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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (366504)	1/11/2008 6:17:56 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572090

Show me where Byrd has made a racist comment in the last 5 years. He has used the "N" word in recent years, though I think it was more than 5. Excuse me. You think? You disparage this guy even though you think he may have said something racist sometime in the recent past.....this coming from a member of a party that 50 years ago WAS the klan and who has racists coming out its ears....NOW. My God, Ron Paul was spouting racist crap in his newsletter just ten years ago. I don't think you have any room to criticize anyone on this issue particularly when you have no evidence to support your position. I figure you picked 5 years for that reason - was it 6 years? I haven't heard of Byrd making a racist comment in the last 15 years but I wasn't the one who made the accusation. Besides, Lott was denied a leadership position; he wasn't kicked out of the Senate. And Majority Leader is a leadership position. Yes, didn't I just say that? Byrd's Klan connections was decades ago. It was decades ago that he filbustered against the civil rights bill and fought to keep a black off the SC. Would this be swept under the board if he were Republican? No. Apparently the GOP has swept all of it under the board. You all don't have such a great reputation when it comes to race relations. The party had an opportunity to change that reputation in NO but instead chose to go the other way. As for Studd, his playing around with a page came out nearly a decade later when people found out the page had become his significant other. So it wasn't a sexual dalliance like it was with Foley but a serious connection. While he shouldn't have been fooling with an underaged kid, it wasn't found out until well after the fact. By that time, it would have been stupid to punish him esp. since he was in a long term relationship with the former page. I see - if a Democrat screws a teenage boy, he's just playing around ... fooling around ... but its okay if its a "serious connection". I didn't say that......however, the relationship did prove to be enduring. What I said is that people did not find out until many years after it occurred. This is all proving my point. Silly Wabbit, your point was not proven. [EOM]