama being a Muslim, and the subliminal reinforcement of those falsehoods by organizations like Faux News, which has hosts that constantly insert his middle name into conversations, in order to reinforce that false notion. I read an article recently about some people in rural places in Virginia, who can't seem to get it past their minds that Obama is not a Muslim, just because they've been told that by someone they "trust." What all of this leads to is the very real, and frightening, dumbing down of Americans, by people who are craftsmen at using emotion instead of reality to keep their subjects under control, and that's not only sad, but tragic.

It's funny that you mention Obama since he is using the exact same bullshit to gain popularity to a similar effect. Dumbing down indeed.

[macdude]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's funny that you mention Obama since he is using the exact same bullshit to gain popularity to a similar effect. Dumbing down indeed.

Please clarify. It doesn't do a whole lot of good to make blanket statements without something to back you up.

[Shaddim]

Is it ok to say that I don't like Helms or Obama? Personally, I think they're both ****heads.

[macdude]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Is it ok to say that I don't like Helms or Obama? Personally, I think they're both ****heads.

Well, it's your opinion, I suppose.

[besson3c]

Yeah, the world is better off now that you guys have shared with us your personal gut feelings for the 2034802394823th time.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Actually, that's rather sad, as it shows the level of ignorance and gullibility of a large number of people, who fall for something someone says, just because he's in power, and he knows how to use emotional hooks to capture an audience.

Actually, this is why national Democrat candidates don't win the south. They, like you, make sweeping generalizations about the majority of voters in a state, and in the process insult the very voters they need.

Seriously, the south was the Democrats' to lose - it was totally locked up as a Democrat state until 1972. 107 years!

Now, I've shown you how every quote you tried to attribute to Mr. Helms is false. I've done the homework to chase down the editorials and show the lack of evidence.

What have you done? Believed what people tell you about the man?

So, who's really gullible here?

And, if you stand by your pre-conceived notions of the man, when presented with evidence as I have done for you, isn't that prejudicial in the most literal sense of the word?

I read an article recently about some people in rural places in Virginia, who can't seem to get it past their minds that Obama is not a Muslim, just because they've been told that by someone they "trust."

How is that different than folks not being able to get it past their mind that Helms was not a racist homophobe, just because they've been told by people they trust?

What all of this leads to is the very real, and frightening, dumbing down of Americans, by people who are craftsmen at using emotion instead of reality to keep their subjects under control, and that's not only sad, but tragic.

You don't know how right you are. Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't think as you do is 'dumb?'