Politics: J'accuse! - Page 54

Atticus Grinch · 04-08-2004, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And you shouldn't assume all West Virginians were/are KKK'ers. Your say Byrd 1861 might have been anti-slavery, and still the kind of guy who'd join the Klan.

No, dumbass, I said Byrd could have been a virulent racist in 1865 and still have fought on the Union side, making Dodd's statement accurate even if Byrd is an unreconstructed bigot in 2004. Some of the most prominent Northern abolitionists were virulent racists. Also, I don't think it's necessary to surmise that he would have joined the Klan in 1865. The Klan was a reaction to Reconstruction, which was farther-reaching than the Emancipation Proclamation (which, I'll note, didn't even apply to W.Va.). His membership in the Klan in the 1940s would meant something different than (1) fighting for the Confederacy or (2) membership in the Klan when it was founded.

Quote:

You are willing to admit the KKK was not a positive force for the southern black population, aren't you?

Yes. Non sequitur.

Atticus Grinch · 04-08-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think what you meant to say is that I'm always ready to chime in with an appreciation of an opponent's 4th grade argument.

Oh, snap!

Hank Chinaski · 04-08-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, dumbass, I said Byrd could have been a virulent racist in 1865 and still have fought on the Union side, making Dodd's statement accurate even if Byrd is an unreconstructed bigot in 2004. Some of the most prominent Northern abolitionists were virulent racists. Also, I don't think it's necessary to surmise that he would have joined the Klan in 1865. The Klan was a reaction to Reconstruction, which was farther-reaching than the Emancipation Proclamation (which, I'll note, didn't even apply to W.Va.). His membership in the Klan in the 1940s would meant something different than (1) fighting for the Confederacy or (2) membership in the Klan when it was founded.

inverse numbskull. the appopriate reaction to dodd's statement should be through the prism of the average person hearing the quote, should it not? the average Joe wouldn't have heard Dodd's statement and found it benign because he knew:

Some of the most prominent Northern abolitionists were virulent racists. Also, I don't think it's necessary to surmise that he would have joined the Klan in 1865. The Klan was a reaction to Reconstruction, which was farther-reaching than the Emancipation Proclamation (which, I'll note, didn't even apply to W.Va.). His membership in the Klan in the 1940s would meant something different than (1) fighting for the Confederacy or (2) membership in the Klan when it was founded

and as to the statement being "accurate," what does that have to do with it. dodd's statement is okay, because if Byrd would have been a WVa. Senator in '63 he'd have supported the war. Lott's was wrong because the country wouldn't have been better off. So the difference is accuracy, not degree of stupidity? Please.

2 people said 2 stupid things about guys who were racists. from a precedental view, this may not be on all fours, but you got to admit you'd cite it in the brief, and not as contrary authority.

Atticus Grinch · 04-08-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
inverse numbskull. the appopriate reaction to dodd's statement should be through the prism of the average person hearing the quote, should it not?

I didn't realize we were arguing over whether Dodd's praise of his colleague was actually wrong, or just stupid in light of the historical ignorance of the benighted American voter.

If the paradigm here is that our arguments have to ring true to Swan-watching trailer park denizens, I'm going to kayak-out for a while. It will take that long to edit all of my prior posts.

Hank Chinaski · 04-08-2004, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I didn't realize we were arguing over whether Dodd's praise of his colleague was actually wrong, or just stupid in light of the historical ignorance of the benighted American voter.

If the paradigm here is that our arguments have to ring true to Swan-watching trailer park denizens, I'm going to kayak-out for a while. It will take that long to edit all of my prior posts.

No mas. 25-5*

Roberto Duran reference, and a very good response, with similar motivation.

sgtclub · 04-08-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No mas. 25-5*

Roberto Duran reference, and a very good response, with similar motivation.

You ruined it by explaining the reference. You deserve the loss on that basis alone.

SlaveNoMore · 04-08-2004, 02:32 PM

"Senator! Senator! This committee owes Condi an apology!!! This committee owes Condi an apology!!! An apology, Senator!!!!"

ltl/fb · 04-08-2004, 02:38 PM

Rice says Bush understood al Qaida threat!

Hank Chinaski · 04-08-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
You ruined it by explaining the reference. You deserve the loss on that basis alone.

People don't get Godfather quotes here, you think they'd get duran-plus why Duran did it ties into why I did and I'm not explaining that. I've gotta dumb it down Club, sure the purists will lose, but I'm playing to the masses now.

Hank Chinaski · 04-08-2004, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Senator! Senator! This committee owes Condi an apology!!! This committee owes Condi an apology!!! An apology, Senator!!!!"

Did I use the term the Sheik, for OBL? I don't know what you....wait I know, I was in the construction business with his father, but that was a long time ago.

Sidd Finch · 04-08-2004, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Senator! Senator! This committee owes Condi an apology!!! This committee owes Condi an apology!!! An apology, Senator!!!!"

It turns out that Condi only knows Bush from the olive oil business? Weird, that.

(And who was the guy in the hat?)

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-08-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
the War Between the States.

a/k/a The War of Northern Aggression.

ltl/fb · 04-08-2004, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
On your first point, I will apologize and take your word for it. I sometimes confuse you and Atticus, as you are both intelligent (yet confused) liberals from the Bay Area that litigate and bolt after one drink.

As for the latter, my observation is that the conservative media would not give a fuck about Byrd or Dodd except for the piling on of Strom and Lott. And that Byrd has lasted all these gazillion years with his racist voting record is evidence of this.

Your observation? Considering that another of your observations today was that rouaouaouaoaoal's anti-establishment rantings are "beginning" to sound forced, the insight and value provided by your observations is pretty questionable.

dtb · 04-08-2004, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I just wanted to say that, having complete my taxes today, I have a new-found welling of warmth in my heart for W.

Not that I'll vote for him, but ... thanks, man.

WTF?? Thanks for NOTHIN' mister. Actually, I take it back. We owed half as much on our federal taxes this year as we did last year, but three times as much in state. We usually get a state refund, but this year we owed. Sucks.

But TurboTax rocks.

dtb · 04-08-2004, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I was all set to be happy, but fucking AMT. And generally fuck you Washington, D.C.

Oh yeah -- what's up with that? The Turbo Tax program told me that we owed AMT, in addition to our federal tax liability -- but the total didn't change (I don't think). Was I supposed to add that on? (If I was supposed to, I didn't -- oh well.)