[alnick]

I didn't say one word about what he thought. I don't care what he thought; it's none of my business, or yours. It's what he said publicly and how he handled the mess that he made afterwards that's the problem.

Because he didn't utter the word "segregation" doesn't change the fact he SAID that a man who ran as a segregationist in '48 should have won. It's been what, almost two weeks, and I have yet to see any evidence that Thurmond ran on anything but segregation in '48.

Some of the very same people who labeled Byrd a racist after his white niggar remark are defending Lott now. The only difference between the two is that one has a D after his name and the other an R. Ironically it's these very same people who are harping on the hypocrisy of the left.

[marajade]

"Some of the very same people who labeled Byrd a racist after his white niggar remark are defending Lott now. The only difference between the two is that one has a D after his name and the other an R. Ironically it's these very same people who are harping on the hypocrisy of the left."

I'm one of those and I believe they were both wrong... I just don't think it should cost him the ML position whereas Byrd was able to retain his line to the Presidency...

[Walkin Man]

I didn't say one word about what he thought. I don't care what he thought; it's none of my business, or yours. It's what he said publicly and how he handled the mess that he made afterwards that's the problem.

Great, he did not say he was for segregation, he said he wished his old friend had been elected President so I guess you agree with me then.

Some of the very same people who labeled Byrd a racist after his white niggar remark are defending Lott now. The only difference between the two is that one has a D after his name and the other an R. Ironically it's these very same people who are harping on the hypocrisy of the left.

No, the difference is Byrd actually SAID, 'white niggar' he wasn't thinking it, he SAID it. Can't you see the difference??