Well, Derek, I gather you're still in foul humor. If you wish to talk about the Dems failings, go right ahead. I'm not in the business of defending them.
LOL! Could've fooled me. You sure make an effort of it.
As for the Byrd comment, find a transcript of the interview, then I'll be happy to talk. Extreme right wing renditions are hardly credible
One of the other posters gave you plenty of links that quoted him directly. You are willing to dismiss blatent, bald faced bigoted statements from a Democrat, but go out of your way to read all manner of foul intentions into even the briefest of statements by Republicans. And totally ignore any context. Such as Santorum, and such as Lott.
But for the Byrd comments to be similar to Lott, he will have to said something like Lott did, that is the country would have been better off had segregation continued.
I'm definately no fan of Trent dipshit Lott, but he never said any such thing. It's all in your fantasies, John. The guy was toasting an old man on his birthday and said the country would have been better if he had won the Presidency. Then you say that means he wants to bring back segregation. That's a far stretch if ever there was one.
You're willing to defend a freakin Klan member because he's a Democrat, and dismiss someone calling Powell a House Nigger, and make light of some idiot radio jockey making tasteless and horrendous comments about Condaleeza Rice. But you jump on even the slightest possibility of reading bigotry into Republican comments. Guess that's your idea of "nuance". To me, that's the height of intellectual dishonesty. Could you possibly be any more partisan?
Derek |
