Originally posted by: CantedValve
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?
There is a big difference between being a racist in the past, recanting and saying "being the in KKK was the biggest mistake of my life" (Byrd) and being a racist in the past, recanting, then do nothing to suggest otherwise (Lott).
I say, yes, lets look at prior record. Lets look at the record of all the judges Bush nominates. Lets look at Ashcroft's record.
So, you are telling me that Lott's voting record in the Senate proves he is a racist? I would love to see an analysis of his record... in fact I am sure someone out there is researching it right now.Originally posted by: NFS4
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?
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.
To tell you the truth, you show me Byrds voting record and his stance on the issues. Then you show me Lott's stance. Lott's voting record and his stance on issues reflects on what he has said in the past and what he has said recently.
I don't care if Byrd was the Grand Wizard (or Grand Dragon, whatever they call 'em) years ago, I care about what his political stance is today. I belive people can change...Lott obviously hasn't...well after tonight he has
Although American History X is just a movie, I believe that people can change as depicted in that film.
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Why on earth would he leave the Senate over this? We have people in Congress who screw underage boys and are still in. Worst case is he steps down from being leader, and gets replaced, but he hardly did anything illegal.
Originally posted by: Czar
CantedValve,
"of your actions they shall judge you", this applies to any person, expecialy people in politics
Originally posted by: Walleye
what happened to the runoff election in one of the southern states?
Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu defeated her Republican opponent, State Elections Commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell, by four percentage points in Louisiana's Senate runoff election December 7. The 40,000-plus vote margin of victory for Landrieu -- out of more than 1.2 million cast -- enabled the Democrats to retain a seat
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
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
Why on earth would he leave the Senate over this? We have people in Congress who screw underage boys and are still in. Worst case is he steps down from being leader, and gets replaced, but he hardly did anything illegal.
I can live with that, but the way that it is being interpreted now is "of your actions they shall judge you... if you are Republican."Originally posted by: Czar
CantedValve,
"of your actions they shall judge you", this applies to any person, expecialy people in politics
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Lott has said that if he was forced to step down as Majority leader, he will resign from the SenateOriginally posted by: HayabusariderWhy on earth would he leave the Senate over this? We have people in Congress who screw underage boys and are still in. Worst case is he steps down from being leader, and gets replaced, but he hardly did anything illegal.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: jahawkin
Doing nothing to suggest otherwise? So all else being equal, if there is no evidence of it, it must be true. Byrd hasnt done anything extraordinary to repent his prior position...Originally posted by: CantedValve
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?
There is a big difference between being a racist in the past, recanting and saying "being the in KKK was the biggest mistake of my life" (Byrd) and being a racist in the past, recanting, then do nothing to suggest otherwise (Lott).
I say, yes, lets look at prior record. Lets look at the record of all the judges Bush nominates. Lets look at Ashcroft's record.
I see when you suggest that we look at records, you focus only on Republicans. It is evident your motivation behind defaming a distinguished Senator. You arent worth debating anymore.
now that fits politics even moreOriginally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
CantedValve,
"of your actions they shall judge you", this applies to any person, expecialy people in politics
and of what you don't say they shall hang you.
Oh I agree... I think Lott is weak and lazy as a leader. He would never have been my choice for leader, but there is an advantage. He is weak enough that Bush could control him. Since the Senate is gonna be a mess anyway, it was nice knowing Bush would be able to excercise his authority there relatively easily.Originally posted by: Walleye
what happened to the runoff election in one of the southern states?
Lott, in my opinion, made a big blunder. He shouldnt have been forced to leave the Leadership, but because of his buttlicking performance on BET, he sure as hell better leave now. I dont mind having him in the senate, if the people of his home state want him there. But I dont want him representative of me. Which, in his opinion, is what he is now.
This entire problem stinks of Leftist Media Bias. :|
Originally posted by: Czar
now that fits politics even moreOriginally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
CantedValve,
"of your actions they shall judge you", this applies to any person, expecialy people in politics
and of what you don't say they shall hang you.
Originally posted by: CantedValve
I can live with that, but the way that it is being interpreted now is "of your actions they shall judge you... if you are Republican."Originally posted by: Czar
CantedValve,
"of your actions they shall judge you", this applies to any person, expecialy people in politics
it may seem like that now because Lott's comment seems to be the big issue today, they will remane the same when someone else than a republican makes a similar statmentOriginally posted by: CantedValve
I can live with that, but the way that it is being interpreted now is "of your actions they shall judge you... if you are Republican."Originally posted by: Czar
CantedValve,
"of your actions they shall judge you", this applies to any person, expecialy people in politics
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Jellomancer
Why will the governor of Mississippi replace him with a Democrat?
cause the governor of mississippi is a Democrat
Originally posted by: Walleye
going into the election, there were 49 dem's, 49 repub's, and 2 indep's. Coming out, the Republicans gained about 3 seats. should Lott Resign, the Repub's would still hold the majority. No, it wouldnt be split down the middle.
The makeup of the Senate in January will be 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one independent.
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Walleye
going into the election, there were 49 dem's, 49 repub's, and 2 indep's. Coming out, the Republicans gained about 3 seats. should Lott Resign, the Repub's would still hold the majority. No, it wouldnt be split down the middle.
not quite accurate
link
The makeup of the Senate in January will be 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one independent.
If Lott leaves, that will change to 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats and one Independent (that votes Democrat everytime {nearly}), ie a defacto Democrat
50 isn't a majority of 100, its half, 50%
50% isn't a majority
Originally posted by: CantedValve
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Doing nothing to suggest otherwise? So all else being equal, if there is no evidence of it, it must be true. Byrd hasnt done anything extraordinary to repent his prior position...Originally posted by: CantedValve
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?
There is a big difference between being a racist in the past, recanting and saying "being the in KKK was the biggest mistake of my life" (Byrd) and being a racist in the past, recanting, then do nothing to suggest otherwise (Lott).
I say, yes, lets look at prior record. Lets look at the record of all the judges Bush nominates. Lets look at Ashcroft's record.
I see when you suggest that we look at records, you focus only on Republicans. It is evident your motivation behind defaming a distinguished Senator. You arent worth debating anymore.
OK, lets look at everyone's records. The Repubs have a lot more skeletons in the closet on the issue of race than the Dems do. After all, they are the party of the "southern strategy."
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: CantedValve
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Doing nothing to suggest otherwise? So all else being equal, if there is no evidence of it, it must be true. Byrd hasnt done anything extraordinary to repent his prior position...Originally posted by: CantedValve
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?
There is a big difference between being a racist in the past, recanting and saying "being the in KKK was the biggest mistake of my life" (Byrd) and being a racist in the past, recanting, then do nothing to suggest otherwise (Lott).
I say, yes, lets look at prior record. Lets look at the record of all the judges Bush nominates. Lets look at Ashcroft's record.
I see when you suggest that we look at records, you focus only on Republicans. It is evident your motivation behind defaming a distinguished Senator. You arent worth debating anymore.
OK, lets look at everyone's records. The Repubs have a lot more skeletons in the closet on the issue of race than the Dems do. After all, they are the party of the "southern strategy."
You do realize that the republicans are responsable for passing most of the civils rights laws....
Site examples of his voting record that are pathetic. I missed the interview (read: I didnt care to see it). If you are getting his record from BET, dont bother, I wouldnt believe them if they said the sky was blue.Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: CantedValve
I can live with that, but the way that it is being interpreted now is "of your actions they shall judge you... if you are Republican."Originally posted by: Czar
CantedValve,
"of your actions they shall judge you", this applies to any person, expecialy people in politics
Democrats get judged pretty often as well. You heard of Lewinsky right?
I'm watching this as I type and his voting record is pathetic...his excuses are pathetic. How people can defend him after this I really can't figure out.
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Walleye
going into the election, there were 49 dem's, 49 repub's, and 2 indep's. Coming out, the Republicans gained about 3 seats. should Lott Resign, the Repub's would still hold the majority. No, it wouldnt be split down the middle.
not quite accurate
link
The makeup of the Senate in January will be 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one independent.
If Lott leaves, that will change to 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats and one Independent (that votes Democrat everytime {nearly}), ie a defacto Democrat
50 isn't a majority of 100, its half, 50%
50% isn't a majority
Be careful etech, you could be called a racist, cause they used to hang black people in the south, and that could be construed as a racist remark.Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
CantedValve,
"of your actions they shall judge you", this applies to any person, expecialy people in politics
and of what you don't say they shall hang you.