Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Please don't cry, Dave. I?m an extremely sensitive person and I would feel terrible. I'll confess, if you don't cry. You guys were claiming there's no racism in Lott's comment and I thought to my self, what's with that, are these guys color blind, can't they see racism when it's obvious. How ridiculous is that? So I decided to see. I started calling everybody in sight every RACIAL EPETHET I could think of and not one person called me a racist. So yea, you guys just might be blind enough not to see what Lott is.
The veterans of the Moonbeam wars are cagey, but not cagey enough.
I don't think you'll find here or in any of the trillion other threads on this topic anywhere where I've defended Lott. On the contrary I've said very clearly that I think he should resign but I stopped short of calling him a racist or a bigot because of a lack of proof. His voting record doesn't prove it even when coupled with this latest birthday gaffe, IMAO. Labeling someone a racist or a bigot is a serious charge and irrefutable proof is required. No one here has bothered to find this proof and as far as I know I am the only one who has checked the Congressional record and linked to some of what I have found. Lott in no case voted alone on any of the issues that are being spewed forth here and elsewhere and in many cases the list of like minded Senators was long and distinguished. What motivated Lott to vote the way he did either has to be taken from the Congressional record as truth or it is purely speculation, barring a statement by Lott to the contrary.
As far as not being cagey enough, don't kid yourself. Giving you a PDF document longer than 5 pages to prove or refute any point very quickly ends any discussion with you.
Hehe, well you're right about the PDF document and, but, I'm sort of a pioneer in the business of informing people they can't really know what somebody else is thinking. You should see, though, that just as it's ridiculous to say as an absolute fact that Lott does still harbor racial prejudice as it is to blather on about how it was a slip of the tongue, thoughtless praise of an old man. And if anybody nails him for it, it will be the Republicans. Remember, too, it beats focusing on political reform of campaign financing, money in politics, the economy, etc, you know, the important stuff.
I'm sort of a pioneer in the business of informing people they can't really know what somebody else is thinking.
It's never stopped you before from making judgements on all of mankind.
You should see, though, that just as it's ridiculous to say as an absolute fact that Lott does still harbor racial prejudice as it is to blather on about how it was a slip of the tongue, thoughtless praise of an old man.
So why was such a big deal made out of what he said by some posters on this board? Did they know what his intent was? They sure sounded sure of themselves.
Since I doubt that any of us have actually met the man, let's go to the words of someone that has.
"The fact of the matter is he was conducting a birthday party for a man that had reached the age of 100 and was giving him his due," said Walter Scott, who is black and the owner of a computer firm in Jackson, Miss. "That's all it was about. I've known Trent Lott for 25 years. ... He's not a racist and he's done a lot for this state.
And if anybody nails him for it, it will be the Republicans.
True and for two reasons. The even more conservative wing wants Lott out because he has been willing to compromise with the democrats and second, the Republicans know that the democrats will keep whispering about this one incident for years. They will use it to say that all Republicans are racist , even though you agree that this one statement means nothing, it won't stop the democrats from trying to use it. Look at the slathering dogs it brought out on this board.
Remember, too, it beats focusing on political reform of campaign financing, money in politics, the economy, etc, you know, the important stuff.
That's why it doesn't surprise me the dems made such a big deal out of it.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Please don't cry, Dave. I?m an extremely sensitive person and I would feel terrible. I'll confess, if you don't cry. You guys were claiming there's no racism in Lott's comment and I thought to my self, what's with that, are these guys color blind, can't they see racism when it's obvious. How ridiculous is that? So I decided to see. I started calling everybody in sight every RACIAL EPETHET I could think of and not one person called me a racist. So yea, you guys just might be blind enough not to see what Lott is.
The veterans of the Moonbeam wars are cagey, but not cagey enough.
I don't think you'll find here or in any of the trillion other threads on this topic anywhere where I've defended Lott. On the contrary I've said very clearly that I think he should resign but I stopped short of calling him a racist or a bigot because of a lack of proof. His voting record doesn't prove it even when coupled with this latest birthday gaffe, IMAO. Labeling someone a racist or a bigot is a serious charge and irrefutable proof is required. No one here has bothered to find this proof and as far as I know I am the only one who has checked the Congressional record and linked to some of what I have found. Lott in no case voted alone on any of the issues that are being spewed forth here and elsewhere and in many cases the list of like minded Senators was long and distinguished. What motivated Lott to vote the way he did either has to be taken from the Congressional record as truth or it is purely speculation, barring a statement by Lott to the contrary.
As far as not being cagey enough, don't kid yourself. Giving you a PDF document longer than 5 pages to prove or refute any point very quickly ends any discussion with you.
What would be enough proof for you Dave? Can you give an example? I admit, I'm making an inferance based on what has been going on in the paper/news and then was posted in a couple threads now. Too me his comment about Strom in and of itself was'nt that big of a deal until coupled with everything else which is now comming to light. We just have a different opinon on what consititues proof.
what are you talking about? he has said repeatedly that the words he chose werent sensitive to african americans and he was sorry. when has he ever blamed this on the media? and it is the medias fault for giving this non issue so much coverage. cover the issues please.
?
lott probably didnt even realize at the time that part of strom thurmonds platform was segregation when he ran in '48. you have absolutely no basis for what you said
Can you prove that Lott's intentions are to hinder minorities? Did Lott vote to hinder minorities every chance that he had in the Congress? The answers to both of those questions are no so he get's the benefit of the doubt from me. I took your post in the other thread and checked it against the Congressional record and posted what I found and some links. You didn't even bother to respond and probably didn't even bother to look at what I linked. No big deal, I'm not trying to change anyones mind, I'm just trying to present all the facts and hope people will make judgements based on that and not just headlines or what some talking head tells them to think. I clearly stated my opinion about the Senator in the other thread so I won't repeat it here.
I know I shouldn't say it but even a law grad from Mississippi should have some mastery of the English language. A law grad and a career politician should be able to communicate terms of endearment and reverence on Satan without endorsing his evil nature.
Facts: 1) Strom was a racist Democrat. 2) He left the Dems and ran as a third party candidate on a segregationist platform. 3) He lost and switched to being a racist Republican. 4) Don't shoot me, Moonbeam, classy, et al but Strom was a Progressive. He leaves the Senate right of center but on issues of race he admitted his past wrongs and has been one of the better advocates for civil rights (except for homosexuals and immigrants) in the GOP.
5) There's absolutely nothing redeeming about Strom's run for president in 1948. NOTHING. But his transformation from race baiting hick to progressive (albeit absent minded) is fantastic.
In my opinion, Lott could point to the distinguished service of Strom in the Senate. He could beam about Strom's evolution from racist to statesman for all of South Carolina. In 1980, he could have said the Strom of 1980 would make a great president but a youngster from CA beat him to it. Let's be honest, if Lott truly admired Thurmond's laudable achievements . . . they should either roll off the tongue or be easy to jot down.
Lott was not sincere in his initial "explanations". When he admitted to being insensitive (FRI) to the feelings/memories of our racist past . . . that was a speechwriter not him. Bush says all kinds of stuff b/c he's not very erudite. Lott's not the brightest mind from Mississippi but he's no GWB. The man can carry an idea . . . not very far . . . or with any real clarity but he's got a clue. His opposition to censuring the CCC for racist positions cannot be defended.
But if we are going to ask open (Byrd) and closet racists (Lott, Hollings) to resign from leadership positions I would have to disagree. I think they just need a party to call their own. The GOP and Dems can both be Big Tent without allowing such people to operate within their midst.
DS, Moonie, classy . . . can't we all just get along. You guys whine/bitch like schoolchildren . . . nevermind they use better language . . .
LOL. Your just mad cause I am not afraid to speak out. According to you everytime any minority speaks out agaisnt racism they have to be racist as well. Well just for your info. I am interracially married. 2 of my best friends are white. And I recently made a new close friend who is chinese. I could care less what color a person is. But racism is racism. No matter how small or how great. It also doesn't matter who calls attention to it either. I speak heavily about Farrakhan just like I do any other racist whether he be white or black. Lets jst say you are a "typical" person who doesn't like uppity blacks. Cause in your heart you think I am not as good as you. All your posts is always anti black this or that. Well did it ever occur to you there are very legimate outcrys of racism? But your nothing but a class A student of Lott, Hatch, Byrd, and Thurmond. You probably would have loved for Thurmond to win, huh?
And lets put all this Thurmond or Lott champion of civil rights stuff to bed. Both for more than 40 years have voted AGAINST every major civil rights bill. Every last one. It has been talked about on CNN, MSNBC, and written about in every major newspaper across the country. So if they have done anything to further equality in anyway, they must have done it in secret. Cause they damn sure haven't done it in congress. Thurmond may said he was wrong with his mouth, but thats it. These men are racists. Plain and simple. You can make every excuse in the book. You blame any media or any minority. But it doesn't change the fact that these men have lived as racists all their born lives. They have been openly racist in years past and have backed up their feelings with their political votes since then. Now you can whine till the people in the next universe hears you about him not being racist. But show me one peice of evidence he isn't. He was a racist then and there is no proof over more than 40 YEARS that he still is not a racist.
Make that small 'p' progressive compared to some of his GOP brethren and donkey brains like Byrd.
You know, I saw this thread several times over the past few days, and yet when I saw it to day, for some reason, I thought it said "rant on the LOTR comments"
Is Kami contagious or something?
Is Kami contagious or something?
Wrong! I posted links in the other thread that shows that is complete and utter bullsh!t. You really need to quit letting other people tell you how to think and start doing your own research.
Hmm, maybe my memory is failing me, but was there near this much uproar two marches ago when Byrd used the n-word TWICE in an interview?
I hope Lott stays. He'll help the Dems raise money. Kinda like Hillary for the Republicans.
I do think that Republicans realize that, so Lott is probably a goner.
I do think that Republicans realize that, so Lott is probably a goner.
Miramonti
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2000
- 28,653
- 100
- 106
While Lott was never the sole member of congress to vote against several civil rights issues, I wonder if you'll find someone else currently in congress with a worse overall track record of showing insensitivities to race issues, including events in as well as out of congress.
maybe instead of going off on lott minorities should quit robbing, raping and murdering so lott wouldn't have to feel the way he does
classy gets points albeit this includes all kinds of civil rights
A good summary of the only rationale link between history and what Lott said in 1980 and 2002
Granted if you believe Lott he wasn't talking about history. IMHO if someone from your party spends 5 decades in the Senate but doesn't have anything worth recognizing . . . your party doesn't stand for much (of worth).
To refute the BS
For every Strom Thurmond, that is, the south produces a Lyndon Johnson. And for all the screaming, kicking, and fighting that took place, it was Johnson, a born-and-bred Southerner, who brought civil rights to the courtrooms and schoolrooms and voting halls of America.
In 1954 Strom Thurmond masterminded the so-called "Sounthern Manifesto", more formally entitled "Declaration of Constitutional Principles". The Manifesto argued, essentially, that the Civil Rights actions ordered by the Supreme Court were unconstitutional and part of a communist-inspired subversion of America. Only three southern senators refused to sign the Manifesto: Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, long regarded as a maverick by Deep South senators; Albert Gore, Sr. also of Tennessee, who said the Manifesto was "a dangerous, deceptive propaganda move which encouraged Southerners to defy the government and disobey its laws"; and Lyndon Johnson.
In 1965 Lyndon Johnson gave a commencement address at Howard University. He said there what he had long believed:
"You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race, then say, you're free to compete with all the others.... Much of the Negro community is buried under a blanket of history and circumstance. It is not a lasting solution to lift just one corner of the blanket."
To be from Mississippi and do absolutely nothing (as a legislator) is a de facto admission of apathy if not disdain for people of color. By Lott's own admission he didn't think much about segregation until it became an issue for his fraternity . . . then he became an advocate. He graduated from law school and then worked for an advocate. Although his openly racist uncle initially signed Lott up with the Council of Conservative Citizens Lott was proud of the association until the public was made aware of its philosophy. Furthermore, Lott was opposed to a simple resolution to condemn the CCC's racist ideology.
Thurmond has changed Lott looks ugly
It took him a long time, but the big change for Thurmond was his vote for the extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982. He was fully on board for civil rights. I don?t know if Trent Lott ever made such a speech.?
In the 1980s, Lott voted against extending the Voting Rights Act and against establishing Martin Luther King Day as a federal holiday. On the Voting Rights Act, in 1981, he was one of 17 Republicans and seven Democrats, including most of the Virginia delegation, voting against extending that law, which struck down obstacles between minorities and polling places. In 1983, Lott joined 97 other House members, most of them Republicans, in opposing the King holiday, including then-Reps. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).
In both cases, Thurmond voted in favor.
Dave, I understand your perspective but where there's smoke there's fire or at least smoldering ashes. I'm not calling Lott a racist. But he cannot stand behind "fear of the feds" or "defense of the Constitution" as justification for all of his votes/actions. He is absolutely free to associate with whomever he wishes . . . but it is disingenous to back away from those associations on moral grounds but refuse to condemn them.
I have no qualm with voting against the MLK holiday. But I would dump a lot of holidays. McCain has legitimate credentials for opposing pork but Lott is pure swine when it comes to wasting our money. Let him explain his opposition to MLK . . . if he says anything about the expense he loses all credibility in my book.
A good summary of the only rationale link between history and what Lott said in 1980 and 2002
Granted if you believe Lott he wasn't talking about history. IMHO if someone from your party spends 5 decades in the Senate but doesn't have anything worth recognizing . . . your party doesn't stand for much (of worth).
To refute the BS
For every Strom Thurmond, that is, the south produces a Lyndon Johnson. And for all the screaming, kicking, and fighting that took place, it was Johnson, a born-and-bred Southerner, who brought civil rights to the courtrooms and schoolrooms and voting halls of America.
In 1954 Strom Thurmond masterminded the so-called "Sounthern Manifesto", more formally entitled "Declaration of Constitutional Principles". The Manifesto argued, essentially, that the Civil Rights actions ordered by the Supreme Court were unconstitutional and part of a communist-inspired subversion of America. Only three southern senators refused to sign the Manifesto: Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, long regarded as a maverick by Deep South senators; Albert Gore, Sr. also of Tennessee, who said the Manifesto was "a dangerous, deceptive propaganda move which encouraged Southerners to defy the government and disobey its laws"; and Lyndon Johnson.
In 1965 Lyndon Johnson gave a commencement address at Howard University. He said there what he had long believed:
"You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race, then say, you're free to compete with all the others.... Much of the Negro community is buried under a blanket of history and circumstance. It is not a lasting solution to lift just one corner of the blanket."
To be from Mississippi and do absolutely nothing (as a legislator) is a de facto admission of apathy if not disdain for people of color. By Lott's own admission he didn't think much about segregation until it became an issue for his fraternity . . . then he became an advocate. He graduated from law school and then worked for an advocate. Although his openly racist uncle initially signed Lott up with the Council of Conservative Citizens Lott was proud of the association until the public was made aware of its philosophy. Furthermore, Lott was opposed to a simple resolution to condemn the CCC's racist ideology.
Thurmond has changed Lott looks ugly
It took him a long time, but the big change for Thurmond was his vote for the extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982. He was fully on board for civil rights. I don?t know if Trent Lott ever made such a speech.?
In the 1980s, Lott voted against extending the Voting Rights Act and against establishing Martin Luther King Day as a federal holiday. On the Voting Rights Act, in 1981, he was one of 17 Republicans and seven Democrats, including most of the Virginia delegation, voting against extending that law, which struck down obstacles between minorities and polling places. In 1983, Lott joined 97 other House members, most of them Republicans, in opposing the King holiday, including then-Reps. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).
In both cases, Thurmond voted in favor.
Dave, I understand your perspective but where there's smoke there's fire or at least smoldering ashes. I'm not calling Lott a racist. But he cannot stand behind "fear of the feds" or "defense of the Constitution" as justification for all of his votes/actions. He is absolutely free to associate with whomever he wishes . . . but it is disingenous to back away from those associations on moral grounds but refuse to condemn them.
I have no qualm with voting against the MLK holiday. But I would dump a lot of holidays. McCain has legitimate credentials for opposing pork but Lott is pure swine when it comes to wasting our money. Let him explain his opposition to MLK . . . if he says anything about the expense he loses all credibility in my book.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter