Metro Jacksonville

Couldnt have happened to a nicer guy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/04/conservative-icon-senator_n_110867.html

QuoteRALEIGH, N.C. â€" Former Sen. Jesse Helms, who built a career along the fault lines of racial politics and battled liberals, Communists and the occasional fellow Republican during 30 conservative years in Congress, died on the Fourth of July. He was 86.

Helms died at 1:15 a.m., said the Jesse Helms Center at Wingate University in North Carolina. The center's president, John Dodd, said in a statement that funeral arrangements were pending.

"He was very comfortable," said former chief of staff Jimmy Broughton, who added Helms died of natural causes in Raleigh.

Helms, who first became known to North Carolina voters as a newspaper and television commentator, won election to the Senate in 1972 and decided not to run for a sixth term in 2002.

"Compromise, hell! ... If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?" Helms wrote in a 1959 editorial that foretold his political style.

As he aged, Helms was slowed by a variety of illnesses, including a bone disorder, prostate cancer and heart problems, and he made his way through the Capitol on a motorized scooter as his career neared an end. In April 2006, his family announced that he had been moved into a convalescent center after being diagnosed with vascular dementia, in which repeated minor strokes damage the brain.

Helms' public appearances had dwindled as his health deteriorated. When his memoirs were published in August 2005, he appeared at a Raleigh book store to sign copies but did not make a speech.

In an e-mail interview with The Associated Press at that time, Helms said he hoped what future generations learn about him "will be based on the truth and not the deliberate inaccuracies those who disagreed with me took such delight in repeating."

"My legacy will be up to others to describe," he added.

Helms served as chairman of the Agriculture Committee and Foreign Relations Committees over the years at times when the GOP held the Senate majority, using his posts to protect his state's tobacco growers and other farmers and place his stamp on foreign policy.

His opposition to Communism defined his foreign policy views. He took a dim view of many arms control treaties, opposed Fidel Castro at every turn, and supported the contras in Nicaragua as well as the right-wing government of El Salvador. He opposed the Panama Canal treaties that President Jimmy Carter pushed through a reluctant Senate in 1977.

Early on, his habit of blocking nominations and legislation won him a nickname of "Senator No." He delighted in forcing roll call votes that required Democrats to take politically difficult votes on federal funding for art he deemed pornographic, school busing, flag-burning and other cultural issues.

In 1993, when then-President Clinton sought confirmation for an openly homosexual assistant secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Helms registered his disgust. "I'm not going to put a lesbian in a position like that," he said in a newspaper interview at the time. "If you want to call me a bigot, fine."

After Democrats killed the appointment of U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle, a former Helms aide, to a federal appeals court post in 1991, Helms blocked all of Clinton's judicial nominations from North Carolina for eight years.

Helms occasionally opted for compromise in later years in the Senate, working with Democrats on legislation to restructure the foreign policy bureaucracy and pay back debts to the United Nations, an organization be disdained for most of his career.

And he softened his views on AIDS after years of clashes with gay activists, advocating greater federal funding to fight the disease in Africa and elsewhere overseas.

But in his memoirs, Helms made clear that his opinions on other issues had hardly moderated since he left office. He compared abortion to both the Holocaust and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"I will never be silent about the death of those who cannot speak for themselves," the former senator wrote in "Here's Where I Stand."

Helms never lost a race for the Senate, but he never won one by much, either, a reflection of his divisive political profile in his native state.

He knew it, too. "Well, there is no joy in Mudville tonight. The mighty ultraliberal establishment, and the liberal politicians and editors and commentators and columnists have struck out again," he said in 1990, after winning his fourth term.

He won the 1972 election after switching parties, and defeated then-Gov. Jim Hunt in an epic battle in 1984 in what was then the costliest Senate race on record.

He defeated former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt in 1990 and 1996 in racially tinged campaigns. In the first race, a Helms commercial showed a white fist crumbling up a job application, these words underneath: "You needed that job ... but they had to give it to a minority."

"The tension that he creates, the fear he creates in people, is how he's won campaigns," Gantt said several years later.

Helms also played a role in national GOP politics _ supporting Ronald Reagan in 1976 in a presidential primary challenge to then-President Gerald R. Ford. Reagan's candidacy was near collapse when it came time for the North Carolina primary. Helms was in charge of the effort, and Reagan won a startling upset that resurrected his challenge.

During the 1990s, Helms clashed frequently with President Clinton, whom he deemed unqualified to be commander in chief. Even some Republicans cringed when Helms said Clinton was so unpopular he would need a bodyguard on North Carolina military bases. Helms said he hadn't meant it as a threat.

Asked to gauge Clinton's performance overall, Helms said in 1995: "He's a nice guy. He's very pleasant. But ... (as) Ronald Reagan used to say about another politician, `Deep down, he's shallow.'"

Helms went out of his way to establish good relations with Madeleine Albright, Clinton's second secretary of state. But that didn't stop him from single-handedly blocking Clinton's appointment of William Weld _ a Republican _ as ambassador to Mexico.

Helms clashed with other Republicans over the years, including fellow Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana in 1987, after Democrats had won a Senate majority. Helms had promised in his 1984 campaign not to take the chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee, but he invoked seniority over Lugar to claim the seat as the panel's ranking Republican.

He was unafraid of inconveniencing his fellow senators _ sometimes all of them at once. "I did not come to Washington to win a popularity contest," he once said while holding the Senate in session with a filibuster that delayed the beginning of a Christmas break. And he once objected to a request by phoning in his dissent from home, where he was watching Senate proceedings on television.

Helms was born in Monroe, N.C., on Oct. 18, 1921. He attended Wake Forest College in 1941 but never graduated and was in the Navy during World War II.

In many ways, Helms' values were forged in the small town where his father was police chief.

"I shall always remember the shady streets, the quiet Sundays, the cotton wagons, the Fourth of July parades, the New Year's Eve firecrackers. I shall never forget the stream of school kids marching uptown to place flowers on the Courthouse Square monument on Confederate Memorial Day," Helms wrote in a newspaper column in 1956.

He took an active role in North Carolina politics early on, working to elect a segregationist candidate, Willis Smith, to the Senate in 1950. He worked as Smith's top staff aide for a time, then returned to Raleigh as executive director of the state bankers association.

Helms became a member of the Raleigh city council in 1957 and got his first public platform for espousing his conservative views when he became a television editorialist for WRAL in Raleigh in 1960. He also wrote a column that at one time was carried in 200 newspapers. Helms also was city editor at The Raleigh Times.

Quote from: stephendare on July 04, 2008, 11:59:40 AM
Couldnt have happened to a nicer guy.

Typically classless remark.

I just wish he could have lived another seven months, so that he could see a black man sworn in as President. 

Such bitterness is really unbecoming... he grew up in an era neither of you could understand.  I most assuradly did not agree with many of his stances but he served the country and was a backbone of the anti communism movement... which was a threat back then.  I hope we have not sunk to the point where we wish our opponents to die... cmon guys...

I do not agree with everything Helms did or said during his lifetime.  However, as opposed to many leftists today, I do not wish death upon my political opponents or dance on their graves.  That is simply wrong.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 06, 2008, 01:09:09 PM
Such bitterness is really unbecoming... he grew up in an era neither of you could understand.  I most assuradly did not agree with many of his stances but he served the country and was a backbone of the anti communism movement... which was a threat back then.  I hope we have not sunk to the point where we wish our opponents to die... cmon guys...

You should have seen the cartwheels some people were doing when Falwell died.  Very low rent.

Let's just leave this matter alone knowing that this guy was never going to up for the Noble Peace Prize.  For better or worse, he is gone now and our country will never be subject to his influence again.

Where he goes from here is between him and his maker.  It is not our place to "dance on his grave".

Society should look back at those who helped and contributed to mankind.  So just move on.  Don't look back.  It just isn't worth it.   There are more important things and people to think about.

I recall a lot of mourning when Reagan passed away.   ;)

Didn't george carlin go to hell last week?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 06, 2008, 01:09:09 PM
Such bitterness is really unbecoming... he grew up in an era neither of you could understand.  I most assuradly did not agree with many of his stances but he served the country and was a backbone of the anti communism movement... which was a threat back then.  I hope we have not sunk to the point where we wish our opponents to die... cmon guys...

I am 45 next month ( and a lifelong deep southerner), and therefore old enough to 'understand' his era.   My comment (in which I expressed a desired that he would still be among us) refers to his race-baiting politics.  Maybe if he lived to see  the end of that 'era', that may have given him some reflection in his sunset days.   

Perhaps he asked for forgivenness of that before he passed.  I hope so.  I make no judgement of where his soul is now.     

Quote from: stephendare on July 06, 2008, 06:27:22 PM

Quote from: Driven1 on July 06, 2008, 06:24:42 PM
Didn't george carlin go to hell last week?

not likely.

His life, which embraced the Truth and an unmistakeable love for Creation would make him welcome in any heaven one might choose, but George was an Athiest.

Imagine.  A moral compass without believing in all that.

Very different from Helms.  Who professed to believe in the Creator, and yet preached and practiced hatred.

There will be a very full spot in hell for Mr. Helms.

Hopefully it will be with necrophiles.

I think you are sadly mistaken if you feel qualified to judge Helms' soul.

Matthew 7:1-5

Quote1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

   2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

   3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

   4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

   5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Matthew+7&book_id=47&version1=9&tp=28&c=7

Quote from: vicupstate on July 06, 2008, 08:34:08 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 06, 2008, 01:09:09 PM
Such bitterness is really unbecoming... he grew up in an era neither of you could understand.  I most assuradly did not agree with many of his stances but he served the country and was a backbone of the anti communism movement... which was a threat back then.  I hope we have not sunk to the point where we wish our opponents to die... cmon guys...

I am 45 next month ( and a lifelong deep southerner), and therefore old enough to 'understand' his era.   My comment (in which I expressed a desired that he would still be among us) refers to his race-baiting politics.  Maybe if he lived to see  the end of that 'era', that may have given him some reflection in his sunset days.   

Perhaps he asked for forgivenness of that before he passed.  I hope so.  I make no judgement of where his soul is now.     

Helms was 86 years old having been born in 1921.  This is significantly older than 45 years old.  In any event, here is a good interview of him by Stephen's beloved National Review:

QuoteYes to Senator No
Still Jesse.

By Jay Nordlinger

Interviewer’s Note: Jesse Helms was born in 1921, and was elected to the Senate in 1972. He served there five terms, or 30 years. He is now in retirement on his North Carolina soil. This week, Random House released his memoir, Here’s Where I Stand. Earlier in August, Helms answered questions by e-mail, from his office in Raleigh. A version of the below Q&A appears in the current print issue of National Review. Only one question did he decline to answer: concerning the handicapped son he and his wife adopted in the 1960s. It is said that Helms won’t be giving interviews anymore. If so, a rare and memorable voice will be silenced.

Did you ever think you’d live to see the end of the Cold War?

I surely hoped and prayed that I would. After all, the Cold War was a comparatively recent aberration in the sweep of history, and I was convinced that the desire to be free would be more powerful than the grip of Communism.

Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Reagan? Gorbachev? Some combination of factors?

The Soviet Union collapsed because Ronald Reagan exposed its true weakness, the lack of support the Soviet government had from the people they claimed to rule. Reagan’s firmness in refusing to back down to the blustering of Gorbachev and supposed Soviet power gave all those citizens who wanted to be free of their tyranny the courage to stand up and demand their freedom. Gorbachev could see which way the tree was falling and was smart enough to jump out of its way before he got taken down, too.

Did you think the West would be tough enough to face down the Soviets?

This was exactly why we needed a Ronald Reagan and not a Jimmy Carter in the White House. Of course the West was and is tough enough to face down any form of tyranny or terror. But we must have leaders who have the same kind of backbone their freedom-loving citizens have. Appeasement and negotiation have never worked in overcoming evil. We can face down any threat with strength and steadfastness.

What should we do about Castro, if anything?

Castro is a chronic problem, contained on his rusting-out island and constantly afraid of his own people and their hunger for freedom. Just last month he rounded up a group who dared to hold a public meeting to mark their traditional Independence Day. It is a tragedy that he would rather have his people suffer than accept the help of his neighbors to deal with the aftermath of the hurricanes that have swept Cuba in the last year. But, his days are short and one way or the other true freedom will soon return to Cuba.

In some quarters, you are considered anti-black. What do you say?

Of course I am not anti-black, and any number of African-American friends and Capitol Hill staffers who have known me over the years would be happy to set that record straight. I have always been opposed to violence from any quarter; to unconstitutional quotas; and to politicians who try to rob people of their ability to dream their own dreams and reach their own goals through their own efforts by selling them the lie that they can’t succeed without the government running their lives. I have always believed that the American Dream is the birthright of every American and that the free-enterprise system is the route to secure that dream.

Any regret over the “crumpled paper” ad, which caused so much hollering? [In his 1990 reelection campaign, Helms ran a TV spot that showed a man crumpling a letter informing him that he had been denied a job, because of race preferences.]

What a tempest in a teapot. This very short-run ad was about quotas and my opponent’s support for a bill that was later ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcry was just one more attempt to change the subject from the issues to race. I chose to run on the issues.

The American South today: Is it fully part of America, completely reconciled? Is the Civil War over, mentally, culturally?

Let’s seeâ€"the fastest-growing spectator sport in America is NASCAR. Country-music stars pack stadiums everywhere they perform. The last two presidents of the United States have been from Arkansas and Texas. And two of the biggest banks in the country are headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. I’d say the South has pretty well recovered from a dispute that took place over a hundred years ago. Of course, if Hollywood keeps serving up stereotypes of country bumpkins with bad accents, we may have to retaliate.

What do you think of George W. Bush? Does he remind you a little of yourself?

I think George W. Bush is a principled man and has proven his determination to do what he thinks is best for the country without worrying about his popularity. In person he is both warm and personable and I have been happy to support him when I could.

What did you think of Reagan?

Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of my lifetime. It was my privilege to count him as my good friend.

Who were the most interesting people you met in your political career?

This question would require a second book! It is simply impossible to single out the most interesting. Maybe it was my early training as a journalist, but I’ve found every person I ever met has some quality that makes him or her interesting and unique as a person. Sometimes you have to dig a little harder, but everyone has a story of interest.

Did you have favorite colleagues? Unfavorite colleagues?

Certainly Ron Reagan and Margaret Thatcher rank among my favorites, but among fellow senators I’d include Hubert Humphrey and Jim Allen and Joe Biden and Orrin Hatch and Pat Moynihan and so many others retired or currently serving, or sadly no longer with us. [James Browning Allen was a senator from Alabama, who died in 1978, while in his second term.] Senators do indeed form solid friendships built on our mutual commitment to serve our Country.

The less favorite colleagues provided challenges of their own. Sometimes, like in the case of Paul Wellstone, who came to Congress determined to dislike me, we became personal friends even if we still disagreed on the issues. Other times, we didn’t, but we could still respect the fact that we were there because the people of our home state elected us and we could respect their choice by our civility to one another.

What do you regard as your greatest senatorial achievement?

This is not a question I can answer. History will handle it. I can tell you that my wife thinks that one of the most important changes we helped bring about was to make roll-call votes a routine. When senators had a voting record that the voters back home could examine, they could no longer talk one way during the campaign and vote another in Washington. Those voting records helped send a lot of liberals into early retirement.

You were known as “Senator No”â€"what did you think of that nickname?

I was tempted to send a thank-you note to the newspaper that first called me by that name. I enjoyed being known as Senator No because it summed up my purpose in helping to stop a lot of bad government policies and proposed laws.

Do you feel the War on Terror is as tough a challenge as the Cold War?

The War on Terror is every bit as tough a challenge as the Cold War, probably more so because those who oppose us are ideologues who are not interested in our defeat so much as they are our demise. But, as I said earlier, that does not mean this war is any the less winnable. We will win if we do not give in to those who would try to appease the enemy.

You were the only one who stood up for that Ukrainian sailor, Medved, who jumped off that ship. The Reagan administration dragged him back. You were accustomed to taking lonely stands, weren’t you? Did you ever embolden others? Or did they all hang back?

I was not the “Lone Ranger.” Our opponents often tried to paint that picture, but the fact of the matter was that there were always others who were willing to stand for what was right. Different individuals came forward to join in different fights and there was always strong support from the people who mattered, the citizens of the United States. They let me know by the thousands that they were standing with me on those tough issues. By the way, that Ukrainian sailor is a Christian minister now and we had the opportunity to meet when he came to America to visit the Capitol as a free man.

Some people knocked you for not traveling around. Do you feel this hampered your understanding of the world?

The people who made these comments didn’t know the facts. I’ve traveled extensively to Asia, Africa, South America, the Middle East, and Europe throughout my life and my Senate career. In 2001 I took the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to Mexico for its first meeting on foreign soil. What I did not do is make these trips at government expense or to make a big publicity show, so it was assumed by people who didn’t bother about knowing the truth that I did not have firsthand knowledge of world issues.

In addition I had trusted staff members who served as my eyes and ears around the world and close friendships with world leaders and foreign nationals who made sure I had the best information available about the issues in their countries.

Far from being hampered, my approach to fact-gathering made sure I wasn’t getting the spin version of those issues that is too often a part of those well-known political junkets.

The abuse directed your way seemed to roll off your back. Did you ever feel it? Did your critics ever get to you?

Harry Truman said it well: “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Some of the biggest laughs I ever got were from political cartoons that were intended to ridicule me.

Of course I don’t like to be lied about. But I know the truth and the truth always wins out.

What has your marriage meant to you?

Meeting and marrying Dorothy Coble was and to this day remains the best part of my life. She is my best friend and the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. We have been blessed in every way with three loving children and wonderful grandchildren who make us proud of their every accomplishment.

Did you enjoy participating in politicsâ€"campaigning, speaking, sparring, all of it?

I did not enjoy the campaign trail and I never considered myself an eloquent speaker or debater, but I was always happy to set out conservative ideas in a way folks could understand and appreciate.

Who are your favorite political writers, if any?

I’m partial to the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Favorite figures from American history?

My favorite figure from American history is Thomas Jefferson.

What do you wish the American people could know about you, or about themselves?

I suppose what I would like people to know about me is what I would like them to know about themselves. We are blessed to live in the greatest country in the history of the world. We live in a nation founded on the belief that all of us are created equal, that all of us have God-given gifts and all of us have the opportunity to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That opportunity often comes disguised as hard work, but that hard work has rewards that are worth far more than money in building character and setting priorities.

I grew up during the Great Depression. I needed three jobs to support myself in college. I had no inheritance beyond the example of faith, hard work, and honesty. But I lived in the United States of America, and my fatherâ€"who served as both chief of police and fire chief in a small southern townâ€"lived long enough to see his youngest son sworn in as a United States senator.

In America my story can be anybody’s story, and that is the most important lesson we can teach ourselves and all of our children. We have no limits if we partner our dreams with our willingness to work for them.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTg4ODE4NmUxZDBiNmIxYWUwMTVmNGYzZTAzN2ZiNmM

BTW, not agreeing with the gay agenda is not a sin.  Homosexuality is the sin.  Not caving into this agenda is the chief reason for much of the vitriol against Helms.

Quote from: stephendare on July 06, 2008, 06:27:22 PM

His life, which embraced the Truth and an unmistakeable love for Creation would make him welcome in any heaven one might choose, but George was an Athiest.

just curious... what is "the Truth"?

and - we get to choose our heavens?  that's neat.  tell me more.  is that like choosing the features you want on your bank account at Compass Bank?

his love for "Creation"?  that's interesting as well.  what is this "Creation" (with a capital "C") that you write of?  and how did Carlin show his "love" for this "Creation"?  and why would showing love for "Creation" get one into a multiple choice heaven? 

where do these beliefs come from?  to me they sound like a bunch of made up individual-opinion mumbo jumbo, but i'm interested to see how I could be wrong.  :)

Helms was elected to the Senate in 1972, which is within my lifetime.  Needless to say, I was surrounded by, and raised by people of his EXACT generation.  Therefore, his attitudes are not foreign to me in the least.  

Fortunately, I evolved beyond the attitudes he espoused.  I praise Jesus for that.  

As for "judge not, lest ye be judged', that is VERY relevant to Mr. Helms life.  In fact, I can think of nothing  I would have rather said to him, had I had the chance.  The same goes for others that condemen homosexuals based on the their belief that it is a sin.            

btw, for the record...while Helms was certainly no Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (Helms was never elected Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan as Byrd was), I do believe that he - like much of black and white America - had overt racist tendencies in the 60s.  I can't vouch for Senator Byrd, but I do think - from reading the interview that RG posted - that Helms had long since repented from those thoughts and actions.

QuoteHelms, unlike Thurmond and George Wallace, never had any coming to terms with the incendiary racial appeals of his early radio broadcasts, and was outspoken in his condemnation of homosexuals, whom he called “weak, morally sick wretches.” But modernity seemed to have a way of asserting itself in his story. The image that will always be identified with Helms is that of the white hands crumpling a job rejection slip in the famous ad he used in his 1990 race against Harvey Gantt.

Years later, the creator of that ad, Arthur Finkelstein, was revealed to be a gay man who was raising a child with his partner in New York.

Priceless. 


http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_76_463.aspx (http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_76_463.aspx)

Robert Byrd, age 91, was in the KKK when he was in his 20's, and he renounced the organization decades ago, before ever holding office. Hardly comparable. 

That 1990 ad was injected in the senate race because he was losing ground to Gant at that time.

that is ironic.  but, it begs a few other questions.

so...was Arthur Finkelstein "racist" also by designing the ad?  interesting question.  or was he just "morally sick" by accepting work with which he morally disagreed with?  or perhaps the ad wasn't wrong at all and was just jumped on by the left as "racist" as so often happens at election time.  btw, Mr. Helms was my senior senator until 1999.

proud as puddin!!  :)

Quote from: vicupstate on July 07, 2008, 01:18:42 PM

QuoteHelms, unlike Thurmond and George Wallace, never had any coming to terms with the incendiary racial appeals of his early radio broadcasts, and was outspoken in his condemnation of homosexuals, whom he called “weak, morally sick wretches.” But modernity seemed to have a way of asserting itself in his story. The image that will always be identified with Helms is that of the white hands crumpling a job rejection slip in the famous ad he used in his 1990 race against Harvey Gantt.

Years later, the creator of that ad, Arthur Finkelstein, was revealed to be a gay man who was raising a child with his partner in New York.

Priceless. 


http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_76_463.aspx (http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_76_463.aspx)

Robert Byrd, age 91, was in the KKK when he was in his 20's, and he renounced the organization decades ago, before ever holding office. Hardly comparable. 

That 1990 ad was injected in the senate race because he was losing ground to Gant at that time.

The 1990 ad attacked the system of quotas which are unconstitutional.  It is not racist to work towards a color-blind society.  Sorry but that dog wont hunt.   ;)

Oh and homosexuality - still a sin.

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 12:14:15 PM
And again.  Consider the international obituaries on this evil man, gentlemen.  They are the ghosts of your christmasses future.

International obituaries?  hahaha. 

These are no gage of the worth of an American man. 

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 02:13:30 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 07, 2008, 02:05:01 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 12:14:15 PM
And again.  Consider the international obituaries on this evil man, gentlemen.  They are the ghosts of your christmasses future.

International obituaries?  hahaha. 

These are no gage of the worth of an American man. 

typical nonsense.

Then limit yourself to the transnational american ones.  He was a hated and despised man.  For the policies which several people are rushing to defend.

Anyways, Belshazzar.  Read the writing on the wall.

Hated and despised by the left probably means he was a successful advocate for his positions.   ;)

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 02:59:29 PM
So in your opinion, Southern Blacks and Gay people in general  are the "Left"?

wow.

For the record, my fine feathered pharisee, here are the actual commandments:

Quote6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;

7 you shall have no other gods before me.

8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,

10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.

13 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.

15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

17 You shall not murder.

18 Neither shall you commit adultery.

19 Neither shall you steal.

20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.

21 Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

I dont see a single damn thing in these ten basic rules about redecorating or sodomy.

I do see a big reference to adultery and coveting the neighbors wife (or oil).

Since you are a McCain backer, please spare me your pithy biblical references in politics.

you DO KNOW that there were over 600 commandments in the Old Testament right?  not just "ten basic rules".

here are others that actually (at least partially) deal with sodomy...
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:13

Being in the Old Testament, it is also part and parcel of Judaism (hate that religion too).
Not to be left out, the Qur'an prohibits the same (the reason you find ZERO "outted" homosexuals in Tehran)...

"We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"" (Qur'an 7:80-82)

ps - the Bible has ZERO to say about oil or Democrats or Republicans   :)    :)

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 03:11:09 PM
got it driven.   You agree with your former senior senator.

Guess that means your off bacon as well?

stephen...why are you taking this so personal?  we are having an intelligent debate and i simply stated some facts you did not know.  i never mentioned where i stood on this issue - only where the texts of three world religions stand. 

please, don't take this so personal. 

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 03:17:11 PM
its not personal.

Just asking which parts of judeo christianity you pick and choose to believe.

So I assume you are completely off pork, since its one of those 600 'commandments',

I also assume that you make sure not to read scripture or pray until after your bowel movements are complete and not to eat in the interim between crapping and praying?

And of course, dairy and meat are out as well.

right?

followers of Jesus are under the New Covenant (which specifically cites an OT passage when reiterating that sodomic-like actions are sinful...as a note, under the New Covenant, food restrictions are removed). 

you were posting to RG from the Old Testament, so I assumed you were choosing to try to live under the law or were a hasidic Jew.  and you were choosing and picking only 10 commandments, when - if you choose to follow those religion(s) - you are required to follow all of them.  and you had specifically said "I dont see a single damn thing..." about sodomy.  well, yeah - not in those 10 commandments you listed. 

but in the 600+, there certainly are.  and in your picking and choosing of only 10, you were missing those.  so i helped you out and then threw in the Qur'an's admonishments for good measure to show that Christianity and Judaism weren't alone in condemning sodomy.   

hope this helps.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 07, 2008, 02:03:57 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on July 07, 2008, 01:18:42 PM

QuoteHelms, unlike Thurmond and George Wallace, never had any coming to terms with the incendiary racial appeals of his early radio broadcasts, and was outspoken in his condemnation of homosexuals, whom he called “weak, morally sick wretches.” But modernity seemed to have a way of asserting itself in his story. The image that will always be identified with Helms is that of the white hands crumpling a job rejection slip in the famous ad he used in his 1990 race against Harvey Gantt.

Years later, the creator of that ad, Arthur Finkelstein, was revealed to be a gay man who was raising a child with his partner in New York.

Priceless. 


http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_76_463.aspx (http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_76_463.aspx)

Robert Byrd, age 91, was in the KKK when he was in his 20's, and he renounced the organization decades ago, before ever holding office. Hardly comparable. 

That 1990 ad was injected in the senate race because he was losing ground to Gant at that time.

The 1990 ad attacked the system of quotas which are unconstitutional.  It is not racist to work towards a color-blind society.  Sorry but that dog wont hunt.   ;)

Oh and homosexuality - still a sin.

Yes, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 infringed on 'States Rights'.  The GOP always has at least SOME rationale, weak as it may be, to justify their code words.          

The 'quotas' weren't found to be unconstitutional until later when the SP changed precedent.   They had been in place in Helms' prior races too.  He didn't run campaign ads about them prior to '90 though because his opponents weren't themselves minorities.  

Sorry, inflaming racial tensions for political gain is racist.  Unfortunately, the GOP continues to play from that hymn book too, witness the 2006 Tennessee Senate race.  


Homosexuality  - a sin --  in your opinion, not mine.  BTW, is racism a sin?  Has anyone born in the last 2000 years not sinned?  Have you sinned?   Certainly NOT, that would put you in the same class as those despicable HOMOSEXUALS !!

Hey, if Crist can change his mind about gay marriage, surely you have to at least CONSIDER it.   Who is he marrying anyway, Liza Minnelli??        

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 02:59:29 PM
So in your opinion, Southern Blacks and Gay people in general  are the "Left"?

Where do you get this from?  Some of the above are members of the left and some are members of the right.

Quote from: vicupstate on July 07, 2008, 03:29:30 PM
Yes, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 infringed on 'States Rights'.  The GOP always has at least SOME rationale, weak as it may be, to justify their code words.               

May I remind you that a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.   ;)

Quote
The 'quotas' weren't found to be unconstitutional until later when the SP changed precedent.   They had been in place in Helms' prior races too.  He didn't run campaign ads about them prior to '90 though because his opponents weren't themselves minorities. 
 

So, if your opponent is a black man you cannot mention the fact that you oppose reverse racism and he supports it?  Interesting standards you have, vic.

Quote
Sorry, inflaming racial tensions for political gain is racist.  Unfortunately, the GOP continues to play from that hymn book too, witness the 2006 Tennessee Senate race. 
 

Another canard.

Quote
Homosexuality  - a sin --  in your opinion, not mine.  BTW, is racism a sin?  Has anyone born in the last 2000 years not sinned?  Have you sinned?   Certainly NOT, that would put you in the same class as those despicable HOMOSEXUALS !!

Racism is a sin just as homosexual conduct is a sin.  And, I have sinned as have all people on this Earth.  The difference is I dont pretend that my sins are not sins.

Quote
Hey, if Crist can change his mind about gay marriage, surely you have to at least CONSIDER it.   Who is he marrying anyway, Liza Minnelli??

Crist is hardly my guiding light.   :D

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 03:34:14 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 07, 2008, 03:31:41 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 02:59:29 PM
So in your opinion, Southern Blacks and Gay people in general  are the "Left"?

Where do you get this from?  Some of the above are members of the left and some are members of the right.

So then you would say that he was more universally reviled? Since those were his stated enemies.

Stated by you alone.

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 03:28:18 PM
Hm... New Covenant?  wow.   Sounds a bit like a cult to me.

Here's what Jesus actually said on the matter:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19)

Doesnt exactly sound like it backs up the theory that the old law is passed away and that a 'new covenant' replaces it, but hey, what did Jesus know about it?

But you have proven smarter than Jesus on a couple of occasions in the matter of Christianity, so Im definitely prepared to be wrong.

stephen, even though i know your heart here is one of sarcasm and challenge and not truly seeking the truth, i will explain Matt 5:18-19 to you.  for starters, you made the mistake (whether on purpose or not, i cannot speculate) that most people who are antagonistic to Christ do...you left out a key verse...verse 17 says...

""Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

THAT IS KEY.  what does "fulfill" mean?  "to meet or satisfy the requirements of".  By fulfilling the law Christ satisfied it's requirements in our place.  you omitted that verse that puts the other verses in context  -  to arrive at a preconceived notion.

a thorough reading of Romans & Hebrews while paying special attention to "the law" will reveal that God instituted the Law of the OT to show mankinds depravity...the fact that NO MAN (except God incarnated as man) could live up the standards set forth in the law - so the system of temporary animal sacrifices was instituted.  the law could only be fulfilled by one Man - Jesus (again, see Matt 5:17).  

those who are not followers of Jesus are still under the law.  they are still required by God to be perfect.  and none of them are ("for all have sinned").  so they all still need a "sin-bearer" - Jesus.

Jesus was right - the law will never pass away until all is accomplished (judgment day).

you should be careful (especially in a public venue) of taking random verses from the Bible and patching them together to create a more convenient Christianity.

Quote from: Driven1 on July 07, 2008, 01:24:12 PM
that is ironic.  but, it begs a few other questions.

so...was Arthur Finkelstein "racist" also by designing the ad?  interesting question.  or was he just "morally sick" by accepting work with which he morally disagreed with?  or perhaps the ad wasn't wrong at all and was just jumped on by the left as "racist" as so often happens at election time.  btw, Mr. Helms was my senior senator until 1999.

Mr. Finkelstein would have to say what his motivations were, but I find it telling that a member of one discriminated minority group would help oppress a different one.  

They say confession is good for the soul, so I guess I might as well confess something.  The truth shall set you free.

In 1984, during my card-carrying GOP years, I gave $25 or so to Mr. Helms' campaign.   There, I said it.  Well, wrote it, I guess.  Robert Byrd isn't the only person to align himself with entities that he later regretted associating with.  May Jim Hunt and God almighty forgive me.      

umm...are you serious?  That is not intelligent.  diminishes absolutely nothing of Christ's argument.

you included what i supposedly "left out" in your original posting of 5:18 and 5:19.  here it is all together now....

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Quote from: vicupstate on July 07, 2008, 03:42:21 PM

Quote from: Driven1 on July 07, 2008, 01:24:12 PM
that is ironic.  but, it begs a few other questions.

so...was Arthur Finkelstein "racist" also by designing the ad?  interesting question.  or was he just "morally sick" by accepting work with which he morally disagreed with?  or perhaps the ad wasn't wrong at all and was just jumped on by the left as "racist" as so often happens at election time.  btw, Mr. Helms was my senior senator until 1999.

Mr. Finkelstein would have to say what his motivations were, but I find it telling that a member of one discriminated minority group would help oppress a different one.  

They say confession is good for the soul, so I guess I might as well confess something.  The truth shall set you free.

In 1984, during my card-carrying GOP years, I gave $25 or so to Mr. Helms' campaign.   There, I said it.  Well, wrote it, I guess.  Robert Byrd isn't the only person to align himself with entities that he later regretted associating with.  May Jim Hunt and God almighty forgive me.      

lol - i'm with you vic...

Here is a relevant New Testament passage. 

Romans 1: 18-32:

Quote18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

   19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

   20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

   21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

   22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

   23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

   24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

   25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

   26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

   27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

   28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

   29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

   30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

   31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

   32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Romans+1&book_id=52&version1=9&tp=16&c=1

Note that this passage contains admonitions that apply to us all, not just people engaging in homosexual behavior.  But the fact remains that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 03:46:12 PM
In fact, Paul advocates TOTAL chastity.

you are correct - but he immediately says that is his opinion, not the Lord's commandment.  i can't think of another matter where he makes this distinction, so clearly, TOTAL chastity is not a command.  plus, "go forth and multiply".

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 03:45:06 PM
great driven.  Now yer talkin.

So explain how Jesus left that message and how it squares with your weird claims of a 'new covenant' that allows you to break all of the inconvenient bacon and bowel movement 'commandments' of the scriptures?

lol- weird claims of a "new convenant".   i thought you had gone to First Baptist at some point??  

anyway - read 1 Corinthians chapter 13 and gather an understanding of "all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial" for the believer and how that relates to the old food laws.

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 03:53:37 PM
So some of what Paul had to say was 'opinion'?
Well on this we can agree.

yep - as i said - on exactly one item (I guess that counts as "some") - Paul personally advocated TOTAL chastity.    careful not to pick and choose again.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 07, 2008, 03:35:57 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on July 07, 2008, 03:29:30 PM


Yes, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 infringed on 'States Rights'.  The GOP always has at least SOME rationale, weak as it may be, to justify their code words.               

Quote

May I remind you that a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.   ;)

After Goldwater got trounsed running against civil rights, only 1/3 of the Congress was GOP, nearly all of them from outside the South.  Afterwards southern Democrats became Republicans in the ensuing years.     

Quote
The 'quotas' weren't found to be unconstitutional until later when the SP changed precedent.   They had been in place in Helms' prior races too.  He didn't run campaign ads about them prior to '90 though because his opponents weren't themselves minorities. 
 

Quote
So, if your opponent is a black man you cannot mention the fact that you oppose reverse racism and he supports it?  Interesting standards you have, vic.

Why didn't he run ads when he had white opponents that supported Affirmative Action?

Quote
Sorry, inflaming racial tensions for political gain is racist.  Unfortunately, the GOP continues to play from that hymn book too, witness the 2006 Tennessee Senate race. 

Quote
Another canard.



I didn't think you would have a legitimate reply to that one.  The old 'every black man wants a white woman' issue hasn't been addresses by the Supreme Court I guess.

Quote
Homosexuality  - a sin --  in your opinion, not mine.  BTW, is racism a sin?  Has anyone born in the last 2000 years not sinned?  Have you sinned?   Certainly NOT, that would put you in the same class as those despicable HOMOSEXUALS !!

Quote
Racism is a sin just as homosexual conduct is a sin.  And, I have sinned as have all people on this Earth.  The difference is I dont pretend that my sins are not sins.

No, you just point out the sins of others, instead of concerning yourself with your own. 

Quote
Hey, if Crist can change his mind about gay marriage, surely you have to at least CONSIDER it.   Who is he marrying anyway, Liza Minnelli??

Quote
Crist is hardly my guiding light.   :D

So does that mean you won't vote GOP if he is the VP nominee? 

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 03:55:53 PM
And this will somehow make Jesus UNSAY his bit from Matthews?

he has no need to.  all those not in Christ are still condemned under ALL of the law (including the weird food laws).  remember - Corinthians was addressed to believers there. 

stephen - you seem to have a lot of questions.

maybe you are "seeking" right now.

if you would like to join, i'm starting to lead a Bible study entitled "Pride & Humility".  we will surely take the time to answer any questions you may have.  we would love for you to join us.

I never thought I'd see the day that there is any dispute bout Helms but here i am in the minority. No pun intended. I can't wait to get outta Jax i once had hope for this place but i am embarrassed to say i am from here and tired of fighting the bigoted jerks. As soon we are able we are out of here. Floriduh can secede. cya!!

Quote from: obie1 on July 07, 2008, 04:11:19 PM
I never thought I'd see the day that there is any dispute bout Helms but here i am in the minority. No pun intended. I can't wait to get outta Jax i once had hope for this place but i am embarrassed to say i am from here and tired of fighting the bigoted jerks. As soon we are able we are out of here. Floriduh can secede. cya!!

Goodbye!   ;D

Quote from: obie1 on July 07, 2008, 04:11:19 PM
I never thought I'd see the day that there is any dispute bout Helms but here i am in the minority. No pun intended. I can't wait to get outta Jax i once had hope for this place but i am embarrassed to say i am from here and tired of fighting the bigoted jerks. As soon we are able we are out of here. Floriduh can secede. cya!!

no kidding obie1.  i know how you feel.  i came here in 1999 and it took a while to get adjusted.  i manage now, but it's not ideal.  not like being back up north, huh?  :D

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 04:11:45 PM
Thanks for the offer!

It certainly sounds like you probably need to do some more studying on the subject, or maybe Im just confused at the multiple opposing things you are trying to say and automatically assuming that they are contradictions.

I would love to join you, as it would be especially interesting to hear your thoughts on both pride and humility, im sure they are engrossing.

Hopefully we could find the answers in the scripture together, as I don't really have much left to question regarding the scriptures, although i am endlessly interested in how other people interpret them.

Just let me know.

Maybe you can bring the beer kegs, Stephen.   ;)

Gosh, I wish I was an intellectual like you Stephen.   :D

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 04:16:21 PMAnd maybe you can stay home and then weigh in with authority about what happened in your absence.  Hopefully there wont be a registered police log to immediately make you look foolish, although with Driven, one never knows.

lol - i don't have my concealed carry permit yet!!!!  ;)   

i sent you a PM stephen - we are trying to meet on Wed., but we can work around your schedule.  let me know.

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 04:16:21 PM
And maybe you can stay home and then weigh in with authority about what happened in your absence.  Hopefully there wont be a registered police log to immediately make you look foolish, (although with Driven and me, one never knows.)

The text above which you assume to be a police log has never been authenticated.  Also, there have been no statements by the police to indicate that shots were fired.  Until this happens, I do not believe it has been proved that shots were fired.  In any case, no one was injured if shots did occur.

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 04:25:37 PM
Lincoln Chafee's statement regarding Jesse Helm's Death.

Quote
As the Republican Party moves to engineer itself for a post-Bush era, many Americans are reconsidering the definition of conservatism. The sad death of my former colleague Jesse Helms and today's New York Times editorials on Nelson Rockefeller and Dwight Eisenhower offer an opportunity to consider the current state of the GOP. How did the party of Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator, become a party so strong in the South? Much of the transformation began in 1964.

As a lifelong Republican now disaffiliated and supporting Barack Obama for president, I still recall that year's GOP convention in San Francisco's Cow Palace. At age 11, I was there with my father, a Rockefeller delegate, when the Republican Party overwhelming nominated Sen. Barry Goldwater. In retrospect, it's hard to believe that our party selected a candidate who had voted against the Civil Rights Act in the Senate. In the end, the Arizonan won only six states besides his own: Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina! Goldwater lost the election, but his candidacy sowed the seeds of the new Republican Party of which Jesse Helms would someday be a part.

Helms' legacy is one of strong opposition to women's reproductive freedom, gay rights, foreign aid for diplomacy, public funding for the arts. The priorities Helms pioneered run strong in today's GOP. But I believe the policies Rockefeller and Eisenhower championed represent a truer conservatism.

The new Republican Party, which controlled the executive and legislative branches for much of my time in the Senate, has squandered a surplus, neglected our planet, desecrated our First and Fourth Amendment freedoms, mired us in a costly quagmire in the greater Middle East and augmented the tragic disparity of wealth in America. Who would call these policies conservative?

Eisenhower-Rockefeller conservatism supported a robust middle class and sound environmental stewardship. It also championed personal freedoms and valued investing in educational opportunity for all. But these policies have all but disappeared from Republican politics. Can anyone imagine a modern Republican president warning America of a dangerous "military-industrial complex"?

Since the 1964 election, the definition of conservatism has grown murky and the Republican Party has changed dramatically.

Lincoln Chafee is now lecturing us on conservatism?  That's rich considering he has never been considered a conservative under anyone's definition. 

And now the reductio ad hitlerum argument rears its ugly head.   :D

According to you, the only true conservatives are liberals such as yourself.  What a farce!

BTW, here is an excellent piece outlining some of Helms' many foreign policy achievements.  I suggest you give it a fair reading:

QuoteThe Jesse Helms You Should Remember

(http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/07/06/PH2008070601768.jpg)   
Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan at a 1983 dinner.

By Marc Thiessen
Monday, July 7, 2008; Page A13

With the passing of Sen. Jesse Helms, the media have demonstrated one final time that they never fully understood the power or impact of this great man. Consider, for example, The Post's obituary of Helms; here are some things you would not learn about his life and legacy by reading it:

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Helms led the successful effort to bring Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the NATO alliance. He secured passage of bipartisan legislation to protect our men and women in uniform from the International Criminal Court. He won overwhelming approval for his legislation to support the Cuban people in their struggle against a tyrant. He won majority support in the Senate for his opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He helped secure passage of the National Missile Defense Act and stopped the Clinton administration from concluding a new anti-ballistic missile agreement in its final months in office -- paving the way for today's deployment of America's first defenses against ballistic missile attack. He helped secure passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, which expressed strong bipartisan support for regime change in Baghdad. He secured broad, bipartisan support to reorganize the State Department and bring much-needed reform to the United Nations, and he became the first legislator from any nation to address the U.N. Security Council -- a speech few in that chamber will forget.

Watching this record of achievement unfold, columnist William Safire wrote in 1997: "Jesse Helms, bete noire of knee-jerk liberals . . . is turning out to be the most effectively bipartisan chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since Arthur Vandenberg. . . . Let us see if he gets the credit for statesmanship that he deserves from a striped-pants establishment." This weekend, we got our answer.
ad_icon

What his critics could not appreciate is that, by the time he left office, Jesse Helms had become a mainstream conservative. And it was not because Helms had moved toward the mainstream -- it was because the mainstream moved toward him.

When Helms arrived in Washington in 1973, conservatives were a minority not only in our nation's capital but also within the Republican Party. He often took to the floor as the lonely opposition in 99-to-1 votes. By the time he became chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in 1995, Republicans were in the majority in the Senate and conservatives were in control of the Republican Party. And Helms was winning floor votes by wide bipartisan majorities.

What made Helms stand out was his willingness to stand up for his beliefs before they were widely held -- even if it meant challenging those closest to him. In 1985, his dear friend Ronald Reagan was preparing for his first summit with Mikhail Gorbachev when a Ukrainian sailor named Miroslav Medvid twice jumped off a Soviet ship into the Mississippi River seeking political asylum. The Soviets insisted that Medvid had accidentally fallen off -- twice. The State Department did not want an international incident on the eve of the summit. But Helms believed it was wrong to send a man back behind the Iron Curtain -- no matter the cost to superpower diplomacy. He tried to block the ship's departure by requiring the sailor to appear before the Senate Agriculture Committee, which he chaired then -- and he had the subpoena delivered to the ship's unwitting captain in a carton of North Carolina cigarettes.

Despite Helms's efforts, the ship was allowed to leave for the Soviet Union with the Ukrainian sailor aboard. Miroslav Medvid was not heard from again until 15 years later, when he came to Washington to visit the man who fought so hard for his freedom. I was working at the time on Helms's Foreign Relations Committee staff and witnessed this emotional meeting. Yes, Medvid told Helms, he had been trying to escape -- that was why he joined the Merchant Marine in the first place. When he was returned to the Soviet Union, he said, he was incarcerated in a mental hospital for the criminally insane. The KGB tried to drug him, but a sympathetic nurse injected the drugs into his mattress. Eventually he was released; today he is a parish priest in his native village in Ukraine.

In the course of dozens of interrogations, he told Helms, "the KGB didn't fulfill its desire about what they wanted to do with me. They were afraid of something," he said, "and now I know what they were afraid of." They were afraid of Jesse Helms.

President Bush had it right when he said on Friday that "from Central America to Central Europe and beyond, people remember: In the dark days when the forces of tyranny seemed on the rise, Jesse Helms took their side." This is the Jesse Helms that Miroslav Medvid remembers. Unfortunately, it was not the Jesse Helms written about this weekend.

The writer, the chief White House speechwriter, was Foreign Relations Committee spokesman for Sen. Jesse Helms from 1995 to 2001.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070601767.html

Tarantos Take on Helms

QuoteJesse Helms, RIP
Supporters called him stalwart; opponents called him rigid. Both sides had a point. Former senator Jesse Helms, who died Friday at 86, was, The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial, a hero of the Cold War. He was also a onetime defender of segregation who never repented, and whose public utterances (detailed by reader Chuck Smith in a 2001 letter) suggested he harbored antipathy toward blacks.

Then again, Helms was capable of changing his mind. His view of homosexuality was decidedly old-fashioned, leading him, in the 1980s, to a callousness toward AIDS patients that seems shocking in retrospect. In 1990, Jeanne White, whose 18-year-old son, Ryan, had died of AIDS contracted from a blood transfusion, visited Capitol Hill, "Helms refused to speak to her even after she cornered him in an elevator," POZ, a magazine for AIDS sufferers, reported in 1996. In 1995, the New York Times reported:

QuoteSenator Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican who has vigorously fought homosexual rights, wants to reduce the amount of Federal money spent on AIDS sufferers, because, he says, it is their "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct" that is responsible for their disease.

Yet by February 2002 his view had softened considerably, as the Associated Press reported:

QuoteSen. Jesse Helms said Wednesday he was ashamed he had not done more to fight the worldwide AIDS epidemic and promised to keep it on his agenda until he leaves office next year.
"I have been too lax too long in doing something really significant about AIDS," Helms told hundreds of Christian AIDS activists gathered for a conference in Washington. "I'm not going to lay it aside on my agenda for the remaining months I have" in office.

The following month, a New York Times editorial praised Helms as "an AIDS savior."

Helms's turnabout on AIDS shows that there was more to the man than the stereotype of a rigid ultraconservative. On the other hand, it makes the absence of a similar turnabout on segregation seem more damning, since one cannot simply chalk it up to an undiscriminating stubbornness.

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 05:32:17 PM
too little, too late.

Hundreds of thousands of people died of AIDS as a result of his leadership. 

With that much blood on his hands, he should have donated his entire estate to aids research.

A vile and utterly unredeemable man.

you lied i think.  prove that solely because of Jesse Helms' decision(s), "Hundreds of thousands died".  if you can't, you lied. 

and btw, Christ came to die "once for ALL sin".  even if Jesse had killed "hundreds of thousands", wouldn't that be included? 

He offended Mosley-Braun??? Well that seals the deal for me!!!

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 05:46:59 PM

Quote from: Driven1 on July 07, 2008, 05:46:00 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 05:32:17 PM
too little, too late.

Hundreds of thousands of people died of AIDS as a result of his leadership. 

With that much blood on his hands, he should have donated his entire estate to aids research.

A vile and utterly unredeemable man.

you lied i think.  prove that solely because of Jesse Helms' decision(s), "Hundreds of thousands died".  if you can't, you lied. 

and btw, Christ came to die "once for ALL sin".  even if Jesse had killed "hundreds of thousands", wouldn't that be included? 

?

late for the medication much?

try these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_band_played_on

ok - you are showing everyone now.

go to each page.  hit CTRL-F.  type "helms".  nothing on either page.  again, we await proof that Jesse Helms was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands. 

i know that we will not get it.  because it is not true.  please stop lying.  pretty please.

So the song "Dixie" is racist now?  You fail to disclose the context of the debate with Moseley-Braun which was, as I recall, about some minor issue regarding the United Daughters of the Confederacy.  Here is what happened to precipitate the singing of Dixie:

QuoteIn 1993, Moseley-Braun, then a Democratic senator from Illinois, led the fight against renewing a design patent for the United Daughters of the Confederacy that used the Confederate flag as its emblem. Helms had sponsored the measure. It had been a routine request, every 14 years, since 1898.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/10/18/politics/main66856.shtml

Because of Moseley-Braun and others, the design patent was not renewed and the little old ladies of the UDC lost the rights to their own symbol which happened to include the Confederate flag.

Speaking of AIDS funding, which Stephen apparently has a personal interest in, why is it appropriate the AIDS gets more federal dollars for research per infected person than does cancer?  Apparently Helms wasnt too successful here.

I know far more people that have died, or have fought cancer than I have who have contracted, let alone died of AIDS. Are you really minimalizing the loss to those of us who have loved ones who have fought, and lost life to cancer?

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 06:27:13 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 07, 2008, 06:23:29 PM
Speaking of AIDS funding, which Stephen apparently has a personal interest in, why is it appropriate the AIDS gets more federal dollars for research per infected person than does cancer?  Apparently Helms wasnt too successful here.

you arent serious are you?

Do you know how many artists, dancers, writers and bright fantastic people from our generation died before thirty?

You bastard.

Maybe no one interesting ever spoke to you in college, but yes, having lived in the cities, I know a lot of dead people, thanks for asking.

Lighten up, Nancy.  All I am saying is there should be more equity with research dollars.  I do not believe there should be no research dollars going to AIDS.  And, I have been far more affected by cancer than AIDS.  Also, AIDS is nearly always self-inflicted whereas cancer is sometimes self-inflicted and sometimes only tangentially so.

More remembrances for this great man:

QuoteRemembering a Patriot
Jesse Helms, R.I.P.

An NRO Symposium

Former North Carolina senator Jesse Helms died on Friday at age 86. National Review Online gathered former Hill staffers and admirers to identify his legacy.

Andrew E. Busch
Jesse Helms should be remembered, first and foremost, as one of a rare breed of politicians who simply did not care what the New York Times said about them or about the wider world.

When he thought the State Department was not taking a tough enough stand, he had no problem playing hardball, even when there was a Republican president.

He did not hesitate, either, to make big campaign issues out of hot cultural concerns that polite liberals preferred to sweep under the rug â€" as in 1990, when he won a close race for reelection partly by focusing voters’ attention on the injustice of racial preferences.

Helms helped remake the South into a Republican bastion on the basis of a strong defense, unwavering anti-Communism, and cultural conservatism.

He was sometimes a bit rough around the edges even for his allies, who wondered whether his bare-knuckle tactics were so stark that they might alienate some of the voters conservatives were seeking to persuade. Whatever reservations any might have harbored, conservatives were glad to have Jesse Helms on their side. In the end, he showed that one could challenge the pretensions of the Left in the most vigorous possible way and thrive politically anyway. It was undoubtedly this proof that most infuriated the CBS newsroom.

â€" Andrew E. Busch is an associate professor of political science at the Claremont McKenna College.


Linda Chavez
I first met Sen. Jesse Helms under less-than-auspicious circumstances. The Reagan White House had just announced my nomination to become staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which, at the time, was a high-profile agency that had been a constant thorn in the administration’s side. No doubt my selection seemed an inexplicable choice: I was a Democrat and, at the time of my nomination, was a top assistant to Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Helms’s staff was loaded for bear at my first interview, grilling me for what seemed like hours. But when I went in to see Sen. Helms, he was the epitome of a southern gentleman, courteous, even courtly. If he had any misgivings, he never let me know â€" at least not then. It was only later when I ran into him at a social event that he let on how worried he’d been about my appointment. By that time, the New York Times and Washington Post were excoriating me on their editorial pages for the anti-quota direction I and my fellow Reagan appointees at the Civil Rights Commission had taken the agency, which, of course, had removed any doubts he might have had.

I later found out that my experience was far from unique. One well-known feminist told me how taken aback she was that Sen. Helms was friendly, even kindly, when she met him one-on-one. He took his politics seriously, but he didn’t use political differences as an excuse for bad manners. The same can’t be said for many of his adversaries.

â€" Linda Chavez is chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity.


Michael G. Franc
Today’s conservatives remember and admire Sen. Helms above all for his independence of spirit and unwavering dedication to principle. Along with colleagues such as Bill Armstrong of Colorado, Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and Phil Gramm of Texas, and maybe one or two others, he seemed entirely at ease and at the top of his game when he confronted Washington’s many liberal establishments.

How many tough-talking conservatives win elective office to, as the saying goes, represent the goodness and wisdom of their constituents to Washington only to “go native” and gradually find themselves representing the conventional wisdom of Washington to their constituents? Not so with Sen. Jesse Helms.

And it’s a good thing he stood firm against the Beltway’s elite opinion. Helms, after all, was so often proven right. He was as prescient as President Reagan on the inherent evil of Communism and on the need to defeat, rather than merely contain the Soviet Union. The idiocy and incompetence of the United Nations motivated him to push for a much-needed (and, alas, still pending) overhaul of Turtle Bay. The anti-Americanism that all too easily seeps into the DNA of the State Department led him to mount a similar reform effort aimed at Foggy Bottom. And Helms understood that the then-burgeoning HIV epidemic would be contained only when public-health authorities came to their senses and deployed all the tools used routinely to control other sexually transmitted diseases (i.e., confidential reporting and partner notification) to control the spread of HIV.

None of these crusades endeared Helms to those elites. In fact, they almost seemed designed to trigger an earlier version of what we now call Bush Derangement Syndrome. Remember the reaction when he tried to rein in the National Endowment for the Arts?

Another legacy he leaves is that principle always â€" always â€" trumps partisanship, especially when it is one’s own party that is abandoning a core value. If one can uphold a core principle only by standing up to one’s own party leaders, then so be it. It is hard, for example, to imagine Sen. Helms standing idly by these last few years as Hill Republicans earmarked their way to minority status.

It is a legacy our current crop of conservative lawmakers would do well to ponder.

â€" Michael G. Franc is vice president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.


Doug Heye
When I interned in his office in 1991, Sen. Helms suffered from Paget’s Disease. Because he was not allowed to carry heavy objects, I brought his unusually heavy briefcase into his office each morning. Unless he was in a meeting or on the phone, he would never simply offer thanks. “Sit down, young fella,” he would say, asking about my experiences in his office and his 1990 campaign, school, family or â€" old sports reporter that he was â€" the previous night’s baseball game.

“I don’t understand how a nice gentleman from North Carolina such as yourself can support a team called the Yankees,” he joked.

When I mentioned reading Richard Nixon’s memoirs, he obtained an autographed picture of Nixon for me and was thrilled when I brought it into his office. Later, he invited all of the interns to meet him after the weekly Senate Republican Conference lunch to meet Vice President Quayle. It was heady stuff for a 19-year-old. It still is.

In our conversations, I tried soak up as much history (and John Wayne stories) as I could. At the time, I thought I must have made some kind of positive impression on the senator for him to spend so much time with me.

Over the years, however, I learned there were countless young people who had similar stories. That’s just who he was; he was the nicest man.

Rest in peace.

â€" Doug Heye served as communications director for Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.), among other campaign and Hill roles.


Jay Nordlinger
When I was growing up in Ann Arbor, Mich., all conservatives were hate figures. And Jesse Helms was the Most Hated of All. In time, I left Ann Arbor far behind, mentally. And I grew to appreciate and value Jesse Helms.

He understood Communism â€" he had Communism’s number. And that was the most important issue of his age. All those who sneered at him, degraded him â€" they did not have half the understanding that Helms had.

About everything concerning the Cold War, Helms was right. His critics and enemies were horribly wrong.

He also had the U.N.’s number. And the socialists’ number. And the universities’ number. (Pardon the redundancy.) And he had a very strong moral sense.

When a Ukrainian sailor named Medved jumped ship off the American coast, the only person in all the world who cared about him was Jesse Helms. U.S. authorities â€" under Reagan, no less â€" dragged him back to the Soviets, kicking and screaming.

And, as I understand it, Senator and Mrs. Helms adopted a supposedly unadoptable boy. When I interviewed him in 2005 â€" for the interview, go here â€" this was the only subject he declined to address. Modesty and humility ruled.

I don’t know that he was completely innocent on race. I doubt he was especially guilty â€" particularly for a white southerner born in 1921. And, about affirmative action â€" a.k.a. race preferences â€" he was 100 percent right.

He had the courage of his convictions, which is not enough, of course: Those convictions were right. Jesse Helms was courageous, right, and good. That is a powerful combination.

â€" Jay Nordlinger is a National Review senior editor.


David Rouzer
Jesse Helms helped change the world. He understood that America was created for a purpose, and he believed in the strength, ingenuity, and generosity of the American people. When others were willing to compromise with brutal tyrants, he stood firm for freedom and liberty â€" inspiring both those who lived in freedom, and more importantly, those who did not. He had the courage to stand his ground and do what he felt was right, rather than succumb to the temptation of political expediency. Such courage is why he supported Ronald Reagan in 1976 when many thought Reagan’s campaign was obsolete. It is why he argued against liberalism when few dared to tackle it head-on. It is why he was unflinching in his opposition to Communism.

Not only was Jesse Helms a great statesman, he took great pride in helping others. He never lost sight of protecting the interests of the people whom he was elected to represent; he tackled every problem brought to the office by a constituent as though it was his own.

Jesse Helms will be remembered as one of America’s great patriots. He was a true gentleman who served for all of the right reasons. It is only fitting that he joins two other great patriots, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, in exiting this world on the Fourth of July â€" and not by coincidence.

â€" David Rouzer a former staffer to Senator Helms.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjkzZjFmYmI4OWVlOTBlZDc2NjgyNzQ3YmZmN2I3MjU=&w=MA==

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 10:19:59 PM


Self inflicted?

You dopey bigot.

This is why you got banned from urban planet isnt it?

Ah, yes...the quality lefty internet debate style...when confronted with reality, call the other person a bigot, and this you win the argument.

In Gator's defense, let's try this again...try and form a logical argument why the majority of AIDS is not a lifestyle disease. Please. I'd love to see the logical contortions required for this to make sense.

Or you can just dismiss me as a bigot and not actually provide facts for discussion...

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 10:19:59 PMSelf inflicted?
You dopey bigot.

i was just wondering?  how does one get AIDS?  i have heard that there is an extreme minority that get AIDS from blood transfusions, but that number is almost ZERO. 

how is HIV contracted?  i mean - is it like cancer.  one day you have it and the next day you don't?

or do you have to actually DO something to get it?

i'll help you out - HIV is contracted from lifestyle decisions...

like shooting up drugs with used needles

and

having unprotected sex (a huge cause in homosexual males according to the CDC)

and

Jesse Helms putting a gun to your head and telling you to inject the HIV virus into your arm

:)

Quote from: Clem1029 on July 07, 2008, 10:37:51 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 10:19:59 PM


Self inflicted?

You dopey bigot.

This is why you got banned from urban planet isnt it?

Ah, yes...the quality lefty internet debate style...when confronted with reality, call the other person a bigot, and this you win the argument.

In Gator's defense, let's try this again...try and form a logical argument why the majority of AIDS is not a lifestyle disease. Please. I'd love to see the logical contortions required for this to make sense.

Or you can just dismiss me as a bigot and not actually provide facts for discussion...

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 10:58:16 PM

Quote from: Driven1 on July 07, 2008, 10:56:05 PM
i'll help you out - HIV is contracted from lifestyle decisions...

like shooting up drugs with used needles

and

having unprotected sex (a huge cause in homosexual males according to the CDC)

and

and Jesse Helms putting a gun to your head and telling you to inject the HIV virus into your arm

:)

wow, bigot.  I would say that you should at least know what the hell you are talking about.  Its easy enough to get real AIDS information.  But then if you were the type to know what the hell you were talking about, you wouldnt be posting on this subject.

Deep end.  Stephen gone off...

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 10:54:21 PM
So boys, remember when you say these incredibly stupid things that they are the deathwarrants for people that might never have expected to die from it.

Are you attempting to suggest that if one states that AIDS results from lifestyle choices in most cases that someone in that person's family will then contract it as punishment by some higher power?

Bigot = one who does not agree with Stephen's agenda

The word "bigot" does not apply to disapproval of homosexual conduct, Stephen.  This is simply a verbal sleight of hand which gay activists use to legitimize their behavior.  Nice try though.   ;)

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 10:44:36 PM

Quote from: Clem1029 on July 07, 2008, 10:37:51 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 10:19:59 PM


Self inflicted?

You dopey bigot.

This is why you got banned from urban planet isnt it?

Ah, yes...the quality lefty internet debate style...when confronted with reality, call the other person a bigot, and this you win the argument.

In Gator's defense, let's try this again...try and form a logical argument why the majority of AIDS is not a lifestyle disease. Please. I'd love to see the logical contortions required for this to make sense.

Or you can just dismiss me as a bigot and not actually provide facts for discussion...

love this thread.   It makes things crystal clear.

HIV inflicts AIDS in humans.  Its a virus.

Quote from: Clem1029 on May 10, 2008, 12:52:36 AM
Boycott over Starbucks logo? Lame

Boycott over the fact that one of the places Starbucks donates the most money to is in the running for the most evil organization on the planet (read: Planned Parenthood)? Now you might have some ground to stand on.

Hey look...he can do message board searches! Neat! I hope I can learn that skill someday.  ::)

Now, with the nice little medical lesson, perhaps you could elighten the rest of us as to exactly HOW such a virus is caught and passed along. Statistics would be helpful as well. K THX!

Unless you just want to scream "bigot" without any actual, you know, facts or anything. Just sayin.

40% of cancer deaths are self inflicted.

What percentage of HIV/AIDS cases are stemming from risky lifestyle choices (aka self inflicted)?

Quote from: downtownparks on July 08, 2008, 09:02:25 AM
What percentage of HIV/AIDS cases are stemming from risky lifestyle choices (aka self inflicted)?

only 8%...the rest just wake up one day and somehow have HIV.

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 10:54:21 PM
So boys, remember when you say these incredibly stupid things that they are the deathwarrants for people that might never have expected to die from it.

yes, we are murdering people with our words (our words become their "deathwarrants").  just like Jesse Helms did.  i wonder how many i have murdered so far?

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 07, 2008, 09:30:41 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 06:27:13 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 07, 2008, 06:23:29 PM
Speaking of AIDS funding, which Stephen apparently has a personal interest in, why is it appropriate the AIDS gets more federal dollars for research per infected person than does cancer?  Apparently Helms wasnt too successful here.

you arent serious are you?

Do you know how many artists, dancers, writers and bright fantastic people from our generation died before thirty?

You bastard.

Maybe no one interesting ever spoke to you in college, but yes, having lived in the cities, I know a lot of dead people, thanks for asking.

Lighten up, Nancy.  All I am saying is there should be more equity with research dollars.  I do not believe there should be no research dollars going to AIDS.  And, I have been far more affected by cancer than AIDS.  Also, AIDS is nearly always self-inflicted whereas cancer is sometimes self-inflicted and sometimes only tangentially so.

So, who is this Nancy you are responding to? Is that some sort of derogatory name for a homosexual? Like Mary? Nuff said!

welcome JaxConfidential!!!!  we look forward to having you here for what I am sure to be some very spirited discussion!!   :D   :D    :D    :D

I am having the time of my life reading all of this.

Hey ya'll!

Quote from: 77danj7 on July 08, 2008, 02:45:22 PM
I am having the time of my life reading all of this.

lol  - what are your thoughts so far?  

Quote from: turdwithdreads on July 08, 2008, 02:46:01 PM
Hey ya'll!

HEY!!! IT'S TuRDWITHDREADS!!!!  what tha??  welcome to mj.com TWD.  join in the discussion. 

I have to say this is very entertaining. JC turned me onto it. Much better than getting cussed out on news4jax or firstcoastnews.com!

I'd love to come to a Bible study unfortunately I cannot make Wednesdays as my wife and I are youth pastors in the city and have our service that night :)

I say follow your dreams!
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=281692277

ROFL!!!  that is TERRIFIC.  dreams can come true when you follow your heart.  follow your dreams.

Jesse Helms followed his heart and his dreams came true!!

Quote from: turdwithdreads on July 08, 2008, 03:00:23 PM
I say follow your dreams!
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=281692277

Thanks to the Jacksonville Confidential News Editor. Good Job!

Quote from: jacksonvilleconfidential on July 08, 2008, 03:05:03 PM

Quote from: turdwithdreads on July 08, 2008, 03:00:23 PM
I say follow your dreams!
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=281692277

Thanks to the Jacksonville Confidential News Editor. Good Job!

no...GREAT JOB!

i love her rendition of "Larger than life"...

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=281692277

Jesse Helms was larger than life!!

Quote from: stephendare on July 08, 2008, 03:07:06 PM
Lets raise glass to dreams coming true for all of us.

President Obama and Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilary Clinton.

Cheers!

Oh goodness, now you're trying to get me started. VOTE JASON ISAAC '08
http://www.news3online.com/index.php?code=883d5u5R19mLO168OGdG

Please listen to larger than life! All you people can't you see..... can't you see. Tina is a godsend!

yeah, come out you little midgets!!!  lol.

Quote from: stephendare on July 08, 2008, 03:13:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/XOEq-ImGWJ0

"come out come out wherever you are!"  Glenda the Good Witch of the North.

Its the first line of the video.

We are here!

Quote from: jacksonvilleconfidential on July 08, 2008, 03:15:55 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 08, 2008, 03:13:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/XOEq-ImGWJ0

"come out come out wherever you are!"  Glenda the Good Witch of the North.

Its the first line of the video.

We are here!

i freakin love you little midgets!!

Senator Jesse loved midgets too I hear.

Quote from: Driven1 on July 08, 2008, 03:15:12 PM
yeah, come out you little midgets!!!  lol.

Yes! Ive been called that too....
http://www.jacksonvilleconfidential.com/2007/02/extreme-midget-wrestling-vids.html

Quote from: stephendare on July 08, 2008, 03:18:05 PM

Quote from: Driven1 on July 08, 2008, 03:16:47 PM
Senator Jesse loved midgets too I hear.

thats what they say.

of course he called them 'constituents'.

Yes! or LOVER!

Most of the JC staff are midgets!  HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Like Randy Watson

Quote from: turdwithdreads on July 08, 2008, 03:25:22 PM
Like Randy Watson

Thats mah mama!

Now I want you all to give it up for my band, Sexual Chocolate!

good stuff.  sounds like the average gov't worker...he had been there much too long and grown much too comfortable in his position.  kudos to his supervisor for taking a stand and issuing the ultimatum.

Wow. I leave for a week, and I come back to see this thread. All I can say is...just, wow.

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 11:26:39 AM

Quote from: Clem1029 on July 07, 2008, 10:37:51 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 07, 2008, 10:19:59 PM


Self inflicted?

You dopey bigot.

This is why you got banned from urban planet isnt it?

Ah, yes...the quality lefty internet debate style...when confronted with reality, call the other person a bigot, and this you win the argument.

In Gator's defense, let's try this again...try and form a logical argument why the majority of AIDS is not a lifestyle disease. Please. I'd love to see the logical contortions required for this to make sense.

Or you can just dismiss me as a bigot and not actually provide facts for discussion...

ah yes....

Yep...another case of Dare being unable to actually debate, and instead calling someone a "bigot" to try and silence them...nothing abusive about that! No way, nosiree!

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 11:31:05 AM
um  care to explain your whole "gays deserve the AIDS because of their lifestyle choices" argument again?

Im sure you can prove how thats not bigoted.  Just crank that cranium up into high gear.

No problem...once you can point out where I made that argument and actually hold that position, I'll be glad to do so.

Have fun spinning your wheels!!

This is hysterical...in order to try and prove your point you need to dig up a 2 year old thread, and then pretend I made an inflammatory statement to have a window to call me a bigot?!? I don't care who you are, that there is just funny!

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 11:36:27 AM
as fun as my spinning wheels are, it more fun to see your cart careening off the road without any of them at all.

Are you going to pretend that you didnt post what I just quoted?

Me thinks I'm not the one here that hasn't actually read it. I mean, any fairminded reader here can go over that word for word, and I'm pretty sure I never made the argument you think I made. Keep trying though, it's entertaining!

QuoteIf you are going to be a bigot, why not be honest about it?

If you're going to call me a bigot, at least have some actual evidence, not what you decide to project. It's not up to me to prove a negative (i.e., I am not a bigot) but rather the burden is on you to prove that I actually am a bigot.

But if you'd like a hint...try finding anywhere in this thread that I actually referred to homosexuality...

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 11:49:53 AM
oh.. so its like not actually saying the 'n' word? 

So, what was your line of reasoning about?  You know.  How AIDS is 'self inflicted'?

Where were you going with that?

I mean exactly what the statement says - the majority of AIDS cases are contracted due to lifestyle decisions. It's a pretty obvious statement.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 06, 2008, 02:24:42 PM
I do not agree with everything Helms did or said during his lifetime.  However, as opposed to many leftists today, I do not wish death upon my political opponents or dance on their graves.  That is simply wrong.

+1

Oh, you could go lots of routes with such an obvious statement...if nothing else, it outright refutes your position that Helms was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of deaths. Or maybe with the obvious conclusion that the way to help save "artists, dancers, writers and bright fantastic people from our generation died before thirty" is to change the culture.

Lots of discussions can happen from that base position...and not one of which indicates I'm a bigot (unless projection enters into play).

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 12:09:20 PM
None of that makes a bit of sense.

What would be your point in claiming that AIDS is 'self inflicted'?

Is it a disease that you can give yourself?

Virus
and that term would be called "bug caughter"

Quote from: Clem1029 on May 06, 2010, 11:53:01 AM
I mean exactly what the statement says - the majority of AIDS cases are contracted due to lifestyle decisions. It's a pretty obvious statement.

The majority of AIDS cases are heterosexuals in Africa.  What "lifestyle decisions" did they make?

BTW unless this guy died of HIV or AIDs, then you lot are horribly and disgracefully off topic.

Yes I saw, they are against gays and then it went to the aids argument. No suprise.

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 12:09:20 PM
None of that makes a bit of sense.  Were you going in hundreds of directions with it yourself?  Why is it taking you so many posts to explain this?  Are you looking for the correct wording?

What would be your point in claiming that AIDS is 'self inflicted'?

Is it a disease that you can give yourself?

I'm just wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you really just don't get it.

You claim I'm a bigot. You attempted to make a veiled post to "prove" that. I've clearly corrected that impression. I've made a series of very direct statements to indicate a very simple point, yet you're still reaching for something to demonstrate bigotry. Good luck.

To spell it out for you, the majority of cases are caused by lifestyle decisions and actions - and that's across any classes or groupings of people you want to create. If one does not engage in those decisions and actions, one reduces their potential exposure to near zero (obviously not zero). Is all of that really THAT difficult to understand? I mean, this should be as obvious as saying "if you don't smoke, you significantly decrease the likelihood you get lung cancer."

The funny thing is, the most AIDS cases are from Heterosexuality then Homosexuality.

The whole AIDS is a gay, is ignorance. I am an avid supporter of safe sex and am very active in communitys teaching people the differnce and all that BS. Blah blah, this is still off topic from the dead guy btw.

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 12:27:29 PM
But Sportsmotor, don't you believe that gays kindof deserve to die, since AIDS is 'self inflicted' after all?

Clem is trying to distance himself from this point, I guess because that sounds like something even worse than simply 'bigoted'.

Again, demonstrate where I said, oh, ANY of that.

Since you can't, I'll take my apology now.

Well, that answers the "deliberately obtuse" question...

I meant exactly what the statement said - if you can't understand that certain decisions and behaviors greatly increase an individual's capacity for contracting the disease, and that by avoiding said decisions and behaviors an individual reduces the changes of contracting to near zero...then there's really nothing I can do to help you.

Still ready for the apology...

I'm curious where I used the words "self-inflicted." If nothing else, my phrasing of "lifestyle behaviors and decisions" is corrective of another individuals use of that phrase.

That said, help me out here...if the point (which from your lack of discussion, I'm assuming you concede) that avoiding a set of decisions and behaviors reduces chances to near zero, and that engaging in said behaviors and decisions greatly increases chances of contracting the disease...you seem to object to the phrase "self-inflicted"...I'm not using that phrase, but I'm curious how else you'd describe that position? "Behavioral Russian Roulette"?

Well, you finally got one thing right...it is clear to everyone what my position is. Most assuredly, it's also clear to everyone that the position is not bigoted, nor am I a bigot. Again, you've failed in your burden of proof there. The more you try and keep up this front, the more out of touch you continue to be. I continue to wait for my apology.

I'm not sure why I am going to get myself into this.. but:

AIDS is, for the most part, a self-inflicted disease from the standpoint that the overwhelming majority of the time you acquire the virus through participating in an activity that was a conscious choice and decision, such as unprotected sex, sharing needles while abusing drugs.

This is in contrast to say... Breast Cancer or psychological disorders.  No conscious choice that anyone makes can make them any more likely to be diagnosed with Breast Cancer than another.

To that point, and not taking the time to read your pages of bickering in order to gain the proper "context", I cannot say calling AIDS a "self-inflicted" disease in almost all cases is an incorrect statement.

If it is an inartful way of expressing it, you may have a point.  From the definition of "self-inflicted" you appear to be operating under, I agree.. it is not.

If one views a definition of self-inflicted as being "brought about upon one's self due to one's own actions and decisions", which from my brief review appears to be what Clem was arguing, then I think it fits.

Again, if you feel it is inartfully stated that is one thing, but I believe there is a fundamental difference between something like AIDS contracted from unprotected sex and breast cancer.  To that point I am not just dead wrong.

I also am not wishing AIDS upon anyone.  Everyone makes certain choices and in almost no circumstance do they deserve a deadly disease.  I am simply saying that there is a difference from the standpoint of one's own actions setting about the course of events that caused them to become infected vs. poor luck or heredity. 

It appears to me that you have an emotional investment in the conversation, Stephen.  That's fine.  I am simply looking at it from a detached perspective and was trying to bring some semblance of balance to the name calling and arguing the two of you were doing.  I knew that if I got involved in the thread I would be accused of being an awful person.  So my annoyance is certainly self-inflicted.

Your analogy is not tight enough to be applicable.  Change the analogy to: if me or a loved one were killed in an automobile accident when we were driving recklessly.  Does the fact that we may have been driving too fast for road conditions mean we should have died?  Of course not.  But we knew or should have known that we were increasing our chances of death by conducting ourselves in that fashion instead of being more prudent about the situation.

Likewise, a person who has unprotected sex with a person about whose AIDS status they are unaware knows or should have known that they were engaging in conduct that could lead to their contracting the disease.  Do they deserve to get the disease and/or die for having unprotected sex?  No.  Of course not.

As I said before self-inflicted (which isn't my term.. it was the term already being used) is defined to include conscious decision making being the first domino to fall... then contracting the disease from unprotected sex, straight or gay, is self-inflicted.

This was my only point.  I meant to say nothing regarding the long dead Senator, federal funding for AIDS programs or homosexuality in general.  There is a difference between AIDS and breast cancer.  I wish neither on anyone but there is a difference.

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 01:54:54 PM
actually you have to go way back to the beginning of the thread to see the original context.  And Clem has thoughtfully removed two of his posts, for which I do not blame him.

Pardon me? What two posts did I remove? Haven't removed anything since my last post over an hour ago. Sure you're not projecting again?

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 02:16:20 PM
As I said before self-inflicted (which isn't my term.. it was the term already being used) is defined to include conscious decision making being the first domino to fall... then contracting the disease from unprotected sex, straight or gay, is self-inflicted.

Thank you...this is basically what I've been trying to get across since the start of this discussion. I'm with you, I don't think "self-inflicted" is the term, but I'm open for another suggestion for sake of the discussion.

How about "preventable"?

I understand that, Stephen, but you still fail to ascertain my point.  Read your analogy from the prior post.  You drew your analogy in an attempt to put what I was saying another way.  All I was saying is that in order for your analogy to accurately state what it was I was saying, you needed to amend it to driving recklessly.

I understand that you can get killed when driving most prudently, just like you can get AIDS from a negligently given blood transfusion while you lay there unconscious.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 02:21:53 PM
How about "preventable"?

I think you have it there...avoiding certain actions makes the disease mostly preventable. I could work with that phrasing...

I would not catagorize the contraction of A.I.D.S. as self inflicted.

If it term self inflicted included having unprotected sex with random/casual partners, I have most certainly have self inflicted Aids upon myself.

I could call myself neglegent, as well as fortunate not to have contracted diseases in the years of my youthful indiscretion.

The term self inflicted seems to imply that a person "had it coming" or planned for the outcome. I see that as a bit unfair. Wreckless is a word that is still a bit strong, but is more accurate for cases of aids where random and frequent unprotected sex was the cause.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 01:47:59 PM
If one views a definition of self-inflicted as being "brought about upon one's self due to one's own actions and decisions", which from my brief review appears to be what Clem was arguing, then I think it fits.

Heart disease, lung cancer, diabetes, to name some the top killers in this country are all due for the most part on one's own actions and decisions and are preventable.  How is AIDS any different?

Sometimes it does get frustrating to get into these situations man because you seem to convince yourself that I, or someone else, has an underlying motive or philosophy which 1) I don't have and 2) causes you misinterpret pretty plain English.


If one is out having unprotected sex with new partners and contracts AIDS therefrom a few things are true.

1) They could have acted more prudently (see: use a condom and/or confirm your partner does not have AIDS)
2) They don't deserve to die.
3) They never the less contracted AIDS based upon the conscious decision to have unprotected sex with an unfamiliar partner....

This can be said to have been "self-inflicted" to use the prior term with a bad connotation
or
Preventable... because from the standpoint of AIDS in this scenario it would have been prevented with use of a condom or unprotected sex with someone who doesn't have AIDS.  

If one is out driving 80 miles per hour on a windy country road during a rainstorm, a few things are true:
1)  They could have acted more prudently (see: slow down, flashers on, pull to side of road if raining too hard)
2)  They don't deserve to die.
3)  They never the less got into a horrible accident when they lost control of their car.  This loss of control was based upon the conscious decision to drive more recklessly than was prudent given road conditions.

This can be said to have been "self-inflicted"... or  Preventable- they could have chosen to drive more safely.

I realize you can get AIDS from a blood transfusion or even though other means in this example (longtime partner cheats on you and gets AIDS without you or your partner knowing, you then get AIDS from the partner)... but from the standpoint of going to a bar, picking someone up, having unprotected sex and getting AIDS... that is fundamentally different than getting Breast Cancer or Schizophrenia.

It just is, Stephen.  I have nothing but empathy for those who have had to deal with AIDS just like I do those who deal with any deadly disease.  Do not ascribe a malevolent philosophy to me where there is none and I think you will find I am right in what I am saying.

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 02:27:10 PM
Because gay people don't really need to have sex.  They just 'choose' to have sex, right?

Fixed that for you...has nothing to do with gay or straight. People in general don't NEED to have sex. Individuals always choose to have sex. Heck, it's not just sex...every action requires a choice, and every choice has consequences. Again, you'll notice I've said nothing about homosexuality - risky lifestyle behaviors and choices know no artificial population boundaries.

Keep imagining I'm some sort of raging bigot...it's funny to watch you try and justify it.

Quote from: finehoe on May 06, 2010, 02:27:45 PM

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 01:47:59 PM
If one views a definition of self-inflicted as being "brought about upon one's self due to one's own actions and decisions", which from my brief review appears to be what Clem was arguing, then I think it fits.

Heart disease, lung cancer, diabetes, to name some the top killers in this country are all due for the most part on one's own actions and decisions and are preventable.  How is AIDS any different?

I agree 95%.  

This is what is driving me freaking nuts!  I walked into this with the already established term "SELF INFLICTED".

I said it was an inartful term, but used what you quoted to try to explain how it could, in fact, apply to AIDS.   I agree that when you say "self-inflicted" it sounds like you had it coming, etc... which is NOT what I am saying.

I swear to God I don't understand why the default would just be to assume I think everyone who has unprotected sex SHOULD get AIDS and die.  JC man. (Edit:  Not the member, the Lord) Is this board really that vitriolic that the assumption should be the way that is how somebody feels.

Now that I am done almost punching my monitor..

The 5% that I do not agree is that there is a slight difference.  Genetics can make one more likely to get heart disease, lung cancer or diabetes.  Two people can live exactly the same lifestyles and one would get heart disease whereas the other wouldn't.  It is still "self-inflicted" as was being used in what you quoted me because had the person not eaten McDonalds 3 times a week for 30 years, they wouldn't have been anywhere near as likely to get heart disease...

But it isn't quite as dramatic of an example because with AIDS and unprotected sex, it doesn't take years of smoking or eating sweets or fatty meats.. it only takes one time.

Quote from: Clem1029 on May 06, 2010, 02:33:28 PM
risky lifestyle behaviors and choices know no artificial population boundaries.

Like eating too many fatty foods, being overweight, smoking...all risky lifestyle behaviors and choices that lead to the biggest causes of death in the US.

You are right Finehoe.. but I would point out that none of those are as preventable as the unprotected sex example.  You can lead a very healthy lifestyle and still get heart disease due to family history, etc.  But, like I said, I agree 95% with your statement.  They are very very similar.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 02:37:36 PM
Now that I am done almost punching my monitor..

DON'T DO IT!

I think many on this site are simply quite sensitive to certain stereotypes. Words have meaning, and although many will twist them to suit their own purpose, we should acknowledge that simple truth. You were right to move away from the term self inflicted, and have handled youself well int his thread.

I don't see your views as over the top. Besides, you'll potentially cost yourself good money as well as risk injuring your hand, should you punch your monitor. ;)

LOL +2

OH GOODY someone really wants to get into the Old Testament?
Yes it did have alot of commandments.. which all makes since...rape is cool if you marry the raped o_O

http://www.youtube.com/v/OFkeKKszXTw



ps you can get aids through blood transfusions that happens to many times

Viruses are tricky little devils and have many, many ways of spreading.  Some of them even infect children in their mother's womb and make them sick or make them believe in things that don't exist.

Quote from: stephendare on July 04, 2008, 11:59:40 AM
Couldnt have happened to a nicer guy.