Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/11/2002 5:21:30 AM EDT
His first problem: He can't come up with a new line regarding Thurmond in twentysome years. Second: This has gotten big, fast, and looks like his words are going to be damaging to his own party. [b]Lott Remarks on Thurmond Echoed 1980 Words[/b] Twenty-two years ago, Trent Lott, then a House member from Mississippi, told a home state political gathering that if the country had elected segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond to the presidency "30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." The phrasing is very similar to incoming Senate Majority Leader Lott's controversial remarks at a 100th birthday party for Thurmond last week. [url=www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37288-2002Dec10.html]Rest of Article[/url]
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:28:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2002 5:29:52 AM EDT by Arock]
Lott is the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you're conservative or republican he might be the political weakest link. As majority leader that man needs to go. Lott is a good an example of the Peter Principal. He has risen to his maximum level of incompetence.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:36:26 AM EDT
I agree, he has stepped right in it, and his opponents, on both sides of the fence, are going to make a much bigger deal of it than it is. I did find it intersting that NPR had some jewish professor from Boston telling the history of the Dixie-crats, with no one else to debate his twisted version of history. Oh well, what else is new, the North gets to tell the South what it was we were/are thinking.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:52:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Arock: Lott is the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you're conservative or republican he might be the political weakest link. As majority leader that man needs to go. Lott is a good an example of the Peter Principal. He has risen to his maximum level of incompetence.
View Quote
I wouldn't call Lott a "conservative". He needs to go......
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:59:01 AM EDT
I never cared for Senator Lott as a Majority Leader, as I think he lacks backbone. However, he is entitled to his beliefs and as an American has a right to espouse them. In my opinion, his constituents should decide - on their own - whether or not his words, taken in context, represent them. If so, he's fine where he is. If not, they may choose to elect someone else next time. I for one am tired of the media telling us who should resign from what. For once, I'd like to see a politician grow a set of balls, look Tom Daschle in the eye, and say, "blow me". [soapbox]
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 6:55:38 AM EDT
Bring back Newt!
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 6:57:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 7:14:11 AM EDT
[b]Big 'Effin' Deal![/b] I got news for you! The country would have been better off if the Dixiecrats had won! And Goldwater in 1964, as well! There would have been no Vietnam, as it was faintly played out by the Johnson Administration! F*** political correctness! It's politically correct to say that Republicans want to cut back your grandmother's Social Security to where she has just enough money to buy one can of dog food per day, they love dirty water and dirty air, and they haven't cut school lunch programs nearly as much as they want! In the meanwhile, the rest of us have to shut our mouths about the LOVE THAT DARES NOT SPEAK ITS NAME! The costs of treating AIDS is astronomical, and any research aimed at easing the pain and suffering of AIDS sufferers gets a rocket FDA approval, while drugs combating other ailments have to go by the book in being approved! But we shall not dare mention that this disease, for the greatest amount of sufferers, is totally, 100%, preventable! BULLSHIT, I say! BULLSHIT! Eric The(Straighter'nMoses)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 7:19:39 AM EDT
So the fuck what? He likes Strom. Big deal. Get over it. The coment certainly isn't racist on it's own. Scott
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 7:24:06 AM EDT
You know, this whole debate over Lott has pissed me off - know why? Because NO ONE has gotten it right. Lott never said "We wish Strom had been elected President because of his stand on Segregation!" - what he and many others were in favor of was Strom's views on STATES RIGHTS! It had nothing to do with segregation, racial issues, etc. It had everything to do with a number of men who saw the onerous federalism that was starting to rev up and take away many rights of the states guaranteed by the 10th amendment. You know, things like gun control laws, public school policy, health care, pensions, work rules, highways, etc. Hell, I thought at least SOME of you all here were in favor of a more strict and constitutionalist interpretation our Constitution. Was I wrong? On a personal note, I never did care for Lott myself, but that had everything to do with his lack of backbone, not his views on issues. We need someone who isn't afraid to tell it like it is on our core values, including the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, I see exactly what is happening here. The Demos can't attack Bush because he is likable and popular. So they've been lying in wait for someone to do something or say something that they can grab onto and use against the Republican Part. And due to misinterpration and mis-reporting of his words, Lott is now the new "Newt Gingrich" - the new enemy. Unfortunately, Lott is NO Newt Gingrich. At least Gingrich had balls and wouldn't back down. I predict Lott will resign as Majority Senate Leader - if not, be prepared for a constant stream of invective to be launched against him over the next 2 years. And that will keep him hogtied and afraid to push a conservative agenda, which will include him probably caving on the AWB sunset.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 7:30:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: [b]Big 'Effin' Deal![/b] In the meanwhile, the rest of us have to shut our mouths about the LOVE THAT DARES NOT SPEAK ITS NAME! The costs of treating AIDS is astronomical, and any research aimed at easing the pain and suffering of AIDS sufferers gets a rocket FDA approval, while drugs combating other ailments have to go by the book in being approved! But we shall not dare mention that this disease, for the greatest amount of sufferers, is totally, 100%, preventable! quote] My God - I'm actually in agreement with Eric about something - :) So true, so true. It's just like Breast Cancer. The #1 Cancer killer of women is Lung cancer, but it gets a measly percentage of the research money that Breast Cancer research gets. Same thing with AIDS - amazing that everytime you turn around someone is screaming for more funding for "Education" about AIDS around the world, and free drugs for everyone - all so some African can live a few years longer to infect a few hundred other people. Disgusting.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 7:31:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2002 7:39:09 AM EDT by Reactionary]
[cyndielaupervoice] I see your true colors shining through [/cyndielaupervoice] Lott certainly has a constitutional right to say what he thinks. His opponents have the right to make a big deal about it. And his constituents have the right to vote his ass out for being stupid.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 7:35:51 AM EDT
Boy, the Republicans sure know how to do a number on their own folks, all right! [b]And so do we![/b] By even saying that what Lott said might be wrong, we play into the DEMO's hands! Just a verse from the Good Book for this phenomenon: [b]Zechariah 13:6[/b] And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, [b]Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.[/b] Not bad, eh? Eric The(Scriptural)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 7:39:37 AM EDT
Much ado about nothing.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 9:07:44 AM EDT
Srom Thurmond was about segregation. His party, the Dixiecrats was about segregation. His quotes about blacks at the time are on record. Most of his supporters were white hooded thugs & terrorists. To pretend that Trent Lott was speaking about anything other than segregation is disingenous at the very least. Fortunately there are only a few more thousand weak, irregular heartbeats and Mr. Thurmond starts his ride to hell.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 9:17:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 9:22:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Reactionary: And his constituents have the right to vote his ass out for being stupid.
View Quote
This is where you are wrong. Senators are NOT national leaders. They are representatives of a state. His consituants vote for him because he represents their feelings. The people of Mississippi feel the same way as Sen. Lott for the most part. You recall the statewide referendum on the Confederate flag? Guess what? The flag was supported by the majority. The same thing would have happened here in South Carolina if left up to the people.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 9:43:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By VoodooChile: Srom Thurmond was about segregation. His party, the Dixiecrats was about segregation. His quotes about blacks at the time are on record. Most of his supporters were white hooded thugs & terrorists. To pretend that Trent Lott was speaking about anything other than segregation is disingenous at the very least.
View Quote
First, that's 'Strom' Thurmond, you may wish to get the name correct since you are apparently sending him to hell! [:D] Second, so what? Segregation was as much about States Rights as anything else. We see how well integration went over in South Boston, Massachusetts, and other 'sophisticated' places, when it was tried there! [b]I love States Rights[/b], and so will you when some foolhardy state decides to recognize same-sex marriage! At least I hope you will. If we left it up to the pinheads in Washington DC, we'd all be under the thumb of some pencil-necked geek in some gray office building somewhere inside the Beltway. You think that POS would permit some states to have Class 3 and others not? BULLSHIT! [b]State Rights then, States Rights now, States Rights forever![/b] Can I get an [i][b]Amen[/b][/i] for that, Church?
Fortunately there are only a few more thousand weak, irregular heartbeats and Mr. Thurmond starts his ride to hell.
View Quote
That's doubtful. From what I understand, he's a Christian. He will be forgiven of whatever sins the Lord may hold against him, notwithstanding the prayers of the NAACP, the Urban League, and some doofus pricks scattered throughout the Country! Eric The(Forgiven)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:02:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Second, so what? Segregation was as much about States Rights as anything else. We see how well integration went over in South Boston, Massachusetts, and other 'sophisticated' places, when it was tried there! [b]I love States Rights[/b], and so will you when some foolhardy state decides to recognize same-sex marriage! At least I hope you will. If we left it up to the pinheads in Washington DC, we'd all be under the thumb of some pencil-necked geek in some gray office building somewhere inside the Beltway. You think that POS would permit some states to have Class 3 and others not? BULLSHIT! [b]State Rights then, States Rights now, States Rights forever![/b] Can I get an [i][b]Amen[/b][/i] for that, Church?
Fortunately there are only a few more thousand weak, irregular heartbeats and Mr. Thurmond starts his ride to hell.
View Quote
That's doubtful. From what I understand, he's a Christian. He will be forgiven of whatever sins the Lord may hold against him, notwithstanding the prayers of the NAACP, the Urban League, and some doofus pricks scattered throughout the Country! Eric The(Forgiven)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Thanks for catching the typo, Too bad you missed the rest of my argument. It wasn't about States' Rights. It was about the rights of individuals to vote, eat in certain diners, live where they want etc. You know, the things you get to do whenever you want. Ol' Strom believed that some Americans shouldn't be allowed that. Hell I don't want my guns taken away either but I'm not ready to sacifice other Americans rights to walk on the friggin sidewalk!
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:13:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Greywolf2112: You know, this whole debate over Lott has pissed me off - know why? Because NO ONE has gotten it right. Lott never said "We wish Strom had been elected President because of his stand on Segregation!" - what he and many others were in favor of was Strom's views on STATES RIGHTS! It had nothing to do with segregation, racial issues, etc. It had everything to do with a number of men who saw the onerous federalism that was starting to rev up and take away many rights of the states guaranteed by the 10th amendment. You know, things like gun control laws, public school policy, health care, pensions, work rules, highways, etc. Hell, I thought at least SOME of you all here were in favor of a more strict and constitutionalist interpretation our Constitution. Was I wrong? On a personal note, I never did care for Lott myself, but that had everything to do with his lack of backbone, not his views on issues. We need someone who isn't afraid to tell it like it is on our core values, including the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, I see exactly what is happening here. The Demos can't attack Bush because he is likable and popular. So they've been lying in wait for someone to do something or say something that they can grab onto and use against the Republican Part. And due to misinterpration and mis-reporting of his words, Lott is now the new "Newt Gingrich" - the new enemy. Unfortunately, Lott is NO Newt Gingrich. At least Gingrich had balls and wouldn't back down. I predict Lott will resign as Majority Senate Leader - if not, be prepared for a constant stream of invective to be launched against him over the next 2 years. And that will keep him hogtied and afraid to push a conservative agenda, which will include him probably caving on the AWB sunset.
View Quote
Bravo! Well said Greywolf!
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:16:13 AM EDT
Originally by Gun-fan: This is where you are wrong. Senators are NOT national leaders. They are representatives of a state. His consituants vote for him because he represents their feelings. The people of Mississippi feel the same way as Sen. Lott for the most part. You recall the statewide referendum on the Confederate flag? Guess what? The flag was supported by the majority. The same thing would have happened here in South Carolina if left up to the people.
View Quote
So where was I wrong? His constituents have the right to vote him out of office, no? They may choose not to, Mississippi has done stranger things (witness voting for Strom Thurmond in a presidential election).
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:20:19 AM EDT
Typical reaction from the libs. They are expressing a whole lot of righteous indignation over Lott's comments, but there was not a peep from this crowd after Bird (D) WV a former member of the KKK used the word nigger. ARH
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:28:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2002 10:28:53 AM EDT by Reactionary]
Originally by ARH: Typical reaction from the libs. They are expressing a whole lot of righteous indignation over Lott's comments, but there was not a peep from this crowd after Bird (D) WV a former member of the KKK used the word nigger.
View Quote
Too true, but that Byrd guy is one scary looking dude. If satan showed up on Earth, I think he would look something like him. I wouldn't make nasty comments about him either (except for the above [;)]).
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 11:05:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Reactionary:
So where was I wrong? His constituents have the right to vote him out of office, no? They may choose not to, Mississippi has done stranger things (witness voting for Strom Thurmond in a presidential election).
View Quote
You are not wrong. They do have the right to vote him out. They won't, but they have the right to.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 11:36:37 AM EDT
From EricTheHun: F*** political correctness!
View Quote
If you really meant that, you would have said: "Fuck political correctness!"
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 11:46:49 AM EDT
Here is the choice. Make Lott step down and the Dems will run campaign ads that claim the head of the Senate Republicans was a racist. Not a good choice. Make Lott explain over and over again his reference was to state's rights and not segregation and Dems will keep the issue in the spotlight lacking any substantive policy besides class warfare. Not a great choice but better.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 12:28:04 PM EDT
It may be that Trent Lott was referring to states rights rather than segregation and Jim Crow. However, I doubt it. His record seems clear: [url]www.nationalreview.com/george/george121002.asp[/url] I should point out that National Review is a conservative publication. I support states' rights, but they cannot be abused to systematically oppress individuals or groups of individuals. Yet that is exactly what was done in the Jim Crow era, using the excuse of states' rights, forcing the federal government to step in to secure the basic rights of all its citizens. Don't like the end result? Blame the federal government, sure, but also blame the bigots who wrapped themselves in the flag of states' rights.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:29:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: [b]State Rights then, States Rights now, States Rights forever![/b] Can I get an [i][b]Amen[/b][/i] for that?
View Quote
Amen! This country was founded by 13 [b]independent[/b] states that [b]agreed[/b] to form a Union. Everyone seemed to know that until 'ol Abe Lincoln took it into his hands to change history. ------------------ For the record, I don't think anyone implied that what Lott said was wrong...but it should be agreed that what he said was [i]stupid[/i]. Like it or not, its known that any remark in favor of any white-racist or former racist is a very unwise move...[i]especially for a politician[/i]. He's paying for his stupidity now.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:44:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ckapsl: It may be that Trent Lott was referring to states rights rather than segregation and Jim Crow. However, I doubt it. His record seems clear: [url]www.nationalreview.com/george/george121002.asp[/url] I should point out that National Review is a conservative publication. I support states' rights, but they cannot be abused to systematically oppress individuals or groups of individuals. Yet that is exactly what was done in the Jim Crow era, using the excuse of states' rights, forcing the federal government to step in to secure the basic rights of all its citizens. Don't like the end result? Blame the federal government, sure, but also blame the bigots who wrapped themselves in the flag of states' rights.
View Quote
I wouldn't mind having someone other than Lott, it's just doing it in a way that brings credit rather than discredit.
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 3:24:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARH: Typical reaction from the libs. They are expressing a whole lot of righteous indignation over Lott's comments
View Quote
And look at Bush!! What a feel-good pussy! First his "Islam is warm and fuzzy" speech, and now [url=http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=021212&cat=news&st=newspoliticslottdc]Bush Denounces Lott Remarks as Offensive and Wrong [/url]. He's making me sick. Scott
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 3:36:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ckapsl: However, I doubt it. His record seems clear: [url]www.nationalreview.com/george/george121002.asp[/url] I should point out that National Review is a conservative publication.
View Quote
Oh GASP!! HORRORS! He mentioned Jefferson Davis!!! AND he wrote for some publication!!! OH NO! WHAT a [b]RECORD!!![/b] Two lousy points. Is that all there is? No, really...what trashy writing. Here's a nice emotion-laden but totally irellevant quote from the article:
Perhaps Sen. Lott should ask Alabama-born Condoleezza Rice — whose childhood friends were killed in a church bombing — if she believes her life would have been better if Strom Thurmond had become president.
View Quote
Crappy, liberal journalism at it's best. Scott
Top Top