Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (346281)	1/23/2003 12:44:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I don't think Lott meant to insult anyone. JLA clearly did. I don't think Lott had insulting blacks, or Jim Crow on his mind. I find intentional in your face hate speech much more disturbing than accidental inferences drawn from a statement that is not on its face objectionable. I think it is quite odd that anyone would want to defend what JLA said. He has every right to say it in public places, but what do you bet he doesn't say those kinds of things in 3d public places. Just here, where he thinks he can get away with it.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (346281)	1/23/2003 12:48:08 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I see. Consistency is a virtue of small minds, eh? But were not talking about two different groups of people here: We're talking about one hypocrite.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (346281)	1/23/2003 1:54:34 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

You know, every single Bush supporter here has taken the second approach. Well that just ain' troo, and I got the arrows in my shield from the fellas here to prove it. Lott has established a pattern of racism and probable racism that made him unfit to represent a party seeking to reach minorities. His pattern certainly made him unfit to represent America as its chief lawmaker. Contrariwise, JLA is just a dang guy here hacking around like the rest of us. As far as I can tell, he has established no hostility toward homosexuals. I think he even once rejected my point of view re: homosexuals, though being in sympathy with me on some other points. Even if he had homosexuals in mind when he used the term, the point cannot be made that he wished to defame homosexuals, especially when he referred to a fairly random group of peace demonstrators (dang! Yall done done this man wrong and you really oughta apologize. Yall making me dang sick). Perhaps JLA wished to use the term "queers" in association with neo-peaceniks simply to disparage the peaceniks, since the word "queers" encapsulates people whose behavior is ridiculous, whether sexual or otherwise. This is a distinct possibility. But the fact is, he used valid terms and he used them quite validly. We argue here and it gets heated. But there is really no use to get so danged bent up about what some guy writes here that we gotta run off and whine (unless some really weird crap is going on). If a guy wanna come on with some racist crap, then those of us who care can whack 'im if we want. I love whackin' racists. It's some dang good fun watchin' 'em spill the baca juice on dey bellies. But as long as they are just spouting crap, I see no need to try and get folks banned. When you try and ban a guy, you prove that the guy has touched some area in your own life that is very sensitive. You actually reveal something very personal about yourselves when you do this crap. Gotta dang get some sleep. Foolin' with yall and holding a kid who is vomitting makes me wanna throw up. (grin)