That some sad individuals are defending Trent Lott's shameful, oblique endorsement of the American apartheid that existed before the Civil Rights Era...is difficult to fathom.
Whom is defending his statement? Have a list do ya' ? I'm sure a few are, hell you could find a group that defends Milosivech,,oops that's right, you did. nevermind.
Fact is that he's done. He will be drummed out by the same people that you try to lump together as racists. It's inherently dishonest to do so but facts are something you seldom seem to let get in the way of the emotional aspect.
No racism intended or evident, by their moral myopia. Where do they see it instead? In the words and actions of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton!
I think they are just as bad. And there's the difference most wouldn't defend any of them even if they champion their cause or might have other good intentions, racism comes in all forms and it should be decried with no double standard. I have no problem and am glad to see Lott get the ax, good riddance. I have heard many say the same. He is done more than likely and justice of some sorts will occur for his spoken words that are indefensible.
The difference between you and I won't defend him just because I might agree with him on fiscal policy. I don't care at this point, he must go and should do it swiftly. I've heard you defend way too many horrid people because you agreee with them on other issues, and there's the difference my friend. So next time you're defending Milosevic, peek in the mirror.
Remember the loud clamor for Clinton's resignation when his wiggly weiner tentatively crept past his zipper?
No, but I do remember the "loud clamor" over his perjury and trying to get others to perjure themselves as well. This has been debate for many years now and you still do not get it.
But Trent Lott embraces Jim Crow and gives him a big, wet, sloppy kiss -- and what happens?
I guess I missed that one as well. I did see him joke at an old man's 100th birthday though. On a more serious note he said, "He is an inspiration to young men and women who want to change with the times, adapt to the times and improve the times. That's what Strom Thurmond is about."
Nothing.
Nothing, by God.
Except most calling for his leaving. Even Fly is saying he should "get the ax".
Personally, I don't know. At first I thought maybe you guys were right about Lott. Then I read THX's post with the transcript and watched the video he linked to and it started to sink in that maybe it was just a jab at an old man's birthday party. Note the laughter when he speaks of his state voting for him. It isn't like he was up there pounding on the podium and preaching segregation to the masses.
For the good of our country, I do hope he gives up the leadership. If not, look for Dems to try to push through their agenda by claiming that he is a racist if he doesn't support _________ (fill in the blank with their cause of the day). It won't matter if the "cause of the day" is a bad idea or even actually related to minorities, they will still use the race card to get what they want.
Rebpublicans think screwing America's entire, soon-to-be-majority minority populace isn't as bad as a one-on-one, consensual oral encounter!
What a crock. It was the consensual perjury that was the problem and you know it, but won't admit it because that would make Clinton look bad.
Their priorities are more twisted than the eyesight of the quality control guy at a licorice factory.
Who? The liberals? The ones who could care less that the ex-klansman Sen. Byrd stated on live television "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time"? The ones who could care less that Al Gore was buddies with Fred W. Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, who is the driving force behind the "God Hates Fags" web site (and was invited to both inaugurations of Clinton)?
He was a combatant in the D-Day invasion and as such, is entitled to be honored as a proud Veteran, but man...the truth is already being stretched a bit, eh Dan?
Only by you...
On January 9, 1924, Strom Thurmond is commissioned a 2nd Lt. in the Officers Reserve Corps.He volunteers for active duty on December 11, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the same day that Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. As a South Carolina judge at the time, he could easily have stayed at home. Instead he went to England with HQ, First U.S. Army, as a civil affairs officer. Thurmond again answered the call of duty when the 82nd Airborne Division (Organized Reserve) needed civil affairs volunteers to go with them on D-Day. Lt. Col. Thurmond accompanied the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment to Normandy, crash-landing in a glider near St. Mere Eglise on June 6, 1944. Although wounded in the landing, Thurmond stayed in action, initially serving more as an infantry officer than a civil affairs officer in the first days of the Allied liberation of Europe. For his actions in the first week of the invasion, Thurmond later received the Bronze Star Medal, as well as the Purple Heart Medal for his glider landing wounds.Near the end of the war, Thurmond was one of the first Americans to enter Buchenwald concentration camp. When the fighting ended in Europe, Thurmond went to the Pacific to prepare for First Army's role in the invasion of Japan but the war ended before the invasion could be launched. Thurmond returned to civilian life, becoming South Carolina's governor in 1947 and U.S. Senator in 1954. He stayed in the Army Reserve and rose to the rank of major general before retiring in 1960.
A true American hero driving a German vehicle he captured near St. Mere Eglise in Normandy, France not long after D-Day. June 10, 1944.
Weren't you the one who was upset about Pearl Harbor's anniversary not being remembered enough and now you are trying to belittle the achievements of this man? I personally thank God for sending us this man and the others like him at the time that he did.
Thurmond has earned 18 military decorations, medals and awards, including the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star for Valor, Purple Heart, Belgian Order of the Crown and French Croix de Guerre.
Goes beyond impressive and into the realm of unbelievable. Judging from this list alone I would say that the man has seen more shit and done more for his country than could have been asked of him.
What duplicitous, diversionary, misrepresenational falderol from both Rob and Dan!
Here's all you've gotta do to get right with decent humanity:
"I believe segregation is abysmally WRONG. Strom Thurmond was WRONG in ever supporting it. Trent Lott was WRONG in endorsing Thurmond's outlook. It was NO joke. It was a massive affront to millions. Lott has to go."
You like the guy that much, then YOU put his Poster up in the Den. Whatever he achieved in service to our "Equal before God" Nation, he Lost, shortly after nhe came home and decided to champion Segregation, as a way of life.
You can disagree with Strom's 1948 view of the world. He put himself on the line in WWII and he had every right to speak his mind. That is politics. He and his cause lost. He adpated and moved on. Maybe you should, too.
It is useful at moments like these to reflect on Malcolm Muggeridge's sage observation to the effect that arguments are never about what they are about. What propels them is underlying, and unresolved, tensions. The row over Trent Lott's salute to the J. Strom Thurmond presidential candidacy of 1948 has nothing to do with anything Lott actually said or meant.
....
It is not wholly clear what Lott's critics hope to achieve beyond his discomfiture or ruin. Maybe for them that suffices. What it contributes to healing and respect for the rights of Americans in general is a murkier proposition by far. A rhetorical molehill becomes Mount Everest for no reason whatever. No good reason, that is.
What duplicitous, diversionary, misrepresenational falderol from both Rob and Dan! Â Â
Yea and what a pile of shit you spewed, as usual.
Here's all you've gotta do to get right with decent humanity:
Did you hear that Dan ? Thank heavens our savior Dennis has appeared to tell us how to go about our life and how to get right with decent humanity! (insert angelic harp music here) Thank you oh great chubby one for your sage wisdom ! Climb down off your little perch you arrogant twit, the lack of oxygen way up there on your perch is obviously having an effect.
I believe segregation is abysmally WRONG. Strom Thurmond was WRONG in ever supporting it. Trent Lott was WRONG in endorsing Thurmond's outlook. It was NO joke. It was a massive affront to millions. Lott has to go." Â Â
I'd agree, see anyone of my posts on the topic. Find where I supported him or his statements. So do a little homework before you try to lump me in to some whacked out dream of what you think I said, try reading first.
The difference is that I won't support a guy just because he also might champion other causes I agree with. That statement made all other things moot in my book for even a small statement like that offends me and many others, I won't defend him because I like the other things he does. See it's called principals. I think he should go, I think Byrd should go, I think Sharpton and Farakhan should never get any press and many others who are biggots or racists I have no time for any of them regardless of what side their on. I think they are all biggots and all wrong. Unlike some I don't apply a double standard to folks on my team.
So let's look at some real biggotry and demonization.
First your statement on Lott.
Trent Lott was WRONG in endorsing Thurmond's outlook. It was NO joke. It was a massive affront to millions. Lott has to go." Â Â
Now your statements about Christians in the gun thread.
Sooner or later, as multitudes needlessly starve across the planet, there will be a concerted, violent uprising against the predacious First World, monopoly capitalism, and all things associated with them, including Christianity, which has largely abandoned Jesus's justice advocacy and has simply become a holy pillar for globalization's piratical practices.
Talk about a massive affront to Millions. Try getting that statement published on one of your extremis revolutuionary websites and see how far you get. It's o.k because you said it thought right ? You made a biggoted statement against Christianity and then pretend to have the moral platitiude to call someone else a biggot? Please, You and Lott are two peas in a pod and are one in the same in your level of hatred. At least he apologized for it.
Truth is that I am not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I can see where he was merely pulling the chain of an old man at a roast where others did the same. On the other, I can see where people get upset due to the segregation past in our country. Irregardless of what I think, he does appear to be toast now due to the constant complaints of the liberals. They have accomplished their goal of getting rid of him and it is only a matter of time.
I believe segregation is abysmally WRONG.
Always have, never said anything to the contrary.
Strom Thurmond was WRONG in ever supporting it. Trent Lott was WRONG in endorsing Thurmond's outlook.
It was their constitutional right to endorse what they want to. I happen to strongly disagree with what they were endorsing about 50 years ago though.
It was NO joke.
If you are talking about the statement made by Lott, it was meant as one.
It was a massive affront to millions.
I am sure that there are those that took what he said the wrong way, but if you watch the clip, he was just pulling an old man's chain.
Lott has to go."
I already stated that the liberals have rendered him ineffective, so he should let someone else lead.
Nothing was revised except by you. I do honor the man for the extreme service he gave to our great nation during WWII, but I do not endorse his views on segregation during the 50's. Fair enough?
That statement made all other things moot in my book for even a small statement like that offends me and many others, I won't defend him because I like the other things he does.
You are a hard man, Rob. And it really doesn't make sense in Lott's case based on what it is he said and the forum in which he said it in. I suppose instead of having a birthday bash for Strom you think they should have taken him out and lynched him with Lott right along his side?
It's hard to say what's in the mans heart completely. Perhaps he really didn't mean it I don't know, I am only going by what he said. If I knew him on a personal level and could say he really wasn't like that then maybe I'd see it differently.
Maybe he really has changed but I think there's no way around the meaning or intent of what he said. I could be wrong, I can see how people can see the other side but his comments offended some geniunely and some use it for political fodder and nothing else.
It's the right thing to do on principal and ethiclly. On those grounds he made an insensative and stupid comment I can't judge what others find offensive and there are some painful memories of the past and rightfully so. Politically it effected his ability to lead effectivley as majority leader for the next 2 years. There's too much at stake. It's a great opportunity to show people what can be done and it gives political opponents an easy way out and detracts from real debate and issues. We are judged by our words and actions and he ought to be, I'm not saying he should go to jail, I just don't want him leading my party for the above reasons.
Like I said are some using it for political reasons ? Sure, could we fairly say we wouldn't ? What a great opportunity to highlight that principal then. Do you think the left is ever going to decry the racists like Byrd, Jackson, Farakhan, Sharpton etc. ? I doub't it, their hypocrisy is apparent, so why not make it even more crystal clear. Well most people can see that and see the difference if it's done. And giving Lott the boot is the right thing to do for more than one reason.
I didn't see much of an outcry by the right when Byrd made his comments. As for Jackson and his ilk, I think many in the right are afraid of taking them on because they will be treated like Lott has been.
I didn't see much of an outcry by the right when Byrd made his comments.
And that's exactly why we ought to boot Lott.
As for Jackson and his ilk, I think many in the right are afraid of taking them on because they will be treated like Lott has been.
I agree and it's even yet another reason to give Trent the ax. There will be no way around the issue and we won't be able to have an honest debate about affirmitive action etc. Until he's gone, again it's too easy for opponents to deflect the debate. So there's another perfect example of why he should go.
I didn't see much of an outcry by the right when Byrd made his comments.
And that's exactly why we ought to boot Lott.
I don't see what it will accomplish.
As for Jackson and his ilk, I think many in the right are afraid of taking them on because they will be treated like Lott has been.
I agree and it's even yet another reason to give Trent the ax. There will be no way around the issue and we won't be able to have an honest debate about affirmitive action etc.
I don't see how getting rid of Lott is going to provide for an honest debate on affirmative action. Jackson and his ilk don't want an honest debate. I, for one, don't believe that they are capapble of it.
If I was Lott I'd leave Senate completly and let the Democratic governor appoint Mike Espy, Clinton's Ag Secretary to my spot. The Senate would be 50-50.
Jackson and his ilk don't want an honest debate. I, for one, don't i believe that they are capapble of it.True. However it would't hurt to take some ammo out of their belt.
Why?? Do you guys consider black folks like Jackson and his "ilk" too mentally deficient to engage in debate or express their view coherently or some such thing???
Go back and read the posts and you might have a better idea of what you are talking about. First of all, Jethro made the statement. And you made the point perfectly as to why Lott should be removed from leadership. You remind me of him.
The subject was about honest debate, something you'd have zero idea about.
Why?? Do you guys consider black folks like Jackson and his "ilk" too mentally deficient to engage in debate or express their view coherently or some such thing???
I guess you don't understand adjectives or how they are used, Nads.
Jackson and his ilk don't want an honest debate. I, for one, don't i believe that they are capapble of it. True. However it would't hurt to take some ammo out of their belt.
I think you are mixing and matching posts, Nads. Quite dishonest.
There will always be differing opinions and the consensus seems to be that Lott should go albeit for different reasons. Either way I see it as a good thing for the party and I think the others would agree regardless of motive. There is also a point that being loyal can come at too high of a cost. I don't know if this is one of those occasions but loyalty can only be good if you're loyal to a principal otherwise one becomes empty.
Plenty of shucking and jiving, and sidestepping, from Rob and Dan.
Not to mention blaming a lot of people and things totally extraneous to the Trent Lott question. Â Â
You're the master at both because then you'd actually have to debate instead of your sanctimonious b.s of telling us how to "get right with decent humanity" as you so smugly put it. Of course you still don't adress questions posed to you but that's o.k it's your m.o.
I still haven't heard these two Republicans say, as Republicans:
"Trent Lott did wrong. He needs to resign now."
(And not because he's damaging the GOP...but because what he said was awful and unacceptable.)
There's no place in any society worth perpetuating for "leaders" who can't show appropriate sensitivity and decisive solutions pertaining to such profound evils as segregation and child molestation. Â Â
Saying "sorry" after getting caught being actively wrong, or wishy-washy and objectively apologetic for such ills, just doesn't cut it.
And guess whay Denny, the post right after it I said. "As odd as it sounds I might agree with you. Whooda' Thunk it ?"
I said, "Maybe he really has changed but I think there's no way around the meaning or intent of what he said. I could be wrong, I can see how people can see the other side but his comments offended some geniunely and some use it for political fodder and nothing else."
"It's the right thing to do on principal and ethiclly. On those grounds he made an insensative and stupid comment I can't judge what others find offensive and there are some painful memories of the past and rightfully so."
Or the post 2 up where I was discussing with Rick that standing on principal alone as being loyal to a party is hollow unless you keep your principals intact. Meaning that in the sake of loyalty i could never support what he said.
I believe segregation is abysmally WRONG. Strom Thurmond was WRONG in ever supporting it. Trent Lott was WRONG in endorsing Thurmond's outlook. It was NO joke. It was a massive affront to millions. Lott has to go." Â Â
And I replied. "I'd agree, see anyone of my posts on the topic."
And I added. "The difference is that I won't support a guy just because he also might champion other causes I agree with. That statement made all other things moot in my book for even a small statement like that offends me and many others, I won't defend him because I like the other things he does. See it's called principals. I think he should go,"
And also added in the same post. "I think Byrd should go, I think Sharpton and Farakhan should never get any press and many others who are biggots or racists"
notice this.
"I have no time for any of them regardless of what side their on. I think they are all biggots and all wrong. Unlike some I don't apply a double standard to folks on my team."
So Dennis you either can't read or are dishonest. Ask anyone else here and I said the main reason for booting him was because of the comment not because I think it's politically expedient. I think it is but it would be a mere side benefit to removing someone who made a horrid comment. I don't know what you want but as usual you go off half cocked and don't bother to have any friggen facts. So assuming you can read you must simply be dishonest.
Back a while ago, when I was pointing out several examples of remaining racism in America, conservatives on these boards roundly maintained that there isn't any racism left in this country.
That the nasty old problem of the '50s and '60s had been solved.
Now, however, to divert fire from Lott, conservatives are pointing to everyone from Robert Byrd to Al Sharpton to probably Mickey Mouse...contending that they're just dripping vile bigotry, and that they, too, should quit.
I did it Dennis, many times, go read it. But instead of admitting your wrong after a blatant mistatement or lie you want more ? Well there's about 4-5 posts that I did that in so if your too lazy to go look it up, tough.
Back a while ago, when I was pointing out several examples of remaining racism in America, conservatives on these boards roundly maintained that there isn't any racism left in this country. Â Â
Well seeing as how you haven't bothered to even look at the board before posting lies perhaps you can go back and find where people actually said that there wasn't any racism in this country. I doubt anyone did, their will always be racists and hence racism probably hopefully it becomes as minute as possible but if you can find it please post an example of where someone said that.
Now, however, to divert fire from Lott, conservatives are pointing to everyone from Robert Byrd to Al Sharpton to probably Mickey Mouse...contending that they're just dripping vile bigotry, and that they, too, should quit. Â Â
So bogus.
No it's not to divert, Lott made a horrid statement and should go. Now say the same thing about Byrd and Sharpton. You won't probably because of the obvious double standard, if you're going to hold people accountable for racist remarks then do it. I think they all should go. Talk about bogus, keep making things up as you go and lying.
The "denial of racism" comments came in conjunction with some of my posts on affirmative action, long enough ago that they may have been on the old Pioneer Planet board.
The conservative consensus was that affirmative action is no longer needed...because racism supposedly no longer exists.
Except, if memeory serves, as it supposedly emanates from Sharpton.
No, affirmative action is wrong because it's unfair and it's reverse discrimination.
Affirmative action is as necessary as tax breaks to and mollycoddling of big corporations. Both are an impetus for gain of a charmed section of society.
Affirmative action is as necessary as tax breaks to and mollycoddling of big corporations. Both are an impetus for gain of a charmed section of society.
The moneybags always want to give breaks to corporations and proclaim the motive is to stimulate these guys to spread the moolah around.
Affirmative action is meant to give a leg up to another section of society to motivate them to prosper with the incentives and positively contribute to the larger society.
They are both therefore an impetus - given to a privelaged few. They both must be charmed to merit such attention.
It just amazes me how people like Dennis can get so high and mighty over Trent Lotts statement. But refuse to even acknowledge that people in their party of done or said the same. Dennis demands that we say what Lott said was wrong, and yes it was, but refuse to do the same when it is pointed out that people from their party are shown to have done the same. Hypocrisy at its best, but that is what Democrats are best known for.
It's not that there haven't been/aren't racists from ALL backgrounds and affiliations in America.
It's a matter of appropriately dealing with the primary affront of the moment, without letting the perpetrator off the hook, by removing the focus from his (Lott's) unpardonable outrage.
It's obvious that conservatives want to make the matter so amorphous that what emerges is: "Aw shucks, what's the big deal? Everybody does it?"
We need to go after the main culprit first.
And thereby gain leverage to go after others later.
And thereby gain leverage to go after others later.
So why have such a hissy fit over a man who was roasting someone who is 100 years old?
"My state voted for him." (LAUGHTER)
Where was the outrage over the "white niggar" statements which were a much more noticable and serious opinion of the person saying them?
As I stated earlier, I am not sure which way Lott meant his statement. It quite honestly could have gone either way, but I do not think that Lott is retarded enough to publicly state that he wishes what you are claiming he did. However, I do not condone what was going on in the 50's.
Dennis,
Whom is defending his statement? Have a list do ya' ? I'm sure a few are, hell you could find a group that defends Milosivech,,oops that's right, you did. nevermind.
Fact is that he's done. He will be drummed out by the same people that you try to lump together as racists. It's inherently dishonest to do so but facts are something you seldom seem to let get in the way of the emotional aspect.
I think they are just as bad. And there's the difference most wouldn't defend any of them even if they champion their cause or might have other good intentions, racism comes in all forms and it should be decried with no double standard. I have no problem and am glad to see Lott get the ax, good riddance. I have heard many say the same. He is done more than likely and justice of some sorts will occur for his spoken words that are indefensible.
The difference between you and I won't defend him just because I might agree with him on fiscal policy. I don't care at this point, he must go and should do it swiftly. I've heard you defend way too many horrid people because you agreee with them on other issues, and there's the difference my friend. So next time you're defending Milosevic, peek in the mirror.
Remember the loud clamor for Clinton's resignation when his wiggly weiner tentatively crept past his zipper?
No, but I do remember the "loud clamor" over his perjury and trying to get others to perjure themselves as well. This has been debate for many years now and you still do not get it.
But Trent Lott embraces Jim Crow and gives him a big, wet, sloppy kiss -- and what happens?
I guess I missed that one as well. I did see him joke at an old man's 100th birthday though. On a more serious note he said, "He is an inspiration to young men and women who want to change with the times, adapt to the times and improve the times. That's what Strom Thurmond is about."
Nothing.
Nothing, by God.
Except most calling for his leaving. Even Fly is saying he should "get the ax".
Personally, I don't know. At first I thought maybe you guys were right about Lott. Then I read THX's post with the transcript and watched the video he linked to and it started to sink in that maybe it was just a jab at an old man's birthday party. Note the laughter when he speaks of his state voting for him. It isn't like he was up there pounding on the podium and preaching segregation to the masses.
For the good of our country, I do hope he gives up the leadership. If not, look for Dems to try to push through their agenda by claiming that he is a racist if he doesn't support _________ (fill in the blank with their cause of the day). It won't matter if the "cause of the day" is a bad idea or even actually related to minorities, they will still use the race card to get what they want.
Rebpublicans think screwing America's entire, soon-to-be-majority minority populace isn't as bad as a one-on-one, consensual oral encounter!
What a crock. It was the consensual perjury that was the problem and you know it, but won't admit it because that would make Clinton look bad.
Their priorities are more twisted than the eyesight of the quality control guy at a licorice factory.
Who? The liberals? The ones who could care less that the ex-klansman Sen. Byrd stated on live television "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time"? The ones who could care less that Al Gore was buddies with Fred W. Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, who is the driving force behind the "God Hates Fags" web site (and was invited to both inaugurations of Clinton)?
What a bunch of hypocrites!
He was a combatant in the D-Day invasion and as such, is entitled to be honored as a proud Veteran, but man...the truth is already being stretched a bit, eh Dan?
Only by you...
On January 9, 1924, Strom Thurmond is commissioned a 2nd Lt. in the Officers Reserve Corps. He volunteers for active duty on December 11, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the same day that Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. As a South Carolina judge at the time, he could easily have stayed at home.
Instead he went to England with HQ, First U.S. Army, as a civil affairs officer. Thurmond again answered the call of duty when the 82nd Airborne Division (Organized Reserve) needed civil affairs volunteers to go with them on D-Day. Lt. Col. Thurmond accompanied the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment to Normandy, crash-landing in a glider near St. Mere Eglise on June 6, 1944. Although wounded in the landing, Thurmond stayed in action, initially serving more as an infantry officer than a civil affairs officer in the first days of the Allied liberation of Europe. For his actions in the first week of the invasion, Thurmond later received the Bronze Star Medal, as well as the Purple Heart Medal for his glider landing wounds. Near the end of the war, Thurmond was one of the first Americans to enter Buchenwald concentration camp.
When the fighting ended in Europe, Thurmond went to the Pacific to prepare for First Army's role in the invasion of Japan but the war ended before the invasion could be launched. Thurmond returned to civilian life, becoming South Carolina's governor in 1947 and U.S. Senator in 1954. He stayed in the Army Reserve and rose to the rank of major general before retiring in 1960.
link
A true American hero driving a German vehicle he captured near St. Mere Eglise in Normandy, France not long after D-Day. June 10, 1944.
Weren't you the one who was upset about Pearl Harbor's anniversary not being remembered enough and now you are trying to belittle the achievements of this man? I personally thank God for sending us this man and the others like him at the time that he did.
Thurmond has earned 18 military decorations, medals and awards, including the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star for Valor, Purple Heart, Belgian Order of the Crown and French Croix de Guerre.
Goes beyond impressive and into the realm of unbelievable. Judging from this list alone I would say that the man has seen more shit and done more for his country than could have been asked of him.
What duplicitous, diversionary, misrepresenational falderol from
both Rob and Dan!
Here's all you've gotta do to get right with decent humanity:
"I believe segregation is abysmally WRONG. Strom Thurmond was WRONG in ever supporting it. Trent Lott was WRONG in endorsing Thurmond's
outlook. It was NO joke. It was a massive affront to millions.
Lott has to go."
No more pathetic excuses.
Can you agree with that statement?
If not, YOU are a major part of the problem...
Dennis, what did Trent say that was racist?
btw: How's things going for Chavez?
You like the guy that much, then YOU put his Poster up in the Den. Whatever he achieved in service to our "Equal before God" Nation, he Lost, shortly after nhe came home and decided to champion Segregation, as a way of life.
You can disagree with Strom's 1948 view of the world. He put himself on the line in WWII and he had every right to speak his mind. That is politics. He and his cause lost. He adpated and moved on. Maybe you should, too.
It is useful at moments like these to reflect on Malcolm Muggeridge's sage observation to the effect that arguments are never about what they are about. What propels them is underlying, and unresolved, tensions. The row over Trent Lott's salute to the J. Strom Thurmond presidential candidacy of 1948 has nothing to do with anything Lott actually said or meant.
....
It is not wholly clear what Lott's critics hope to achieve beyond his discomfiture or ruin. Maybe for them that suffices. What it contributes to healing and respect for the rights of Americans in general is a murkier proposition by far. A rhetorical molehill becomes Mount Everest for no reason whatever. No good reason, that is.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billmurchison/wm20021217.shtml
Dennis Rahkonen 12/17/02 4:37am
Yea and what a pile of shit you spewed, as usual.
Did you hear that Dan ? Thank heavens our savior Dennis has appeared to tell us how to go about our life and how to get right with decent humanity! (insert angelic harp music here) Thank you oh great chubby one for your sage wisdom ! Climb down off your little perch you arrogant twit, the lack of oxygen way up there on your perch is obviously having an effect.
I'd agree, see anyone of my posts on the topic. Find where I supported him or his statements. So do a little homework before you try to lump me in to some whacked out dream of what you think I said, try reading first.
The difference is that I won't support a guy just because he also might champion other causes I agree with. That statement made all other things moot in my book for even a small statement like that offends me and many others, I won't defend him because I like the other things he does. See it's called principals. I think he should go, I think Byrd should go, I think Sharpton and Farakhan should never get any press and many others who are biggots or racists I have no time for any of them regardless of what side their on. I think they are all biggots and all wrong. Unlike some I don't apply a double standard to folks on my team.
So let's look at some real biggotry and demonization.
First your statement on Lott.
Now your statements about Christians in the gun thread.
Talk about a massive affront to Millions. Try getting that statement published on one of your extremis revolutuionary websites and see how far you get.
It's o.k because you said it thought right ? You made a biggoted statement against Christianity and then pretend to have the moral platitiude to call someone else a biggot? Please, You and Lott are two peas in a pod and are one in the same in your level of hatred. At least he apologized for it.
(insert angelic harp music here)
Good one!
Truth is that I am not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I can see where he was merely pulling the chain of an old man at a roast where others did the same. On the other, I can see where people get upset due to the segregation past in our country. Irregardless of what I think, he does appear to be toast now due to the constant complaints of the liberals. They have accomplished their goal of getting rid of him and it is only a matter of time.
I believe segregation is abysmally WRONG.
Always have, never said anything to the contrary.
Strom Thurmond was WRONG in ever supporting it. Trent Lott was WRONG in endorsing Thurmond's outlook.
It was their constitutional right to endorse what they want to. I happen to strongly disagree with what they were endorsing about 50 years ago though.
It was NO joke.
If you are talking about the statement made by Lott, it was meant as one.
It was a massive affront to millions.
I am sure that there are those that took what he said the wrong way, but if you watch the clip, he was just pulling an old man's chain.
Lott has to go."
I already stated that the liberals have rendered him ineffective, so he should let someone else lead.
Shit, talk about revisionist history.
Nothing was revised except by you. I do honor the man for the extreme service he gave to our great nation during WWII, but I do not endorse his views on segregation during the 50's. Fair enough?
That statement made all other things moot in my book for even a small statement like that offends me and many others, I won't defend him because I like the other things he does.
You are a hard man, Rob. And it really doesn't make sense in Lott's case based on what it is he said and the forum in which he said it in. I suppose instead of having a birthday bash for Strom you think they should have taken him out and lynched him with Lott right along his side?
Jethro,
It's hard to say what's in the mans heart completely. Perhaps he really didn't mean it I don't know, I am only going by what he said.
If I knew him on a personal level and could say he really wasn't like that then maybe I'd see it differently.
Maybe he really has changed but I think there's no way around the meaning or intent of what he said. I could be wrong, I can see how people can see the other side but his comments offended some geniunely and some use it for political fodder and nothing else.
It's the right thing to do on principal and ethiclly. On those grounds he made an insensative and stupid comment I can't judge what others find offensive and there are some painful memories of the past and rightfully so. Politically it effected his ability to lead effectivley as majority leader for the next 2 years. There's too much at stake. It's a great opportunity to show people what can be done and it gives political opponents an easy way out and detracts from real debate and issues. We are judged by our words and actions and he ought to be, I'm not saying he should go to jail, I just don't want him leading my party for the above reasons.
Like I said are some using it for political reasons ? Sure, could we fairly say we wouldn't ? What a great opportunity to highlight that principal then. Do you think the left is ever going to decry the racists like Byrd, Jackson, Farakhan, Sharpton etc. ? I doub't it, their hypocrisy is apparent, so why not make it even more crystal clear. Well most people can see that and see the difference if it's done. And giving Lott the boot is the right thing to do for more than one reason.
Sure, could we fairly say we wouldn't ?
I didn't see much of an outcry by the right when Byrd made his comments. As for Jackson and his ilk, I think many in the right are afraid of taking them on because they will be treated like Lott has been.
I didn't see much of an outcry by the right when Byrd made his comments.
Come on Jethro. That was the old Byrd. He's a changed man now. He's seen the light (and kissed Liberal butt I might add).
And that's exactly why we ought to boot Lott.
I agree and it's even yet another reason to give Trent the ax. There will be no way around the issue and we won't be able to have an honest debate about affirmitive action etc. Until he's gone, again it's too easy for opponents to deflect the debate. So there's another perfect example of why he should go.
I say we boot Trent as well, but not for his comments at Stroms party.
I didn't see much of an outcry by the right when Byrd made his comments.
And that's exactly why we ought to boot Lott.
I don't see what it will accomplish.
As for Jackson and his ilk, I think many in the right are afraid of taking them on because they will be treated like Lott has been.
I agree and it's even yet another reason to give Trent the ax. There will be no way around the issue and we won't be able to have an honest debate about affirmitive action etc.
I don't see how getting rid of Lott is going to provide for an honest debate on affirmative action. Jackson and his ilk don't want an honest debate. I, for one, don't believe that they are capapble of it.
You guys don't anything about loyalty.
If I was Lott I'd leave Senate completly and let the Democratic governor appoint Mike Espy, Clinton's Ag Secretary to my spot. The Senate would be 50-50.
That would fix your little red wagon. :-)
You guys don't anything about loyalty.
Loyalty schmoyalty. What's there to be loyal to?
If I was Lott I'd leave Senate and let the Democratic governor appoint Mike Espy, Clinton's Ag Secretary to my spot. The Senate would be 50-50.
Sure you would, sure you would.
Jethro,
True. However it would't hurt to take some ammo out of their belt.
Rick,
You wish.
However it would't hurt to take some ammo out of their belt.
I disagree. I think they should be confronted once and for all.
Luv2Fly 12/17/02 11:57am
Jethro,
Jackson and his ilk don't want an honest debate. I, for one, don't i believe that they are capapble of it. True. However it would't hurt to take some ammo out of their belt.
Why?? Do you guys consider black folks like Jackson and his "ilk" too mentally deficient to engage in debate or express their view coherently or some such thing???
Shades of Lott here I guess.
Naradar, without racism, Jesse Jackson doesn't have a job.
"Loyalty schmoyalty. What's there to be loyal to?"
That's a question to ask yourself, not me.
Naradar 12/17/02 12:03pm
Go back and read the posts and you might have a better idea of what you are talking about. First of all, Jethro made the statement. And you made the point perfectly as to why Lott should be removed from leadership. You remind me of him.
The subject was about honest debate, something you'd have zero idea about.
Better to be loyal than stand on principal right Rick ?
I think that's the campaign slogan for 04 for the left.
Why?? Do you guys consider black folks like Jackson and his "ilk" too mentally deficient to engage in debate or express their view coherently or some such thing???
I guess you don't understand adjectives or how they are used, Nads.
Jackson and his ilk don't want an honest debate. I, for one, don't i believe that they are capapble of it. True. However it would't hurt to take some ammo out of their belt.
I think you are mixing and matching posts, Nads. Quite dishonest.
That's a question to ask yourself, not me.
I'm a loyal person. I'm just not what you consider loyal.
Rob:
One person here challenges people to find racism in his remark.
Another said he was just joking.
The rest appear to be saying that he was ineffictive leader and this is just a good reason to get him out of his leadership position.
I'm not sure where all of us are at in terms of principle and honesty here, but I don't think I'm further down the road to perdition than anyone else.
And if you don't hang together, oftentimes you end up hanging separately.
That's all the free advice I'll give Republicans.
Rick,
There will always be differing opinions and the consensus seems to be that Lott should go albeit for different reasons. Either way I see it as a good thing for the party and I think the others would agree regardless of motive. There is also a point that being loyal can come at too high of a cost. I don't know if this is one of those occasions but loyalty can only be good if you're loyal to a principal otherwise one becomes empty.
Plenty of shucking and jiving, and sidestepping, from Rob and Dan.
Not to mention blaming a lot of people and things totally extraneous
to the Trent Lott question.
I still haven't heard these two Republicans say, as Republicans:
"Trent Lott did wrong. He needs to resign now."
(And not because he's damaging the GOP...but because what he said was awful and unacceptable.)
You're the master at both because then you'd actually have to debate instead of your sanctimonious b.s of telling us how to "get right with decent humanity" as you so smugly put it. Of course you still don't adress questions posed to you but that's o.k it's your m.o.
Well Dennis, let's see. in post
Dennis Rahkonen "In The News" 12/12/02 5:58pm
you said..
And guess whay Denny, the post right after it I said. "As odd as it sounds I might agree with you. Whooda' Thunk it ?"
Or this one.
Luv2Fly 12/17/02 10:37am
I said,
"Maybe he really has changed but I think there's no way around the meaning or intent of what he said. I could be wrong, I can see how people can see the other side but his comments offended some geniunely and some use it for political fodder and nothing else."
"It's the right thing to do on principal and ethiclly. On those grounds he made an insensative and stupid comment I can't judge what others find offensive and there are some painful memories of the past and rightfully so."
Or the post 2 up where I was discussing with Rick that standing on principal alone as being loyal to a party is hollow unless you keep your principals intact. Meaning that in the sake of loyalty i could never support what he said.
Or post
Luv2Fly 12/17/02 9:32am
You said.
And I replied. "I'd agree, see anyone of my posts on the topic."
And I added. "The difference is that I won't support a guy just because he also might champion other causes I agree with. That statement made all other things moot in my book for even a small statement like that offends me and many others, I won't defend him because I like the other things he does. See it's called principals. I think he should go,"
And also added in the same post. "I think Byrd should go, I think Sharpton and Farakhan should never get any press and many others who are biggots or racists"
"I have no time for any of them regardless of what side their on. I think they are all biggots and all wrong. Unlike some I don't apply a double standard to folks on my team."
So Dennis you either can't read or are dishonest. Ask anyone else here and I said the main reason for booting him was because of the comment not because I think it's politically expedient. I think it is but it would be a mere side benefit to removing someone who made a horrid comment. I don't know what you want but as usual you go off half cocked and don't bother to have any friggen facts. So assuming you can read you must simply be dishonest.
Say it, Rob.
"Trent Lott did wrong. He has to resign."
Then I won't hound your hide anymore.
Funny thing.
Back a while ago, when I was pointing out several examples of
remaining racism in America, conservatives on these boards roundly maintained that there isn't any racism left in this country.
That the nasty old problem of the '50s and '60s had been solved.
Now, however, to divert fire from Lott, conservatives are
pointing to everyone from Robert Byrd to Al Sharpton to probably Mickey Mouse...contending that they're just dripping vile bigotry, and that they, too, should quit.
So bogus.
So very bogus.
I did it Dennis, many times, go read it. But instead of admitting your wrong after a blatant mistatement or lie you want more ? Well there's about 4-5 posts that I did that in so if your too lazy to go look it up, tough.
Well seeing as how you haven't bothered to even look at the board before posting lies perhaps you can go back and find where people actually said that there wasn't any racism in this country. I doubt anyone did, their will always be racists and hence racism probably hopefully it becomes as minute as possible but if you can find it please post an example of where someone said that.
No it's not to divert, Lott made a horrid statement and should go. Now say the same thing about Byrd and Sharpton. You won't probably because of the obvious double standard, if you're going to hold people accountable for racist remarks then do it. I think they all should go. Talk about bogus, keep making things up as you go and lying.
There it is!
"Lott made a horrid statement and should go."
Thank you, Rob.
Go where?
Back to Pascagula?
Or just to the back bench?
The "denial of racism" comments came in conjunction with some of my posts on affirmative action, long enough ago that they may have been on the old Pioneer Planet board.
The conservative consensus was that affirmative action is no longer needed...because racism supposedly no longer exists.
Except, if memeory serves, as it supposedly emanates from Sharpton.
You guys sure love to hate Al, don't you?
I'm not sure what they would want Al Sharpton to resign from.
Sharpton is a Clown Prince. He's a showman. I can't find racism in him.
That requires a power component he doesn't have.
(And not because he's damaging the GOP...but because what he said was awful and unacceptable.)
What exactly did he say that was racist?
The conservative consensus was that affirmative action is no longer needed...because racism supposedly no longer exists.
No, affirmative action is wrong because it's unfair and it's reverse discrimination.
You guys sure love to hate Al, don't you?
Al's an idiot. I can't bring myself to hate a geniune idiot.
btw: How's the Chavez sitiuation going?
No, affirmative action is wrong because it's unfair and it's reverse discrimination.
Affirmative action is as necessary as tax breaks to and mollycoddling of big corporations. Both are an impetus for gain of a charmed section of society.
Affirmative action is as necessary as tax breaks to and mollycoddling of big corporations. Both are an impetus for gain of a charmed section of society.
Please explain?
The moneybags always want to give breaks to corporations and proclaim the motive is to stimulate these guys to spread the moolah around.
Affirmative action is meant to give a leg up to another section of society to motivate them to prosper with the incentives and positively contribute to the larger society.
They are both therefore an impetus - given to a privelaged few. They both must be charmed to merit such attention.
It just amazes me how people like Dennis can get so high and mighty over Trent Lotts statement. But refuse to even acknowledge that people in their party of done or said the same. Dennis demands that we say what Lott said was wrong, and yes it was, but refuse to do the same when it is pointed out that people from their party are shown to have done the same. Hypocrisy at its best, but that is what Democrats are best known for.
Wolvie...
It's not that there haven't been/aren't racists from ALL backgrounds and affiliations in America.
It's a matter of appropriately dealing with the primary affront of the moment, without letting the perpetrator off the hook, by removing the focus from his (Lott's) unpardonable outrage.
It's obvious that conservatives want to make the matter so amorphous
that what emerges is: "Aw shucks, what's the big deal? Everybody does it?"
We need to go after the main culprit first.
And thereby gain leverage to go after others later.
You go after the main culprits first.
And thereby gain leverage to go after others later.
So why have such a hissy fit over a man who was roasting someone who is 100 years old?
"My state voted for him." (LAUGHTER)
Where was the outrage over the "white niggar" statements which were a much more noticable and serious opinion of the person saying them?
As I stated earlier, I am not sure which way Lott meant his statement. It quite honestly could have gone either way, but I do not think that Lott is retarded enough to publicly state that he wishes what you are claiming he did. However, I do not condone what was going on in the 50's.
What exactly did Lott say that was racist?
In what way were his statements worse than the anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, anti-Business statements on the part of a certain someone?
Lott made a a stupid statement and should be forgiven by the hypocritical and self proclaimed and supposedly non-judgmental left.