Lott was for poll taxes to keep blacks from voting. Who says he's not somehow preventing them from running now?
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: NFS4
Lott ran unopposed this year...maybe that's why he won?
Seriously though, I don't know enough about the voting record or black population % of Mississippi to comment on any of the other elections besides this past one.
So Lott is so racist, that in a black state he is able to run completely unapposed? He must be really be good at keeping the people down there.
All the sudden, you dont know what their politics are, but yet everyone is screaming he is a racist.
Lott was for poll taxes to keep blacks from voting. Who says he's not somehow preventing them from running now?
While we are speculating, who is to say Byrd is not using similar tactics.
Byrd isn't the issue. In 2002, Byrd did not suggest the world would be a better place if we were segregated. If Byrd makes a similar comment now, we should go after him.
I'm surprised that is even legal:QOriginally posted by: BDawg
After blacks were given the right to vote, some states set up poll taxes (money you had to pay before you could vote), which kept the traditionally poor blacks from voting.
Originally posted by: CantedValve
If I ever see a conservative get the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, I will fall over dead (much to the pleasure if many here I would guess).
Originally posted by: Czar
I'm surprised that is even legal:QOriginally posted by: BDawg
After blacks were given the right to vote, some states set up poll taxes (money you had to pay before you could vote), which kept the traditionally poor blacks from voting.
And with all of that, how could a racist survive in office with such a large black population. The population must be content enough with the representation to a not vote him out of office or riot.....
I can agree with you on one thing... he was a damn fool for doing the interview. He was a damn fool for apologizing. He would have come out of this stronger if he had explained how completely out-of-context the comment was, and if they didnt like it, they could slurp his butt.Originally posted by: NFS4
As much as Lott hopped from foot to foot in that interview, it's hard to believe anything he said.So it does look like his words were taken out of context. People ASSUMED Lott was talking about Strom's segregationist ideas, but it was possibly something else.
Originally posted by: CantedValve
Wow... you tear a guy limb from limb because of a remark that had to be interpreted wrong for it to be offensive, and DEFEND a guy who was at one point a LEADER in the biggest black-hating group in the world.Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: CPA
Once again I ask, when is BET going to interview Senator Robert Byrd??? Or at the very least, when is Sheila Jackson Lee and John Conyers going to call him out??? I find it quite interesting that he has been very quiet during this whole thing. He is not usually lost for words.
Why are you trying to pass the buck? Byrd isn't the one on "trial" here. Byrd isn't the one that made an ass out of himself a couple of weeks ago.
Byrd's actions today have no correlation to his actions years ago. OTOH, Lott's actions today speak correlate quite positively to his actions from years past.
Think about it... but then again you people dont do much thinking at all do you?
Originally posted by: NFS4
AGAIN, Byrd is not the one on "trial" here. Why are you dragging a man that has nothing to do with this whole situation into the discussion? I can understand if Byrd got up and said some sh!t last week...fine. But he DIDN'T.
Originally posted by: Czar
I'm surprised that is even legal:QOriginally posted by: BDawg
After blacks were given the right to vote, some states set up poll taxes (money you had to pay before you could vote), which kept the traditionally poor blacks from voting.
One less of me? You mean white people? Wow... you would think for suggesting that all white people should die that they would ban you. I mean geez... its one thing to threaten me, but an entirely different thing to declare all white people should be killed.Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: CantedValve
If I ever see a conservative get the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, I will fall over dead (much to the pleasure if many here I would guess).
I'm considering giving him the benefit of the doubt just so there will be one less of you around.
Originally posted by: CantedValve
I can agree with you on one thing... he was a damn fool for doing the interview. He was a damn fool for apologizing. He would have come out of this stronger if he had explained how completely out-of-context the comment was, and if they didnt like it, they could slurp his butt.Originally posted by: NFS4
As much as Lott hopped from foot to foot in that interview, it's hard to believe anything he said.So it does look like his words were taken out of context. People ASSUMED Lott was talking about Strom's segregationist ideas, but it was possibly something else.
You dont believe him because you dont want to believe him. You WANT him to be a racist. You WANT to hate him. From the black side of the coin, there is NO benefit of the doubt. If anyone is keeping racism front and center, it is idiots like you who take "no story" comments and then spin them to a point where you have something to bitch about.
Trying to get you people to use some common sense is like trying to get a dead horse to dance.
Nothing to defend. Innocuous comment taken completely out of context.. construed and twisted to serve the needs of the black community and liberals in general.Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: NFS4
AGAIN, Byrd is not the one on "trial" here. Why are you dragging a man that has nothing to do with this whole situation into the discussion? I can understand if Byrd got up and said some sh!t last week...fine. But he DIDN'T.
Rule one of debating: When you can't defend your guys actions, try to change the conversation.
Originally posted by: CantedValve
Trent Lott didnt make that statement either. He has had to back pedal and apologize for a remark that was not intended to relate in anyway to racial issues. He was trying to say something NICE about a 100 YEAR OLD MAN ON HIS BIRTHDAY, and as always, it was interpreted completely against him.
If I ever see a conservative get the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, I will fall over dead (much to the pleasure if many here I would guess).
In this case, Lott does not get the benefit of the doubt due to his prior record.
I did this to prove a point NFS4. "You people" was in reference to liberals. There are far more white people screaming for Lott's head than black people... yet your default position was to assume I was talking about black people. This is the kind of crap that leads to what happened to Lott.Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: CantedValve
I can agree with you on one thing... he was a damn fool for doing the interview. He was a damn fool for apologizing. He would have come out of this stronger if he had explained how completely out-of-context the comment was, and if they didnt like it, they could slurp his butt.Originally posted by: NFS4
As much as Lott hopped from foot to foot in that interview, it's hard to believe anything he said.So it does look like his words were taken out of context. People ASSUMED Lott was talking about Strom's segregationist ideas, but it was possibly something else.
You dont believe him because you dont want to believe him. You WANT him to be a racist. You WANT to hate him. From the black side of the coin, there is NO benefit of the doubt. If anyone is keeping racism front and center, it is idiots like you who take "no story" comments and then spin them to a point where you have something to bitch about.
Trying to get you people to use some common sense is like trying to get a dead horse to dance.
"You people"?? Who are you talking about?
Where have I called Lott a racist? Not once have I even said anything to Lott's character. Where have I even said that I hated him? In fact, I even said in another thread that while what he said was stupid, I don't even think that he should be removed from office. If he is going to be removed, let his peers decide.
Don't start stuff when you don't even know the entire facts
Originally posted by: jahawkin
But wait... this isnt supposed to be about his PRIOR RECORD. This is supposed to be about a comment he made 2 weeks ago.Originally posted by: CantedValve
Trent Lott didnt make that statement either. He has had to back pedal and apologize for a remark that was not intended to relate in anyway to racial issues. He was trying to say something NICE about a 100 YEAR OLD MAN ON HIS BIRTHDAY, and as always, it was interpreted completely against him.
If I ever see a conservative get the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, I will fall over dead (much to the pleasure if many here I would guess).
In this case, Lott does not get the benefit of the doubt due to his prior record.
Ahhh, so we REALLY see what it is about. There is no repentance, no "change of heart" when it comes to racism. Once a racist, always a racist.
If this is about his PRIOR RECORD, then why isnt Byrd in the hot seat?
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i think there was a bit on him in newsweek. a racist cheerleader at his college fought to keep blacks out of his frat, walked out of a speech on civil rights.. it goes on and on. damning? looks like it guess some people never really change. and good lord... a cheerleader?
See above...Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i think there was a bit on him in newsweek. a racist cheerleader at his college fought to keep blacks out of his frat, walked out of a speech on civil rights.. it goes on and on.
damning? looks like it
guess some people never really change.
and good lord... a cheerleader?
Originally posted by: CantedValve
I did this to prove a point NFS4. "You people" was in reference to liberals. There are far more white people screaming for Lott's head than black people... yet your default position was to assume I was talking about black people. This is the kind of crap that leads to what happened to Lott.Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: CantedValve
I can agree with you on one thing... he was a damn fool for doing the interview. He was a damn fool for apologizing. He would have come out of this stronger if he had explained how completely out-of-context the comment was, and if they didnt like it, they could slurp his butt.Originally posted by: NFS4
As much as Lott hopped from foot to foot in that interview, it's hard to believe anything he said.So it does look like his words were taken out of context. People ASSUMED Lott was talking about Strom's segregationist ideas, but it was possibly something else.
You dont believe him because you dont want to believe him. You WANT him to be a racist. You WANT to hate him. From the black side of the coin, there is NO benefit of the doubt. If anyone is keeping racism front and center, it is idiots like you who take "no story" comments and then spin them to a point where you have something to bitch about.
Trying to get you people to use some common sense is like trying to get a dead horse to dance.
"You people"?? Who are you talking about?
Where have I called Lott a racist? Not once have I even said anything to Lott's character. Where have I even said that I hated him? In fact, I even said in another thread that while what he said was stupid, I don't even think that he should be removed from office. If he is going to be removed, let his peers decide.
Don't start stuff when you don't even know the entire facts
Originally posted by: FoBoT
heh, i just read something interesting
in the past, anytime a leader of the senate/house left under unfavorable conditions, they have resigned from the senate all together
the balance is 51-49
if Lott leaves the senate, the govenor of Mississippi will appoint a democrat
so the balance goes back to 50-50
and although the VP will break ties, the committies and all the stuff are split even, instead of stacked with republicans
huh, funny how stuff changes so fast
Originally posted by: Jellomancer
Why will the governor of Mississippi replace him with a Democrat?
Originally posted by: FoBoT
heh, i just read something interesting in the past, anytime a leader of the senate/house left under unfavorable conditions, they have resigned from the senate all together the balance is 51-49 if Lott leaves the senate, the govenor of Mississippi will appoint a democrat so the balance goes back to 50-50 and although the VP will break ties, the committies and all the stuff are split even, instead of stacked with republicans huh, funny how stuff changes so fast