Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sheltonmac
"...Lott could have been referring to some of the other principles Thurmond stood for..."

So, why didn't he say that?

Then, there would have been no question in your mind.

286 posted on 01/02/2003 10:53:37 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies ]


To: Luis Gonzalez
Luis, when the evil Dums were in control of the South, Segregation was a fact. Poll taxes were a fact. Lynchings were a fact. Blacks were fleeing to the North. Now that the Repubs have control of the South, the Blacks are returning to the land of freedom and opportunity. Nuf said.
289 posted on 01/02/2003 10:57:53 AM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
And if he would have specifically mentioned segregation, then there would have been no question in your mind. Really. Do you honestly believe that Lott was actually voicing his approval of segregation? He was honoring a colleague who had just turned 100 years old, a man who--in Lott's mind--had a distinguished and fruitful political career. You have to really strain to read into Lott's comment that he supports segregation.
297 posted on 01/02/2003 11:05:24 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson