| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
not because of his statement, Not because I think he is racist, BECAUSE I DON't Not because I think he is a dead weight to the republican party, even though he will be. As far as the latest remark he made at Thurmond's birthday, he just did not think very well before he spoke. But because he SUCKS as the GOP leader in the Senate. |
What about his close ties to White Supremacist groups? Sure he severed them after he was called on it. So? Maybe he didn't think well before he accepted those folks support. |
|
OK, lets take a look. What were his words? "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" He was referring to the 1948 Campaign (Lott was 7 at the time). History lesson: When Thurmon was running under a Segregationist Ticket in 1948 he was running as, hang on to your hats, a DEMOCRAT. You know what Thurmon's campaign slogan was in 1948? States Rights. Look it up. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lott rallied to keep blacks out of his frat. Which is worse? Denying civil rights to everyone, or not letting someone join a private fraternity? What about KKK Byrd II? Jesus. Look, I say get rid of him. In my opinion he buckled in 98 and has been worthless since then. This gaffe was just his latest in a long line of failures. But if you think for a minute I am going to site here and listen to anymore of this bullshit old stereotype horseshit about republicans and conservatives being bigots and racist, you need to have your head examined. How many minorities did Clinton select for cabinet posts? How many minorities were selected durring clinton's term? you going to tell me there were no fully qualified canidates for those positions at the time? The dems are using the minorities for votes, but never come through. Who's the real racist? The one who makes a stupid remark at a 100 year old man's birthday party, or someone who strings a group of people along and never follows through? And spends a lot of time pointing the blaming finger at the republicans? |
that strom bit about states rights is deceptive. in '48, when the dixiecrats talked about states rights they were talking specifically about segregation. that was the one plank platform strom ran on. lott can apologize all he wants, but what do they say about putting horseshit back in the horse? when reagan supported and strom voted for extending the voters protection act, lott voted against it. yes, lott needs to resign as majority lead. the dems are licking their chops and hoping to god he doesn't. but lott can't resign completely, because a dem governer sure as hell isn't going to replace him with another repub. they like to point out in the media that bush didn't ask lott to step down. that's politics. but did you hear the emotion in his voice when he denounced lott? that is what i like about bush. |
|
This is just the begining. Nice thing to be preoccupied by when n k and iran is becoming a huge problem, with china and russia following behind |
now, who wants to hear about my period? |
|
|
|
|
|
You have to believe there was no art before federal funding. You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Chinese. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural. You have to be against capital punishment but pro abortion on demand -- in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but pasty, loony activists who've never been outside Seattle do. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars. You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high. You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't. You have to believe conservatives are racists, but that black people couldn't make it without your help. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth should be jailed, but a liar and rapist belongs in the White House. You have to believe that Hillary is actually a lady. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drags, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States. |
Spunky, youse gots some 'splaining to do..... You are one bitter Republican you know that? besides all the homophobic and whiny whitey comments you just spewed. Which, incidently, is just as supremely ignorant as all the examples about Democrats you just spewed. |
|
|
|
"Any such resolution [censuring Lott) would be fully amendable and amendments would be offered based on statements by other members in the other party in the body in recent years," Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell told ABC's "This Week." Sounding taken aback by the warning to Democrats, "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos asked McConnell, "When you say amendments would be offered, what are you talking about?" The Kentucky Republican explained, "There are other members of the Senate who, as you know, have engaged in similar kinds of statements, big mistakes, in recent years and have apologized. Interestingly enough, the apologies have been accepted and we've moved on from that." Asked whether he was referring to specifically to Sen. Byrd's outburst during a March 4, 2001 "Fox News Sunday" interview, where the one-time Ku Klux Klan member referred twice to "white niggers," McConnell suggested that Byrd would be just one of several Democrats who would be targeted for racial censure. "There were several, actually, senators on the other side of the aisle who uttered similar comments, apologized for them and they were accepted. And I think such an amendment would likely be offered, yes," the top Republican said. "If we're going to go down that path," continued McConnell, "there will be amendments offered and we'll have to look at statements others have made in the Senate on a similar subject." I did post that. got it here |
no i'm not. and if he is dumb enough to post something like that (especially something that mentions gay people like that) i'd rather not even know. |
I dont think so. when people say Lott should step down, they mean as Majority Leader not as a Senator. I don't think he should step down as a Senator, just as a majority leader. But then again, I hope he doesnt. I like the fact that the repubs have a dipshit hillbilly bigot as their leader. Let MS deal with the fuckwad they elected. "the dems will continue this policy of destruction to regain majority in the senate." oh and they right didnt lead a path of destruction in the first Clinton term and thereafter? Contract with America? Newt Gingrich? Whitewater? are you fucking kidding me? They dug up anything they COULD to hang the left by the balls. |
They lie to everyone, even themselves. The sooner the minority groups realize they have been duped for the last 4 decades, the better off they are going to be. The democrats have done NOTHING to help the minority groups improve their situation. All the dems have done is given these groups enough to stay right where they are. All the while telling them if they do not vote for the democrats, the evil republicans will take away their wellfare checks, medicade, and food stamps and send them back to where they came from. Which is a complete lie. We have been busting our asses trying to help these groups help themselves. Get themselves out of the traps they are in, give them a way to get a better education (vouchers), which is the only way out of it. Social programs (food, money, housing, medical care) improve nothing. They only serve to keep you where you are. They do not give you an incentive to do better. They give them excuses for the way they live, instead of a way to improve it. But instead, all you have is the democrats fighting with the republicans over who is racist. Most republicans don't have the back bone to point out history. So we get branded as homophobic, racist, nazis, while the dems use the very group they promise to help. Nothing ever changes, the minorities stay impoverished and live under the false belief that they would not even have a roof over their heads if a republican is in charge. Look, conservatives believe in capitalism and free enterprise, correct? What keeps capatilism and free enterprise alive? Consumerism. Spending. How can a group spend money they don't have? If you believe that we are all about big business and money, then put this together for yourself. Which way would benefit a free enterprise system? Where part of the population is in poverty and only an elite few have any money, or a system where most people have money to spend on goods and services? |
i didnt read the rest of your nonsense you lost me with that first line. you have your head so far up right wing ass you can't discern the crap from reality. The Clintons were guilty of no more or less crimes than we could peg on just about every career politican. Bush has his list too. Harken. Enron. Saudi Arabia could very well be Bush's China as they were to Clinton. To act like the Clintons we're guilty of unheard and completely out of the norm "crimes" is idiotic and shortsided of history. To deny they were targets of unprecendented muckraking is just completely idiotic trace. |
Where is this lie? Did he lie about Enron? No. He has been up front about it. He's not out splitting legal hairs about definitions. Give up the line about bush lying, he does not lie. And if your only argument about it is to call me an idiot, then don't bother responding. YOu are buying the typical liberal racial (yes, racial) slurs slung at conservatives. It is stereotyping that is unwaranted. Do some research, like I have. The truth of who is really keeping minorities down will suprise you. No basis for the crap you spew about bush. No basis for calling the republicans racists. No basis for calling the republicans homo-phobic. Back it up or shut up |
Lott saying a nice, if not well thought out, comment about a 100 year old man who served in the senate almost 60 years at his 100th birthday. Oh, and your lack of concern about if a man that cannot keep the most sacred vow he ever takes in his life (wedding vows) seriously, but thinking he can keep his promise to uphold and defend the constitution really shows how much you do care, or how warped you really are. |
oh yes, that was a warm, nice, sweet sentiment Lott was expressing when he said he wished the ancient dixiecrat bigot had won office in 48. That was all warm and cuddly wasnt it. your dick gets hard when you talk about Clinton like that doesnt it? i can't seem to reiterate enough that my attack of Bush is not a defense of clinton. i have stated this how many times trace? you're so on fucking Rush Limbaugh auto pilot that you don't even take a moment to consider anything outside that asshole's agenda (I know how you types love agendas). Seriously..you sound just like Rush, and one of these days im actually gonna tune into that guy and catch you, verbatum. you seem to be unable to think outside of the 'a shot at team A must be support for team B' mentality. What Clinton did as a husband has little to no bearing as to how he ran the country. Just because it doesnt jive with your repressive bible belt ways doesnt mean he wasnt capable of being a good president. He totally fucked up lying before congress....but you know what.....you know what is even MORE reprehensible than the fact that he lied....the fact that he was even asked such personal and ridiculous questions to begin with. Id bet good money that about 90% of Congress would have done the same thing in Clinton's shoes. Most true conservatives believe the legistlative branch has far exceeded its allowable powers in the realm of checks and balances..the Bush regime is certainly content on using that argument when denying access, but you can bet the right were not taking that positive when they, without precedent, ran Clinton through the ringer. They took full advantage of the imbalance of power and it takes only an ounce of brain on your part to realize Clinton should have never been asked those questions, as they were personal and entirely in appropriate. Subsequently though, you have been content to chew on that chunk of republican propaganda fat ever since then. so you fuck off with your self righteous, hill billy ways. they are two different subjects, his infidelity and performance a president. I dont judge the presidency of T. Roosevelt because he was an avid hunter, not Kennedy on his drug use or infidelity nor do I judge Washington or Jefferson the fact that they had slaves, Reagan on his mediocre acting career or GW Bush on....on....whatever it is he likes to do in his personal life. While topically notable, they have little bearing as to how good or bad of a president they were. To consistantly remark on that, or cite that as any indication tha the was a bad or good president is shallow. |
Reacting as only knee-jerk liberals can, initial comments from Democrats such as Tom Daschle (minimizing and forgiving Lott's statement) were immediately reversed when pressure was applied from members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The mainstream media and other liberals quickly sensed blood in the water, and the circling began. But this time ....... they're right! As putative Majority Leader of the Republican Party, Lott's words represent more than just his pandering and abhorrent personal point of view. They tarnish the entire Right. It is more than a little ironic --- and embarrassing --- that it has taken a "political correctness" violation to point out that the spineless Lott should not be anywhere near a position of party leadership, and that the usual suspects (loud, moronic leftists) are the ones gleefully rubbing our collective snout in the steaming mess that has been Lott's legacy. Yes, we all know that had it been a Democrat (Sen. Byrd, for example) saying the same words, Dan Rather and the New York Times would not have deemed it newsworthy. Yes, we all know that Packwood is gone while Kennedy and Clinton survive and thrive for the same reason. And yes, we all know that somehow the long and hideous record of the Dixiecrats (including Lyndon Johnson, mentor and Friend-of-Bill William Fulbright, and Albert Gore, Sr.) has all but been forgotten. So? Trent Lott's track record in the Senate should have disqualified him from consideration for any leadership position. He capitulated to John McCain on campaign finance reform. He lacked the vision and the personnel management skills to give RINO Jim Jeffords the chairmanship of one committee in order to save the rest of the Senate term from Daschle's reign of soft-spoken terror. And he has mismanaged so many other issues of importance to conservatives. There are a handful of Republican senators who have strong, consistent, honorable records of Reagan conservatism. A few of these have the leadership skills to deal with the perennially-hostile media and rein in "mavericks" (i.e., closet leftists) such as McCain, Arlen Specter, and John Chafee, as well as the strength and willingness to swim upstream against the entropy of ignorance and socialism. Trent Lott has done all of us a favor by speaking his poorly-chosen words at an unintentionally-perfect time. In the true spirit of the holiday season, let us accept this rare gift from our friends on the Left and join with them in expediting Trent's transition to Senate back-bencher as gracefully as possible. "Published originally at EtherZone.com" |
|
you have no basis for and certainly no understanding of my moral character. |
|
my morals with my support for death penalties (when have I supported the death penalty?), dishonest porn purchases(what the fuck are you talking about?), war-mongering and racist politicians in mind- You do not know shit do you? |
no. no more than you dumbass, which was my point. if you think you have any basis for judging my moral characted based on my politics, than you leave me no choice than to start judging you on yours and other bits of information you leave about this place. To refresh your memory you advocated the death penalty in the sniper case and about the same time you admitted to buying hardcore porn without your wife's knowledge. i don't think you wanna pursue this 'moral' matter much further trace. you have no basis to judge my morality and leave pond scum out of this. call me a piece of doodoo, draw pictures of me with a big head and stink lines all you want but don't start making idiotic assumptions about my morality. |
that's not me |
I have never levied such a thing on you. |
|
|
The sooner the minority groups realize they have been duped for the last 4 decades, the better off they are going to be." the lie, beyond the usual pack of lies issuing from nearly every politician, is a lie of false hope that life doesn't have to be so brutal anymore. that you don't have to fight and kick and scratch and be a total fucker to gain just a little traction, at least in this country if not this world. but the truth is the controllers of things aren't gonna have any of that shit without a fucking fight to the death. that's the lie of omission the liberals are guilty of. liberal policies only fail when they butt up against this reality. frankly, i cheer for the underdog. if you want to commit your heart to the winners along with everything else they take whether you like it or not, be my guest. they don't give a shit about you or anyone else. democrats -- eh, whatever. carry on missing the point. |
