Politics: J'accuse!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
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.

I've now seen it all.

Note to those on the left - it's ok to admit once in a while that one of your own is wrong. We on the right do it all the time (eg., overspending, marriage rights, persecution of porn, etc.)

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
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.

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

I'm saying Lott said that he thought the country would be better off if we had elected a dixiecrat president in '52 or whenever it was. The Dixiecrats reason for being was their objection to the democratic platform plank opposing segregation. They were by their nature a segregationist single issue party, despite Lott's attempts to justify his comments because he liked their views on defense or whatever. If he had omitted those comments, I would agree with you that there is no difference.

If you think my paraphrasing if off, show me where I'm wrong. If you disagree with my interpretation, I can live with that.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've now seen it all.

Note to those on the left - it's ok to admit once in a while that one of your own is wrong. We on the right do it all the time (eg., overspending, marriage rights, persecution of porn, etc.)

When I am dead tomorrow, please know that it was because I had no honor, I had no code....and God was watching.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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.

I was born and raised in the South. There aren't many Southern Dems anymore who were born and raised in the South. In case you haven't heard, we switched to the Rep party. The only Dems in the South nowadays are Northern transplants.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This requires you to believe that the Civil War was about industrialism or something.

You are correct that many Southerns feel the War (as it is called in the South) wasn't about slavery.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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.

But still you haven't explained what the difference is.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Oh, and Byrd's "state" was on the right side of that war, from Dodd's perspective.

But still you haven't explained what the difference is.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Note to those on the left - it's ok to admit once in a while that one of your own is wrong.

Tell me the issue on which Byrd is wrong, from the left's perspective, and I will criticize him. Please note that the use of present tense is from your post. Or did you just want Byrd to eat his racist past --- again?

There are members of my family who were on the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement (by omission, mostly). I don't shit on them at the Thanksgiving dinner table. Lott gleefully praised the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement in 2002. That was his unpardonable sin.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Gattigap
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.

Concur. But this could be even more ominous if we martyrize Sadr. Last night I heard an interesting point that Sadr is reportedly holed up in his office which is very close to Sistani's own. If we go after him anytime soon there could be a massive siege at the shrine of Ali, with Sistani holding al the cards whether to ignite a popular revolt or broker a deal with us (in exchange for some big concessions).

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Tell me the issue on which Byrd is wrong, from the left's perspective, and I will criticize him.

Concur. Or, on which Dodd is wrong. With the hands being thrown in the air in disgust, I couldn't tell which one Club is pointing to.

There are members of my family that were on the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement (by omission, mostly). I don't shit on them at the Thanksgiving dinner table.

What is it with you and the shitting, anyway? Keep this up, and we'll be afraid to peer inside each and every room in your house.

Lott gleefully praised the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement in 2002. That was his unpardonable sin.

[crayon]Not Me, I think this is an answer to your question posed to everyone else on the board.[/crayon]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Tell me the issue on which Byrd is wrong, from the left's perspective, and I will criticize him. Please note that the use of present tense is from your post. Or did you just want Byrd to eat his racist past --- again?

There are members of my family who were on the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement (by omission, mostly). I don't shit on them at the Thanksgiving dinner table. Lott gleefully praised the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement in 2002. That was his unpardonable sin.

I wasn't speaking about Byrd, I was speaking about Dodd. If you want to defend a "reformed" KKK member, that's for you to live with.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
[crayon]Not Me, I think this is an answer to your question posed to everyone else on the board.[/crayon]

I got it now. the KKK didn't really start till after the civil War, and its not like Lincoln asked congress to ratify the Emancipation Proclimation or anything.

And the today/then point goes to this. Byrd was for lynching Freemen, only when apprpriate of course, and not for backtracking from the result of the Civil War.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I wasn't speaking about Byrd, I was speaking about Dodd. If you want to defend a "reformed" KKK member, that's for you to live with.

Well, there's our answer to my question about your motive. Did you oppose the canonization of St. Paul because he'd been a coatrack at St. Stephen's farewell party?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've now seen it all.

Note to those on the left - it's ok to admit once in a while that one of your own is wrong. We on the right do it all the time (eg., overspending, marriage rights, persecution of porn, etc.)

This is one of the things I find so dishonorable about the Dems. They will never admit that one of their own has done something wrong.

The most despicable example of that was when Gloria Steinem and NOW wouldn't even condemn Clinton for the Kathleen Wiley assault.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I got it now. the KKK didn't really start till after the civil War, and its not like Lincoln asked congress to ratify the Emancipation Proclimation or anything.

And the today/then point goes to this. Byrd was for lynching Freemen, only when apprpriate of course, and not for backtracking from the result of the Civil War.

Either you and I are arguing about different things, or somebody's not taking their SerenityNow tablets today.

Please IM one to me. I'll take it, and and see if the post makes any more sense afterward.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And the today/then point goes to this. Byrd was for lynching Freemen, only when apprpriate of course, and not for backtracking from the result of the Civil War.

You would move mountains to forgive Strom his transgressions, but accuse Byrd of being instrumental in lynching? Did your high school history class run out of time to cover events after 1948?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I'm saying Lott said that he thought the country would be better off if we had elected a dixiecrat president in '52 or whenever it was. The Dixiecrats reason for being was their objection to the democratic platform plank opposing segregation. They were by their nature a segregationist single issue party, despite Lott's attempts to justify his comments because he liked their views on defense or whatever. If he had omitted those comments, I would agree with you that there is no difference.

All you haev done is explain to me what Lott said and what you think is wrong with what he said. That is not explaining how what Lott said is DIFFERENT from what Dodd said.

I bet you are one of these types whose briefs state the facts and the law and then give a conclusion but never do any analysis showing how you arrived at the conclusion.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Well, there's our answer to my question about your motive. Did you oppose the canonization of St. Paul because he'd been a coatrack at St. Stephen's farewell party?

Stop arguing about these things from the past. How about this:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/104340.shtml

Kerry: Terrorist Shiite Al-Sadr 'A Legitimate Voice'

In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Moqtada al-Sadr as a "legitimate voice" in Iraq, despite that fact that he's led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.

Speaking of al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut [down] a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."

In the next breath, however, the White House hopeful caught himself and quickly changed direction, adding, "Well, let me ... change the term 'legitimate.' It belongs to a voice — because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."

Does anyone who has followed him know if the flipflopping has a decaying applitude?

And signing on with Hamas/Hezbollah is "sort of " terrorist alignment? Do you think he would go on record that al Queda has been wrong in the past?