Hmmmm...let's see what happens

Attachments

  • $ThatsRacist.gif
    $ThatsRacist.gif
    247.2 KB · Views: 84
That has nothing to do with the classic rightwing hypocrisy occurring here.

spare me the bullshit. when's harry resigning?

he's obviously no more fit to hold office than lott was and the "mom, the other kid started it" meme is getting moth eaten.

Name the conservatives who called for Lott to resign in 2002. I'm open to being shown that the right is being consistent on this.

On the Right - Conservatives Led the Way in Criticizing Lott's Remarks - NYTimes.com
 
spare me the bullshit. when's harry resigning?

he's obviously no more fit to hold office than lott was and the "mom, the other kid started it" meme is getting moth eaten.

Name the conservatives who called for Lott to resign in 2002. I'm open to being shown that the right is being consistent on this.

On the Right - Conservatives Led the Way in Criticizing Lott's Remarks - NYTimes.com

Good find. Looks like about what, 6 guys calling for him to resign? And about the same not?

btw, the righteousness didn't last that long:

Trent Lott Wins Republican Minority Whip Post | Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place
 
Name the conservatives who called for Lott to resign in 2002. I'm open to being shown that the right is being consistent on this.

On the Right - Conservatives Led the Way in Criticizing Lott's Remarks - NYTimes.com

Good find. Looks like about what, 6 guys calling for him to resign? And about the same not?

btw, the righteousness didn't last that long:

Trent Lott Wins Republican Minority Whip Post | Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

that'd be six more than have called for harry to step down.

btw, righteousness has nothing to do with it.

:thup:
 

Yes and he renounced it and denounced them, several decades ago.

and what Trent Lott did was only a miniscule fraction of what Byrd is guilty of yet you on the left screamed for his head on a stick. Why the hypocrisy?

You better take it up with the poster below who's telling me it was the conservatives who wanted his head on a stick and the left that was reticent.

Which of you is right and which of you is wrong? I'll debate the one who's right after you two thrash it out.
 

that'd be six more than have called for harry to step down.

btw, righteousness has nothing to do with it.

:thup:

Where I said it I don't recall but I've already said the 2 situations aren't comparable, and I'm standing by that.

For the record, not that anyone would care, but my personal position is that they have the wrong Reid as majority leader. I'd give the job to Jack Reed of RI.
 
Ummmmmmm... Lott didn't leave because of his stupid comments...

Lott left so he could go make money:

Republican sources close to Lott said one reason for Lott's decision to resign is the new lobbying restrictions on former lawmakers.

A law kicks in on January 1 that forbids lawmakers from lobbying for two years after leaving office. Those who leave by the end of 2007 are covered by the previous law, which demands a wait of only one year.

"He wants to go make a living; he has no money," a GOP source said. "He'll be acting as a lobbyist and political adviser."

The source also said Lott wanted to leave now so that the person appointed to replace him would have almost a year in the Senate before facing the voters during the elections in November 2008.

Senate's No. 2 Republican to resign by end of year - CNN.com

Even Fox's valentine to Trent didn't say anything along the lines you're alleging:

Trent Lott Resigns From U.S. Senate After Nearly Two Decades of Service - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

I really hate revisionist history.

so do i and trent lott resigned his position as senate minority leader in 2002 due to his remarks at thurmond's birthday party.

harry reid had this to say:

Asked if the episode would serve as a warning to weigh his own words carefully, Reid said: "You play how you practice."

"If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it's that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I've always practiced how I play."

Reid on 'ethnic jokes' - The Political Eye - ReviewJournal.com

good effort, though.
And you just cannot see the difference in someone stating what is actually a racial fact of life in the US of A, and someone giving kudos to another for having supported and fostered and promoted segregation, racism, discrimination and mistreatment of African Americans and other minorities. Now that is a truly pathetic lack of awareness, and moreso that so many share that inability to appreciate reality.
 
Wrong Countess. All and I repeat all Lott did was try to be nice to an old geaser on his 90 something birthday. He wasn't talking about segregation he was talking about a far more limted role for the federal government.
 
So promoting the bullshit to someone who was into it is OK because they are old?

Nope, being "nice" to geezers" should not include making approving remarks over their reprehensible behavior....
 
Lot was barely even born at the time of Stroms party countess what would he now about all the details of something that was in fact no more than a minor foot note in American history? You are ready willing and able to assume the worst case about lott but you want to give reid a pass for something far more blatant and something that somone from the party of the KKK ought to be more aware of.
 
Last edited:
Other than Reid's politically incorrect use of the word 'Negro' in the phrase 'Negro dialect', which, incidentally you can find ample use of in academics in a historical context (try googling +historical+negro+dialect for example) there was nothing in what he said that wasn't said from all quarters during the campaign.

Have you all forgotten the discussion of the 'Bradley Effect'? (aka the right's forlorn hope, lol)
 
Lot was barely even born at the time of Stroms party countess what would he now about all the details of something that was in fact no more than a minor foot note in American history?
I did not arrive on the Mayflower, but I know the history, and quite a bit about the original settlements, and how they functioned and what came out of that. I was not born during the American Revolution, but I learned a whole lot about that, who fought where and why, and I was not born yet, but from there to the next war, 1812, I was taught history about the people and how they lived, some of their writings, women's separate but concurrent history, and the history leading up to the Civil War, and what motivated both sides of that history, and also what came afterward! History of race relations, history of segregation, history of how race affected women getting the vote, and all that came afterward. I remember watching the legal end to segregation on television, and some of those really mean nasty teenagers and adults outside the high school in Little Rock, screaming at teenagers who were "cream of the crop" who just wanted to access the best educational opportunities available to others. I watched marches on TV, and I watched people brutalized in Selma and other places. And I could go on. Now, Trent Lott was born five years, one month, and one day before I was, and if he barely noticed, and if he was never taught in school about the country's history, then DAY-YUM he was totally too freakin' ignorant and unaware to be a Senator, or much of anything else for that matter. Lott was born pre "baby boom."

Perhaps you should read about Lott and learn about him. He graduated "Ole Miss" in 1963. James Meredith integrated Ole Miss in 1962. Do you also think that Lott was too dumb to have noticed, in his junior year as a Public Administration major, too dumb to have seen or been aware of what happened at his University?

You are ready willing and able to assume the worst case about lott but you want to give reid a pass for something far more blatant and something that somone from the party of the KKK ought to be more aware of.

I am not basing my opinion of what Lott did on "worst case," I am basing my opinion on what he did, what he said.

Resignation from Senate leadership
Political controversy ensued following remarks Lott made on December 5, 2002 at the 100th birthday party of Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Thurmond ran for President of the United States in 1948 on the Dixiecrat (or States' Rights) ticket. Lott said: "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 the years, either."[3]

Thurmond had based his presidential campaign largely on an explicit racial segregation platform. Lott had attracted controversy before in issues relating to civil rights. As a Congressman, he voted against renewal of the Voting Rights Act, voted against the continuation of the Civil Rights Act and opposed making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a federal holiday.[4] The Washington Post reported that Lott had made similar comments about Thurmond's candidacy in a 1980 rally.[5] Lott gave an interview with Black Entertainment Television explaining himself and repudiating Thurmond's former views.[6]

Did you notice any "pattern" there... or did that slide around you?

As for what Reid said, he stated a racial political reality about "electability" and for some people in this country who have been on the shit catching end of this system, still today in some ways segregated, reality is what it is.

As for YOU, though, I am totally embarassed for you, that you, an adult, have suffered such a pathetic education that you know so little about national history. I really think you should seriously consider a lawsuit, as you were ripped off, cheated. I am not joking here. I think what happened to you is a travesty. You can remedy the situation though. Jr. college level history classes are available both in person and on line.
 
Wrong Countess. All and I repeat all Lott did was try to be nice to an old geaser on his 90 something birthday. He wasn't talking about segregation he was talking about a far more limted role for the federal government.

Yeah, a far more limited role for the federal government in the area of civil rights.
 
Wrong Countess. All and I repeat all Lott did was try to be nice to an old geaser on his 90 something birthday. He wasn't talking about segregation he was talking about a far more limted role for the federal government.

Yeah, a far more limited role for the federal government in the area of civil rights.


This is what amazes me most:

...a minor foot note in American history

That garyd is so literally poorly educated about the country as to characterize segregation and the "Dixiecrat" States' Rights bunch this way is just nearly incredible...

That the "Party" dissolved in the same year that it was formed does not negate the legacy, and the history around the Segregationist States' Rights issue. Skunk Cabbage renamed still stinks.
 

Forum List

Back
Top