Posted on 12/13/2002 5:24:52 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
Just so people here understand that Thurmond's run for the White House had nothing to do with lowering taxes or reducing government spending.
Nice try, but you have yet to prove you -- not Trent Lott -- are not a racist.
And, of course, you are aware Lott has not endorsed the Dixiecrat Platform.
The truth is that none of us know what Lott was thinking when he made his remarks, but I don't think many people would be this upset if:
1- Lott were a Democrat;
2 - Lott were a liberal;
3 - Lott were from Massachussetts; or if,
4 - Lott were a black female.
Just a couple of things for you to think about while you're putting the final knots in your noose.
THE BLACK LANDMARK THE CLINTON LIBRARY RAZED
Then, there are all those people out there without a sense of humor - "blue noses" they are called. Heretofore most of them have been in the ranks of the Democrats. In recent years we Republicans have allowed a number of them to join our party.
As could have been expected we have been overrun with "blue noses".
What a great idea! I have no doubth that Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Larry King, Al, Jessie James Carvil, Bill, Hillaryand Tom Brokaw will be jumping right on that band wagon. Boy, with brillaint ideas like this, we got it made!
And, of course, you would sum up a man's entire career in one statement made to an old colleague. Fortunately, I believe the rest of the country might be a little more fair with Senator Lott than you are predisposed to be.
No one is charging they think he said what he said. He said what he said.
And what he said is not what you are attacking. You have not attacked a hypothetical Strom Thurmond presidency. You have attacked a Dixiecrat platform -- which could not have been passed because the Dixiecrats had no real voting power in the US House or Senate.
Your interpretation of Lott's remarks leaves much to be desired. Lott has not stated he endorsed that platform. You keep saying that he has done so.
To state a Strom Thurmond administration would have been better than a Harry Truman administration is not the same as an endorsement of the Dixiecrat platform. You can twist it, stretch it and torture it, but you cannot make it the same.
With your false assumptions, you have set up a straw man. Pardon me if I am unimpressed to see you topple him.
Thanks for posting the platform. I'd been looking for it for some days now.
Your points are well taken.
I don't like him either,and never have. His whole "power sharing" nonsense was the most bizarre thing I think I have ever seen,and even though there was zero chance for a conviction in the Senate,he failed in his OBLIGATION to bring Bubba-1 to trial.Yes,there would have been repurcussions,but in the end,the country would have been better for it.
I would like to see him replaced with a more conservative Republican as Majority Leader, but not at this time.
You might as well wish to win the mega-lottery. Your chances are better. Lott was the Senate leader because the Republicans voted for him to be their leader. When the announcement is made next Friday evening that he is stepping down,his replacement will have the approval of the RINO's in the White House and the RNC,not to mention the approval of the DNC and the Congressional Black Caucus. In short,it will be somebody who makes Bush look like he has a spine.
First off,it is NONE of the state OR feral gooberments business how any of us treat each other on a individual basis,as long as no physical harm results. How the people of each state are treated as official policy IS the business of the state,NOT the feral gooberment. The only time the ferals have the right to stick their noses in is when Constitutional rights are being violated as official state policy.
Is allowing the blacks the same rights as yourself, racial accommadation?
No,but allowing them SPECIAL rights is worse than accomodation,it is discriminating against non-blacks.
Again, read the platform. So. Are you saying that the end of segregation caused all these maladys?
Segregation is practiced all over this country every day,and the only people punished for it are white people.
Did the right to attend any school of their choosing cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites?
When did this happen? Last I heard,the blacks and their commie white friends were screaming for forced integration,where both the black and the other children were TOLD where to go to school,and sometimes this resulted in them spending HOURS away from their neighborhoods and homes as they rode buses.
BTW,the above is THE prime reason we have so much juvenile crime today. Nobody has any sense of "neighborhood" because they don't grow up going to school and making friends with the people they live around. Nobody really knows anybody any more,and there is no sense of "community". While it's true the adults in neighborhoods mostly left the neighborhoods to work,it was their kids who played and socialized together that caused the adults to know one another.
Did the right to live anywhere they please cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites?
NOBODY has a "right" to live anywhere they please. This is a bullshit "right" created out of thin air to please the rich leftists and the racist blacks. You ONLY have a "right" to live somewhere you can afford to live,PROVIDING the person you are buying or renting from is willing to sell or rent to you.
The feral gooberment has passed "regulations" and made "administrative decisions" that have the force of law that TOTALLY takes away the Constitutional RIGHTS of home and property owners to make these decisions about their privately owned property. This is un-Constitutional as hell. The government may have the right and power to regulate how PUBLIC property is managed,but PRIVATE property is none of their legimitate concern.
Did the right to eat in the same restuarant as you cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites?
No,but losing the right to pick and choose your own customers damn sure infringes on the personal freedom of a restaurant owner. If a white restaurant owner wants to have a "whites only" restaurant,he or she has that CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The right of free association. Blacks STILL have that right,yet a white restaurant owner who tried this would lose his restaurant in the lawsuits in federal court.
Separate but equal, is never equal, when one side gets to decide the rules and how the rights are parcelled out.
Try telling that to the NAACP and the CBC.
I don't understand your point,here. You were calling for mandatory inter-racial marriages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.