Sen. Packwood resigned; Al Gore declared Pres. Clinton as one of the finest Presidents in history.

I skimmed through the Senate Resolution which preceded Sen. Packwood’s resignation:
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/government/packwood2.html

At the very bottom are listed 5 allegations of Sen. Packwood soliciting bribes from lobbyists. I suspect these are the true sticks which were used to encourage Sen. Packwood to resign. The Senate Resolution also alleges Sen. Packwood tampered with evidence in a Senate investigation, and attempted to intimidate witnesses in same investigation.

The depth of research put into the Senate Resolution is amazing. They list 18 allegations of sexual misconduct which go back to 1969. Senate staff appear to do research more zealously than any special prosecutor(or perhaps merely w/o using the same standards of evidence and/or oversight).

If the sexual misconduct of Bill wasn’t such a big thing, then why was 10 year old reputed misconduct on the part of Bob Packwood enough to force him out of office?

I never thought I’d have a kind word to say about Hillary, but I’m glad she’s not a quitter. If I had to vote in a Democratic primary, I’d vote for her. She at least understands politics, which is something Obama doesn’t seem to get.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

here is a single paragraph…

PLEASE, everyone, anyone, let me know if it sounds like an exact description of dealing with the leftists.

Perfect discipline requires recognition of infallibility. Infallibility requires the observance of discipline. And the two go far to determine the behaviorism of the entire Leftist apparatus of power. But their effect cannot be understood unless a third factor be taken into account: namely, the fact that the leadership is at liberty to put forward for tactical purposes any particular thesis which it finds useful to the cause at any particular moment and to require the faithful and unquestioning acceptance of that thesis by the members of the movement as a whole. This means that truth is not a constant but is actually created, for all intents and purposes, by the Leftist leaders themselves. It may vary from week to week, from month to month. It is nothing absolute and immutable — nothing which flows from objective reality. It is only the most recent manifestation of the wisdom of those in whom the ultimate wisdom is supposed to reside, because they represent the logic of history. The accumulative effect of these factors is to give to the whole subordinate apparatus of Leftist power an unshakable stubbornness and steadfastness in its orientation. This orientation can be changed at will by the Leaders of the left, but by no other power. Once a given party line has been laid down on a given issue of current policy, the whole Leftist governmental machine, including the mechanism of diplomacy, moves inexorably along the prescribed path, like a persistent toy automobile wound up and headed in a given direction, stopping only when it meets with some unanswerable force. The individuals who are the components of this machine are unamenable to argument or reason, which comes to them from outside sources. Their whole training has taught them to mistrust and discount the glib persuasiveness of the outside world. Like the white dog before the phonograph, they hear only the “master’s voice.” And if they are to be called off from the purposes last dictated to them, it is the master who must call them off. Thus the a representative cannot hope that his words will make any impression on them. The most that he can hope is that they will be transmitted to those at the top, who are capable of changing the party line. But even those are not likely to be swayed by any normal logic in the words of the representative. Since there can be no appeal to common purposes, there can be no appeal to common mental approaches.

I too am disturbed by Obama and the creepy mob emotions he stirs among certain of the potential electorate. I consider him a fraud, for all intents and purposes, and I don’t like his wife at all. I also don’t want those who want to stop him to loose their cool.

The purpose of religion is to turn this into a Holy Spirit, oriented at being good, and doing good.

The goal of religions is to help people voluntarily and peacefully choose to be the people who choose, freely, to do good.

The choosing freely is actually more important, spiritually, than the doing good.

The corruption of “doing good” is force and violence. Everything gov’t does is based on force, and the threat of violence.

The problem of gov’t oriented neo-religions is the attempt to “do good”, and use gov’t force to make others do good.

Obama is a neo-fascist, but so is Hillary, without the charisma.

And America is great enough to survive either one — though the packing of the USSC with more commie-Liberal judges would mean another generation of culture/ abortion war, until we get to a more stable different laws in different states.

If McCain wins in Nov., it will be because the pro-life folk (some 26 mil voters for Bush in 2004) decided the same.

Obama offers no unity about abortion.

they developed tactics and strategies to overthrow and gain power, they never developed how they were to treat the people. so the people got trampled on their way to change it all, and no one knew how to make it work. it cant work, but no one will believe it since like old christianity, it was talking about a heaven while sitting in a hell (of its own creation).

down to the present day this process of political consolidation has never been completed and the men in the Kremlin have continued to be predominantly absorbed with the struggle to secure and make absolute the power which they seized in November 1917. They have endeavored to secure it primarily against forces at home, within Soviet society itself. But they have also endeavored to secure it against the outside world. For ideology, as we have seen, taught them that the outside world was hostile and that it was their duty eventually to overthrow the political forces beyond their borders. Then powerful hands of Russian history and tradition reached up to sustain them in this feeling. Finally, their own aggressive intransigence with respect to the outside world began to find its own reaction; and they were soon forced, to use another Gibbonesque phrase, “to chastise the contumacy” which they themselves had provoked. It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy; for if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right.

the same decline into this horror is now going on again… they are now using their natural resources to build up for war again. there is no reason to build up for defense, they will never be as weak as they were a few years ago… and who would invade them? china? why?

no… they are still on the same constantly evolving program… its why fewer than 100 people pretty much OWN russia personally…

and here is why they started going after us

it lies in the nature of the mental world of the Soviet leaders, as well as in the character of their ideology, that no opposition to them can be officially recognized as having any merit or justification whatsoever. Such opposition can flow, in theory, only from the hostile and incorrigible forces of dying capitalism. As long as remnants of capitalism were officially recognized as existing in Russia, it was possible to place on them, as an internal element, part of the blame for the maintenance of a dictatorial form of society. But as these remnants were liquidated, little by little, this justification fell away, and when it was indicated officially that they had been finally destroyed, it disappeared altogether. And this fact created one of the most basic of the compulsions which came to act upon the Soviet regime: since capitalism no longer existed in Russia and since it could not be admitted that there could be serious or widespread opposition to the Kremlin springing spontaneously from the liberated masses under its authority, it became necessary to justify the retention of the dictatorship by stressing the menace of capitalism abroad.

anyone care to read the belicose staements of putin?

the maintenance of this pattern of Soviet power, namely, the pursuit of unlimited authority domestically, accompanied by the cultivation of the semi-myth of implacable foreign hostility, has gone far to shape the actual machinery of Soviet power as we know it today. Internal organs of administration which did not serve this purpose withered on the vine. Organs which did serve this purpose became vastly swollen. The security of Soviet power came to rest on the iron discipline of the Party, on the severity and ubiquity of the secret police, and on the uncompromising economic monopolism of the state. The “organs of suppression,” in which the Soviet leaders had sought security from rival forces, became in large measures the masters of those whom they were designed to serve. Today the major part of the structure of Soviet power is committed to the perfection of the dictatorship and to the maintenance of the concept of Russia as in a state of siege, with the enemy lowering beyond the walls. And the millions of human beings who form that part of the structure of power must defend at all costs this concept of Russia’s position, for without it they are themselves superfluous.

in other words, so much has been put into the lie.. that now the lie is only a convenient means for the few to despotically take control, and the original concept that supposedly started it, is miles away…

they HAVE to keep promoting the lies, the falsehoods, the taking over of other places..

even now they celebrate stalin and lenin again..
and the state apparatus… didnt anyone else notice that the man who was head of the coupe, is now head of the party? heck if someone fomented a coupe in the US would they be a contender for president?

Communist leader blasts plans to remove Red Square ‘necropolis’
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080422/105609445.html

remember, they went nuts at latvia for moving a statue… so how much do you think that they are really going to move things… with a may 1st war parade like old times comming up. or thats what they say.

yesterday was lenins birthday…

The first of these concepts is that of the innate antagonism between capitalism and Socialism. We have seen how deeply that concept has become imbedded in foundations of Soviet power. It has profound implications for Russia’s conduct as a member of international society. It means that there can never be on Moscow’s side an sincere assumption of a community of aims between the Soviet Union and powers which are regarded as capitalist. It must inevitably be assumed in Moscow that the aims of the capitalist world are antagonistic to the Soviet regime, and therefore to the interests of the peoples it controls. If the Soviet government occasionally sets it signature to documents which would indicate the contrary, this is to regarded as a tactical maneuver permissible in dealing with the enemy (who is without honor) and should be taken in the spirit of caveat emptor. Basically, the antagonism remains. It is postulated. And from it flow many of the phenomena which we find disturbing in the Kremlin’s conduct of foreign policy: the secretiveness, the lack of frankness, the duplicity, the wary suspiciousness, and the basic unfriendliness of purpose. These phenomena are there to stay, for the foreseeable future. There can be variations of degree and of emphasis. When there is something the Russians want from us, one or the other of these features of their policy may be thrust temporarily into the background; and when that happens there will always be Americans who will leap forward with gleeful announcements that “the Russians have changed,” and some who will even try to take credit for having brought about such “changes.” But we should not be misled by tactical maneuvers. These characteristics of Soviet policy, like the postulate from which they flow, are basic to the internal nature of Soviet power, and will be with us, whether in the foreground or the background, until the internal nature of Soviet power is changed.

the internal nature has not changed yet…

A. I don’t want Obama in office. I don’t trust him to have the same level of good judgment which Hillary would have, and I don’t trust Hillary to have the same level of good judgment which McCain would have.

B. To sneaker #1: the people would have put Obama in office. I think you effectively score a point due to this: Obama considers the people to be sheep. To sneaker #2: I trust Obama’s humanity. He seems a decent person. To sneaker #3: maybe, instead of “help” the people, I should’ve said: protect and conserve the nation.

C. To Vince P: the classic reply is: how bad would Bill Clinton have been without having been moved by the committment of all around him? But, two things about Clinton…
First: his narcissism prevented him from fully seeing and experiencing the humanity of those around him. To Bill, the people were mere means to achieve ends. Their humanity was a distant rumor.
Second: the sexual conduct in the Oval Office was neither classy nor graceful, yet I hate to ever focus on it. I see it as more of a distraction than a huge terrible thing.

Impeachment was not about sexual conduct, nor should it have been. The sexual aspect was played up by Clinton’s allies in order to distract from the real charges of using the office in unethical ways.

Also, I don’t believe Clinton believed the sexual conduct – in and of itself … divorced from the extraneous illegal acts it spawned – distracted from his effectiveness as POTUS. Nor do I personally believe it did. Clinton was perfectly capable of having sex and running the nation. It was only the cover ups of the various sex acts which prompted him to commit illegal and unethical actions.

So, to recap:
Sex in Oval: Not classy, yet neither illegal nor unethical.
Coverups: illegal and unethical.

the argument above your point is the rationalization process that a normal person does when they cant imagine sociopathy.

most commonly people use it in their personal relationships… in fact, it makes things worse and easier for the sociopaths. the person starts to blame themselves, and then feels that if they make the kind of expressions that are in the point, then the person will see theri pain, their commitment and change.

well, when a sociopath sees what is described up their, they become more mgalomaniacle.. not less. they know they have found a home that will keep them warm, and let them exercise power to make pain without much chance of repercussions.

if done seripticiously,

a lone man commits murder, he goes to jail

a cop commits murder, he might not go to jail

a doctor commits murder, he is less likely to go

a politician starves thousands, he may lose office in a capitalist system

a politician starves millions aroudn the world with their polcies, in a socialist state, they will say they tried, their largess gets a big reward and an increase, they dont lose office, and in fact may end up a hero.

a politican kills 23 million of their own, they are heroes.

one man is a tragedy, a million a statistic

and on the issue of useful idiots.. kennans quote of Gibbon from the rise and fall of the roman empire is quite an eye opener

It is therefore no wonder that they had come to believe implicitly in the truth and soundness of the Marxist-Leninist teachings, so congenial to their own impulses and emotions. Their sincerity need not be impugned. This is a phenomenon as old as human nature itself. It is has never been more aptly described than by Edward Gibbon, who wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “From enthusiasm to imposture the step is perilous and slippery; the demon of Socrates affords a memorable instance of how a wise man may deceive himself, how a good man may deceive others, how the conscience may slumber in a mixed and middle state between self-illusion and voluntary fraud.” And it was with this set of conceptions that the members of the Bolshevik Party entered into power.

This didn’t seem to stop Bill Clinton from getting blow jobs from an intern while talking on the phone with Congressmen discussing troop deploymnets to Bosnia.

The single document that best illustrated American anti-communism and general suspicion of Soviet aspirations, was George Kennan’s famous Long Telegram of 1946. The Long Telegram was perhaps the most cited and most influential statement of the early years of the Cold War.

George Kennan had been a American diplomat on the Soviet front, beginning his career as an observer of the aftermath of the Russian Civil War. He witnessed collectivization and the terror from close range and sent his telegram after another two years’ service in Moscow from 1944 to 1946 as chief of mission and Ambassador Averell Harriman’s consultant. In 1946, Kennan was 44 years old, fluent in the Russian language and its affairs, and decidedly anti-communist.

The essence of Kennan’s telegram was published in Foreign Affairs in 1947 as The Sources of Soviet Conduct and circulated everywhere. The article was signed by “X” although everyone in the know knew that authorship was Kennan’s. For Kennan, the Cold War gave the United States its historic opportunity to assume leadership of what would eventually be described as the “free world.”

* * * * *

THE SOURCES OF SOVIET CONDUCT

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html