Racist Senator Helms Dead at 86
- Thread starter Nonno
- Start date
Otter
Nothing to see here
I agree, tiny, its just those bastards that lie under oath that piss me off. Remember, stupid is as stupid does.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Then...
...you're not understanding what conservatism is all about.
it is not about racism. It is not about sexism. It is not about homophobia. It is not about being in bed with dictators. It is about living and viewing life conservatively. It is about social and economic policies that deal with problems conservatively. It is about avoiding throwing babies out with the bathwater. It is about managing change slowly and gradually and avoiding chaotic transformation.
For instance; not too many people today actually oppose the end of slavery. The question is, was a civil war necessary? Perhaps. Did each and every one of the 600,000 soldiers who died as a result of it die satisfied that they were helping us live up to our founding documents of equality? Did they all and their family and friends think it was worth it? Not viewed now, 100 years later, not the lens we view it through today, but then and there. Who, what stranger are you willing to go to war for, right now, out of a sense of justice?
Could slavery have been ended peacefully and gradually without so much devastation? If so, would a gradual transformation have precluded all the hatred and animosity that is the legacy of war? Would blacks have been integrated into the larger society as accepted citizens had the transformation taken several more generations? Would we have been spared the long term racial tensions, North and South, that were the natural byproducts of radical transformation? Would we all have been better off, slave and master and everyday citizen, had it be done more conservatively?
Look at abortion. Roe v. Wade is horrible law. Never mind what you think of abortion, Roe is bad law. Bad law threatens good law. That threatens us all. Accepted bad law, like Dredd Scott for instance, exacerbates problems and passions rather than a gradual transformation that may have resulted in better law, better acceptance and a better long term result for the society.
Look at affirmative action. Nothing more than legalized racism, motivation not withstanding. Was that the best thing to do? Certainly it has as many ills as positives, probably more. Would it have ever been necessary had a more gradual, digestible transformation from slavery occurred?
Don't like those examples? How about Iraq? Could Iraq been transformed to a better society over time without war? Could a more conservative approach resulted in a better result, less death, less destruction, less chaos and peril than the approach we took? Or will it be seen as our civil war, 130 years later, as this all good thing, as the only, best way good could be achieved? History is a teacher and time heals, but it can also obscure. And things can be left out.
That is the essence of conservatism; patience thought and understanding of a problem and a deliberate, reasoned, long term approach over upheaval.
It's easy to label someone like Helms a racist and homophobe and leave as that as though you have this grand inherent wisdom to know just what should be done in all things and at all times. It's easy to look back and point out things that stick out. It's not so easy to put yourself in a position of leadership representing various views and thoughts and ideas and come up with the right position every time. There's a good many things Helms and other conservatives did in terms of ideology and policy that don't stick out so much because nothing dramatic happened. Not going to WWIII with the Soviets is one. More gradual societal evolution is another. Radical upheaval appeals to kids and ideologues who just KNOW they are right. Conservatism serves as the throttle regulator to see that we don't get too carried away.
Jesse Helms earned that respect.
...you're not understanding what conservatism is all about.
it is not about racism. It is not about sexism. It is not about homophobia. It is not about being in bed with dictators. It is about living and viewing life conservatively. It is about social and economic policies that deal with problems conservatively. It is about avoiding throwing babies out with the bathwater. It is about managing change slowly and gradually and avoiding chaotic transformation.
For instance; not too many people today actually oppose the end of slavery. The question is, was a civil war necessary? Perhaps. Did each and every one of the 600,000 soldiers who died as a result of it die satisfied that they were helping us live up to our founding documents of equality? Did they all and their family and friends think it was worth it? Not viewed now, 100 years later, not the lens we view it through today, but then and there. Who, what stranger are you willing to go to war for, right now, out of a sense of justice?
Could slavery have been ended peacefully and gradually without so much devastation? If so, would a gradual transformation have precluded all the hatred and animosity that is the legacy of war? Would blacks have been integrated into the larger society as accepted citizens had the transformation taken several more generations? Would we have been spared the long term racial tensions, North and South, that were the natural byproducts of radical transformation? Would we all have been better off, slave and master and everyday citizen, had it be done more conservatively?
Look at abortion. Roe v. Wade is horrible law. Never mind what you think of abortion, Roe is bad law. Bad law threatens good law. That threatens us all. Accepted bad law, like Dredd Scott for instance, exacerbates problems and passions rather than a gradual transformation that may have resulted in better law, better acceptance and a better long term result for the society.
Look at affirmative action. Nothing more than legalized racism, motivation not withstanding. Was that the best thing to do? Certainly it has as many ills as positives, probably more. Would it have ever been necessary had a more gradual, digestible transformation from slavery occurred?
Don't like those examples? How about Iraq? Could Iraq been transformed to a better society over time without war? Could a more conservative approach resulted in a better result, less death, less destruction, less chaos and peril than the approach we took? Or will it be seen as our civil war, 130 years later, as this all good thing, as the only, best way good could be achieved? History is a teacher and time heals, but it can also obscure. And things can be left out.
That is the essence of conservatism; patience thought and understanding of a problem and a deliberate, reasoned, long term approach over upheaval.
It's easy to label someone like Helms a racist and homophobe and leave as that as though you have this grand inherent wisdom to know just what should be done in all things and at all times. It's easy to look back and point out things that stick out. It's not so easy to put yourself in a position of leadership representing various views and thoughts and ideas and come up with the right position every time. There's a good many things Helms and other conservatives did in terms of ideology and policy that don't stick out so much because nothing dramatic happened. Not going to WWIII with the Soviets is one. More gradual societal evolution is another. Radical upheaval appeals to kids and ideologues who just KNOW they are right. Conservatism serves as the throttle regulator to see that we don't get too carried away.
Jesse Helms earned that respect.
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
T
tiny_dancer33
Guest
You made quite an excellent post, I really enjoyed reading it.
You're right, I don't think that that's what conservatism is all about, which is why I'm having trouble seeing that this guy was an icon of conservatism at all. I am made slightly uncomfortable by your suggestion that perhaps slavery should have been allowed to perpetuate and maybe eventually it would have died out on its own...but that doesn't really have to do with Helms and it doesn't really have to do with your argument, and I understand your "what-if" scenario historically speaking. I happen to disagree with it, but it's a fine point all the same.
The points of Helms' life and career that will always personally stick out (as you put it) to me are the negative ones, unfortunately, because those are the ones that have the most effect on me and my political outlook. I can certainly recognize that he may have done a lot of behind-the-scenes work that should earn him some praise and respect; I do, however, ask you to understand where I'm coming from on this. He didn't choose to make those things his defining aspects, as far as I can see, and therefore I'd rather choose people like Reagan to define conservatism for me instead of someone who involved themselves with so many really detrimental viewpoints.
I really enjoyed your post, though, thank you.
Edit: (I think I'm going to save it to my computer if that's alright with you because it's probably the best damn definition anyone's ever been able to give, haha.)
You're right, I don't think that that's what conservatism is all about, which is why I'm having trouble seeing that this guy was an icon of conservatism at all. I am made slightly uncomfortable by your suggestion that perhaps slavery should have been allowed to perpetuate and maybe eventually it would have died out on its own...but that doesn't really have to do with Helms and it doesn't really have to do with your argument, and I understand your "what-if" scenario historically speaking. I happen to disagree with it, but it's a fine point all the same.
The points of Helms' life and career that will always personally stick out (as you put it) to me are the negative ones, unfortunately, because those are the ones that have the most effect on me and my political outlook. I can certainly recognize that he may have done a lot of behind-the-scenes work that should earn him some praise and respect; I do, however, ask you to understand where I'm coming from on this. He didn't choose to make those things his defining aspects, as far as I can see, and therefore I'd rather choose people like Reagan to define conservatism for me instead of someone who involved themselves with so many really detrimental viewpoints.
I really enjoyed your post, though, thank you.
Edit: (I think I'm going to save it to my computer if that's alright with you because it's probably the best damn definition anyone's ever been able to give, haha.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
It serves...
...to illustrate a conservative mindset and argument. Helms, certainly, would have argued against the outright and abrupt end of slavery and in opposition to civil war.
He was no war monger is his day and he was no fan of liberalizing social mores. Certainly we can agree his opposition to homosexuals is not the same, in his day, as being an advocate for slavery, but it can be argued as being akin to what I think his position would have been in the 1850's and 60's; conservative, slow, deliberate.
...to illustrate a conservative mindset and argument. Helms, certainly, would have argued against the outright and abrupt end of slavery and in opposition to civil war.
He was no war monger is his day and he was no fan of liberalizing social mores. Certainly we can agree his opposition to homosexuals is not the same, in his day, as being an advocate for slavery, but it can be argued as being akin to what I think his position would have been in the 1850's and 60's; conservative, slow, deliberate.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I thank...
...you for that, very much. When I was writing it, I was thinking, OK; How do I explain the appeal of Jesse Helms to me without sounding like a racist, sexist, homophobe? When I got done writing it, I thought it hit the nail squarely.
...you for that, very much. When I was writing it, I was thinking, OK; How do I explain the appeal of Jesse Helms to me without sounding like a racist, sexist, homophobe? When I got done writing it, I thought it hit the nail squarely.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Let's...
...discuss that.
What would have happened if, in 1860, American leaders found the same compromising spirit that American leaders had found since the establishment of the nation? After all, opposition to slavery wasn't some new idea in 1860.
Lincoln went to great lengths to assure his fellow countrymen from the South that he, if he won the presidency, could not if he wanted to and would not if he could lift a finger to harm slavery. That's not very noble or high minded, but it is true and it was perfectly rational thought.
The fact is, slavery was dying and everybody knew it. The only hope for its survival was succession so that an entire government was sympathetic to and supportive of slavery as a basic principle.
Absent war and the formation of a government that believed we are all created equal except for blacks, economics would dictate the demise of slavery which was, itself, entirely an economic institution to begin with.
Mechanization would soon make slavery uneconomical and, over time, a transformation would have to take place. Southern slave owners and politicians decided that war was better than the demise of the system. Out of fear of losing some, they lost all.
It is my conjecture that, over time, had war been averted yet again, had secession been averted yet again, that slaves would have worked their way up the social ladder and generational change would have allowed them to be fully accepted, each new generation, moving higher, in the same way all Americans become full citizens, be it Irish, Italian, Jews, Catholics, Slavs, you name it.
If that is true, then, a gradual societal adjustment would have happened absent the anger and resentment and sudden social ruptures that lead us, as a nation, on a 100 year path of suppression, retaliation and division that is only now becoming truly, a thing of the past.
Does that spark the imagination as much as war? No. Is it as exciting as people fighting, to the death, for a principle? No. But, that's not what happened anyway. There was not one man in blue who fought for black equality. Not one. End of slavery? Sure. At some point. Nearly all were fighting for Union. No one thought a black man his equal and many, especially the poor and new immigrants were not interested in the end of slavery because it meant more competition for the meager wages and jobs they had to begin with.
...discuss that.
What would have happened if, in 1860, American leaders found the same compromising spirit that American leaders had found since the establishment of the nation? After all, opposition to slavery wasn't some new idea in 1860.
Lincoln went to great lengths to assure his fellow countrymen from the South that he, if he won the presidency, could not if he wanted to and would not if he could lift a finger to harm slavery. That's not very noble or high minded, but it is true and it was perfectly rational thought.
The fact is, slavery was dying and everybody knew it. The only hope for its survival was succession so that an entire government was sympathetic to and supportive of slavery as a basic principle.
Absent war and the formation of a government that believed we are all created equal except for blacks, economics would dictate the demise of slavery which was, itself, entirely an economic institution to begin with.
Mechanization would soon make slavery uneconomical and, over time, a transformation would have to take place. Southern slave owners and politicians decided that war was better than the demise of the system. Out of fear of losing some, they lost all.
It is my conjecture that, over time, had war been averted yet again, had secession been averted yet again, that slaves would have worked their way up the social ladder and generational change would have allowed them to be fully accepted, each new generation, moving higher, in the same way all Americans become full citizens, be it Irish, Italian, Jews, Catholics, Slavs, you name it.
If that is true, then, a gradual societal adjustment would have happened absent the anger and resentment and sudden social ruptures that lead us, as a nation, on a 100 year path of suppression, retaliation and division that is only now becoming truly, a thing of the past.
Does that spark the imagination as much as war? No. Is it as exciting as people fighting, to the death, for a principle? No. But, that's not what happened anyway. There was not one man in blue who fought for black equality. Not one. End of slavery? Sure. At some point. Nearly all were fighting for Union. No one thought a black man his equal and many, especially the poor and new immigrants were not interested in the end of slavery because it meant more competition for the meager wages and jobs they had to begin with.
Isn't the reason the negative points of his life that stick out to you (now)because that's what the MEDIA has chosen to focus on and was not his choice? If you haven't followed his political career for 30 years (and I haven't, so that's why I say this) how would you know what he's accomplished behind the scenes for all those years? When people are working behind the scenes and getting the job done - and they're not out there preening for the cameras about it - of course you don't know about it if you don't follow their particular careers.
I spent a lot of time reading about him yesterday because of what I was hearing in the media. Some of it I can independently remember - but a lot of it was during a time when I wasn't into politics. And much of what I heard yesterday was definitely written in terms that paint him in a negative light.
Conservatism definitions aside -the media is good at showing Republicans to be the worst possible examples of human life and then turning around and holding up Democrats as exhalted beings on high.
ImnoMensa
New Member
We can boil this thread down fast.
We have tiny dancer, a racist, calling others racist.
No big deal there, She hates Jesse Helms for being a white racist because she herself is a black racist.
Jesse Helms probably would not have called himself a racist and I doubt Tiny Dancer will admit she is one either. This is the basis of all racism. Two sides in oppositon of each other accusing the other of being the bad guy.
My post in this was simply that if the clown that wrote this wants to be honest Racist, homophobe Jesse Helms is dead
he will write articles condemning the bad in all people who die.
Such as racist Panderer Jesse Jackson or Rich slut Paris Hilton when these p[eople die.
The article was stupid and racist in its own light.
We have tiny dancer, a racist, calling others racist.
No big deal there, She hates Jesse Helms for being a white racist because she herself is a black racist.
Jesse Helms probably would not have called himself a racist and I doubt Tiny Dancer will admit she is one either. This is the basis of all racism. Two sides in oppositon of each other accusing the other of being the bad guy.
My post in this was simply that if the clown that wrote this wants to be honest Racist, homophobe Jesse Helms is dead
he will write articles condemning the bad in all people who die.
Such as racist Panderer Jesse Jackson or Rich slut Paris Hilton when these p[eople die.
The article was stupid and racist in its own light.
T
tiny_dancer33
Guest
Thanks for interrupting the actual discussion that some of us were having. You have to remember, I'm just as much white as I am black.
I strongly disagree with many forms of racism, that's why I am disgusted by madmen like Farrakhan or big-mouths like Sharpton who are deluded enough to presume they speak for black people. Those are the values those poor guys were raised and imbued with, and they're sticking to them despite the fact that their views are not benefiting anyone and are generally wrong. Same as Helms. Are you saying you have to be a racist to disagree with a racist? Larry, I'll be happy to answer you a little later when I have more time, I have to go for now. =]
Thanks for interrupting the actual discussion that some of us were having. You have to remember, I'm just as much white as I am black.
Larry, I'll be happy to answer you a little later when I have more time, I have to go for now. =]
But Imnomensa did make a couple of points. The one you touched on above and also the one about the person who wrote the article this thread was started on. ["My post in this was simply that if the clown that wrote this wants to be honest Racist, homophobe Jesse Helms is dead he will write articles condemning the bad in all people who die."]
I was also contributing to his point by posting information from Helm's own website which was contrary to the information written in the article. (my information was from Helms' site - but it wasn't all written by him) And then again in the article I last posted by John Fund - the point was made also, which is the excerpt I quoted:
Agree or not with conservatism, agree or not with Jesse Helm's positions, the manner in which he presented them, etc. For my part, I was posting counter-information to what was written in the sleazy article.
And the fact is that Jesse Helms has been portrayed (in death - when he can't even defend himself!) in vile & negative ways - when his Democrat counterparts are not.
This is not meant for you personally, but as has been stated previously in this thread, this negative portrayal of a conservative or Republican is typical of how the media treats one party over the other. But don't believe me. We can all just bide our time & wait for such time as the paragons of virtue on the Democrat side of the aisle take their last breaths. I cannot wait to see the reams of paper, the endless hours of airtime and the unlimited bandwidth it takes to extoll the myriad of achievements, monumental acomplishments & contributions they made to the human race.
ImnoMensa
New Member
Thanks for interrupting the actual discussion that some of us were having. You have to remember, I'm just as much white as I am black.
Larry, I'll be happy to answer you a little later when I have more time, I have to go for now. =]
There are degrees of racism, just as there are degrees of class, degrees of education and degrees of intelligence, but this thread isnt about that, its about condemning the dead who cannot defend themselves.
I remember when J. Edgar Hoover died. All of the cowards who didnt have the courage to stand up to him when he was alive got a big charge over rumors that he was homosexual; or wore womens clothes. Not a one of them would have had the balls to confront Hoover with that crap when he was alive. So they wait until he dies and conspire to throw mud on him.
T
tiny_dancer33
Guest
I promise to personally help you write a scathing eulogy for Sharpton and Byrd. With relish.
bcp
In My Opinion
cant find anyway to fault you for that.I promise to personally help you write a scathing eulogy for Sharpton and Byrd. With relish.
my only problem is that people are too quick to call racist.
example, I do not want the affirmative action, and the set asides to continue, not for the blacks, not for the hispanics, not for the whites.
yet, when I say that it is wrong for a group to get advantage over another with these programs, I am almost certainly to be called racist.
I dont think the programs are needed anymore, therefore I must want to undo everything done in the name of progress so I can sit back on the porch with a mint julip while watching my overseer crack (cracker) the whip on my field negros while the house negro whom by the way I am banging when pan lady goes to sleep, toils in the kitchen making masta BCP his dinner.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
I promise to personally help you write a scathing eulogy for Sharpton and Byrd. With relish.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
Wow, going out of your way to defend a racist Senator. Nice job once again SOMD. 
I bet you wouldn't be going this far out of your way to defend him if he was a Democrat.
I bet you wouldn't be going this far out of your way to defend him if he was a Democrat.
