Post #67,997
12/10/02 10:40:08 PM
|
"discarded policies of the past" Lotts remark
I have heard and read that remark many times over the years. it is a code phrase for segregation. Now I use google to see who else has used it. Maddox, Wallace, Byrd to name a few that I KNOW used it but I only find reference to Lott. Now my memory isnt as good as it used to be but I will guarranty that is a well used phrase. So what does the crew think is happening? Google failure or search engine censorship? I will keep digging manually.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
Opera was the television of the nineteenth century:loud, vulgar and garish with plots that could only be called infantile. "Pendergast"
|
Post #68,131
12/11/02 12:05:19 PM
|
My question.
Exactly who does this surprise? "An aging southern politician is a racist." Who can possibly be surprised by that? Only people who have never lived in the south I imagine. And what's worse? Letting Lott pretend to everyone to be something he's not? That's nearly as bad as a Republican pretending he cares about the working class. Of course, that facade appears to be well accepted.
bcnu,
Mikem
|
Post #68,223
12/11/02 5:29:25 PM
|
I think that a significant difference lies is his 'wishing'
- that this 'outmoded way' -- had become Our Way\ufffd. That is no longer about meaningless homilies bestowed upon unreconstructed decayed reprobates:
It is about revealing his own 2002 Beliefs. Which he is entitled to hold, McCarthy notwithstanding.. thus entitled also to be excoriated for.
As now.
(Dubya's "well, he apologized.." non-reponse is as perfectly predictable too.)
Unadulterated praise with faint damn IMhO.
|
Post #68,416
12/12/02 3:20:36 PM
|
Re: 2002 Beliefs
THAT?!?!? surprises you? That these aging southerners retain their racist attitudes? C'mon Ash, you didn't think those redneck hillbillies had become enlightened did you?
I am disappointed.
|
Post #68,435
12/12/02 4:09:15 PM
|
Re: 2002 Beliefs
There is ample racism to go around everywhere. Stop singling out the South. It's wrong, in fact and in principle.
-drl
|
Post #68,635
12/13/02 11:13:48 AM
|
No, racism is not only a Southern thing. When I lived in NC,
I met a girl in college. She, her husband, my wife and I used to get together quite often. Her husband was an engineer with Duke Power (as it was known back then) and one night we were discussing racism. (They were Black, btw). He said that he thought it would be easier for his son to grow up in the South on that score. He had grown up in New York. Don't know if I can exactly quote what he said, but this is pretty close: "It (racism) is better down here because it isn't hidden. Up North people realize that racist attitudes are an indication of underdeveloped minds, so they try to hide their racist attitudes. And they're pretty good at hiding them for the most part. But, down here it is in your face. You almost never have to guess what people are thinking down here."
I guess what I'm trying to say is that while racism exists everywhere, it is more acceptable in the south as it has been for centuries. What my Black friend said back in the mid-80's rings true today, imo. Being a racist in the South is more acceptible, hence less often hidden, than it is elsewhere.
And THAT is why I don't think Lott's comments were all that surprising. To his constituency, that kind of talk is accepted, if not encouraged. Again, YMMV. Are there non-racists in the South? You bet. But the racists that are in the South are more plentiful and are usually out of the closet.
(Aside: I remain flabbergasted at the racism here in Indiana. There's an historic site near my airport that was a station on the underground railroad. Despite that, I have encountered racist venom here in Indiana like I have seldom encountered. It is truly depressing.).
|
Post #68,643
12/13/02 11:30:16 AM
|
Re: No, racism is not only a Southern thing...
It's more complex than that.
Blacks and whites have had a relationship in the South since the early 1700s. For the first 250 years, it was mostly a bad one. But, once the ball started rolling for civil rights, Southerners found it easier to accept Blacks for themselves because there was a relationship to build on. Even a bad relationship provides some ground for growth. In contrast, Blacks and Whites in northern cities just seem to be separated by an impenetrable barrier. Even here in St. Louis, which is a half-and-half mix of Northern and Southern attitudes, the racism *seems* explicit but in fact is mostly talk, and people treat Blacks with respect and courtesy, even if their words seem to indicate otherwise. To give an example - in the mayoral election, one of the candidates - a Black - tried to play the "race card" and was utterly destroyed at the poles. People here don't play that. We have a White mayor who won the majority of the Black vote.
In short, a lot of what you may think is explicit racism in the South is usually just words.
-drl
|
Post #68,649
12/13/02 11:51:52 AM
|
I know a white guy who relocated from Indiana to NC
so his kids wouldnt grow up with the racist attitude. He himself grew up in NE DC on the maryland side.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
I was so poor growing up ... if I wasn't a boy ...I'd have nothing to play with.
--Rodney Dangerfield
|
Post #68,653
12/13/02 12:05:22 PM
|
He made no racist statements.
Those who profit on racism have invented this. Should be obvious to you folks...but apparently you are missing that little tidbit.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,655
12/13/02 12:16:52 PM
|
"Separate but equal" rings true for you I suppose.
|
Post #68,656
12/13/02 12:18:56 PM
|
In 2 words..
FUCK YOU.
You deserve no better response.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,658
12/13/02 12:21:32 PM
|
Ouch.
Truth sting you a little?
|
Post #68,660
12/13/02 12:24:52 PM
|
Are you resorting to code words now???
Why don't you just leap out of your little game and point blank call me a racist?
Why dance around it?
And again...2 words is all the response that deserves...
FUCK YOU.
Again.
Next time it goes to flames an I bring your mother into it you asshole.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,662
12/13/02 12:34:58 PM
|
To paraphrase you...
Claiming to be proud of supporting a man for President running on an anti-civil rights, anti-desegragation, pro-lynching platform does not imply racist tendencies. That's what you're wanting me (us) to believe.
Where did I call you a racist? You claim being proud to support a man with that platform is NOT an expression of racism. Guess what? If your argument holds, then supporting "Separate but Equal" must also NOT be a racist position.
The fact that you got so pissed off at my suggestion that "Separate but Equal" might make sense to you, even infering that I was calling you a racist, is more a betrayal of the fact that you are ashamed of your own position (which you should be).
I'll make it simpler:
1. [You claim] Pride for supporting Strom is NOT racist.
2. "Separate but Equal" was one of Strom's positions.
hence, supporting "Separate but Equal" cannot be racist IF you accept 1. above.
You claim that Lott's remarks aren't racist on the one hand, and then claim I called you a racist by saying exactly the same thing Lott did.
|
Post #68,668
12/13/02 12:50:02 PM
|
No. Niet. None of the above.
Because not one of those things were mentioned in his statement. Anywhere.
He said the state was proud of Strom.
He did not say...The state is proud to have supported you for President, especially because of your anti-civil rights agenda...did he?
No.
You..on the other hand...directly associated on of the policies in your statement to me.
There is an astounding amount of difference.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,684
12/13/02 1:21:02 PM
|
Huh?
He said he was proud that his state supported Strom FOR PRESIDENT. Moreover, he said that we would have been BETTER OFF if Strom had won the office. You can't have it both ways. You support a candidate BECAUSE of what that candidate represents, what he says he'll do if elected, etc.
Are you saying that "being proud to have supported Strom Thurmond for President" and wishing he would have won so that we'd be better off is not equivalent to "being proud to have supported the positions that Strom held when he ran for President"?
It is the SAME SENTIMENT expressed in different words.
|
Post #68,699
12/13/02 2:59:59 PM
|
You are stretching way too far...
...for the express purpose of inventing a racist statement where none was made.
Period.
There is no doubt that Lott was an idiot...because through no fault but his own lack of preparation he walked into this all by his lonesome.
I will maintain, though, that anyone with any measure of sense would not associate what was said as a racist remark.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,700
12/13/02 3:05:41 PM
|
Lack of preparation?
These are essentially the same remarks he has made before to the same man.
Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage?
-[link|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107|Molly Ivins]
|
Post #68,701
12/13/02 3:21:51 PM
|
So Strom has turned 100 twice?
Not out of the question I suppose.
And if he said this before...why are we only talking about it now?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,705
12/13/02 3:31:35 PM
|
What?
Did I mention a birthday at all? 1980 [link|http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/lott1.html|URL].
Why are we only talking about now? Damn good question. Must be that old liberal media bias.
Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage?
-[link|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107|Molly Ivins]
|
Post #68,709
12/13/02 3:34:32 PM
|
ROFL! "Medja bias strikes again". :-D
|
Post #68,711
12/13/02 3:36:18 PM
|
What are you talking about?
people have been talking about Lott for quiet a while now. They're just now getting LISTENED to.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who last week claimed "no firsthand knowledge" of the controversial Council of Conservative Citizens, six years ago told the group's members they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy."
This week, after being asked about a newly surfaced copy of the group's 1992 newsletter, in which he appears to endorse the group and ask for its support, Lott renounced the organization and said through a spokesman he has nothing to do with them.
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/dec98/lott16.htm| Washington Post - 1998 ]
So the chairman of the NAACP wants to know where these same senators are when it comes to the Council of Conservative Citizens, which promotes the preservation of the white race and whose Web site features articles warning that the nation is turning into a "slimy brown mass of glop." Sen. Trent Lott once addressed this group's national board, welcomed its leaders to Washington, had photos taken with them in his office and then said he didn't know what they were about. The CCC's directors wink and nod at that. One of them was a county chairman of Lott's '94 reelection campaign. One of them is his uncle.
[link|http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/CCC/disavow.htm| "Institude for the Study for Academic Racism" ] It's been on of Washington's Dirty little secrets for quiet a while now (according to some sources).
|
Post #68,717
12/13/02 3:44:41 PM
|
Feel Trent's pain
[link|http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/analysis/toons/2002/12/12/mitchell/index.html|URL]
Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage?
-[link|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107|Molly Ivins]
|
Post #68,721
12/13/02 3:50:20 PM
|
Actually Ted Stevens would be a better leader
too far from the fringes though to get elected to the leadership. His pulled pork might be stifled also.
thanx,
Bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
I was so poor growing up ... if I wasn't a boy ...I'd have nothing to play with.
--Rodney Dangerfield
|
Post #68,720
12/13/02 3:48:52 PM
|
CCC?
Intentionally like the KKK?
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #68,733
12/13/02 4:06:01 PM
|
Actually, according to their website - it would be cofcc.
Except that their web site is currently down for some reasons. Google has a [link|http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:UxJsA3BQqkAC:www.cofcc.org/+council+for+conservative+citizens&hl=en&ie=UTF-8| cache ] of it though.
|
Post #68,754
12/13/02 4:29:24 PM
|
Er. Yeah.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #68,731
12/13/02 4:04:36 PM
|
Tone and tenor.
I'm not even remotely supporting him as the Rep Majority Leader, because as you are aware he has a tendency to act and then think...and since he's not all that bright...well the problems ensue from there...
However, the furor surrounding this statement and the immediate cry of racism to me are alot more suspect than the statement itself. The hue and cry come from those who use racism for gain. They have no interest in the truth of the statement at all.
At this point, Lott should step down. Whether he meant it as a racist statement or not, the honorable thing to do is walk. But we all know there is no honor inside the beltway.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,743
12/13/02 4:18:52 PM
|
Re: the furor surrounding this
An interesting hypothesis for why all of the furor
[link|http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/12/12_Lott.html|Here] first and then a [link|http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/12/13_Lott.html|followup].
Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage?
-[link|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107|Molly Ivins]
|
Post #68,755
12/13/02 4:29:50 PM
|
Interesting...
I decided to head out to the cofcc's website. (Part of the damnation of Lott is that he made a speech for them and they're supposed to be a fairly rascist organistion.)
The catch is that their website is down. (No surprise there.) It is in google's catch.
But, do some digging. Ignore the "Support Lott" articles on the front page. There's a public forum.
The oldest post is Dec 11, 2002.
hmm... head over to NIC. cofcc was registered 2001 (weird, but okay). Last update, yesterday.
hmmm.
|
Post #69,425
12/17/02 5:33:05 PM
12/17/02 6:01:43 PM
|
Dupe reply. Pls ignore.
When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy.
-Paul Richards
Edited by Ashton
Dec. 17, 2002, 06:01:43 PM EST
|
Post #68,708
12/13/02 3:33:30 PM
|
Maybe we've reached the nut.
I maintain that being proud of supporting a man running for President on a clearly racist platform is evidence of racist sympathies.
You differ.
That about right?
|
Post #68,734
12/13/02 4:08:14 PM
|
No, not really.
I think a statement made to placate a 100 year old man has been removed completely from context and is being used as a weapon.
Need I repeat that Lott wasn't of legal voting age? He wasn't old enough to support him.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,744
12/13/02 4:19:04 PM
|
Not that again.
I used shorthand again, he said he was proud of his state.
And I'd buy the "he was just trying to please an old man" argument IF this was the first time Lott had made statements like this one. But, as others have documented, it's not.
|
Post #68,759
12/13/02 4:37:10 PM
|
2nd
Same statement. Same guy.
Took everyone 22 years to get offended.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,798
12/13/02 9:26:52 PM
|
Wrong
Took everyone 22 years to get offended. I got offended the first time I heard about it. Damn that liberal press for not informing me earlier. </sign> Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage?
-[link|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107|Molly Ivins]
|
Post #68,799
12/13/02 9:27:56 PM
|
No, not__ "22 years to be offended".
Merely "22 years of being resigned"; of becoming -of necessity- inured to the sort of representatives which a significant portion of the Murican population will elect. People who share the principles espoused by this 100 yo and this admirer of himself and his 'works'.
22 years (clearly many more than that) of hearing euphemisms of 'explanation' following each unfortunate "Slip from the Heart" of YAN good 'ol boy a lettin his hair down, presumably in the company of the like-minded.. Oops! there was a reporter around! Spin control. Again!
Nah.. he didn't really Mean that stuff on his platform for President, that platform which defines his principles and their supporters. Nahhh.. 'twas a mere bagatelle, those harsh words about them uppity nigras and all
Really, BeeP - how you can just skim right over Lott's exact words and emulate the 3 monkeys, See- no, Hear- no, ignore their content and call it, "mere tribute to some 100 yo guy" - yeah,
("100 yo guy" whose POV couldn't Possibly Have Affected legislation during his lengthy tenure... Naah. Far-fteched, that.) {sheesh}
I'll remember this Outstandingly Liberal Christian Charity\ufffd following any next quip re the undead horse or the umm Librul Meeja.. Why Gandhiji couldn't have been more umm sanctimoniously? nonjudgmental: Kudos for your recent conversion to Nonjudgment-al-ism.
I am humbled to be in the company of such Pristine Goodness of Heart, and so recently revealed.
Ashton
sooo Unworthy
|
Post #68,813
12/13/02 10:11:09 PM
|
I didn't skim.
I know what his words were.
22 years makes alot of difference.
In those 22 years we've developed wonderful policies like zero tolerance. (insert endless list of political correctness here)
And its amazing that [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=47441|one] receives support after a miscontrued statement...while this one can't be let go.
Hmmm. I suppose it depends on which side you're on.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,855
12/14/02 1:34:34 AM
|
Support?
Well with support like that..
The last not patently Right-slanted Tee Vee show on Corp Tee Vee is cancelled and - that constitutes 'support'?
(Sears gets no more of my bizness either - cowards; we knew the network folk were cowards already.. look at the juvenile crap to be served up next! but Sears too? Ah right, Bizness: keep it bland; keep it light - keep it dumb. Or else.) Guess yer too young to remember the cancellation of the Smothers Brothers, Laugh-In - for similar non-dumbth skits. But I'm not.
Perhaps you mean then to compare Lott's tribute to,
a remark claiming that (~ IIRC) "..whatever you want to call the people who flew into those buildings, it can't be coward". Then I recall he added a comment about "cowardly being - sending in pilotless planes to attack [forget the predicate]" maybe the 'pharm chem' factory? or the other spot vacated by bin-L a few hours before?
Hmmm - if that last had happened earlier - maybe we'd be getting ready to battle Oceania N. Korea instead of the [oil] place - next.
Somehow I don't think that this sure-to-be inflammatory remark, thus {Holy Shit} controversial remark {on Murican sanitized Tee Vee!!} rises to the scale of: supporting the agenda of the 100 yo Thurmond dinosaur as fulsomely, one might say abjectly - as we all heard, many times now.
But you might.
Ashton
|
Post #68,685
12/13/02 1:21:38 PM
|
And it's "Nyet" btw ;-)
|
Post #68,663
12/13/02 12:36:41 PM
|
have you seen this column by Rockwell?
[link|http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lott.html|http://www.lewrockwe...ockwell/lott.html] Would the country have been better off had the Dixiecrats won in 1948? Of course this is conjectural history, and I was wrong to imply that we can know the answer with certainty. If Thurmond's party had behaved the way the Democrats and Republicans typically have \ufffd betraying election promises in favor of building the welfare-warfare state \ufffd the party might not have made any difference at all.
However, we can say that the country would have been far better off by preserving freedom and federalism rather than by fastening on it a managerial regime that intrudes itself into every aspect of public and private life, often in the name of quelling racial conflict but in fact only creating more. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
I was so poor growing up ... if I wasn't a boy ...I'd have nothing to play with.
--Rodney Dangerfield
|
Post #68,742
12/13/02 4:18:07 PM
|
pretty good - thnx
Darrell Spice, Jr.
[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #68,434
12/12/02 4:08:12 PM
|
Re: My question.
People like Lott are not representative of the South. They are classic carpetbaggers - lowbrow rednecks in fancy suits - political opportunists. His kind are a dime a dozen.
-drl
|
Post #68,500
12/12/02 9:39:13 PM
|
What is all of this "code phrase" crap.
The man said nothing about the segregation ticket. He said nothing about "keeping anyone in their place"
He said "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either,"
Where in that can anybody determine that it was a racist statement?
Please explain this to me?
Equivalent.
"I like Ford cars."
Response. Well, since a Ford ran into a schoolbus and killed 10 kids in 1907...that means you are a babykiller.
I think Lott is an idiot. I'm not willing to call the man a racist for saying nice things to Strom Thurmond at his 100th birthday party. And in no way can the comments be construed as racist. He should have just told everyone to get stuffed.
----
The degree of this crusade one week after the Dems were criticised by one of their own for not running the "destruction campaigns" as well as the Republicans is a little suspect.
-----
Say something nice to a 100 year old man and get screwed for it. Only in America.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,504
12/12/02 9:44:14 PM
|
code phrase was the apology not the original statement
If Thurmond had won on that ticket the civil rights movement would have happened anyway, a lot bloodier but the times had moved from blind obedience to gummint. The rest of the country would have pushed the South to comply. It might have not involved the US overseas as much as the yankees and westerners did so Nam and the domino theory might have ended much differently.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
I was so poor growing up ... if I wasn't a boy ...I'd have nothing to play with.
--Rodney Dangerfield
|
Post #68,584
12/13/02 8:58:28 AM
|
Uhmm... Bill?
You do know one of the planks of the Dixiecrats was the defeat of anti-lynching laws, right? Keep segregration alive and all that. This is the Party Thurmond was running for pres as a member of.
Get it now?
Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage?
-[link|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107|Molly Ivins]
|
Post #68,625
12/13/02 10:42:04 AM
|
Nice background piece - from the Washington Times no less
(Goldberg's piece)
The problem is that Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrat" 1948 presidential candidacy was based pretty much entirely on opposing any push for civil rights for black Americans. We're not even talking about opposing, say, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which would be hard enough to defend. We're talking 1948. Strom Thurmond didn't just oppose voting rights for blacks -- he opposed anti-lynching laws.
Here's what the 1948 sample ballot put out by the Mississippi Democratic Party had to say about the race between Thurmond and Truman: "A vote for Truman electors is a direct order to our Congressmen and Senators from Mississippi to vote for passage of Truman's so-called civil rights program in the next Congress. This means the vicious, anti-poll tax, anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever."
Trent Lott boasted about his state supporting this junk. After all, it's not like Thurmond's platform was full of planks about tax cuts or environmental protection.
[link|http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-20021211125238.htm| A whole Lott of Nothing ]
|
Post #68,651
12/13/02 12:02:48 PM
|
He says it right in the piece....
Now, people too young to remember or too uninterested to know might think this is just a nice thing to say to a guy who ran for president over 50 years ago, when Lott was 7 years old by the way. And, to be fair to Lott, that is almost certainly what he intended -- to be nice to an old warhorse of the Senate. When >this< should be the reason he's not even there as leader in the first place... Regardless, Trent Lott only does two things well, freeze-dry his hair and say stupid things. He mishandled impeachment, mishandled the 1998 elections, mishandled power-sharing with the Democrats after the 2000 election and mishandled Jim Jeffords straight into the Democratic Party. So...if you want him out of the leadership...great...there are plenty of reasons without "inventing" his racism out of a friendly statement made at a birthday party for a 100 year old man. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,690
12/13/02 2:00:11 PM
|
I don't believe I said he was a racist.
in fact, most people aren't saying he's racist.
They're claiming that "saying America would be better off now had Thurmond won back then (under a racist platform)" is STUPID.
It's EVEN worse that he didn't backpedal hard enough when (he should have) realized what he had said.
Now, they're looking at his past deeds and actions (because he didn't backpedal). Now, they're looking at his involvement with the CCC (which some consider racist) and briefs to the court.
But even granted this stuff, I still don't think he's a racist.
I do think he's stupid though.
Sidenote: note that the left IGNORED this issue until hardliners on the right (Sullivan, et al.) brought it up. (Exception - Marshall nailed it from early on, but he's the only one.) Furthermore, the left has mentioned, more than once, that they DON'T want Lott out.
(Hell, why would they? He's a great source of amusement.)
|
Post #68,704
12/13/02 3:31:16 PM
|
Okay, if you don't like racist, how about bigot? ;-)
|
Post #68,723
12/13/02 3:56:17 PM
|
Chuckle.
Again, I think he's more stupid than anything else.
The "left-wing" papers picked up on the John Kerry haircut and ignored Lott's statement. And if Lott had stopped at mere praise for Thurmond, there wouldn't be anything to this at all. But, I suspect (still) that Lott went off the cuff and made the statement.
But even then he was given a pass. No one wanted to be accused of playing the race card. The left (with the exception of Marshall) ignored the event. The right, on the other hand (Sullivan et al.) began calling for the apology. (I suspect they knew what was in the cards.)
Go Lott apologizes with a wimpish, "I'm sorry if you took offense" comment. (Stupid II).
Now the issue is getting attention. (Hell, look at how BP when someone accused him of ol' "Separate but equal" .. immediate and total denial. - Why couldn't Lott decry segregation?) So people start reviewing his past. Some of the people he's hung out with aren't totally convinced that segregation was a bad idea (CCC and others).
Now the talking begins in earnest.
Frankly, I still don't think he's a racist - even given his court brief or talks in front of the CCC. I think he has associates that are racist and that he's made some dumb political moves so far.
But then again, I could be wrong by giving him the benefit of the doubt.
|
Post #68,748
12/13/02 4:22:54 PM
|
He couldn't decry segregation.
Because he believes "we'd be better of if we'd continued it." That's what he said. More than once.
If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, go ahead. But understand that at his best, he was at least appealing to racists in his own constituency.
|
Post #68,758
12/13/02 4:36:26 PM
|
Actually, I haven't seen that.
Don't get me wrong, he's praising some people who DO (and DID) say that, but I haven't seen him anywhere say that we'd be better off with segregation. (Which is why I was surprised by his wimpish apology.)
He's written briefs to the Courts supporting school discriminatory policies. (While I disagree with his conclusion, he had valid arguments.)
He's also written one (iirc) on the burning of crosses. (Which, strickly speaking, I also agree with him, it should be covered as a free speech - provided it's done on my own property and it's my own cross. :-)
There is even an argument that he's a member of the cofcc...but that he didn't pay the dues (and may not have known about the membership) - as it was done through an uncle of his.
Frankly, I have no ax to grind with Lott. I think he's statement of Thurmond were over the top and I think he should've apologized better. (Bush's statement should've been the one he made).
But I do have doubts that he's really a racist. (But I could be wrong.)
|
Post #68,650
12/13/02 11:56:57 AM
|
Yes I do.
Did Lott say that? Or did he say to a 100 year old man that the state was proud of his service...and even supported his bid to run the big show?
I know how the opposition latched on to the platform. I know how they've then turned that into "Lott is a racist"...though he was all of 7 years old at the time.
But did he say anything racist? Did he say..."if you had been elected all them niggers would still be in their place?"
No he didn't.
Yet he's being criticised by Jesse Jackson (among others)...a man who actually DID make antisemetic statements in a NY dining establishment.
Again...this has nothing to do with racism...but we have people here saying "of course he's racist...he's a southerner"...or "failed policies of the past" is a "code word" for racist policies.
To which I again say, "I like that house on Elm Street" ...to which the current press response would be "he supports the terrorism and murder of innocent teenagers"
Call me Freddie.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,638
12/13/02 11:19:00 AM
|
"... we voted for him. We're proud of it."
That is among, if not THE, strongest condemnations of a people I can think of.
If I lived in Mississippi, I'd leave the state immediately for fear that he might be right about my neighbors.
|
Post #68,654
12/13/02 12:16:14 PM
|
So...
...where's the racist remark? No epithets. No code words.
"We supported you! We're happy that we supported you! Things would have been great >if< you had won!" (whcih he didn't...so where do the above statements diverge from being a nice thing to say to an old man on his birthday.
Tell you where...when Jesse, Al and the Democrats all see the chance to turn this into a divisive racist issue...for the sole purpose of destroying Lott and continuing to profit from the racial divide.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,657
12/13/02 12:20:21 PM
|
So,
segregation, no civil rights and lynchings aren't racist? You know, in a wierd way this makes sense. Back when Ronnie Rayguns was in office he enjoyed wide support despite the fact that, when asked, his supporters supported almost NONE of his policies. Now, it's getting more clear. The Republican credo is "image over substance." Adopting this attitude, one could "support the man, but oppose his policies". That's the ONLY light I can think of where your position "makes sense."
|
Post #68,661
12/13/02 12:27:19 PM
|
did he mention any of these things?
No.
He made a platitude to an old man.
But...apparently you are good at inventing racism where it doesn't exist...obviously.
Gamesmanship was one thing, >friend<...that line was crossed about 20 minutes ago.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,664
12/13/02 12:37:14 PM
12/13/02 1:24:04 PM
|
So,
he's proud that his state supported Strom, but ashamed of Strom's policies?
Edited by mmoffitt
Dec. 13, 2002, 01:24:04 PM EST
|
Post #68,670
12/13/02 12:51:33 PM
|
Dude...
He wasn't old enough to vote.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,688
12/13/02 1:24:46 PM
|
Nit corrected, Geesh.
|
Post #68,665
12/13/02 12:39:07 PM
|
ROFL! Image over substance indeed hmmmbjhm
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
I was so poor growing up ... if I wasn't a boy ...I'd have nothing to play with.
--Rodney Dangerfield
|
