Yay!:)
Good news!
Indeed!
Has he been replaced or will they hold a vote? Not sure how that part works. I think they have to hold a vote.
--Scourge .
Printable View
Yay!:)
Good news!
Indeed!
Has he been replaced or will they hold a vote? Not sure how that part works. I think they have to hold a vote.
--Scourge .
Uh, no. This is what he said, at Mr. Thurmond's 100th birthday party:Quote:
Originally posted by ginaman
Wasn't the original remark Lott made this time just about wishing Thurmond became president back in 1948? Now segregation may have been implied, but he didn't actually say it. Democrats are just whining right now because they are in the biggest fix right now regarding their position in the senate. They want to take anybody down any way possible, even if it comes down to trying to grill somebody over a few words that didn't amount to anything.
Lott probably is a segregationist, or at least like-minded. Big deal. My state's senator is a "former" KKK member, Robert Byrd of WV. Byrd has been in office for as long as I can remember, and nobody complains at him. And also, he's a democrat. Notice nobody whining about him.
Lott isn't going anywhere over these words. If he resigns, he's a big retard.
"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."
The honourable Mr. Thurmond, at the time, ran on a platform demanding the strict separation of black and white in the South. Separate schools and hospitals. Blacks at the back of the bus. "On the question of social intermingling of the races, our people draw the line," Mr. Thurmond told a crowd in Jackson, Miss. "And all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches, and our places of recreation and amusement."
If you think that's "grilling over a few words that didn't amount to anything", then you need to have your head checked. This isn't the "left wing media" (a conspiracy which doesn't exist - see Murdoch, Rupert) "whining". This is a guy getting up and saying "if only everyone had voted to keep segregation and deny the black man civil rights, everything would have been fine".
I sincerely hope that's not the type of sentiment you want found at the top of your country's government.
Duh... I already knew all this. I didn't mention anything of a conspiracy. I merely said the democrats are pissed that they have lost the senate majority. Misery loves company, so right now they will try to construe everything they can to bring a repubican down. There is no higher level to it.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
Uh, no. This is what he said, at Mr. Thurmond's 100th birthday party:
"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."
The honourable Mr. Thurmond, at the time, ran on a platform demanding the strict separation of black and white in the South. Separate schools and hospitals. Blacks at the back of the bus. "On the question of social intermingling of the races, our people draw the line," Mr. Thurmond told a crowd in Jackson, Miss. "And all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches, and our places of recreation and amusement."
If you think that's "grilling over a few words that didn't amount to anything", then you need to have your head checked. This isn't the "left wing media" (a conspiracy which doesn't exist - see Murdoch, Rupert) "whining". This is a guy getting up and saying "if only everyone had voted to keep segregation and deny the black man civil rights, everything would have been fine".
I sincerely hope that's not the type of sentiment you want found at the top of your country's government.
As for people with segregationist feelings ruling our land, I live under it in my state. You can't be openly racist these days due to laws. So what is the big deal over somebody who feels that way? Our system of government keeps that line of thought in check for the most part. I certainly feel Lott is entitled to his own thoughts, right or wrong. What he said at a party, which again, he didn't actually outright say he wanted blacks seperated from whites, shouldn't amount to a hill of beans.
But he is certainly a retard for stepping down.
To say that there isn't bias in the media towards the left is simply inane. Where are the outcries in the press for Robert Byrds resignation? I would think being a member of the KKK as well as having made so many of the racist comments he has would at least bring some outrage by some major news organizations.
"There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much." - Robert Byrd (March 2001).
He wrote "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union." - Robert Byrd (Three years after he claimed he ended his ties with the KKK).
He said he joined the KKK because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values.".
He also wrote that he would never fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
He also filibustered for more than 14 hours the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. An act supported by a majority of those so called "mean-spirited" Republicans.
Classy guy eh? No wonder the majority of the press isn't coming against him, those comments are nowhere near Trent Lott's... No, really...
As has been pointed out before, "In the 1992 presidential election, a mere 43 percent of Americans voted for Bill Clinton. That same year, 89 percent of Washington bureau chiefs and reporters voted for Clinton. Only 7 percent voted for George Bush.", "A higher percentage of the Washington press corps voted for Clinton in 1992 than did this demographic category: "Registered Democrats."". That is just one point among many that illustrates the inherent bias towards liberalism that is in the news media today. It isn't a "conspiracy", it is bias.
As much as I hate to bring this up...you mean like the Republicans did with Clinton? "OMG, he got a blow job and DIDN'T TELL THE WORLD!" They're a party in opposition. It's their job to oppose, and unlike the Clinton thing this actually has political ramifications because...Quote:
Originally posted by mrbogus
Duh... I already knew all this. I didn't mention anything of a conspiracy. I merely said the democrats are pissed that they have lost the senate majority. Misery loves company, so right now they will try to construe everything they can to bring a repubican down. There is no higher level to it.
...it's more than just his "thoughts", it's affected how he's voted on issues over the years. From today's edition of the Globe and Mail:Quote:
]
As for people with segregationist feelings ruling our land, I live under it in my state. You can't be openly racist these days due to laws. So what is the big deal over somebody who feels that way? Our system of government keeps that line of thought in check for the most part. I certainly feel Lott is entitled to his own thoughts, right or wrong. What he said at a party, which again, he didn't actually outright say he wanted blacks seperated from whites, shouldn't amount to a hill of beans.
In his early days in Washington, he worked for Rep. William Colmer, a Mississippi Democrat who had once advocated segregation and continued to oppose civil-rights legislation. In 1982, he voted against the Voting Rights Act, which gave Washington the power to monitor southern elections to avoid practices that might disenfranchise blacks. In 1999, he faced questioning over his ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a descendant of the racist White Citizens' Council of the 1960s.
This in addition to his voting against creating Martin Luther King jr. day because he "didn't fully understand" Dr. King's importance in American life".
He said "I voted for a guy who ran on a platform based on segregation, and I'm proud of it." How does that somehow not count?Quote:
by what he said at a party, which again, he didn't actually outright say he wanted blacks seperated from whites, shouldn't amount to a hill of beans.
I have a very strong feeling it was a save-face maneuver - he was "allowed" to step down.Quote:
But he is certainly a retard for stepping down.
That's absolutely vile. On the other hand, one Robert Byrd vs. Lott, Helms and Thurmond still puts the republicans ahead in the "getting away with crypto-Nazis" category. Still, you're right. More should be said, and maybe now it will be.Quote:
Originally posted by Teenwolf
To say that there isn't bias in the media towards the left is simply inane. Where are the outcries in the press for Robert Byrds resignation? I would think being a member of the KKK as well as having made so many of the racist comments he has would at least bring some outrage by some major news organizations.
"There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much." - Robert Byrd (March 2001).
He wrote "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union." - Robert Byrd (Three years after he claimed he ended his ties with the KKK).
He said he joined the KKK because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values.".
He also wrote that he would never fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
He also filibustered for more than 14 hours the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. An act supported by a majority of those so called "mean-spirited" Republicans.
Classy guy eh? No wonder the majority of the press isn't coming against him, those comments are nowhere near Trent Lott's... No, really...
1. How the hell do you accurately compile stats like that?Quote:
As has been pointed out before, "In the 1992 presidential election, a mere 43 percent of Americans voted for Bill Clinton. That same year, 89 percent of Washington bureau chiefs and reporters voted for Clinton. Only 7 percent voted for George Bush.", "A higher percentage of the Washington press corps voted for Clinton in 1992 than did this demographic category: "Registered Democrats."". That is just one point among many that illustrates the inherent bias towards liberalism that is in the news media today. It isn't a "conspiracy", it is bias.
2. Is it impossible that they felt he had the stronger platform? Obviously the majority of voters at large did as well that election.
3. Even still, how does one election determine a widespread ongoing bias?
4. Voting patterns do not indicate an actual bias towards reporting - the political tone of major media outlets is decided more by their audience and owner's particular leanings than it is the hired help.
Well, I called it; he stepped down. How am I not surprised. Judging by his original words, I'm not sure if he's a racist of just a stupid white guy.
Let me elabortate.
There are tons of people I know who aren't racist. They've been born and bred with the anti-racism schpeel. The thing is, regardless, they end up saying some stupidly racist (whether explicitly or implicity) comments. Do they mean it? Not really. mostly because they have no clue what they've just said and can't imagine what it sounds like from the P.O.V. of the person who said it.
I'm kinda curious if Lott just fucked up, but fucked big, because of the situation. For whatever reason I can't imagine a racist making such a comment and back-peddling so quickly. But mostly, this opinion stems from the dumb-asses I know, so whatev.
I am always amazed at leftists seeming inability to acknowledge or even understand the concept that Clinton committed perjury and suborned perjury among other things. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX. People have been convicted of committing perjury about sexual acts. Congress had the legal and moral right and duty to impeach Clinton, he degraded the office through his illegal actions and showed that he had no honor.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
As much as I hate to bring this up...you mean like the Republicans did with Clinton? "OMG, he got a blow job and DIDN'T TELL THE WORLD!" They're a party in opposition. It's their job to oppose, and unlike the Clinton thing this actually has political ramifications because...
...it's more than just his "thoughts", it's affected how he's voted on issues over the years. From today's edition of the Globe and Mail:
In his early days in Washington, he worked for Rep. William Colmer, a Mississippi Democrat who had once advocated segregation and continued to oppose civil-rights legislation. In 1982, he voted against the Voting Rights Act, which gave Washington the power to monitor southern elections to avoid practices that might disenfranchise blacks. In 1999, he faced questioning over his ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a descendant of the racist White Citizens' Council of the 1960s.
This in addition to his voting against creating Martin Luther King jr. day because he "didn't fully understand" Dr. King's importance in American life".
He said "I voted for a guy who ran on a platform based on segregation, and I'm proud of it." How does that somehow not count?
I have a very strong feeling it was a save-face maneuver - he was "allowed" to step down.
That's absolutely vile. On the other hand, one Robert Byrd vs. Lott, Helms and Thurmond still puts the republicans ahead in the "getting away with crypto-Nazis" category. Still, you're right. More should be said, and maybe now it will be.
1. How the hell do you accurately compile stats like that?
2. Is it impossible that they felt he had the stronger platform? Obviously the majority of voters at large did as well that election.
3. Even still, how does one election determine a widespread ongoing bias?
4. Voting patterns do not indicate an actual bias towards reporting - the political tone of major media outlets is decided more by their audience and owner's particular leanings than it is the hired help.
So he worked for a democrat that once advocated segregation and who opposed civil rights legislation? Who cares, where are the outcries against Robert Byrd from this same paper? There are none... And maybe you don't realize this but many of our current politicians have to deal with people who have differing opinions than their own. It is illogical to assume or imply that simply because he worked for someone he then took on all that persons beliefs, or that he went to work for them simply because they held similiar views to his own. The Voting Rights Act was only amended in 1982, and there were many people who had differing views on proportional voting, that doesn't make you racist... "The problem with the 1982 legislation was that a key provision fundamentally changed the purpose of the original 1965 Act from supporting equal access to the polling booth for all persons, regardless of race, to attempting to guarantee proportional racial representation among elected officials. The debate on the 1982 Amendments was essentially whether civil rights legislation should guarantee equal opportunity or equal results.". I am against the changes for the same reason I am against affirmative action, and it goes directly against what Martin Luther King Jr himself proposed. As for the creation of Martin Luther King Jr day, I would be opposed to it. There are many more people who are much more deserving of a national day of recognition. We should lose the day for Lincoln and make it a Thomas Jefferson day. He did far more for this country than MLK Jr and Lincoln combined. Who cares what Lott's intent was, it is clearly the republicans who are forcing him out and clearly it is the wishes of almost all republicans and conservatives that he do so with dignity.
Jesse Helms? Please elaborate on the racist views he has proposed or supported.. Please don't even bother responding if you are talking about his comments about homosexuality, he has the right to make those comments and he does so based on his set of beliefs.
1. The poll was a Roper poll. "Another study conducted by Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter in 1979 through 1980 surveyed the views of journalists from the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, the three commercial television networks and public television (PBS), among others. The study concluded that journalists were skeptical of "traditional American institutions" and "well to the left of business elites."".
2. The major newspapers and news organizations decide to support certain candidates. Guess how long it has been since the NYT supported a Republican candidate? Can you say 50 years?... This is the same thing that has happened all over the mass media, they support liberals/leftists because they themselves are oriented that way.
3. One election doesn't prove anything. This is the same kind of attitude against conservatives and republicans that has been displayed for at least the past 50 years though.
4. They do indicate a bias in reporting, wth do you think they are supporting the candidates on? They support them on ideological grounds. You actually think "the political tone of major media outlets is decided more by their audience and owner's particular leanings than it is the hired help."? That is quite naïve. Try reading Propaganda by Jacques Ellul and Slander by Ann Coulter.
And Kyo with the rebuttal...
What bothers me is everyone is making a big deal out of this BUT NOT making a big deal out of the fact Strom Thurmond was in our government so long.
Thanks for bringing that up IronPlant, term limits are another needed check and balances needed in our government. :D