<<that doesn't mean I read the article>>
But his words were right there in the post you responded to:
It is a pity that a long and distinguished career such as Lott's should come to this. But there is nothing you can do to Lott's statement -- turn it, twist it, flip it, spin it -- to make it any less appalling.
It was not "a poor choice of words," as he later pleaded. It was a perfectly clear choice of words articulating a perfectly clear idea. Had Lott stopped with Thurmond-for-president, 1948, this might have been written off as idle and presumably insincere birthday flattery for a very, very old man. But Lott did not stop there. He added, fatally, that America would have been better off had it embraced Dixiecrat segregation. With that, Lott cut off any retreat.
You took my word for it, couldn't read a couple lines down? Me a dope, a moron, a man whose posts aren't worth reading?
You've shown yourself to be stupid, dishonest, completely without honor, and a man who enjoys personally attacking his political opponents. Wouldn't you be more comfortable as a Democrat?
I know i can say this without insulting you because you only read the first line of my posts and then respond to it as if you've read the whole thing...
Steve |
