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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (410)	5/4/2003 1:30:10 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793974

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? I need to loan you my shovel, Derek. The one we use to bury the kind of nonsense you've just typed. 1. On Lott's statement, it, repeat, repeat, repeat, was not the Dems doing that he is no longer the majority leader in the Senate. Can't find their fingerprints on it. period. Lott did, of course, say the country would have been better off had Thurmond become president in 48. And, in case you need to go back and check the history books, let me remind you that he ran on a segregationist ticket. So the connection is rather close to obvious. However, as to Lott's intentions, I agree with you. He's certainly not politically dumb enough to make a public statement that he wishes to see a return of segregation, whatever his own wishes might be. But he was, obviously, politically dumb enough to make the statement he did. And there is no doubt that the Reps let the worst versions of the meaning of that statement stand as a reason for dumping him. So, the public meaning of those statements remained unchallenged from the Reps side. 2. As for Byrd, he's not a Klan member but is clearly of the generation, which includes a lot of others who were elected on racist tickets for racist reasons, platforms, whatever, in the past. So, the issue is not his past, unless you wish to clean out all such from the House and the Senate, but what he said in the present. As I understand it, the worst interpretations of that statement don't even closely reflect his voting positions (contrary to Lott) and he disavowed those intentions. Karen offered a semi contextual statement that didn't drip of right wing recasting. But, from that, it was still not possible to see the line of conversation, the question asked to which he was replying, etc. As it stands, it's one of the odder comments by any politician I've seen. But context is still absent. The contexts given to me were simply Reps condemning him without, as is their wont, to look at context. 3. On the Powell comment, I guess you are referring to the long ago discussion of the Belafonte comment. I gather you still think that's worth some sort of posting points. Go to it. 4. Comments about Condelezza Rice, I have no idea what you are talking about. As for the last two personal comments, let's just drop the personal stuff, guy. It doesn't help any of us for you to pollute the tread with that stuff. I also think you and I should quit this stuff. Why don't you reply and we can then call this topic ended between us.