Politics: J'accuse!

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
to be fair, i offered you happiness of a sort, but you weren't willing to share. My reference was to the movie. Those of you who appreciate anything I have done on these boards* should rent "Welcome to the dollhouse" then "Happiness."

* its presumptous to assume you haven't, and this is probably a whiiff, but if you haven't, i think you'd like these movies- note rent in that order.

Would you recommend Happiness to someone even if they (like me) had hated Dollhouse? I read a few good reviews of H but friends who saw it were less complimentary.

This post does not constitute any admission on my part that I appreciate what you do on these boards.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sound familiar? Let's see if he is persecuted like Lott was.

You honestly see no difference between those comments and the pride that Lott expressed that his state had voted for Strom when he ran on a single-plank, segregationist platform, and stated that the country would have been better off if that single-plank candidate had won?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sound familiar? Let's see if he is persecuted like Lott was.*

*He, like Lott, should be.

Do you really think that either Lott or Dodd should be persecuted for this? I think both of them spoke without really thinking about the implications of what they were saying. They were both trying to flatter old guys on death's doorstep. They weren't trying to endorse the racist pasts of either of these men.

What was done to Lott was a disgrace. But it won't be done to Dodd simply because he is a Dem and the media allows Dems to make these mistakes without the media making a big deal out of it.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Senator Dodd's recent comments on Senator Byrd:



Sound familiar? Let's see if he is persecuted like Lott was.*

*He, like Lott, should be.

Jefferson held slaves. If we inserted his name into that quote, instead of Byrd's, would you be equally irate?

I think there's a difference between saying (a) someone with a racist past would have been a great man for this country at any point in history, and (b) saying that the country would be better off if we had elected a particular presidential ticket in the past whose platform specifically supported racism. As I understood it at the time, Lott said some of (a), but the problem people had was with (b). Was I wrong?

If it makes you feel any better, I wish Lott was still the majority leader since Frist is such an ass.

[Sidd Finch]

Is this the beginning of civil war? If Sadr's militia takes over entire towns and offices, as has been happening, will Kurd and Sunni militias respond?


Perhaps worse, there are indications reported that the Sunni and Shiite militias are at last finding something to unite over. Unfortunately, it's their desire to kill Americans.


Today's press is pretty frightening.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
What was done to Lott was a disgrace. But it won't be done to Dodd simply because he is a Dem and the media allows Dems to make these mistakes without the media making a big deal out of it.

Yep, that liberal press. Like Fox Corp. And the WSJ. Remember how they never mentioned any of the allegations against Clinton?

Lott deserved to go down. He is proud of voting for a racist, whose entire platform was about being racist. He continues to wish that the racist had won. He stated that if the country had elected a racist, segregationist party, we would have avoided the problems we have (I guess by that he means all those negroes living in white towns).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I think there's a difference between saying (a) someone with a racist past would have been a great man for this country at any point in history, and (b) saying that the country would be better off if we had elected a particular presidential ticket in the past whose platform specifically supported racism.

Please explain the difference, in particular why one is worse than the other (since this seems to be what you are saying). TIA.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
Please explain the difference, in particular why one is worse than the other (since this seems to be what you are saying). TIA.

I thought the Jefferson question would clarify that, but I guess not.

My point is that Lott was saying that we should have elected a president (with specific racist policies in tow) at a time in our history when we began turning away from racism. That strikes me as far different from saying someone is a great man, and that someone happens to have been a big wheel in the KKK. I can call Malcolm X a great man without supporting the crimes he committed as a younger man, can't I?

I don't know what TIA means.

edited to fix verb tense

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I thought the Jefferson question would clarify that, but I guess not.

My point is that Lott was saying that we should have elected a president (with specific racist policies in tow) at a time in our history when we began turning away from racism. That strikes me as far different from saying someone is a great man, and that someone happens to have been a big wheel in the KKK. I can call Malcolm X a great man without supporting the crimes he committed as a younger man, can't I?

I don't know what TIA means.

edited to fix verb tense

what's this part mean?
He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Is this the beginning of civil war? If Sadr's militia takes over entire towns and offices, as has been happening, will Kurd and Sunni militias respond?


Perhaps worse, there are indications reported that the Sunni and Shiite militias are at last finding something to unite over. Unfortunately, it's their desire to kill Americans.


Today's press is pretty frightening.

Agreed. It's disturbing stuff.

The only encouraging thing that I've come across are reports that the Shia establishment (including Sistani) doesn't like or agree with Sadr but OTOH don't feel comfortable opposing him and standing too close to the Americans. So, they're content for the moment to stand idle and let the US do the dirty work of wiping out Sadr and his militia. We'll see how true that really is by whether and how much fighting spreads.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what's this part mean?
He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation.

It means: D-W.Va. It's in a book. Look it up.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
My point is that Lott was saying that we should have elected a president (with specific racist policies in tow) at a time in our history when we began turning away from racism. That strikes me as far different from saying someone is a great man, and that someone happens to have been a big wheel in the KKK.

But how is it different. You are paraphrasing what Lott and Dodd said and then saying that what they said is different but you are not explaining how what was said is different.

Can you explain to me how what Lott said is worse than what Dodd said? Please state what the difference is.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I can call Malcolm X a great man without supporting the crimes he committed as a younger man, can't I?

So are you saying then that Lott's statements indicated he supports segregation?

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I don't know what TIA means.

TIA = Thanks in advance.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what's this part mean?
He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation.

How is that different from what Lott said? Again, if someone could state what the difference is, not merely state that there is a difference without explaining what the difference is.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what's this part mean?
He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation.

It's a little less specific than what Lott said. Again, if Dodd had said Jefferson would have been a great man during the civil war, would you automatically gripe? I realize its absurd to compare the two as statesmen, but Jefferson owned slaves and lived in the South, so by the same logic as you're applying here that comment would be tantamount to advocating slavery. I would disagree.

Aside from that I should say I don't think Lott should have been hammered like he was. But really, what damage did that "scandal" do? Do you think he lost one single vote because of it? Do you think it's all that great a job to be majority leader?

Ah screw it. This is Chris fucking Dodd we're talking about, a guy who's known his share of screwups. If you want to get bent out of shape about it I won't be able to tell you you're wrong. The Media will turn a deaf ear to this because it is on Our Side. KNEEL BEFORE ITS AWESOME POWER.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
How is that different from what Lott said? Again, if someone could state what the difference is, not merely state that there is a difference without explaining what the difference is.

Apparently being the JR Ewing of Seattle means you don't talk to Southerners much. It's acceptable among Southern Democrats to feel that the wrong side won the Civil War. This requires you to believe that the Civil War was about industrialism or something. It requires you to think that the world is "complicated."

Saying that you wanted Strom to be President in 1948 is somewhat less nuanced than saying that the Confederacy had the better argument, from a con law perspective. Check your party's platform on abortion for confirmation.

Oh, and Byrd's "state" was on the right side of that war, from Dodd's perspective. See above.