Ronnie says Negro! No one cares!

[Ravi]

Nothing to run away from. It was dumb. SHould it have cost his job? Just as much as Harry Reid's should be taken from him.

The two are the same. Both or put on your big boy panties and grow up.

Uh huh...you don't even own any big boy panties, do you?

 

[maineman]

Trent Lott said that we would be a better country today if we had elected an avowed segregationist who ran on a platform calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing interracial marriages. That is a sad and totally sickening OPINION.

And using condescending racism by saying he could hide his 'negro' nature is better?

Trent Lott flattered a man on his birthday, even if it was a stupid thing.

Hypocritical partisan hackery. Either they're both guilty, or both innocent. And since the executioner's already dropped the axe on Lott, Reid deserves it too. After he's gone, we can maybe try something new in the future.

Lott expressed his opinion. Lott believes that we would be a better country today if we had elected an avowed segregationist as president in 1948.

Reid observed that Obama had a chance to break the white house color barrier because he was light skinned. That was an astute observation based upon the history of black politicians in America.

comparing Lott's sickening racist opinion to Reid's observation is fucked up.

 

[Big Fitz]

Nothing to run away from. It was dumb. SHould it have cost his job? Just as much as Harry Reid's should be taken from him.

The two are the same. Both or put on your big boy panties and grow up.

Uh huh...you don't even own any big boy panties, do you?

You could sail a ship with mine.

 

[maineman]

Nothing to run away from. It was dumb. SHould it have cost his job? Just as much as Harry Reid's should be taken from him.

The two are the same. Both or put on your big boy panties and grow up.

comparing a racist opinion to an accurate political observation is and will always be fucked up.

you need to thik about what you are saying.

 

[Big Fitz]

Trent Lott said that we would be a better country today if we had elected an avowed segregationist who ran on a platform calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing interracial marriages. That is a sad and totally sickening OPINION.

And using condescending racism by saying he could hide his 'negro' nature is better?

Trent Lott flattered a man on his birthday, even if it was a stupid thing.

Hypocritical partisan hackery. Either they're both guilty, or both innocent. And since the executioner's already dropped the axe on Lott, Reid deserves it too. After he's gone, we can maybe try something new in the future.

Lott expressed his opinion. Lott believes that we would be a better country today if we had elected an avowed segregationist as president in 1948.

Reid observed that Obama had a chance to break the white house color barrier because he was light skinned. That was an astute observation based upon the history of black politicians in America.

comparing Lott's sickening racist opinion to Reid's observation is fucked up.

So we're rationalizing the inherent racism of Reid's statement. Good, good.

Of course, the first step to getting healthy is admitting you have a problem. It seems you're not ready to get over your hypocrisy problem yet, so we've a long way to go. But at least you're consistant in overlooking racism as long as they're your political allies... or is it you agree with him and Clinton? After all, shouldn't that boy have been gettin us coffee a few years back?

Ohhhh... but I'm SURE he meant as being a junior senator. After all... that's what Junior Senators DO for political insiders like those two jackasses.

Hmmmm so let's look at the two statements. What's the comparison? Two politicians make racially clumsy statements that offend only those who see political or financial gain. The rest of the world couldn't give a rat fuck.

One is made into a social pariah, the other gets 'excused'. The only real difference is their political parties.

You libs have had your double standard for so long, you think it's owed to you. But times... they are a changin'.

 

[maineman]

And using condescending racism by saying he could hide his 'negro' nature is better?

Trent Lott flattered a man on his birthday, even if it was a stupid thing.

Hypocritical partisan hackery. Either they're both guilty, or both innocent. And since the executioner's already dropped the axe on Lott, Reid deserves it too. After he's gone, we can maybe try something new in the future.

Lott expressed his opinion. Lott believes that we would be a better country today if we had elected an avowed segregationist as president in 1948.

Reid observed that Obama had a chance to break the white house color barrier because he was light skinned. That was an astute observation based upon the history of black politicians in America.

comparing Lott's sickening racist opinion to Reid's observation is fucked up.

So we're rationalizing the inherent racism of Reid's statement. Good, good.

Of course, the first step to getting healthy is admitting you have a problem. It seems you're not ready to get over your hypocrisy problem yet, so we've a long way to go. But at least you're consistant in overlooking racism as long as they're your political allies... or is it you agree with him and Clinton? After all, shouldn't that boy have been gettin us coffee a few years back?

Ohhhh... but I'm SURE he meant as being a junior senator. After all... that's what Junior Senators DO for political insiders like those two jackasses.

Hmmmm so let's look at the two statements. What's the comparison? Two politicians make racially clumsy statements that offend only those who see political or financial gain. The rest of the world couldn't give a rat fuck.

One is made into a social pariah, the other gets 'excused'. The only real difference is their political parties.

You libs have had your double standard for so long, you think it's owed to you. But times... they are a changin'.

bullshit. YOU are the one who compares Lott to Reid.... YOU are the one who seems to feel that correctly observing that lighter skinned black politicians stand a better chance in white america is the same thing as BELIEVING that we would be a BETTER COUNTRY TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist in 1948. THat's sick. and your rationalizing it is disgusting.

 

[txlonghorn]

And to answer your 3 STUPID ASS question...why not? What seperates the two?

what separates the two? the color of their skin, you ignorant fool. The descendants of however many few white slaves there were have always been able to sit wherever they wanted to on buses in this country. they have always been able to use whatever drinking fountain they chose to use in this country. they have always been able to register to vote and cast their vote in this country... they have always been able to go to whatever school they wanted to in this country.

pull your racist half empty head out of your well travelled ass.

so by your own admission, the color of our skin seperates us. Good to know. This was NEVER about bus seats, water fountains, voting or schools...this whole discussion...ALL of it, was about whether or not there were white slaves...you missed it. too bad, because there was some GREAT points in it. Your battle to keep it focused on the segregation only confirms that you seperate blacks from whites still today. Living in the past ALWAYS keeps you from moving forward.

I would love it if you went back and read the entire exchange with a more open mind that blacks aren't the only victims of slavery. And that the reason you don't know about white slavery is because it got left in the past.

 

[txlonghorn]

Lott expressed his opinion. Lott believes that we would be a better country today if we had elected an avowed segregationist as president in 1948.

Reid observed that Obama had a chance to break the white house color barrier because he was light skinned. That was an astute observation based upon the history of black politicians in America.

comparing Lott's sickening racist opinion to Reid's observation is fucked up.

So we're rationalizing the inherent racism of Reid's statement. Good, good.

Of course, the first step to getting healthy is admitting you have a problem. It seems you're not ready to get over your hypocrisy problem yet, so we've a long way to go. But at least you're consistant in overlooking racism as long as they're your political allies... or is it you agree with him and Clinton? After all, shouldn't that boy have been gettin us coffee a few years back?

Ohhhh... but I'm SURE he meant as being a junior senator. After all... that's what Junior Senators DO for political insiders like those two jackasses.

Hmmmm so let's look at the two statements. What's the comparison? Two politicians make racially clumsy statements that offend only those who see political or financial gain. The rest of the world couldn't give a rat fuck.

One is made into a social pariah, the other gets 'excused'. The only real difference is their political parties.

You libs have had your double standard for so long, you think it's owed to you. But times... they are a changin'.

bullshit. YOU are the one who compares Lott to Reid.... YOU are the one who seems to feel that correctly observing that lighter skinned black politicians stand a better chance in white america is the same thing as BELIEVING that we would be a BETTER COUNTRY TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist in 1948. THat's sick. and your rationalizing it is disgusting.

the question remains...why does one get to point out the flaws of a race and get away with it?

 

[txlonghorn]

Are you stupid? Ronnie said Negro more than once, and NO ONE CARED. NO ONE MELTED DOWN.

Hypocrite.

Obviously you STILL didn't get it. So here. Maybe this will point out the issue.

What amazes me is that you are missing the entire point of this whole issue. It's not the saying of the word "negro" is right or wrong, it's that you hound out Republicans for doing such things. THAT is the hypocrisy that offends. If you are going to demand this level of accountability and purity of thought, you must live by it as well.

Clear enough now?

Everyone's a hypocrite, after that it's only a question of subject and scale. At least I'm working to minimize mine, instead of inflating it like those defending Reid are.

No one's ever hounded Republicans for saying Negro...but nice use of Negroes as tools on your part.

What??? No one has ever hounded a republican for saying negro??? Technically you may be right...but they sure have crucified them for less...Lott got run out of town on rails for saying "problems", which as I was informed by one the loons on here is segregational code for blacks. Never heard such a thing...but that's just one example.

 

[Big Fitz]

Lott expressed his opinion. Lott believes that we would be a better country today if we had elected an avowed segregationist as president in 1948.

Reid observed that Obama had a chance to break the white house color barrier because he was light skinned. That was an astute observation based upon the history of black politicians in America.

comparing Lott's sickening racist opinion to Reid's observation is fucked up.

So we're rationalizing the inherent racism of Reid's statement. Good, good.

Of course, the first step to getting healthy is admitting you have a problem. It seems you're not ready to get over your hypocrisy problem yet, so we've a long way to go. But at least you're consistant in overlooking racism as long as they're your political allies... or is it you agree with him and Clinton? After all, shouldn't that boy have been gettin us coffee a few years back?

Ohhhh... but I'm SURE he meant as being a junior senator. After all... that's what Junior Senators DO for political insiders like those two jackasses.

Hmmmm so let's look at the two statements. What's the comparison? Two politicians make racially clumsy statements that offend only those who see political or financial gain. The rest of the world couldn't give a rat fuck.

One is made into a social pariah, the other gets 'excused'. The only real difference is their political parties.

You libs have had your double standard for so long, you think it's owed to you. But times... they are a changin'.

bullshit. YOU are the one who compares Lott to Reid.... YOU are the one who seems to feel that correctly observing that lighter skinned black politicians stand a better chance in white america is the same thing as BELIEVING that we would be a BETTER COUNTRY TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist in 1948. THat's sick. and your rationalizing it is disgusting.

Excuse me sir. That nice hotel porter informed me your sheets are ready. They left the starch out of the hood, because you said it chafes around the eyes otherwise. He'll go fetch your coffee in a jiff.

But thank you for exposing your own sequestered racism. It's good to know you can rationalize away Reid's take, while condemning another man for flattering someone on their birthday. It's amazing what sympathy, like thinking generates.

BTW, what was Strom's Economic policies in 1948? Foreign Policies? Did he have a good platform outside of his stupid moronic racial platform?

And isn't this a thread that started out TRYING to lambaste Reagan for using the word 'Negro' and whitewash (oops! Insensitive?) Reid's statement. Nice try moving the goal posts, leaving the stadium, moving to a new city and then changing sports.

You're busted, your double standard's exposed for all the world and you're being a dick too. Not a bad nights work for you.

 

[Big Fitz]

What??? No one has ever hounded a republican for saying negro??? Technically you may be right...but they sure have crucified them for less...Lott got run out of town on rails for saying "problems", which as I was informed by one the loons on here is segregational code for blacks. Never heard such a thing...but that's just one example.

Smile. You get a cookie.

 

[maineman]

So we're rationalizing the inherent racism of Reid's statement. Good, good.

Of course, the first step to getting healthy is admitting you have a problem. It seems you're not ready to get over your hypocrisy problem yet, so we've a long way to go. But at least you're consistant in overlooking racism as long as they're your political allies... or is it you agree with him and Clinton? After all, shouldn't that boy have been gettin us coffee a few years back?

Ohhhh... but I'm SURE he meant as being a junior senator. After all... that's what Junior Senators DO for political insiders like those two jackasses.

Hmmmm so let's look at the two statements. What's the comparison? Two politicians make racially clumsy statements that offend only those who see political or financial gain. The rest of the world couldn't give a rat fuck.

One is made into a social pariah, the other gets 'excused'. The only real difference is their political parties.

You libs have had your double standard for so long, you think it's owed to you. But times... they are a changin'.

bullshit. YOU are the one who compares Lott to Reid.... YOU are the one who seems to feel that correctly observing that lighter skinned black politicians stand a better chance in white america is the same thing as BELIEVING that we would be a BETTER COUNTRY TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist in 1948. THat's sick. and your rationalizing it is disgusting.

the question remains...why does one get to point out the flaws of a race and get away with it?

Lott didn't point out any flaws.... he merely said we'd be BETTER if a segregationist had been elected. And Reid observed that some white people still have not let loose of that belief and would have a difficult time voting for a black man unless he wasn't really all that black.

the only race with any flaws possibly highlighted by Reid comments is the caucasian race... and those flaws are a reality... or are you going to deny that there are some Americans who would have a difficult time voting for a very black man with a ghetto dialect regardless of what he said or stood for?

 

[maineman]

So we're rationalizing the inherent racism of Reid's statement. Good, good.

Of course, the first step to getting healthy is admitting you have a problem. It seems you're not ready to get over your hypocrisy problem yet, so we've a long way to go. But at least you're consistant in overlooking racism as long as they're your political allies... or is it you agree with him and Clinton? After all, shouldn't that boy have been gettin us coffee a few years back?

Ohhhh... but I'm SURE he meant as being a junior senator. After all... that's what Junior Senators DO for political insiders like those two jackasses.

Hmmmm so let's look at the two statements. What's the comparison? Two politicians make racially clumsy statements that offend only those who see political or financial gain. The rest of the world couldn't give a rat fuck.

One is made into a social pariah, the other gets 'excused'. The only real difference is their political parties.

You libs have had your double standard for so long, you think it's owed to you. But times... they are a changin'.

bullshit. YOU are the one who compares Lott to Reid.... YOU are the one who seems to feel that correctly observing that lighter skinned black politicians stand a better chance in white america is the same thing as BELIEVING that we would be a BETTER COUNTRY TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist in 1948. THat's sick. and your rationalizing it is disgusting.

Excuse me sir. That nice hotel porter informed me your sheets are ready. They left the starch out of the hood, because you said it chafes around the eyes otherwise. He'll go fetch your coffee in a jiff.

But thank you for exposing your own sequestered racism. It's good to know you can rationalize away Reid's take, while condemning another man for flattering someone on their birthday. It's amazing what sympathy, like thinking generates.

BTW, what was Strom's Economic policies in 1948? Foreign Policies? Did he have a good platform outside of his stupid moronic racial platform?

And isn't this a thread that started out TRYING to lambaste Reagan for using the word 'Negro' and whitewash (oops! Insensitive?) Reid's statement. Nice try moving the goal posts, leaving the stadium, moving to a new city and then changing sports.

You're busted, your double standard's exposed for all the world and you're being a dick too. Not a bad nights work for you.

there are a lot of things that Lott could have said that were flattering to Strom on his birthday that did NOT involve voicing the opinion that we would be a better country today if the rest of the nation had been as racist as Mississippi was back in 1948.

If you haven't read the dixiecrat platform, perhaps you should. I have.

But asking whether Strom's economic policies were of merit when the sole reason for his party and his candidacy was as a protest against the democrat's platform of ending racial segregation is sort of like saying, "Hey... I know Hitler was an evil fiend, but let's talk about the artistry in his watercolors"

 

[Big Fitz]

he merely said we'd be BETTER if a segregationist had been elected.

Actually he said we'd have been better off if Strom Thurmond had been elected under the Dixiecrat party. I don't know what their platform is, but apparently it's a crime to flatter an old man at his birthday party in implying 'he'd have made a good president'.

Gotta love 20/20 hindsight and disingenuous intellectualism.

So, how is "Sheets" Byrd, lately?

Go to any good events with him?

Ohhhh... that's right. he's retired from the Klan. Right right.

That oughta do it.

 

[maineman]

he merely said we'd be BETTER if a segregationist had been elected.

Actually he said we'd have been better off if Strom Thurmond had been elected under the Dixiecrat party. I don't know what their platform is......

If you don't know what the dixiecrat platform even says, what the fuck are you even doing in this conversation??????

 

[Big Fitz]

there are a lot of things that Lott could have said

In this you and I agree. There are a whole lot of things better than what he said. But he didn't, and you seem dead set on excoriating the man for a turn of phrase you find offensive.

But yet... Harry..... ohhhhh Harry. He gets a fucking pass now doesn't he?

I'm saying, NEITHER should get a pass. Or has none of this gotten through those liberal blinders you're wearing?

 

[txlonghorn]

bullshit. YOU are the one who compares Lott to Reid.... YOU are the one who seems to feel that correctly observing that lighter skinned black politicians stand a better chance in white america is the same thing as BELIEVING that we would be a BETTER COUNTRY TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist in 1948. THat's sick. and your rationalizing it is disgusting.

the question remains...why does one get to point out the flaws of a race and get away with it?

Lott didn't point out any flaws.... he merely said we'd be BETTER if a segregationist had been elected. And Reid observed that some white people still have not let loose of that belief and would have a difficult time voting for a black man unless he wasn't really all that black.

the only race with any flaws possibly highlighted by Reid comments is the caucasian race... and those flaws are a reality... or are you going to deny that there are some Americans who would have a difficult time voting for a very black man with a ghetto dialect regardless of what he said or stood for?

You're right about ONE thing...Lott didn't point out any flaws...you're assuming that he was referring to the segregational part of Thurmond as his favorite characteristic to make Thurmond a better president and that there was NO way he could have possibly meant that all the other problems we experienced during that presidential might have been less intense with Thurmond at the helm.

As for Reid's comments, I'm amazed at how glib you are at the dual message in his statement. Intentional or otherwise....he definitely pointed out flaws...darker skin and a thicker "negro dialect" would have made him less likely to get elected. But then again, maybe it shouldn't surprise me so much...you DON'T WANT to see that side of his statement. And you will keep defending your misguided position until this subject dies. Which is fine with me...it just proves the blind and blatant effort to ignore the obvious.

 

[maineman]

here's a piece of itL

"We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of segregation, social equality by Federal fiat, regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.

We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a program would be utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the Southern people, and of other localities in which there may be differences in race, creed or national origin in appreciable numbers. "


Yeah Trent...we would be a better country TODAY if THAT had become the law of the land....

and expressing that sentiment is NOT racist??????

 

[Big Fitz]

he merely said we'd be BETTER if a segregationist had been elected.

Actually he said we'd have been better off if Strom Thurmond had been elected under the Dixiecrat party. I don't know what their platform is......

If you don't know what the dixiecrat platform even says, what the fuck are you even doing in this conversation??????

Oh I'm sorry. I thought this was about trying to tear down Ronald Reagan because he used the word "negro" at some point. And after all, if we didn't tear him up for it, we can't by gosh do it to Harry Reid! My Gosh! That would be unfair!

But yet... there sits Trent Lott. Condemned for an indelicate statement at a birthday party for an old man.

Robert Byrd still sits as the senior member in the senate without any problems for his Klan past, while David Duke (rightly) was thrown under the train for his past whether or not either man turned from them.

The issue is Hypocrisy. You bagged Lott for petty nonsense, and if you want to talk entitlement, you owe we conservatives Reid.

Nice try with the Red Herring though.

 

[maineman]

the question remains...why does one get to point out the flaws of a race and get away with it?

Lott didn't point out any flaws.... he merely said we'd be BETTER if a segregationist had been elected. And Reid observed that some white people still have not let loose of that belief and would have a difficult time voting for a black man unless he wasn't really all that black.

the only race with any flaws possibly highlighted by Reid comments is the caucasian race... and those flaws are a reality... or are you going to deny that there are some Americans who would have a difficult time voting for a very black man with a ghetto dialect regardless of what he said or stood for?

You're right about ONE thing...Lott didn't point out any flaws...you're assuming that he was referring to the segregational part of Thurmond as his favorite characteristic to make Thurmond a better president and that there was NO way he could have possibly meant that all the other problems we experienced during that presidential might have been less intense with Thurmond at the helm.

As for Reid's comments, I'm amazed at how glib you are at the dual message in his statement. Intentional or otherwise....he definitely pointed out flaws...darker skin and a thicker "negro dialect" would have made him less likely to get elected. But then again, maybe it shouldn't surprise me so much...you DON'T WANT to see that side of his statement. And you will keep defending your misguided position until this subject dies. Which is fine with me...it just proves the blind and blatant effort to ignore the obvious.

Yeah... Strom Thurmond ran for President to fix our foreign policy problems... get your head out of the sand.

And there is no dual message in Reid's observation. He is correct that darker skin and a thicker ghetto dialect would make a candidate less palatable to many people in the United States.... certainly many people like the folks that voted for Strom who didn't want ******* to drink out of the same fountain, or be allowed to marry their white women, let alone be president of the fucking united states.