Trent Lott on BET now

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
You win the prize, charrison, that's one of the most disingeuous postings I've ever seen.

Lincoln certainly ushered in the correction of the foul stench of slavery and of course most early voting blacks voted Republican and were elected as Republicans. But the 1960s GOP was not the party of Lincoln . . . unless of course Lincoln would have celebrated Jefferson Davis. Southern whites from all political stripes systematically denied the right to vote to blacks and b/c blacks were disproportionately Republican the GOP was decimated in the South. Accordingly, Helms, Gramm, Dole, Thurmond, Hollings, and Lott's racist mentor (Colmer?) were ALL Democrats b/c it was essentially the only party in the South. And if you were not registered as a Democrat you did NOT get to vote.

It is you that is being disingeuous. The republican party, whether you like it not has a good track record on civil rights. The democratic party track is not as good historically. Neither party has been free of racists and bigots, nor is either party angelic. This remains true today.

If you want to pick out individuals so be it, we can pick out unsavery individuals from both partys all day long.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: CantedValve

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: classy
How does this become a republican vs democrat debate. This about an elected official who for more than 40 years has endorsed racism, supported opposition to any type of equality legislation, and twice has said it would have been better for the country if a racist had won the 1948 election. For all the republicans pointing to others is sad. Its not about anyone else except Trent Lott. Plain and simple.

Aren't you the monobrowed idiot who said there was a lot of Republican racists? 10 for every one Dem. or some other highly intelligent little gem? I think it is clear who is trying to make this a Repub vs. Dem debate.

I think the ratio would be 10 to 1 when it comes to Ultra Conservative vs Moderate or Liberal. Of course the Liberals have their own set of repugnant falts

there are 10 ultra conservatives for every 1 liberal/moderate? Boy dont I wish THAT were true. Not that I am a fan of ultra conservative, but ANYTHING conservative is better (IMHO) than appeasers or liberals.

I believe that was 10 racist ultra-conservatives for every one racist liberal

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: classy
How does this become a republican vs democrat debate. This about an elected official who for more than 40 years has endorsed racism, supported opposition to any type of equality legislation, and twice has said it would have been better for the country if a racist had won the 1948 election. For all the republicans pointing to others is sad. Its not about anyone else except Trent Lott. Plain and simple.

I'm curious about this "equality legislation". What bills were "equality legislation"? What is "equality legislation"?


We know Classy, it's ok for a democrat to make mistakes, lie, cheat and anything but when it's a Republican in the hot seat, it's not about anything else, just because you don't want it to be. But hey, you're a liar, so who cares.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It is you that is being disingeuous. The republican party, whether you like it not has a good track record on civil rights. The democratic party track is not as good historically. Neither party has been free of racists and bigots, nor is either party angelic. This remains true today.

Lets try it by era. Lincoln (Republican) emancipated the slaves, grudgingly. I'm a great Lincoln fan but he did say, "if I could maintain the Union without freeing a single slave I would do so." I'm also a touch critical over the suspension of habeas corpus. On balance that's GOP good guy.

At the start of Reconstruction, nearly 90% of Blacks lived in the South. In many cities and towns throughout the South, Blacks were in the majority. 80% of the Republican voters in the South were Black men until they were effectively shut out of the process primarily by Democrats in the South. Negative 1 point for Democrats.

So let's be clear the GOP was not supporting black America. They were black America.

One of my great heroes Teddy R. (Republican) is at best a push and pretty much presided over the Republican desertion of civil rights . . . not totally his fault b/c the evil Democrats did it. He just didn't stop it.

Roosevelt believed that racial discrimination was morally wrong and that a fragmented society could not flourish indefinitely. During his first term he appointed a number of highly qualified blacks to office in the South at the instance of the black educator Booker T. Washington, and he tried to create a biracial Republican organization in the South led by patrician whites. He also denounced lynching and struck against peonage through the courts. But the results were counterproductive. Southern political leaders and editors reduced enlightened white Southerners to silence by inveighing against "Roosevelt Republicanism," while the virtual completion of disfranchisement of Southern blacks by state action destroyed all possibility of creating a viable biracial GOP in the South.

Further regression in racial matters marked Roosevelt's second term. He let several state organizations become "lily white," made no statement on the Atlanta race riot of 1906, and discharged a large group of black soldiers for "conspiring" to protect fellow blacks falsely charged with murder in Brownsville, Texas. Reduced to inertia by his perception that fundamentally "the North and the South act in just the same way toward the Negro," Roosevelt failed signally to give the civil rights movement the kind of moral and educational leadership that he gave other causes then unattainable.

The Jim Crow South was hegemony presided over by the evil Democrats . . . another negative 0.5 pt for continuity. Until Truman (Democrat) led the push for civil rights . . . 1 pt Dems.

Strom Thurmond ran in 1948 on his segregationist ticket lost but elected to the Senate in 1954 as a Republican . . . negative 1 pt GOP.

Republicans have legendary voter suppression tactics along with plain old race baiting as recently as the LA Senate race (not to mention 2000 FL initiative to correct registration; the system washed discrepant registrants. If you showed up to vote in some districts but your registration was deleted they used a laptop to directly link up with Tallahassee and correct it. At other polls the people were told "too bad, so sorry" . . . can you guess what kind of disparity that created?) . . . negative 1 pt GOP.

I could go on but why bother. The GOP provided the first and best support for blacks in America. Subsequently, basic civil rights were systematically and often violently denied through the actions of both political parties. On balance since 1948 the Democratic Party has provided significantly greater support for equality of all men than the GOP. The GOP has typically (but not always) persued tactics of voter intimidation/misinformation b/c the overwelming majority of black voters are registered Democrats.

To his credit, GWB, maybe McCain, Frist, Santorum represent a modern GOP that rejects much of the old notions embodied by (Dixiecrats=Republican=racist), Bob Jones notwithstanding.

 

[Corn]

....if it wasn't for pandering politicians might spend more time legislating and that's bad news for everybody.

LOL, ain't that the truth!!!!

 

[etech]

BBD,

On balance since 1948 the Democratic Party has provided significantly greater support for equality of all men than the GOP. The GOP has typically (but not always) persued tactics of voter intimidation/misinformation b/c the overwelming majority of black voters are registered Democrats

You would have to give me some proof of that.


BTW, you forgot the Southern democratic governors like George Wallace and his schoolhouse stand in 1963. Did any Republican governor make such a public stand against integration?

1957 - Governor Orval Faubus(Democrat) dispatched the Arkansas National Guard to block the nine black students from entering the school. President Dwight Eisenhower(Republican) responded by sending federal troops to protect the students.

 

[CantedValve]

Oh for those who keep screaming "but Byrd's sins were 40 years ago..."

Consider this. It was less than 1 year ago that he was usingth big "n" word on national TV.

And Trent Lott is the bad guy... uh huh.

Hypocrites.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDocI could go on but why bother. The GOP provided the first and best support for blacks in America. Subsequently, basic civil rights were systematically and often violently denied through the actions of both political parties. On balance since 1948 the Democratic Party has provided significantly greater support for equality of all men than the GOP. The GOP has typically (but not always) persued tactics of voter intimidation/misinformation b/c the overwelming majority of black voters are registered Democrats.

So why in 1960 did the democrats blocks the civil rights acts in 1960?
Why are the evil republicans responsable for the passing of the civil right act of 1964 and Voting rights act of 1965? Ie more republicans voted for the bills than democrats(15-20% margin). Your partisan mind is showing.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Oh for those who keep screaming "but Byrd's sins were 40 years ago..."

Consider this. It was less than 1 year ago that he was usingth big "n" word on national TV.

And Trent Lott is the bad guy... uh huh.

Hypocrites.

And Robert Byrd is Senate Majority leader now?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CantedValve
Oh for those who keep screaming "but Byrd's sins were 40 years ago..."

Consider this. It was less than 1 year ago that he was usingth big "n" word on national TV.

And Trent Lott is the bad guy... uh huh.

Hypocrites.

And Robert Byrd is Senate Majority leader now?

He was 3rd in power for his party...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CantedValve

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: classy
How does this become a republican vs democrat debate. This about an elected official who for more than 40 years has endorsed racism, supported opposition to any type of equality legislation, and twice has said it would have been better for the country if a racist had won the 1948 election. For all the republicans pointing to others is sad. Its not about anyone else except Trent Lott. Plain and simple.

Aren't you the monobrowed idiot who said there was a lot of Republican racists? 10 for every one Dem. or some other highly intelligent little gem? I think it is clear who is trying to make this a Repub vs. Dem debate.

I think the ratio would be 10 to 1 when it comes to Ultra Conservative vs Moderate or Liberal. Of course the Liberals have their own set of repugnant falts

there are 10 ultra conservatives for every 1 liberal/moderate? Boy dont I wish THAT were true. Not that I am a fan of ultra conservative, but ANYTHING conservative is better (IMHO) than appeasers or liberals.

Read it which ever way you want Limbaughtista, but when you want to take it in the context in which it was meant then I would be interested in your dillusional opinion...no that's not true, after reading your posts in this thread I've come to the correct conclusion that your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up to post it.

 

[classy]

This is not about Byrd, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, and etc. Its not about what party passed what bill in 1964, 1984, or who will pass what in 2040. Its not about what ideals are democrat or republican. Its about one man and one man's past, present, and future. And that one man is Trent Lott. I keep reading all these Republican faithful saying what about........this or that? Well what about it? Does it change what Trent Lott said? Does it change what Trent Lott has stood for in the past? All the bally hooing about other things is not going to erase the fact that Trent Lott is former practicing racist who a few days go made a statement in favor of another racist who was running for president. Plain and simple. Its time for Trent Lott to take his punishment whatever that may be. It may be nothing more than the criticism he is getting right now. Or he may be forced to step down from his position in Congress. But whatever it is, this fact is clear and undisputable, Trent Lott bought all this on himself. If he did not have the past he created by himself, then when he made this statement he would not be under so much fire like he is now. This is about Trent Lott and no one else or nothing else.

 

[etech]

Classy, it looks as if you are having a good night and not calling everyone a racist, so let me ask this question again.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: classy
How does this become a republican vs democrat debate. This about an elected official who for more than 40 years has endorsed racism, supported opposition to any type of equality legislation, and twice has said it would have been better for the country if a racist had won the 1948 election. For all the republicans pointing to others is sad. Its not about anyone else except Trent Lott. Plain and simple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I'm curious about this "equality legislation". What bills were "equality legislation"? What is "equality legislation"?

What "equality legislation" did Lott vote against?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So why in 1960 did the democrats blocks the civil rights acts in 1960?

Do you read anybody's posts other than your own, geez man. The Democrats of the 1960s South are Republicans today. Democrats in my state just dropped the requirement that you had to be a party member to vote in the primary b/c their ranks have been thinned by the 'high and light' registering as independents and Republicans. Jessecrats may mean nothing to you but it sustained our favorite racist, Jesse Helms for decades.

Why are the evil republicans responsable for the passing of the civil right act of 1964 and Voting rights act of 1965?

The evil Republicans did b/c many of them were not in the South. The South simultaneously embodied racists Democrats (Helms) and racist Republicans (Thurmond) . . . it probably wasn't so cool to be black in the South in the 60s.

Ie more republicans voted for the bills than democrats(15-20% margin). Your partisan mind is showing.

OK, I would speak slowly but that probably has no affect on your ability to grasp simple concepts. Republicans were all but wiped out in the South b/c most of them were BLACK. Once they became disenfranchised the GOP had a small presence in the South but little power b/c in order to vote you had to register DEMOCRAT. You know what that means? liberal=democrat . . . conservative=democrat . . . racist=democrat . . . gay=? . . . there were no gay people in the South . . .

Once Truman (Democrat) went forwards with a civil rights platform he drew more black support (who previously registered predominantly Republican but weren't really voting b/c of evil whites of both parties). Thurmond (Democrat) and his racists ran third party and then he went to the Republican Party. Now I guess I could dream up all kinds of reasons for his defection . . . hmmm he left the Dems b/c they didn't endorse segregation and had the gall to call for equality . . . I guess he joined the GOP b/c they were for civil rights.

"There was a tremendous emotional fear among the white community that integration would mean white girls dating black men, amalgamation of the races the feeling was, I hate to say it, overwhelming, if not unanimous among the white community."

President Harry S. Truman wanted to court black votes, and "was also quite repulsed by the violence, particularly toward men in uniform," Mr. Frederickson said. Mr. Truman addressed Congress on civil rights, and then the party adopted a civil rights plank.

Still, Mr. Thurmond's campaign weakened the hold national Democrats had held on the South since the Civil War. White conservatives slowly began to vote for Republicans for president, and then other offices.
So again I wax poetically, where did the racist Democrats go? Unabashedly racist liberals exist (Byrd). The modern national GOP is not racist but its power base (the South) most certainly remains well preserved.

 

[SherEPunjab]

So anyone tape the show? I'd like to see it if someone can upload it. I do'nt get BET unfortunately.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Be thankful you do not get BET. I would check their website.

 

[etech]

BET.com
Best I can come up with right now.


Classy, are you hiding?, what is "equality legislation" ???

 

[charrison]

BaliBabyDoc,

Do you want to talk about individuals or parties? If you want to slam individuals go ahead. But you cant slam an entire party based on a few members. That is what you are attempting to do. If you want to say the republicans have a few racists members, i can see that. If you want to call the republican party racist, you are flat our wrong.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: etech
BBD,

On balance since 1948 the Democratic Party has provided significantly greater support for equality of all men than the GOP. The GOP has typically (but not always) persued tactics of voter intimidation/misinformation b/c the overwelming majority of black voters are registered Democrats

You would have to give me some proof of that.


BTW, you forgot the Southern democratic governors like George Wallace and his schoolhouse stand in 1963. Did any Republican governor make such a public stand against integration?

1957 - Governor Orval Faubus(Democrat) dispatched the Arkansas National Guard to block the nine black students from entering the school. President Dwight Eisenhower(Republican) responded by sending federal troops to protect the students.

GW later became a Republican as did his son...

 

[etech]

GW later became a Republican as did his son...

Never heard that and can't find anything to verify it. Got a link?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let me state clearly. The GOP is NOT racist. The GOP is NOT racist. The GOP's strength is the South.

The South has a disturbing number of racists. The South has racists of all political stripes.

But all minorities (in the South) have found the Democratic Party to be far more hospitable than the GOP.

One can infer that black racists (yes they exist, Virginia) are most likely Democrats; in my state less than 20% of the population is black.

One can also infer that Dixiecrats migrating to the GOP were moved primarily by one issue (integration).

In my state every election including 2002 had reports of voter misinformation targeting black and Hispanic voters. Just b/c you misinform does not make you racist . . . a sorry SOB certainly but not a racist.

To explicitly answer your question; yes I can do both. I can talk about parties and individuals. On an individual basis I can talk about more Democratic racists than Republican b/c Republicans were endangered species in the South. On a party basis I can talk about how Strom Thurmond was the Founding Father of the modern Southern GOP and he lived the first 48 years of his life as a Democrat. But that Democrat ushered in a new era for Southern politics. During this era the disenfranchisement of blacks was maintained by Southern Democrats followed by Southern Republicans. To this very day, some Southern Republicans (with direct assistance from national party coffers) attempts to suppress voting in high minority districts. To the contrary, the MANY Republicans have reached out to voters of all persuasions.

 

[markuskidd]

Final words?

Lott == bad.
Byrd might == bad too, if he's still spouting off racist stuff and his voting record confirms it.


Woo! It's not good to have a segregationist/racist senator no matter what!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: etech

GW later became a Republican as did his son...

Never heard that and can't find anything to verify it. Got a link?

Hmm... can't find a link to verify that GW finally made a switch. I know for a FACT that his son is a Republican because I have voted for him and a simple google search will tell you his party affiliation. GW last ran for political office as a democrat but I am almost positive that he made the switch with his son.

Sorry but AL politics fail to make national news that much.

 

[MrPALCO]

I find it amusing that Democrats, Liberals and their admirers, have succeeded where Thurmond failed.

Democrats have taken an entire race and managed to separate them from the rest of us with the promise of ever increasing Government largess.

Democrat policy has created a large group that functions like a large herd of beef cattle. Paid cowboys riding herd, Jackson and Sharpton, easily command the actions of the group as they are driven to the cattle gate and on to the slaughterhouse.

The situation is tragic for the Black man and delicious in it?s irony.

Democrats are evil.

Republicans are good.




ed...spell

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
I find it amusing that Democrats, Liberals and their admirers, have succeeded where Thurmond failed.
Democrats have taken an entire race and managed to separate them from the rest of us with the promise of ever increasing Government largess.
Democrat policy has created a large group that functions like a large herd of beef cattle. Paid cowboys riding herd, Jackson and Sharpton, easily command the actions of the group as they are driven to the cattle gate and on to the slaughterhouse.
The situation is tragic for the Black man and delicious in it?s irony.
Democrats are evil.
Republicans are good.
ed...spell

Hey, Republicans are not doing anything in decreasing government size with this new department and more spending... why not just put everything under the state deparment?