| 0 |
Subject: My Latest Arguement with my Liberal Buddy
Posted by: Jag
- [14828255] Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 23:46
I am pushing 50 and the greast guy I know is a big time Liberal. Our latest arguement was over Katrina. He made all the Leftist talking points, Bush shoulld of hired someone with more experience, He raised horses, "Way to go Brownie". So, I asked him what specificly did Brownie do wrong. I would love to have a direct answer, under what was the role of FEMA at the time, what did Brownie do wrong? |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 22 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 09:48
|
Trent Lott is a better example. He tried to compliment an old colleague and was branded a racist. Very hypocritical, considering one of the Democrat's leaders is a Klans men.
|
| 23 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 10:13
|
PD, I agree with you, the federal government should of taken over operations from what was a mentally challenge Governor, but I would not want them doing the same in states like Florida and California, where natural diasters are a common occurance and we have competent people to handle it.
|
| 24 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 11:17
|
Bush fired their head over his disaster response speaks volumes.
If mistakes were made I have no problem with finding out why and making corrections so as not to make the same mistakes when we face the next disaster.
The real shame of the Katrina disaster was people trying to score politial points off the plight and deaths of the victims.
The only volume to which the firing of the head of FEMA speaks is the lengths to which polititians will go to gain power and exploit innocent victims.
|
| 25 | Perm Dude
ID: 51111428
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 11:31
|
#23: They should have taken over operations because that was the agreement for them to do so. There is no such agreement in Florida, and Florida's history of dealing with natural disasters, I think, is a model for others to follow. Democrat or Republican, Florida governors have been on the ball for a long time.
The real shame of the Katrina disaster was people trying to score politial points off the plight and deaths of the victims.
Yeah, the scammers (local and those who oozed their way in) deserve no less than jail.
|
| 26 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 11:39
|
I find it interesting that i see no mention of the coast guard in this thread
Hundreds of firefighters, who responded to a nationwide call for help in the disaster, were held by the federal agency in Atlanta for days of training on community relations and sexual harassment before being sent on to the devastated area. The delay, some volunteers complained, meant lives were being lost in New Orleans.
Is this the part where being PC causes people to die, oh i am sure it is...
|
| 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 51111428
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 11:51
|
I really don't know too much about the Coast Guard, or what it does in these kinds of situations. Can you enlighten me?
No joke--I really don't know their role in these kinds of multi-state disasters.
|
| 28 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 11:57
|
I find it interesting that i see no mention of the coast guard in this thread
Hundreds of firefighters, who responded to a nationwide call for help in the disaster, were held by the federal agency in Atlanta for days of training on community relations and sexual harassment before being sent on to the devastated area. The delay, some volunteers complained, meant lives were being lost in New Orleans.
Is this the part where being PC causes people to die, oh i am sure it is...
|
| 29 | Perm Dude
ID: 51111428
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 13:46
|
Deja vu!
As I mentioned above, it is the "liberals" in this forum taking FEMA to task (including actions such as you point out in 26 & 28), while the uber-Republican is defending them. A bigger irony I haven't seen in some time!
|
| 31 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 14:06
|
Sorry about the double post i am not sure how that happened.
good story from time
the biggest difference from what i have read and been told by friends in the coast guard is that they do not have to wait. if there is something wrong and in there area they go out and do something. there chain of command is much shorter they do not have to get approvals go out. i would assume this process came about from the fact that if you had to wait for approvals to rescue a sinking ship then no one gets rescued. My friends dad was stationed in new orleans when katrina hit and even though they evacuated for the storm they got a call from comanding officer to get back here and if you left for far distance report to nearier or easier station to help there. I am kind of biased for CG but in many ways they are the american version of the mounties.
|
| 32 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 17:48
|
Trent Lott is a better example. He tried to compliment an old colleague and was branded a racist. Very hypocritical, considering one of the Democrat's leaders is a Klans men.
Trent Lott is an example that Republicans seem to resign rather quickly to avoid scandal for their party?
First off, Trent Lott wasn't branded a racist, he is a racist and proud of it.
"I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."
As for Byrd, why am I not suprised that you are incapable of subjugating the verb "to be?" Even the despicable
Michele Malkin uses the proper term ex-Klansman(no fewer than 12 times) so your accusation is a Klans men is over 60 years off the mark.
Byrd may still be a racist, but in 2005 he stated:
"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
compared to Lott's apology in 2002:
"I regret the way it has been interpreted."
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with
Republicans resigning quickly to avoid scandal for their party. Lott resigning the Senate Majority leadership position wasn't a scandal. It was the result of an avowed racist losing support from most Senate Republicans and Bush( to their credit), although they did make him Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, a less prestigious but still powerful position.
Now, how about you address the Duncan Hunter/Duke Cunningham/Brent Wilkes/Dusty Foggo
scandal? You know, the one when your favorite fired prosecutor Carol Lam said after the Wilkes/Foggo indictment:
“These two indictments describe patterns of self-dealing and corruption that spanned years and reached deep into our country's systems of procurement in the defense industry”
Spanned years. Somehow that doesn't quite jibe with resigned quickly.
|
| 33 | bibA
ID: 171119316
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 19:03
|
Jag - One is left with the impression that you do not feel that Brown did anything short of a competent job.
So, would he be the type person you would want appointed as head of FEMA? He would be satisfacory to you in this position if the next president again wanted to give him this position?
|
| 34 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 19:04
|
Duke is a jackass.
I guess if someone compliments Ted Kennedy they are pro DWI and manslaughter.
|
| 35 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 20:19
|
I guess if someone compliments Ted Kennedy they are pro DWI and manslaughter.
Your guess would be correct if that person said, "We're proud of Teddy's driving record. If more people drove like Teddy this country wouldn't have all these problems over all these years either."
Duke is a jackass.
Don't know. Obviously he felt secure in his criminal enterprise since his fellow Republican congressman, Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services committee, was feeding at the same Wilkes/Foggo/Wade trough and awarding millions in defense contracts(many the Pentagon didn't even want)in return.
But you go ahead and wallow in the 40 year old Ted Kennedy scandal. Then give us all a big laugh and tell us you're a moderate again.
|
| 37 | yesno
ID: 261013016
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 20:21
|
"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
Strom Thurmond in 1948, the year he ran for president.
|
| 38 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 21:17
|
as someone said there was plenty of blame to go around and Brown, Blanco, and Nagin were incompetent. But there is also history in the people's mind that played an important role in the amount of death that resulted from the storm. the last few storms that came close to NO turned and left all the partiers laughing at the evacuees. each time increasing the amount of believers that ithe storm would turn. i was called up to assist in NO and it was a mess, we were delayed and slept on the flightline in hammond for about 30 hours due to lack of infrastructure for the people wanting to assist. i don't think anyone can compare the disasters that were mentioned above to the problems created by the magnitude of damage, the water that wasn't moving, and all of the unforeseen problems. we can always in hindsight say that this should have been known and that should have been known but I bet there are still no bladders of water or some type of sewer bladders or cases of MREs in the superdome. the response may have been slow but the fraud that ensued over the next year was outrageous and has been reported very little.
PV- what in Lott's statement says anything in reference to race
and can anyone on either side say that they don't have their fair share of scandals so why are we embroiled in the ol your scandal is bigger than mine.
i also find it funny that the same people that say the govt was incompetent for not being able to evacuate 1.5 million people in 4 days also say that it is impossible to evacuate 10 million over a 2 year period.
|
| 39 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 21:43
|
PV- what in Lott's statement says anything in reference to race
You've got to be kidding. In the future use ;) at the end of such statements.
|
| 40 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 22:19
|
i ask again
I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either.
What in this statement is racist without interpretation?
|
| 41 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 22:51
|
see post 39
|
| 42 | Perm Dude
ID: 51111428
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 22:54
|
Here's a hint: "n"
|
| 43 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 23:57
|
would that be for want, when, ran, president, country, wouldn't, or is there another "n" in PV's quote.
|
| 44 | WiddleAvi
ID: 2010282021
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 00:00
|
He meant post 37
|
| 45 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 00:04
|
wasn't lott's stmt try again
|
| 46 | Perm Dude
ID: 51111428
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 00:20
|
You're talking about his non-apology for his statement? Or the original statement, that he still believes if we'd voted for an outright racist like Thurmond that we'd be better off as a country?
Perhaps you mean his 1992 Keynote Address at the Council for Concerned Citizens, a white separatist group, in which he stated "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy… Let's take it in the right direction and our children will be the beneficiaries!"
How about his quote about people on talk radio and bloggers (from both sides) who roundly criticized his immigration bill: "Talk radio and one hit wonder internet gurus are running America. We have to deal with that problem." Deal with, Senator?
|
| 47 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 00:46
|
huh, PV gave the quote and stated that it was racist
and stated that he apologized for how it was interpreted as opposed to apologizing and i was making the point that without interpretation it is not a racist statement.
ooooohhh talk radio and one hit internet gurus now that is racist.
|
| 48 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 00:58
|
statement of principles of the council of concerned citizens
The American men and women who make up the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) believe in, commit themselves to, and pledge to work for and support these fundamental principles of American civilization, liberty, justice, and national
(1) We believe the United States is a Christian country. We believe that the United States of America is a Christian country, that its people are a Christian people, and that its government and public leaders at all levels must reflect Christian beliefs and values. We therefore oppose all efforts to deny or weaken the Christian heritage of the United States, including the unconstitutional prohibitions of prayers and other religious expression in schools and other public institutions.
(2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.
(3) The United States is a sovereign and independent nation. We believe the United States is a sovereign and independent nation, that our independence as a nation is the most precious legacy of our Founding Fathers, and that all treaties, agreements, conventions, international organizations, and institutions must recognize and respect our national sovereignty and independence. We therefore oppose the so-called “New World Order” and its attempts to abolish national sovereignty and independence and to construct a one-world state in which America would vanish and Americans would be enslaved. We call for the U.S. government to withdraw from membership in the United Nations, the World Court, the International Monetary Fund, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization. We oppose any attempt to place American military personnel under foreign command. We oppose any effort to place Americans, military or civilian, on trial before, or subject them to legal punishments by, international courts or organizations. We oppose, and we support official U.S. renunciation of, any treaty, agreement, or convention that seeks to dictate law to the United States or any state, that violates national sovereignty, or denies or violates the constitutional rights of Americans.
(4) The United States is a constitutional republic. We believe the United States is a constitutional republic, governed by law and by the original intent of the United States Constitution and of the men who framed it. We believe the Constitution can be changed only by the proper procedure of amendment or constitutional convention and not by court decision, popular majority, political whim, or legislative fiat. We therefore oppose the “imperial judiciary” in the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts that has usurped more and more power to itself in the last century and has imposed on our country the most odious and harmful rulings. We reject the legitimacy and constitutionality of the rulings handed down by the imperial judiciary; we support the appointment of judges and justices who are qualified to interpret the Constitution and the laws and are committed to their proper interpretation; and we support the impeachment of judges and justices who usurp or claim powers not granted them by the Constitution. We also oppose the “imperial bureaucracy” that imposes unconstitutional administrative decrees in such fields as business, agriculture, labor, and education that tyrannically interfere with personal liberty and dignity, private property, the sanctity of the family, and ethical conduct. We support the abolition of those government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels that have no constitutional foundation, including the U.S. Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Health and Human Services, and similar agencies. We support the separation of powers that is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution and of basic human liberty. We support the restoration of the constitutionally proper balance among the three branches of the federal government and the reduction of their powers, size, personnel, and costs to the limits intended by the Constitution.
(5) We believe in States’ Rights, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Bill of Rights. We believe in states’ rights, as guaranteed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution; in the individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; and in all the rights and liberties guaranteed by the body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We therefore oppose all efforts by the federal government to dictate to the states and local governments and communities, and we oppose federal efforts to engineer or impose behavior and beliefs on citizens and communities. We oppose “gun control” in all forms and demand that all such legislation and policies be repealed. We also oppose all such legislation as so-called “hate crime” or “bias crime” laws. Such laws merely penalize thought and expression rather than genuinely criminal action and are a dangerous and frightening step toward government Thought Control. Similarly, we oppose all so-called “politically correct” speech codes and “sensitivity training” in schools, colleges, universities, and businesses that punish free expression, restrict thought and study, intimidate dissent, and generally demean and diminish human communications and community. We also oppose, as stated, all efforts to deny Americans their rights of religious expression and worship as guaranteed in the First Amendment, as well as efforts to deny rights of assembly and association.
(6) The traditional family is the basic unit of human society. We believe in the traditional family as the basic unit of human society and morality, and we oppose all efforts by the state and other powers to weaken the structure of the American family through toleration of sexual licentiousness, homosexuality and other perversions, mixture of the races, pornography in all forms, and subversion of the authority of parents.
(7) Private property and free enterprise are the foundations of our economy. We believe in private property and free enterprise as the foundations of our economic life and the basis of American wealth. We oppose efforts by the state to regulate, plan, manage, control, or nationalize private property in any form. We oppose the ruinous taxation that government has imposed on working Americans and we call for real tax reform that will allow working men and women to retain what they have earned. We support the repeal of the estate tax. We affirm that the best economic decision-maker is the individual acting in what he believes is his own best interest. We believe that tax policies and other economic legislation and policies should reflect the importance of small businessmen, the family farm, and other independent, locally and privately owned and operated enterprises. While we accept the need for some public welfare, health care, unemployment, and old age assistance, we believe in such programs only as a last resort for those who truly need them. We believe tax laws should encourage private charity rather than public support for the poor, the disabled, and the sick and elderly who are unable to care for themselves. We support welfare programs that seek to return recipients of welfare to productive work as soon as possible. We oppose all welfare for immigrants, whether legal or illegal.
(8) Cultural, national, and racial integrity. We support the cultural and national heritage of the United States and the race and civilization of which it is a part, as well as the expression and celebration of the legitimate subcultures and ethnic and regional identities of our people. We oppose all efforts to discredit, “debunk,” denigrate, ridicule, subvert, or express disrespect for that heritage. We believe public monuments and symbols should reflect the real heritage of our people, and not a politically convenient, inaccurate, insulting, or fictitious heritage.
(9) A Strong National Defense. We believe in the strongest possible defense for the United States. We oppose the presence of homosexuals and women in the military services and especially of women in combat roles. We believe that in the aftermath of the U.S. victory over Soviet Communism, the United States has little need to retain the political and military commitments to allies made during the Cold War. While we wish these allies well, we believe we cannot continue to support their defense budgets, guarantee their security, fight their wars, or finance their governments and economies through foreign aid. We therefore call for a comprehensive review of all U.S. diplomatic commitments and U.S. withdrawal from those alliances and commitments that no longer serve our national interests or that threaten to entangle us in unnecessary foreign wars, conflicts, and quarrels. We therefore oppose continued membership in NATO and similar outdated Cold War alliances; we oppose sending American troops on U.N. peace-keeping missions or into similar unconstitutionally undeclared wars under the names of “police actions.” We oppose sending American military personnel into wars and conflicts that do not concern our national security and interests. We oppose ever sending American military men into combat without the intention to achieve victory. We oppose using American prisoners of war as diplomatic “bargaining chips” under any circumstances, and we oppose abandoning American POWs to merciless enemies after the cessation of conflict to suit the political interests of office-holders. We oppose all foreign aid and call for its termination. We support the investigation of lobbying groups that represent the interests of foreign states or foreign powers and the enactment of legislation that will outlaw lobbying Congress or the executive branch on behalf of foreign states.
(10) America First Foreign Policy. We believe that in the aftermath of the U.S. victory over Soviet Communism, the United States has little need to retain the political and military commitments to allies made during the Cold War. While we wish these allies well, we believe we cannot continue to support their defense budgets, guarantee their security, fight their wars, or finance their governments and economies through foreign aid. We therefore call for a comprehensive review of all U.S. diplomatic commitments and U.S. withdrawal
from those alliances and commitments that no longer serve our national interests or that
threaten to entangle us in unnecessary foreign wars, conflicts, and quarrels. We therefore oppose continued membership in NATO and similar outdated Cold War alliances; we oppose sending American troops on U.N. peace-keeping missions or into similar unconstitutionally undeclared wars under the names of “police actions.” We oppose sending
American military personnel into wars and conflicts that do not concern our national security and interests. We oppose ever sending American military men into combat without the intention to achieve victory. We oppose using American prisoners of war as diplomatic “bargaining chips” under any circumstances, and we oppose abandoning American POWs to merciless
enemies after the cessation of conflict to suit the political interests of office-holders. We oppose all foreign aid and call for its termination. We support the investigation of lobbying groups that represent the interests of foreign states or foreign powers and the enactment of legislation that will outlaw lobbying Congress or the executive branch on behalf of foreign
states.
(11) America First Trade Policy. We believe that just as our nation has legitimate international political and military interests, so it also has a legitimate international economic interest. We believe our trade policy should reflect our national economic interest and that the protection of our economy, including the jobs of our workers, our farms, and our manufacturing industries, is a vitally necessary duty of our national government.
(12) Traditional Education under Local Control. We believe that education is primarily the concern of parents and families and local communities and therefore we oppose federal aid to education and federal efforts to control or direct education. We believe that education should inform and build the mind and character, not brainwash children with political propaganda or “liberate” them from the traditional values and loyalties their families have taught them. We therefore oppose all “sex education” as well as so-called “multiculturalist” and “Afrocentric” curricula, “Outcome-Based Education,” and similar radical indoctrination in the schools. We oppose all efforts to inflate grades, adulterate or “dumb down” tests and examinations, and introduce irrelevant and wasteful courses for the purpose of advancing some backward students over others more talented or more productive. We believe the schools, public, private, and parochial, should teach students to be proud of being Americans and proud of their national and local identities, and that they should instill in them the values of Western, Christian, and American civilization. We support the authority of teachers and school administrators to discipline students, including the authority to expel them from school if students will not abide by the rules and laws of the community. We support the right of parents to send their children to private schools or to educate their children at home if they so desire, without government intrusion or control. We support the right of private schools to select their own students, faculty, curricula, standards, and methods of administration.
(13) Strong and Just Law Enforcement. We believe in the moral and legal responsibility of the individual and therefore that good behavior should be rewarded and bad behavior should be punished. We believe the most effective and most just response to crime is swift, certain, and morally appropriate punishment. We believe in capital punishment for the crimes of murder, rape, treason, and espionage. We oppose the substitution of the pseudo-sciences of psychiatry, sociology, and “rehabilitation” for real justice. We believe law enforcement should be mainly a function of local and state government, and we therefore oppose all efforts to establish a national police force or to nationalize law enforcement; we oppose similar efforts to create a global or international police force and to “globalize” law enforcement. We oppose the extradition of law-abiding American citizens to trials before foreign courts under laws to which they have never assented. We oppose all international criminal tribunals and all efforts to diminish national sovereignty through the internationalization of criminal law. While we support and deeply respect all law enforcement officers, we also insist that law enforcement at all levels operate within the law, that law enforcement respect the rights of all citizens, and that spying on and harassment of loyal and law-abiding citizens by law enforcement agencies, by the military services, or by intelligence services at any level of government should be strictly forbidden and severely punished.
(14) Protection of the Environment and Natural Heritage. We believe that the natural environment and resources of a nation are among its most precious, valuable, and irreplaceable treasures. We believe in the protection of the environment from reckless greed as well as from irresponsible government. We support the protection of truly endangered species of wildlife and areas of natural beauty.
I can agree with about 90% of these principles with only 8-10 ridiculous sentences that most of us can agree are over the top.
|
| 49 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 09:41
|
(2)We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character.....
We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind
According to J-Bar speak, without interpretation this is not a racist statement. I'm curious how one could oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind and not be deemed a racist.
There's no diminishing the statement as over the top. It's blatantly racist and a basic tenet of the group's philosophy, exactly the same as Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat platform which Lott was proud to vote for. So when J-Bar says interpretation, what he actually means is spin.
|
| 51 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 10:06
|
Where does J-Bar say this is not a racist statement?
To quote J-Bar...
I can agree with about 90% of these principles with only 8-10 ridiculous sentences that most of us can agree are over the top.
That is a very fair and accurate statement, by J-Bar, that does not need to be bastardize.
|
| 52 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 10:19
|
Since J-Bar doesn't identify which sentences he feels are over the top, and since the introduction of the Council of Conservative Citizens was presented as evidence of Trent Lott's association with racist organizations, the bastardization occurring is Jag's usual attempt to deny common sense as a basis for discussion.
The 90% of the principles that J-Bar says he agrees with are irrelevant to the debate, since the subject being discussed is racism.
|
| 53 | Perm Dude
ID: 3112549
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 10:25
|
We believe the United States is a Christian country
Er, right from the top they are wrong. A "Christian country" wouldn't have a Constitution with a Free Exercise clause. A "Christian country," in its setup, would look a lot like deeply Muslim countries, in fact, in which laws are interpreted (and actions are judged) by a group of unelected religious men who would impose strict religious law on the land.
|
| 54 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 10:35
|
J-Bar was talking about Lott's endorsement of Strom Thurmond's 1948 Presidential run in discussing what was not a racist statement "without interpretation".
If you endorse a candidate (Lott was not talking about the lesser of two evils - he was proud to vote for Thurmond) it means you endorse and support his platform. Thurmond's was an explecitly, overtly racist platform.
|
| 55 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 11:08
|
I reread their doctrine and after further review, I agree, a lot more than 90% is wacko, but we could debate for years the exact percentage and the number of sentences, that are 'over the top'. The gist of J-Bar comment is there are many worthwhile principles and on that I agree.
|
| 56 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 11:10
|
(12)..... We therefore oppose all “sex education” as well as so-called “multiculturalist” and “Afrocentric” curricula,..... that they should instill in them the values of Western, Christian, and American civilization.
I'm guessing by American civilization, they don't mean Sioux, Shoshone, Inuvik, Mayan or Incan.
|
| 57 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 13:40
|
Let me slow down for those that like to take a tangent and run. Mith was partially right. PV gave Lott's quote (please see above) and stated that Byrd apologized and was alright because of it and that Lott just apologized for the interpretation. my whole point was for someone to tell me what in his statement was racist (literally) w/o interpretation. (and nobody did)
Here is the platform, maybe he was referring to the adherence to the constitution but that would take interpretation.
thurmond's platform
another 5 points that could be on my platform (1,2,3, last sentence of 4,7 and 8)
I did not count the words and points of the CCC but Jag had it right, 60, 70, 80, whatever percentage you like but some of the principles do match my own.
|
| 58 | Perm Dude
ID: 221145412
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 13:45
|
Conservative racists would probably match up quite a bit, J. But Strom's strong segregationist poltics (which he never gave up) was what makes this a policy of people you don't want to find yourself agreeing with, speaking to, or advocating, all of which Lott continued to do and never apologized for ("I'm sorry I was misinterpreted" is not an apology but a collection of weasel words).
I hesitate to drop the H word, but there are probably plenty of Hitler's politics one might agree with. But his racist politics and philosophy should make it all moot. We don't look to find areas of agreement with racists.
|
| 59 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 13:53
|
oh and please be consistent when Senator Obama states in his book about following Malcolm X's call let's all associate all of the tenets on the Nation of Islam to him. That's right, not fair unless that is your interpretation.
|
| 60 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 13:58
|
i agree PD but to say that statement was racist w/o interpretation was wrong. I do not associate myself with those groups and you are correct in stating what you did. 59 was sent prior to reading 58 not a response to it.
|
| 61 | Perm Dude
ID: 221145412
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 14:03
|
I think what you might not be catching with the statement is that Strom Thurmond was known primarily as being a white extremist at the time--he was virtually a one-issue guy. He broke from the Democratic Party because he felt they were coddling the "niggers" and this was almost 20 years before the Civil Rights Act.
It was almost a code word: Strom Thurmond was about racial segragation and everything else (states rights, etc) was about accomplishing that goal.
I think you understand completely how those groups operate and how one wants to disassociate yourself from them comletely. But historically Strom was a deep part of that mindset, which Lott was praising.
|
| 62 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 14:08
|
What did Obama say about "following Malcom X' call"?
|
| 63 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 15:10
|
PV gave Lott's quote (please see above) and stated that Byrd apologized and was alright because of it
Where did I say Byrd was alright because of it?
My words:
Byrd may still be a racist, but in 2005 he stated:
"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
You are truly the spinmeister, J-Bar. Absolutely nowhere did I say Byrd was alright, OK, groovy or bitchin. In fact I conjectured that Byrd might still be a racist.
Now, let's dissect your admiration for the Dixiecrat platform.
#1 - Generic rhetoric, not a policy statement
#2 - We oppose all efforts to invade or destroy the rights guaranteed by it to every citizen of this country.
That, of course, is a lie, because they omitted white before citizen. Do you honestly believe that the Dixiecrats guaranteed the rights of a black man to marry a white woman?
#3 - Here we get the first mention of a Police State. The Dixiecrat interpretation of a Police state was that civil rights laws would be enacted and enforced thereby guaranteeing social and economic justice which they supposedly stood for. What's incredibly evil about their position is that the police in the South at the time, almost 100% white, were essential in not only denying blacks of their civil rights, but were perpetrators of crimes against them. So the Dixiecrats feared a Police state would interfere with their Police State.
#4 - last sentence. We favor home-rule, local self-government, and a minimum interference with individual rights.
That means if you caught your white daughter having sex with a black man, there would be minimum intereference with the individual's right to lynch that man on the nearest tree.
#7&8 - Basically more paranoid talk about a Police state, and a desire to keep Jim Crow laws on the books and to deny rights to blacks.
Every time the issue of rights is presented in the platform, it must be qualified with the opening sentence of #4 - We stand for the segragation of the races and the racial integrity(Ha) of each race - which renders any part of the platform that deals with rights, individual or collective, moot.
|
| 64 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 16:45
|
excuse me pv that i inferred that you accepted Byrd's apology and not Lott's by the way you compared the two.
and by the way i didn't use the word admiration
I appreciate your interpretation but the literal words is what i was referring to. you say they forgot the word white i could care less the words say all citizens. also i believe thurmond was instrumental in prosecuting lynching and abolishing the poll tax.
i do believe that Thurmond was a racist but not of the evil kind and i still say that the statement of Lott's w/o interpretation is not racist because the word problems can refer to a great many things.
|
| 65 | Perm Dude
ID: 221145412
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 16:57
|
Well, then, I think you would have been very suprised, back then, to find what their real goals were. Too bad they had to spell it out more explicitely for you.
|
| 66 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 20:29
|
I wonder how much of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, the Liberals here would agreed with?
|
| 67 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 21:02
|
we can judge a platform in 1948 by todays standards and no doubt it looks very ugly. we will be judged in 2065 and some of the platforms will probably look real ugly. from what little i have read 22% of the black vote in south carolina voted for thurmond in 1996 and that he was not considered, at the time, an enemy of the black community when he was governor even though he was a seperatist. i am not here to defend anybody especially somebody that i do not know much about. the only point i was making was calling PV out on his bias. end of point back to your regularly scheduled programming.
|
| 68 | Perm Dude
ID: 221145412
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 21:31
|
I understand your point about changing mores over time, but if Thurmond had his way in 1948 (remember, Lott was praising the 1948 Thurmond) no blacks would have voted in South Carolina in 1996. And while 22% sounds high (in fact, it was the highest percentage of any Republican in South Carolina), the fact that no black Republicans even ran for office in that state, on any level that I can find, says something as well. So does the fact that 78% voted for his opponent.
In these days of a 51% "mandate" this says a lot!
|
| 69 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 22:00
|
the only point i was making was calling PV out on his bias.
What bias? If there was any bias advanced, it was Jag, with his:
He tried to compliment an old colleague and was branded a racist. Very hypocritical, considering one of the Democrat's leaders is a Klans men.
Again, note the word is, in complete denial of Byrd's public position of admitting a mistake, as opposed to Lott's 2002 statement of proud support for Thurmond's platform of segregation(racism) in 1948.
So your attempt to call me out for bias was misdirected, since the obvious bias was displayed by Jag, in his never-ending quest to promote myopia as a political ideology.
|
| 70 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 22:14
|
For what it is worth, I have a friend who is from South Carolina, went to West Point, worked for Strom Thurman in his DC Senate office, and is black. He was very accustomed to raised eyebrows. He said on a personal level, Strom was pretty good when dealing with black people in the 90's.
No one should be proud that they supported this man back in 1948.
|
| 71 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 23:09
|
that's not true from what i read PD as governor he abolished the poll tax which kept lots of black people from voting. but who cares
PV- still trying to bring in the interpretation
SZ-i really do not believe Lott was old enough to support him in 48.
|
| 72 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 13:32
|
J-Bar, you will not get a response. Lott could of been talking about one of a hundred problems, but, PV likes to think the worse, when it come to Republicans.
|
| 73 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 14:19
|
For what it is worth, I have a friend who is from South Carolina, went to West Point, worked for Strom Thurman in his DC Senate office, and is black. He was very accustomed to raised eyebrows. He said on a personal level, Strom was pretty good when dealing with black people in the 90's.
this should come as not surpise as he did have an affair with atleast one black women...I will say one positive thing about thurman, the man was probably a racist and surely believe in seperation, but at least had the deciency to come out and admit it. Considering that most politicians in all of america where racists at some level in 48.
|
| 74 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 21:16
|
PV likes to think the worse, when it come to Republicans.
Then how do you explain two of my top three candidates for President in 2008 being Republicans - Romney and Paul?
I'm on record in the 2008 candidates thread.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|