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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (11323)	6/14/2005 12:57:28 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Cognitive Dissonance Alert Power Line The Senate is poised to apologize for its failure to enact anti-lynching legislation between 1890 and 1952. Why didn't the Senate act? <<< In the past, efforts to pass such legislation fell victim to Senate filibusters despite pleas for its passage by seven presidents, among others, between 1890 and 1952. >>> I suppose Senator Robert Byrd, widely known then as a former Kleagle, better known today as the "conscience of the Senate," participated in some of those filibusters. Do you suppose he will oppose the current resolution, and explain that the filibuster is a pillar of democracy? No, probably not. I suspect the Senate Democrats will keep their "conscience" under wraps for this one. UPDATE: As several readers have pointed out, Byrd isn't quite that old--he was first elected to the Senate in 1958. So his personal involvement with the filibuster didn't begin until the Civil Rights era. The point, of course, remains valid nevertheless. FURTHER UPDATE: Reader Ken Kemper adds: <<< I watched the news all weekend, and did not see one report on this topic that mentioned the reason behind why the legislation failed to pass over the years. I kept waiting to hear the "filibuster" come up, but it never did. Every report mentioned that the legislation never was passed, making it sound like congress, in total, never got around to it. >>> Several anti-lynching bills did pass the House. A little further research indicates that anti-lynching bills were filibustered in the Senate in 1922, 1935 and 1938. Of course, there may have been later occasions when such legislation was not pressed in the Senate because of the knowledge that it would be filibustered. powerlineblog.com breakingnews.nypost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (11323)	6/14/2005 7:58:46 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

DAVE HARDY ON APOLOGIES FOR LYNCHINGS: Instapundit.com <<< Apologies certain are in order, but Congress isn't the party which needs to make them. It's the Supreme Court which owes the apology. >>> Meanwhile West Virginia blogger Don Surber notes that Robert Byrd was uncharacteristically silent on this question: "The protector of the Right to Filibuster was silent when the filibuster's darkest days were acknowledged." instapundit.com armsandthelaw.com donsurber.blogspot.com

To: Sully- who wrote (11323)	6/15/2005 3:22:18 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Rewriting History, One Article at a Time Thread posted by Emperor Darth Misha The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (Hat tip to LC & IB Captain's Quarters) It should come as no surprise to anybody that the New York Slimes (the paper of papered over records) once again are caught with their britches around their ankles, busy scratching out pages of history that don't support their agenda, being a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC. The article itself is about the Senate apology for not passing legislation to end lynchings sooner than they did, but that's not where the Stalinist Airbrushers of the Paper of Record (What Record? We don't see no steenkin' record) choose to do their creative editing of recorded history. As those of us who've actually read a history book will know, the legislation was blocked by a minority of Democrats who, realizing that they could never get their way by letting democracy work, filibustered the bill all the way to hell and back. Yep, that same filibuster that they seem to hold sacred above all else whenever they're in the minority. But in the New York Slime's version, it went like this: <<< Although the House passed antilynching legislation three times in the first half of the 20th century, the Senate, controlled by Southern conservatives, repeatedly refused to do so. >>> There you have it. In the alternate reality that the journaljizzmers of the Paper of Broken Record live in, it was actually those evil conservatives in control of the Senate that wouldn't pass it. It had nothing to do with the minority racist Dhimmicraps doing everything in their power to stop it by filibustering, recognizing full well that it'd pass in a heartbeat if it ever got to a vote. The New York Whines have by now reached a level of shamelessness in their blatant lying and pandering to their Dhimmicrap slavemasters that makes us wonder why anybody calls them a "news"paper anymore. We certainly do wonder what their Eleventeen Layers of Editors were doing before this piece of twisted propaganda made it to the presses. Should it ever turn out that one of the Dhimmicrap Senators had a Nazi past, we'd fully expect the New York Lies to start publishing articles denying that the Holocaust ever took place the next day. Rope, Journaljizzt, Tree. You know the drill. nicedoggie.net nytimes.com